Jump to content

Homless Cons


Recommended Posts

Out or in power, the influence of the Conservative "fringe" is what keeps them too far away from the centre. And yes, many an ox have been executed at the hand of hypocrites, just as many a fair butcher have been wrongfully maligned while acting in good faith.

If the Conservatives are far from the Centre I can only assume the NDP is the equivalent to the Mike Harris Tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the Conservatives are far from the Centre I can only assume the NDP is the equivalent to the Mike Harris Tories.

Their distance from the centre is best measured by their electoral results. They've failed to win a majority in 3 elections since the sponsorship scandal broke. What lesson do you learn from this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their distance from the centre is best measured by their electoral results. They've failed to win a majority in 3 elections since the sponsorship scandal broke. What lesson do you learn from this?

That with the Bloc getting from 50-60 ridings out of 308 it's almost impossible for any party to form a majority without the leader being from Quebec and pandering to separatists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their distance from the centre is best measured by their electoral results. They've failed to win a majority in 3 elections since the sponsorship scandal broke. What lesson do you learn from this?

Yes, and Joe Clark never won a majority and proceeded to lose the government in the next election. I suppose by that logic he is nothing more than an extreme-right wing conservative.

So does that make the federal Liberals extreme left wing and on the fringe since they haven't been able to get into power since 2006? What of the last election, were they as far to the left as the NDP visionseeker?

Elections aren't about policies, they're about who has the best PR campaign. Robert Stanfield lost an election because he couldn't catch a football for example. Most American's support universal healthcare but neither party strongly supports such a program as they claim it would be "out of reach" and instead support small changes to the corrupt HMO's and put forward minor programs. Even Kim Campbell recognized that elections are no time to discuss politics and it's obvious that "spin" has more resonance on voters than the issues ever do. I can't think of a single policy that could be considered very "right-wing" under Harper, and usually if I am given examples it tends to gravitate around the presumption that a three strikes rule for violent criminals, cutting off funding to starving artists, and making a minor cut in the GST, are somehow ideas prevalent on the fringe of Canadian society. Despite the fact I haven't met many Canadian's who have a problem with jailing repeat offenders, loved paying taxes, or thought taxdollars should go towards Tal Bachmann's trip to Africa.

Edited by Canadian Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing is that George Grant would likely never be welcomed in your group. More or less because he was absolutely opposed to abortion and supported a public role for Christianity. A Red Tory is someone who is socially conservative with reference to conserving institutions like the monarchy, church, and tradition, while economically nationalist. They favour a communitarian verson of conservatism. I wish people would stop bastardizing conservatism to mean implicit support for the central managerial state.

Speaking of bastardizing Progressive Conservatism, I don't recall self-described Red Tories like Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark or Flora McDonald having a whole hell of a lot to say about the Monarchy! They may be supporters, but so were most of the Liberals, and it hasn't been a frontburner issue for either party since the days of Diefenbaker fighting against the Maple Leaf Flag. On the other hand, they were all pro choice on abortion, and I believe others close to Red like Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, and Sinclair Stevens were as well. The only P.C.'s who were prominent social conservatives were the flakes out West in Alberta and B.C. The main difference between Red Tories and those further on the Right, was that the Reds supported progressive taxation and social programs for the poor and unemployed.

That's odd, I could have sworn I've known many Christian Conservatives in my community who volunteered at the food bank and in their community, donated to charitable organizations, and were generally compassionate towards their fellow man. Perhaps they, unlike yourself, think compassion isn't relegated to marking an 'X' on a ballot.

I think the point is that social conservatives want government social programs gutted and whatever aid is available is back to being the province of the churches, likely by means of tax credits and direct subsidies like the Bush Administration cooked up south of the border. Great if there are Christian fundamentalists volunteering at the food bank (hopefully for other reasons than just proselytizing), but people living on the margins should not have to depend on the charity of churchgoers for survival. Where this relates to the abortion issue is that the most absolute (no exceptions) pro life groups have little or anything to say about providing for the fetuses after they are born. They are generally only concerned about the sanctity of life until it is out of the womb, then it can die on welfare!

