KingIggy Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Clark vs. Mulroney vs. Harper If you think rightwingers aggressively attack those outside their party they disagree with, you should witness the vicious vindictiveness they use against their OWN. As their Neo-Conservative dreamworld (cult-tent) implodes, and their power base is threatened, they initiate a series of BANISHMENTS worthy of the most rigid CULT. We saw it with Harper vs. Mulroney Act 1a. Center ----- Right ----- Far Right ---- Extreme Right Clark ---- Mulroney --- Harper What happened with Brian Mulroney, is an incident of polarity brought about by discrepency in degree. This is also what happened with Joe Clark several years ago. Bascially, those hardliners, those BLINDLY DOGMATIC FASCISTS of the FAR RIGHT, DELUSIONALLY believe that everyone to the political left of their stance are Commies/Outsiders/Evil. Inevitably, their false assumption (brought about by their rampaging extremism) provides the impulse to BANISH the moderate party member, in favor of a rigid rightwing paradigm. We saw the exact same phenomenon when Bull-Headed, Malicious, Insane, Destructive FASCIST Dick Cheney tried the same strategy with Colin Powell....falsely claiming that he's not a Republican, said the blind, rampaging cultist. But of course, all moderates (whom are merely measured rationalists/pragmatists) are misunderstood by extremists due to the extremist's ideological madness. So, what do Harper and Cheney have in common ? Many things, one of which is their attempted banishment of moderates from their Neo-Conservative "movement" (cult). Yes, reality indicates that Powell, Clark and Mulroney are not worthy of the Ultra-Conservative Harper-Cheney "tent". Mulroney and Powell both identify themselves as Conservatives, but apparently, Cheney and Harper get to dole out the medals, like the true wannabe Fascists they are. Edited June 4, 2009 by KingIggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Clark vs. Mulroney vs. Harper........Mulroney and Powell both identify themselves as Conservatives, but apparently, Cheney and Harper get to dole out the medals, like the true wannabe Fascists they are. Well, it would seem that Sec'y Powell and VP Cheney have still done you an immense favor, for without them you seemingly couldn't define a damn thing. Carry on..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 KingIggy, Can you actually name a policy that Harper has enacted that makes him "extreme right"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Clark vs. Mulroney vs. HarperIf you think rightwingers aggressively attack those outside their party they disagree with, you should witness the vicious vindictiveness they use against their OWN. As their Neo-Conservative dreamworld (cult-tent) implodes, and their power base is threatened, they initiate a series of BANISHMENTS worthy of the most rigid CULT. I see that our angry teenager is back. The vicious vindictiveness that you speak of is best illustrated with the Liberal Chretien/Martin battle - a battle that tore the party apart, led to Dion's miserable "leadership" tenure (far Left by the way), and ultimately gave the Liberals their worst election results in modern history with a paltry 77 seats. Or are you too young to remember? Edited June 2, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 How about.. "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be." Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994. Is that extreme enough...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 How about.."Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be." Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994. Is that extreme enough...... The backdrop of that speech were the stormclouds of the 1995 Quebec referendum. Quebec was driven to the brink of separation from Canada by the heavy-handed centralist policies of the Liberal Government - lacking respect for Provincial juristictions. Quebec was not the only province chafing under the bit of Liberal Big Government. Alienation of the West by first Trudeau and then Chretien, created an appetite for separation in Alberta and British Columbia. Even Premier McGuinty has been fighting for more respect from the current government - a legacy of Liberal Centralization. Less government does not mean a deriliction of duty - it simply means letting each party - Municipal, Provincial and Federal - do the jobs that taxpayers expect them to do - clear roles and responsibilities. A perfect example is healthcare. Many people still think it is the Feds who control Healthcare when in fact it is the Provinces who are responsible for the delivery of services. Paul Martin's boast that he was fixing Healthcare for a generation was an idiotic statement that served to prolong the confusion so he could win a few votes.......and by getting rid of many of the useless overlaps, you're darn right - you'll end up with less government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 KingIggy,Can you actually name a policy that Harper has enacted that makes him "extreme right"? If there is one, it will be supported by Ignatieff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Iggy wants to emulate the Norwegian oil and gas model... is that far right ? He wants a reserve for the citizenry. Read his articles in McClean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 KingIggy,Can you actually name a policy that Harper has enacted that makes him "extreme right"? You missed them again > So Harper walks the same path as Bush... 1) Wreckless tax cuts (just like Bush) 2) Increased military funding (just like Bush) 3) Increased drug war (just like Bush) 4) Increased national debt (just like Bush) 5) Republican style attack ads (just like Bush). 6) False, hypocritical claims of "fiscal conservatism" (like the Republicans). 7) Banishing party moderates (just like Cheney). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 You missed them again >So Harper walks the same path as Bush... 1) Wreckless tax cuts (just like Bush) 2) Increased military funding (just like Bush) 3) Increased drug war (just like Bush) 4) Increased national debt (just like Bush) 5) Republican style attack ads (just like Bush). 6) False, hypocritical claims of "fiscal conservatism" (like the Republicans). 