Left wing hypocrisy

[Oleg Bach]

Pandering by poll is not rule - It's like asking the lunitic what he wants for supper - and he says "fried spiders" so you cook up the spiders and feed it to the guy because you believe that hurting the crazy man will keep you in power. Also - who controls the numbers of a poll? Is it a federal offence to falsify a poll? Probably not...It's really stupid - It's like coming up to the kids and saying "everybody is smoking crack" - it's the right thing to do...even if true - the majority is always wrong..this is the prime defect of democracy. Human's are lonely creatures and can not bare being cut from the herd and seperated into indivudual persons - This weakness in personal human atonomy is played upon with the use of polls - they should be out lawed - If you as a government need to be poll dependent....it means you do not have any VISION of your own let alone supervision that is needed to govern...I hate polls....It's like being watching the ants all move north in unison - all done by dropping a bit of sugar at the north end of the hill....They are highly manipulative and an abuse of the collective....................................You either know what to do when you are elected or you do not....The whole point of being elected is because you are gifted with vision and good judgement - a judge does not ask the jury what to do!

[eyeball]

However, the proper name for the people you're talking about are Sneerists, named after the business tycoon Cyril Sneer.

Yup, that's exactly what I had in mind alright. Thanks.

Here's some info on corporatism:

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freema...le.asp?aid=2699

The state comes before the individual.

This definitely doesn't capture what I meant. Sneerists would put the corporation before the state and both of these above the individual.

[blueblood]

The fact you call it a coup shows how ignorant you are.

Along with the rest of the Canadian public who have no idea whats going on but decides to vote in a pole anyways.

The fact you put numbers of different poles in the same sentence really damages your credibility.

The fact that you defend this change of government without an election while decrying the tories have a hidden agenda and are power hungry shows hypocrisy.

[eyeball]

The lefts job is to stay on the left side of the body and provide heart. The rights job is to provide cold calculating brain power and manage the emotional foolishness.

How do you square your own idea in the face of the strong emotional affinity the right has with religous fundamentalism? I fail to see how anyone could be capable of providing cold calculating brain power while also labouring to manage this particular type of foolishness.

Edited December 7, 2008 by eyeball

[-VMG-]

The fact that you defend this change of government without an election while decrying the tories have a hidden agenda and are power hungry shows hypocrisy.

We just had an election... what came of that... nothing different than before... harper called an election cause he thought he could possibly win a majority

While, by the way, going against a bill he put forward, passed by parliament... for FIXED elections, not at the whim of the prime minister.

How am i defending this change in government? I am defending the legality of a coalition and it's ability to take power in a time such as this.

I don't know what side to take on this issue... i don't think either party (or coalition) can really do anything for our economy.

One thing that is for sure is that Harper is acting in self-interest and not on behalf of Canadians. And i think many people would agree on that. If you don't you are blind or ignorant.

To say the Liberal Party does not do the same thing while they are in power would be narrow minded. But one thing they didn't do was attempt to destroy other political parties through cutting their funding, and they could have easily during the 90s and early 2000's considering they had a majority government.

Not saying they didn't make some bad decisions... but don't be surprised, if the conservatives end up with a majority, if there is some sort of scandal happening or something Canadians don't want to happen but have no say in the matter.

[Smallc]

I am defending the legality of a coalition and it's ability to take power in a time such as this.

I don't know what side to take on this issue... i don't think either party (or coalition) can really do anything for our economy.

+1. Exactly my feelings, although I am leaning against the coalition in the hope that the Liberal party can again gain power on its own in the not too distant future.

[eyeball]

That person obviously has no idea what Nazi's are either.

Facism is a perversion of socialism.

Its a perversion alright. Interestingly enough, Hitler never did any better than Harper when it came to capturing popular votes. In the end it was a bunch of corporate industrialists and businessmen who crossed the floor to give Hitler his victory.

Sorry to pop your bubble but facism and the right wing have always been joined at the hip, which shouldn't be surprising considering this is closest to their wallets.

[ToadBrother]

No, it won't. In fact, don't be surprised if it makes less difference than you think!

There seems to be a constant about the left. They tend to be less objective and more emotional. Their heroes are all angels who can do nothing wrong. Their villains are all totally evil, just for the sheer joy of it.

Oh come on, that's not a trait of the Left, that's a trait of people in general. Politics is the ultimate expression of tribalism; the "us" vs. the "them". I've seen insane rants from both corners, even, ironically, as they both run to the center to try to capture the maximum number of votes.