It's just that your not really all that conservative, have no real support for a decentralized government which puts more decision making power to townhalls rather than a bureaucrat in Ottawa, nor do you seem to support tradition that much considering your entire modus operandi is to argue that these Christians hate homosexuals, which really isn't the case. Atleast not in the Church's I've been to.

One of the few unifying principles of the old Progressive Conservative Party was the opposition to the Liberals drive to increase federal powers at the expense of the provinces, especially under Trudeau. But social issues were never a primary focus before, and no previous Conservative leader would have given important jobs to creationists who believe the world was created 6000 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of bastardizing Progressive Conservatism

Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron. The only reason for the name "Progressive" Conservative was because the old Conservatives wanted a Progressive premier to run the party, the only way to do it at the time was change the name.

I don't recall self-described Red Tories like Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark or Flora McDonald having a whole hell of a lot to say about the Monarchy!

Conservatism existed before Robert Stanfield.

I think the point is that social conservatives want government social programs gutted and whatever aid is available is back to being the province of the churches, likely by means of tax credits and direct subsidies like the Bush Administration cooked up south of the border.

No it doesn't, social conservatism is a different philosophy than fiscal conservatism or neoliberalism. Their are plenty of political parties in Europe that are socially conservative yet support mixed economies.

Great if there are Christian fundamentalists volunteering at the food bank (hopefully for other reasons than just proselytizing), but people living on the margins should not have to depend on the charity of churchgoers for survival.

Then perhaps secular individuals should become more charitable instead of seeing a poor person and wishing that individual was aborted instead.

Where this relates to the abortion issue is that the most absolute (no exceptions) pro life groups have little or anything to say about providing for the fetuses after they are born. They are generally only concerned about the sanctity of life until it is out of the womb, then it can die on welfare!

This has already been refuted ad nauseum on here. As well their are plenty of examples of people giving their time to the poor, Dorothy Day being one example.

But social issues were never a primary focus before, and no previous Conservative leader would have given important jobs to creationists who believe the world was created 6000 years ago.

Probably because the question would have never been asked. One thing I find hilarious is that people will always ask Christians these questions but would never ask a Jew, Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim, about their religion lest they be considered a bigot.

It would be nice if all these people on the secular left who have far more in common with the Jacobins/Cult of Reason than Edmund Burke would stop attempting to call their philosophy "conservatism."

Edited by Canadian Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progressive Conservatism is an oxymoron. The only reason for the name "Progressive" Conservative was because the old Conservatives wanted a Progressive premier to run the party, the only way to do it at the time was change the name.

No, read the history! The name was the result of a merger between the Conservative Party and the populist Western farmers party called the Progressives, which won more than 60 seats in Parliament during one election back in the 30's.

No it doesn't, social conservatism is a different philosophy than fiscal conservatism or neoliberalism. Their are plenty of political parties in Europe that are socially conservative yet support mixed economies.
The emphasis on religion and social issues is very new to Canadian politics, at least on the federal level. There have always been SoCreds and others out west who put social issues on the front burner, but there is no history for social conservatism in most of Canada, and that's why I suspect that Harper will try to keep this group energized for grassroots campaigning, but will not want them pushing issues that will scare away the rest of the voters.
Then perhaps secular individuals should become more charitable instead of seeing a poor person and wishing that individual was aborted instead.
Until we get to the third trimester, or whatever stage fetal human rights are considered worthy, it should not be any outsiders' decision to make.
This has already been refuted ad nauseum on here. As well their are plenty of examples of people giving their time to the poor, Dorothy Day being one example.
I remember the name! Why just one example?
Probably because the question would have never been asked. One thing I find hilarious is that people will always ask Christians these questions but would never ask a Jew, Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim, questions about their religion lest they be considered a bigot.
If they don't -- they should!
It would be nice if all these people on the secular left who have far more in common with the Jacobins/Cult of Reason than Edmund Burke would stop attempting to call their philosophy "conservatism."
It's not my fight anymore since I feel I have moved to far to feel much in common with any version of conservatism anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, read the history! The name was the result of a merger between the Conservative Party and the populist Western farmers party called the Progressives, which won more than 60 seats in Parliament during one election back in the 30's.

No it wasn't. The Progressives never folded into the Tories, if anything more folded into the Liberals and CCF than they did into the Conservatives. As well the Progressives reached the height of their success in the 1920's, not the 1930's. If anything the Progressives were the prelude to the socialist CCF. Their was no merger between the two parties, if you have proof of this supposed merger I'd love to see it.

But according to history the name change was due to the election of John Bracken as leader of the Party.

The emphasis on religion and social issues is very new to Canadian politics, at least on the federal level. There have always been SoCreds and others out west who put social issues on the front burner, but there is no history for social conservatism in most of Canada, and that's why I suspect that Harper will try to keep this group energized for grassroots campaigning, but will not want them pushing issues that will scare away the rest of the voters.

That's not quite correct since the Social Gospel had a large effect on Canadian politics, which included the notable election of the CCF in Saskatchewan.

Until we get to the third trimester, or whatever stage fetal human rights are considered worthy, it should not be any outsiders' decision to make.

That is unless the reasoning for the abortion isn't to your liking.

I remember the name! Why just one example?

Their are countless millions who have dedicated their lives in both small and large ways to improve this world. To write a list would be near impossible.

If they don't -- they should!

So which supreme being in Ottawa do you trust to have full judgement over who is or isn't capable of being a representative. You would have thought that with all this talk of "progress" people would focus on what a person's individual policies are instead of personal religious beliefs. However if we were to base a politicians qualities around their religious beliefs without regard to anything else than Stalin [atheist] would be a better pick than William Wilberforce [Evangelical Christian] for not holding supernatural beliefs. Maybe people should simply butt out and listen to what politicians have to say instead of whether or not they believe in God.

Edited by Canadian Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it wasn't. The Progressives never folded into the Tories, if anything more folded into the Liberals and CCF than they did into the Conservatives. As well the Progressives reached the height of their success in the 1920's, not the 1930's. If anything the Progressives were the prelude to the socialist CCF. Their was no merger between the two parties, if you have proof of this supposed merger I'd love to see it.

But according to history the name change was due to the election of John Bracken as leader of the Party.

Okay! I stand corrected. I haven't read this history since my days in high school, and I was led to believe that the Conservatives sought out disaffected farmers to build their party so it would be capable of winning elections again. I thought there were more than a handful of former Progressives who followed Bracken, but other articles indicate that most of them went back to the Liberals or joined the CCF when the party disbanded.

That's not quite correct since the Social Gospel had a large effect on Canadian politics, which included the notable election of the CCF in Saskatchewan.
Yeah, but those NDP guys have a whole different meaning to the term "social gospel," than the people on the Right do. On personal issues, even the guys like Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles were liberals.
So which supreme being in Ottawa do you trust to have full judgement over who is or isn't capable of being a representative.

The supreme being who is capable of proving his or her existence.

You would have thought that with all this talk of "progress" people would focus on what a person's individual policies are instead of personal religious beliefs. However if we were to base a politicians qualities around their religious beliefs without regard to anything else than Stalin [atheist] would be a better pick than William Wilberforce [Evangelical Christian] for not holding supernatural beliefs.

No, and here's why: in our everyday existence, we don't see evidence for supernatural phenomena, whether it's gods, spirits, ghosts etc.. A person may be free to believe them, but they should be satisfied to keep it as a personal subjective belief having no bearing on the outside world, unless they happen to have objective proof to back up their spiritual claims that can be verified by others.

Otherwise, we should be operating under the assumption of methodological naturalism. That doesn't mean that claiming there is no supernatural, but for our dealings with each other, we should stick to the things that can actually be proven to exist...so gods and spirits should be left in church and not brought into parliamentary debate. So, there was nothing wrong with William Wilberforce being a Christian, but if he were alive today, I would challenge him to cite the Biblical evidence to back his arguments that slavery was immoral....just like all of the Southern Baptist and Methodist ministers did during the slavery debates! The fact is Wilberforce's objections to slavery did not come from his Bible, they came from the Enlightenment principles that every person should have the same basic rights and freedoms, and no man should be property of another man -- this was not a principle of Biblical times, even New Testament times!