Apparently, Harper has denied Canadians their democratic rights by shutting down Parliament to avoid a confidence vote. Meanwhile, the coalition wants to take power by avoiding having Canadians vote! That's a GOOD thing, according to Bob Rae on the telly Friday night. Same thing, different judgement.

There is such a thing as both sides being wrong. This coalition is wrong-headed, at least at this point (if the January budget sucks really bad, then by all means, topple the government, but now???). Harper is just as bad, forcing the country into constitutionally sticky ground to basically keep his government afloat. I certainly hope that this particular event doesn't become the means by which minority governments escape the wrath of Parliament.

The core support for the Liberals and NDP is not likely to change one iota. Fortunately, there is that portion of voters in the middle who swing their vote. Likely that will be more than enough to give Harper his majority.

The Liberals and the NDP will still be around.

Core support is fine, but only makes a percentage of total support at any time. The Liberals do not win governments on core support, they win it by convincing the far larger group of non-committed voters that they're the best. For the Liberals, being rended down to the core would likely resemble the Progress Conservatives after Chretien's landslide. That road does not lead to long-term survival.

As to the NDP, I think, for the most part, all they get is core voters. They can certainly grab votes from the left-wing of the Liberal Party, and can lose them to some extent to the Greens, but by and large you're seeing them elected in areas where trade unions are strong or where economic conditions are such that an openly socialist candidate will have little problem getting elected.

That's why I think the Liberals by far could be the big losers in this, if the long-term verdict of this coalition is negative (I don't really trust the polls right now, let's see how everyone feels when Flaherty brings down his budget). If they continue trying to keep the Coalition together (that's not even certain) and if they can't bring the public on board, then Harper will likely trigger another election, and I think we'll see the Tories win a majority, and the Liberals lose even more seats.

[blueblood]

We just had an election... what came of that... nothing different than before... harper called an election cause he thought he could possibly win a majority

While, by the way, going against a bill he put forward, passed by parliament... for FIXED elections, not at the whim of the prime minister.

How am i defending this change in government? I am defending the legality of a coalition and it's ability to take power in a time such as this.

I don't know what side to take on this issue... i don't think either party (or coalition) can really do anything for our economy.

One thing that is for sure is that Harper is acting in self-interest and not on behalf of Canadians. And i think many people would agree on that. If you don't you are blind or ignorant.

To say the Liberal Party does not do the same thing while they are in power would be narrow minded. But one thing they didn't do was attempt to destroy other political parties through cutting their funding, and they could have easily during the 90s and early 2000's considering they had a majority government.

Not saying they didn't make some bad decisions... but don't be surprised, if the conservatives end up with a majority, if there is some sort of scandal happening or something Canadians don't want to happen but have no say in the matter.

I'm not saying it's illegal, i'm saying its immoral and sleazy. There is another option an election. Why is the left so afraid to go for one. They plan on spending tens of billions of dollars in bailouts, what's a paltry 300 million? Why can't the people vote if the coalition should take power or not?

All politicians act in self interest, that's how the game is played.

It was Chretien who passed laws severely impacting party financing. The tories figured out a way to raise money, the Liberals didn't. Cry me a river.

Mulroney had a majority and decided to screw around, what happened to the PC party again???

[eyeball]

I'm not saying it's illegal, i'm saying its immoral and sleazy. There is another option an election. Why is the left so afraid to go for one.

Speaking for myself, I'm afraid of being forced to submit to the will of yet another 37% so-called majority. I'm not saying this is illegal, I'm saying this is immoral and sleazy.

[Canadian Blue]

Odd, I doubt you complained about it when the Liberals got back to back majorities with approximately 40% of the votes.

In the end it was a bunch of corporate industrialists and businessmen who crossed the floor to give Hitler his victory.

Sorry to pop your bubble but facism and the right wing have always been joined at the hip, which shouldn't be surprising considering this is closest to their wallets.

I agree, we must exterminate the rich and the kulaks before it's too late. We must also remember that their is a global finance conspiracy which is putting Stephen Harper in power, this group which is made up of a small minority must be destroyed.

[-VMG-]

Odd, I doubt you complained about it when the Liberals got back to back majorities with approximately 40% of the votes.

I agree, we must exterminate the rich and the kulaks before it's too late. We must also remember that their is a global finance conspiracy which is putting Stephen Harper in power, this group which is made up of a small minority must be destroyed.

Except Liberals had a majority of seats... So there is a difference. I considered the conservatives back when they had a reasonable leader... namely joe clark.

[Wild Bill]

Except Liberals had a majority of seats... So there is a difference. I considered the conservatives back when they had a reasonable leader... namely joe clark.