On the other hand, Stalin may have been an atheist, but so was Ayn Rand, and Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweitzer etc.. There are no unified principles of atheism, just lack of belief in gods and the supernatural. But since Stalin was a Marxist, he was part of a philosophical tradition created by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, which claimed to have discovered transcendent principles for governing society and understanding history and class struggle ....yadayadayada....so atheist or not, that puts Stalin in the same category of many religious zealots who claim to have a system based on higher principles that are perfect and unchanging.

So what happens when these higher principles are being resisted or not followed scrupulously by the population? Well, the principles can't change, so the people have to, and Stalin decided that all of those millions of peasant farmers who refused to give up their farms and move to collectives should be exiled into Siberia, where they could starve to death. Along similar lines, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia decided in advance of their invasion that city dwellers would not be of the right mind to become a proper proletariat -- so they decided to kill them all off as soon as they started entering the cities, and once again accomplishing the higher purpose of creating the perfect revolutionary state required killing off scores of people who would stand in the way of this higher goal.

The Marxists and those equally dangerous Ayn Rand followers on the far right, may be atheists, but they are certainly not humanists, or they would have been forced to adapt their policies to the desires and goals of people living in the real world.

Maybe people should simply butt out and listen to what politicians have to say instead of whether or not they believe in God.
Well, if you mean these guys who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago, one of them is the new science minister, and won't answer a simple question on a scientific issue: do you accept the theory of evolution? If his religion means that he has to be a creationist and deny evolution, he shouldn't be part of policy decisions on scientific issues -- and the other one who is so out front about his ignorance shouldn't have position of responsibility either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, there was nothing wrong with William Wilberforce being a Christian, but if he were alive today, I would challenge him to cite the Biblical evidence to back his arguments that slavery was immoral....just like all of the Southern Baptist and Methodist ministers did during the slavery debates! The fact is Wilberforce's objections to slavery did not come from his Bible, they came from the Enlightenment principles that every person should have the same basic rights and freedoms, and no man should be property of another man -- this was not a principle of Biblical times, even New Testament times!

Actually, William Wilberforce admitted that it was largely his Christianity that made him oppose slavery and that God created all men equal. He was also a fierce opponent of revolution and the cult of reason which saws tens of thousands murdered in France in the name of "enlightenment" values.

so atheist or not, that puts Stalin in the same category of many religious zealots who claim to have a system based on higher principles that are perfect and unchanging.

I notice that theirs always this loose grasp on what religion is whenever people attempt to claim that some atheist who committed atrocities was really no different from some Baptist preacher. But it's not a surprise that whenever people are abolished of any form of punishment whether it be earthly or transcendent that they will act barbarically. This isn't to say all atheists are bad people, I was once an atheist, however their are many who give up on God not based on principle but so they can engage in destructive behavior.

The Marxists and those equally dangerous Ayn Rand followers on the far right, may be atheists, but they are certainly not humanists, or they would have been forced to adapt their policies to the desires and goals of people living in the real world.

Yes, I've stated before that I find Ayn Rand's philosophy to be deplorable. But theirs not much difference between the most strident Objectivists and Marxists in that they're both materialistic and support a cult of reason. Needless to say I'm closer to traditional conservatism which values the community over this mass consumer culture which is supported by many on the right.

Well, if you mean these guys who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago, one of them is the new science minister, and won't answer a simple question on a scientific issue: do you accept the theory of evolution?

He's now stated that he accepts the theory, and the only reason he didn't is because what is commonly done by Richard Dawkins and his ilk is to say that only true atheists can believe in the theory of evolution. But once again it's not the only issue, you have to take the good with the bad unfortunately.

Edited by Canadian Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey now! On the other hand, since you felt all-inclusive with your "ilk" reference... and since I wholeheartedly consider myself one of, as you say, "PT's ilk" (if she'll have me :unsure:), then... yours was a group-slam personal denigration - wasn't it?

You mean you feel superior to other people based soley on the fact that you walk around with a sign that says "End Poverty" instead of actually working at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen?

a rather weak analogy, but in this discussions context of compassion, let’s use your own supplied measures of compassion… the ones you’re comparing. By your account, you suggest the applied practical side of compassion – the one with tangible shelter/kitchen gains – is on par with the vaguer impractical compassionate signage display. The salient point here is your parity qualification… since, most certainly, if you’re prepared to postulate against superiority, you can’t very well stake a claim to your own superiority of working at a homeless shelter/soup kitchen… can you?

so – your premise is that each display of compassion is on par with the other… an acceptable premise – indeed. Then… is there a problem?

by the by… does working at a homeless shelter or soup kitchen actually help… to, “End Poverty”? Really? That’s it? That’s all it takes? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, William Wilberforce admitted that it was largely his Christianity that made him oppose slavery and that God created all men equal.

The phrase "all men are created equal," isn't in the Bible; but it is in the Declaration of Independence. He certainly believed that Christian principles were the root cause of his opposition to slavery, but that's because of the capacity for religions to reinvent themselves when adherents want to change. The slavery supporters in the South had more Bible verses at their disposal to quote from than the abolitionists had!

He was also a fierce opponent of revolution and the cult of reason which saws tens of thousands murdered in France in the name of "enlightenment" values.

The Jacobins and other deists of the French Revolution were not what I would consider principles of the Age of Enlightenment. The intellectuals behind the American Revolution, like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, were inspired by some of the French philosophers like Diderot and Voltaire; but they put more stock in John Locke's ideas of natural human rights, than the collective values of the French revolutionaries.

I notice that theirs always this loose grasp on what religion is whenever people attempt to claim that some atheist who committed atrocities was really no different from some Baptist preacher.

The difference is whether the rules are being made by people who claim to have transcendent principles, that by their very nature cannot be altered, or whether they are using objective standards that can be examined and evaluated for their worth by everyone. If a Marxist says we must have a classless society at all costs, and everyone who resists collectivization must be shot -- it makes no difference what his metaphysical beliefs are.

If the doctrine of class struggle was presented as an objective principle, it could be analyzed and deconstructed to determine its merit or lack of merit, and if it was determined to be weak, the majority of people could scrap it. But when the Marxist leader claims it is an absolute principle, he is not going to accept any argument against it, and if he has the power, he will kill anyone who stands in the way of reaching this lofty goal.

But it's not a surprise that whenever people are abolished of any form of punishment whether it be earthly or transcendent that they will act barbarically.

No, I can't accept this in any form. The enlightenment principles that led to human rights, majority rule, protection of minorities, are all based on the assumption that most people are basically good, or do not need to be threatened or coerced to act in the best interests of others. The concept that we are all evil, depraved sinners just waiting to kill, rape, sodomize etc. if there are no ruthless earthly or divine overlords threatening us with retribution, is part of the old system of despotism and totalitarianism.

This isn't to say all atheists are bad people, I was once an atheist, however their are many who give up on God not based on principle but so they can engage in destructive behavior.
Well, I see more religious people engaging in destructive behaviour than non-religious people these days.
Yes, I've stated before that I find Ayn Rand's philosophy to be deplorable. But theirs not much difference between the most strident Objectivists and Marxists in that they're both materialistic and support a cult of reason.

Well, they're materialists, but I don't think they follow the same definition of reason that philosophers have identified since the time of Plato and Aristotle: the search for objective truth. Otherwise, the Marxist and Objectivist systems would be able to adapt to new understandings instead of resisting and fracturing like religious cults over disputes of doctrine.