Of course. Joe and the PCs were leftwing. Again, only leftwing thinking is reasonable, to some.

Or perhaps I should use the word 'progressive'.

[Canadian Blue]

Except Liberals had a majority of seats... So there is a difference. I considered the conservatives back when they had a reasonable leader... namely joe clark.

He was referencing the popular vote, that is unless the difference between democracy and fascism is 2% points.

[-VMG-]

He was referencing the popular vote, that is unless the difference between democracy and fascism is 2% points.

i know he was referencing the popular vote.... but that is what everyone seems to take into account... people don't seem to understand that we don't go by popular vote we go by seats in the house.

Obviously you understand that... but there are a lot of people who don't. Those being the people who think the Coalition is undemocratic, when it is democratic.

People have started to realize this, but have now turned to a different reason why they disagree, and that is because the Bloc is supporting up... i really think it comes down to being bitter that they are trying to "take over" from the conservatives.

I don't know where to stand on this issue... and people are taking the US approach... you're either with us or against us....

Edited December 7, 2008 by -VMG-

[Slim MacSquinty]

There is a lot of bantering around here by a lot of constitutional experts about what is legal and what is not, in the long run it really doesn't matter, the court of public opinion has spoken and you can bet the coalition is over.

The fact I think everyone is overlooking is what the public thought was fair, and whether or not they believed the premise offered them as to why the coalition wanted power. In the end probably everything that was done was democratic more or less and legal, however I think the coalition was viewed as too soon after the election to be legitimately seeking power and the premise offered dishonest as most everyone felt the financing issue is the real reason.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Slim MacSquinty

[Canadian Blue]

It's legal and constitutional, but not necessarily democratic. If it was democratic the coalition would have been presented to the people of Canada before the election.

[ReeferMadness]

The left wingers never cease to amaze me.They are hypocrites in every sense of the word.Over the last week the core argument they make over this coalition nonsense is that Stephan Dion is the rightful Prime Minister of Canada by virtue of the fact his backroom deal with the Socialist and Bloc members represents the true wishes of a majority of Canadians.Sounds like selective democracy and cherry picking to me.

You lose any credibility with your first couple of sentences. Who are "left wingers"? The NDP and their supporters? The bloc? Or just anyone who happens to disagree with you? This is nothing more than a drive-by smear of an ill-defined group of people.

I've not seen anyone make an argument that Stephane Dion is the "rightful Prime Minister of Canada" (although someone may indeed have made the argument elsewhere)". Anyone who understands our system of Parliamentary Democracy knows there is no "rightful Prime Minister". We elect representatives and they choose the Prime Minister. Any PM that can't get and hold the confidence of parliament doesn't get to remain PM.

I read the comments of one VMG where he dismisses the recent poll numbers outright.So that's what it boils down to?

It sounds to me like VMG understands that we don't have a system of direct democracy. Probably, that's not such a bad thing given how few people understand the system we have now.

Anyone that does not favour this poorly thought out coalition idea is poorly informed?

No, but you clearly are poorly informed. You don't need to be a supporter of the coalition to understand that they (as the majority) have a right to form a government under our system of democracy. I'm italicizing key words here so you might get the idea.

I wish Canadians on both sides of this argument were better informed.I am of the impression that those on the right have more common sense and reason than those on the left.

Why don't you start by educating yourself on our system of government?

You can't deny we are fighting an uphill battle here.There is unquestionably a pro left wing bias in the media,not only here but south of the border as well.

It's amusing to hear the crying from the left over the GG's decision.In their view,the coalition is perfectly legal and legitimate,while what Harper has done,is not.Now I beg you,who are the uninformed one's here?

:lol: Sorry, I can't help but giggle everytime someone accuses the media, which are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations, of left wing bias.

And to answer your question, you are uninformed here.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Sorry, I can't help but giggle everytime someone accuses the media, which are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations, of left wing bias.

You're thinking of the US, Canadian media certainly cannot be painted with that broad brush. In the US Canadian broadcasters and much of the print media would be labelled pinkos.

[ReeferMadness]

Sorry, I can't help but giggle everytime someone accuses the media, which are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations, of left wing bias.

You're thinking of the US, Canadian media certainly cannot be painted with that broad brush. In the US Canadian broadcasters and much of the print media would be labelled pinkos.

In the US, most of the western world is populated by pinkos, most of the rest of the world is populated by terrorists.

I'm willing to be wrong, though. I said that our media are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations. Do I need to substantiate that? Do you have information that proves me wrong?

[reasonoverpassion]

Sorry, I can't help but giggle everytime someone accuses the media, which are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations, of left wing bias.

You're thinking of the US, Canadian media certainly cannot be painted with that broad brush. In the US Canadian broadcasters and much of the print media would be labelled pinkos.

In US most of the Canadian populace would be labelled "pinkos". This includes anyone who thinks the Canada Healh Act is a good idea

[Slim MacSquinty]

As I've said many times before, it seems that the US is moving more toward Canadian values all the time. Look at many of Obama's promises and you can easily see a reflection of Canada in them.

The thing that I find interesting about Obama is he is really the ultimate example of the American dream, the son of an immigrant and member of a racial minority rising to the very top, but he's not promising the equal opportunity which allowed him to excel, but an equality of outcomes which is more socialist utopion than normal american values.

I understand why he got elected, America wants change, indeed America needs change, I would have thought that given what's happened in America over the past ten years they would be looking to clean up government, stop lobbying and end corporate influence peddling. Instead they are just turning to socialist dogma. Take from the rich and give to the poor. I always thought the greatest personal motivator and driver of innovation and genious in the states was the desire to get rich and succeed, which constitutes the american dream. What happens to that now?

[August1991]

I've not seen anyone make an argument that Stephane Dion is the "rightful Prime Minister of Canada" (although someone may indeed have made the argument elsewhere)". Anyone who understands our system of Parliamentary Democracy knows there is no "rightful Prime Minister". We elect representatives and they choose the Prime Minister. Any PM that can't get and hold the confidence of parliament doesn't get to remain PM.

....

You don't need to be a supporter of the coalition to understand that they (as the majority) have a right to form a government under our system of democracy. I'm italicizing key words here so you might get the idea.

Stephen Harper faced a motion of confidence and passed it in this parliament. Under teh rules of the House, he still has its confidence.

But RM, you are terribly naive if you truly believe the idea that we elect representatives who then choose a PM. As Pierre Trudeau famously said, 100 yards from parliament hill, most MPs are nobodies. Canadians generally vote for the party and the leader and choose the MP as a consequence.

It is a fair bet that if Dion and Layton had announced their coalition project before the last election, the respective popular vote totals would be nothing like what they were. Given recent polls, I think Harper would have won a landslide with over 50% of the vote.

I said that our media are overwhelmingly controlled by large corporations. Do I need to substantiate that? Do you have information that proves me wrong?

So what if they are controlled by *evul* corporations?

Corporations are designed to generate profits and presumably, a newspaper or TV network generates profits by attracting an audience for advertisers. To attract an audience, I don't think that presenting uninteresting news or entertainment is a wise way to attract an audience.

IOW, corporations will present the news that is attractive to the their audience. I don't see that as a recipe for bias unless you feel that pandering to readers is evidence of bias.

[speaker]

I think it is possible that the corporations that control the vast majority of media in the country are quite capable of designing their programming to satisfy their advertisers, and as an after thought making it cater to the lowest common denominator for the greatest audience benefit of the advertisers.

Edited December 8, 2008 by speaker

[bush_cheney2004]

As I've said many times before, it seems that the US is moving more toward Canadian values all the time. Look at many of Obama's promises and you can easily see a reflection of Canada in them.

Not really....Canadian values are largely driven by domestic constraints to power and influence as a satellite economy of the US. The number of voting feet who have embraced American values is far greater than in Canada. Several Canadian values existed long before in the US, while others have been rejected outright.

The thing that I find interesting about Obama is he is really the ultimate example of the American dream, the son of an immigrant and member of a racial minority rising to the very top, but he's not promising the equal opportunity which allowed him to excel, but an equality of outcomes which is more socialist utopion than normal american values.

Obama's story is unremarkable in that aspect....it's been done many times.....and is how a nation was born. He is not promising an equality of outcomes, and certainly couldn't deliver even if he did.

I understand why he got elected, America wants change, indeed America needs change, I would have thought that given what's happened in America over the past ten years they would be looking to clean up government, stop lobbying and end corporate influence peddling.

Why? America has always been thus.

Instead they are just turning to socialist dogma. Take from the rich and give to the poor. I always thought the greatest personal motivator and driver of innovation and genious in the states was the desire to get rich and succeed, which constitutes the american dream. What happens to that now?

It is alive and well...FDR turned to such dogma as well....and look what happened. They are not mutually exclusive.

America does not look to Canadian values for salvation.

Edited December 8, 2008 by bush_cheney2004