Needless to say I'm closer to traditional conservatism which values the community over this mass consumer culture which is supported by many on the right.
In a bygone era, it used to be known as liberalism. But that was before most liberals adopted Depression Era social policies of FDR. The holdouts started calling themselves libertarians.
He's now stated that he accepts the theory, and the only reason he didn't is because what is commonly done by Richard Dawkins and his ilk is to say that only true atheists can believe in the theory of evolution. But once again it's not the only issue, you have to take the good with the bad unfortunately.
If that's what he's saying now it sounds like he is trying to spin his way out of the ditch he created for himself a couple of weeks ago. Honestly, if it's true that he said that he did not want to admit to believing in evolution because of Richard Dawkins, that would mean that he is even less qualified to be science minister than if he was a creationist!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is reading statements from Ignatieff's book akin to the government "saving souls."

Either way, I love how you talk up this fanciful notion that you're a "Red Tory." Which doesn't really ring true considering your support for a massive managerial state in Ottawa to run peoples lives instead of the communitarian conservative based upon tradition and prudence which was once espoused.

I mentioned Ignatieff's books, not as saving souls, but just to show where this gov't's priorities lie. They're slipping in the polls so forget unemployment and the economy. Attack!

Again I never used the term 'evil' and the new conservative movement is not about upholding institutions and shouldn't be about supporting a monarchy. Next to religion, monarchies have been responsible for more deaths than any disease or natural disaster, so no I don't feel all warm and fuzzy over the 82 year old head of a dysfunctional family. They are not 'divine'. They are human like everyone else and often not even good humans.

As to the 'Tory' supporting Canadian institutions, like they should, they are trying to dismantle them all and those they can't dismantle Harper is suing. Tradition and prudence? Whose?

The fact that we are debating religous issues on a political forum is exactly why church and state must be divided, because why would Christians want to turn people away simply because they don't hold the same political views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Religion" does not give bad ideas, poor priorities nor outright ignorance a pass.

An agnostic who didn't 'get' evolution would not be considered a viable applicant for the science ministry. An anti-choice agnostic is just as utterly wrong as a religious one. An agnostic sexist is still a sexist. A homophobe is a homophobe is a homophobe, whether GOD told him to, or he thought it up all by his ignorant self.

A fool is welcome to be a fool on his own time, but not on mine.

Edited by Molly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Do you know anything about Christianity? Do you know how many sins one is capable of committing, according to Christian, Jewish, and Islamic, doctrine homosexuality is considered a sin in the same vein as sex before marriage and adultery.

So do you also want to legislate that sex before marriage and adultery be made illegal? These are religous issues and should not be political ones, because most Canadians would not agree. I watched the documentary 'Lake of Fire', which gave both sides of the abortion issue; and the strong pro-lifers also target family planning clinics. Obviously their solution is simply no pre-marital sex, but it's unrealistic. In fact after eight years of born again stupidy, known as the Bush Administration, the Washington Post have reported that 'Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds; Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate.' and Teen pregnancies up for first time in 15 years. Organizations that used to hand out free condoms had their funding stopped. Teenagers did not stop having sex, they just stopped having safe sex, and for many girls not wanting to diappoint their parents, abortion may be the only choice.

2. Including Johann Hari, a gay journalist in the United Kingdom who was vehemently opposed to the case brought against Macleans. Perhaps he's a homophobe in league with the conservatives as well. The MacLean's case was against Muslims, wasn't it?

3. Protection is relegated to the police service and military, everthing else is secondary. Feeding people is secondary to the military and police? Funny how all citizens are supposed to be patriotic at a time of war and we drafted 'poor' Canadians for both World Wars. Stop social programs and see how quickly the need for police rises.

4. You do realize you just contradicted yourself in that you pointed out that voluntary organizations are able to keep people fed but should essentially be abandoned in favour of a bureaucrat in Ottawa attempting to redistribute food. I never said that charity should be abandoned but that it is not nearly enough. We can't depend on just the churches and charitable organizations to feed Canadians. In a civilized society all citizens are important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Do you know anything about Christianity? Do you know how many sins one is capable of committing, according to Christian, Jewish, and Islamic, doctrine homosexuality is considered a sin in the same vein as sex before marriage and adultery.

So do you also want to legislate that sex before marriage and adultery be made illegal? These are religous issues and should not be political ones, because most Canadians would not agree. I watched the documentary 'Lake of Fire', which gave both sides of the abortion issue; and the strong pro-lifers also target family planning clinics. Obviously their solution is simply no pre-marital sex, but it's unrealistic. In fact after eight years of born again stupidy, known as the Bush Administration, the Washington Post have reported that 'Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds; Teenagers Who Make Such Promises Are Just as Likely to Have Sex, and Less Likely to Use Protection, the Data Indicate.' and Teen pregnancies up for first time in 15 years. Organizations that used to hand out free condoms had their funding stopped. Teenagers did not stop having sex, they just stopped having safe sex, and for many girls not wanting to diappoint their parents, abortion may be the only choice.

2. Including Johann Hari, a gay journalist in the United Kingdom who was vehemently opposed to the case brought against Macleans. Perhaps he's a homophobe in league with the conservatives as well. The MacLean's case was against Muslims, wasn't it?

3. Protection is relegated to the police service and military, everthing else is secondary. Feeding people is secondary to the military and police? Funny how all citizens are supposed to be patriotic at a time of war and we drafted 'poor' Canadians for both World Wars. Stop social programs and see how quickly the need for police rises.

4. You do realize you just contradicted yourself in that you pointed out that voluntary organizations are able to keep people fed but should essentially be abandoned in favour of a bureaucrat in Ottawa attempting to redistribute food. I never said that charity should be abandoned but that it is not nearly enough. We can't depend on just the churches and charitable organizations to feed Canadians. In a civilized society all citizens are important.

Edited by Progressive Tory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on, Progressive Tory is on to something, recently noted social conservative/religious fundamentalist/neoconservative intellectual Noam Chomsky has stated his opposition to Human Rights Commissions.

Noam Chomsky? He's a philospher and not even Canadian. What does he have to do with our conservative movement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their distance from the centre is best measured by their electoral results. They've failed to win a majority in 3 elections since the sponsorship scandal broke. What lesson do you learn from this?

And against Dion, who they pulverized with attack ads to the point where he barely had a pulse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then perhaps secular individuals should become more charitable instead of seeing a poor person and wishing that individual was aborted instead.

Pro-Choice does not mean we want to see all poor women get an abortion. Pro-Choice means we want all women to make that decision themselves whether rich or poor. The most common 'choice' that women make is to carry their babies full term. When my daughter got pregnant I knew she couldn't raise a child but told her I would respect her 'choice', by giving her options. Her social worker spent a great deal of time with her, and I made them both aware that if she decided to keep the baby we would be there, but if she decided to have an abortion, we would also be there. She chose to keep him and seven years later we've kept our promise and have been raising our grandson since birth. I felt she made the right choice but ultimately it was her's to make.

I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of 'Pro-life' that ends with the fetus. Life is life. Do you support the distribution of condoms to prevent unwanted pregnacies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and Joe Clark never won a majority and proceeded to lose the government in the next election. I suppose by that logic he is nothing more than an extreme-right wing conservative.
As I said it's a system biased in favor of Liberals from Quebec (or for that matter nominal Conservatives from Quebec).
So does that make the federal Liberals extreme left wing and on the fringe since they haven't been able to get into power since 2006? What of the last election, were they as far to the left as the NDP visionseeker?
I'm an American ignorant about Canada so I'm not sure. Some of the posts here verge on the inarticulate.
Elections aren't about policies, they're about who has the best PR campaign. Robert Stanfield lost an election because he couldn't catch a football for example.
And Ford lost in 1976 partially because he struck teammates with golf and tennis balls.
Most American's support universal healthcare but neither party strongly supports such a program as they claim it would be "out of reach" and instead support small changes to the corrupt HMO's and put forward minor programs.
When a President takes the White House they quickly learn that the money isn't there for universal health care. Hilary came up with the harebrained idea of assigning people gate-keeper doctors. That has about as much chance of being liked by the voters as requiring all women to wear face-coverings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...