7) Banishing party moderates (just like Cheney). It was stupid the first time you posted it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Your denial of reality is the epitome of rightwing STUPIDITY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Your denial of reality is the epitome of rightwing STUPIDITY. I thought you might be 18 or 19....then it was 14 or 15....it's down to 11 years old now. I don't think you realize how juvenile your posts are. You seem to be a very angry young Liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 You missed them again > So Harper walks the same path as Bush... 1) Wreckless tax cuts (just like Bush) 2) Increased military funding (just like Bush) 3) Increased drug war (just like Bush) 4) Increased national debt (just like Bush) 5) Republican style attack ads (just like Bush). 6) False, hypocritical claims of "fiscal conservatism" (like the Republicans). 7) Banishing party moderates (just like Cheney). 8) Let (CPP) CEO's keep huge bonuses while their corporation LOSES money (something Bush-like for sure) 9) No boosting of the social safety net (EI) during recession (like Bush) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Cheney, referring to Powell, said he's not a Republican. Harper, referring to Mulroney, said he's not a Conservative. The above ultra-rightwing pattern demonstrates a *failed* attempt at *ideological banishment* of a *moderate* ... by orders from the TOP of the party hierarchy. Edited June 4, 2009 by KingIggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Harper on Mulroney ; "He's not a Conservative". How about a citation for that quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0013375 Harper and his clan of Neo-Con snakes mutter their quotes, obscuring them. But the truth is the truth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Kingiggy wrote and I quote-Mulroney and Powell both identify themselves as Conservatives, but apparently, Cheney and Harper get to dole out the medals, like the true wannabe Fascists they are. Using the word, to describe elected leaders who either leave office willingly or step down after being defeated at the polls as Fascists is irresponsible. You only show your ignorance. Besides if you looking for boogey men I will remind you that the far left have been responsible for more murder than the extreme far right. A pox on both houses but the people you have smeared are not Fascists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0013375Harper and his clan of Neo-Con snakes mutter their quotes, obscuring them. But the truth is the truth... There's the angry young Liberal again. Don't you realize that your juvenile posts are an embarrassment even to your own Liberal Party? Your hatred towards the 35-40% of Canadians who vote Conservative is not what the Liberal Party needs to rebuild itself. Having said that, as a Conservative-leaning Canadian, I'm not opposed to you continuing to damage the view that Canadians have of Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 There's the angry young Liberal again. ... and yet, I do believe he has your attention. I've noticed a past pattern in your modus operandi... attempt to marginalize by labeling someone as young/impressionable; which, clearly, distinguishes from your sage and elderly wisdom. (Don't make me search for your marginalizing posts ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Kingiggy wrote and I quote-Mulroney and Powell both identify themselves as Conservatives, but apparently, Cheney and Harper get to dole out the medals, like the true wannabe Fascists they are. Using the word, to describe elected leaders who either leave office willingly or step down after being defeated at the polls as Fascists is irresponsible. You only show your ignorance. Besides if you looking for boogey men I will remind you that the far left have been responsible for more murder than the extreme far right. A pox on both houses but the people you have smeared are not Fascists! Where are the dead bodies caused by recent Norwegian, Danish, French, Swedish, Finnish policies ? Since when has Jack Layton's policies been warmongering like the far right ? That's because the far left authoritarian communist model doesn't exist, it's merely your scarecrow. But Nixon, Bush 1&2, Reagan are farther right than rightwingers assume ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Where are the dead bodies caused by recent ..... French, .....policies ?. All over africa, afghanistan and points west... Don't read much do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0013375Harper and his clan of Neo-Con snakes mutter their quotes, obscuring them. But the truth is the truth... The truth is you're slandering politicians, making up quotes. I think someone needs a timeout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 (edited) Where are the dead bodies caused by recent Norwegian, Danish, French, Swedish, Finnish policies ? Since when has Jack Layton's policies been warmongering like the far right ? That's because the far left authoritarian communist model doesn't exist, it's merely your scarecrow.But Nixon, Bush 1&2, Reagan are farther right than rightwingers assume ! You are right about the far left authoritarian communist model being a scarecrow. Communism is dead. Since it is about the installation of the totalitarian state through revolution there is not much chance of that happening anywhere in the world of today. The truth of the matter is that the extreme left and the extreme right are becoming blurred. You for instance sound like a ranting Nazi but claim to be a leftist. This is the origin of the "neocon" - Originally far left they now wish to "conserve" the socialistic gains they have achieved over the past century paradoxically becoming the "new conservatives". No politician in Canada is right wing. They are all left of centre or they could not be politicians in Canada. Admittedly, Harper is as close to centre as a politician in Canada can be and I suspect he may even personally be slightly right of centre. The left-right political paradigm is in self destruct mode. It is a contrived model anyway and needs to be put to bed so that the average citizen of a democratic nation knows what he is voting for instead of listening to bribes and skilled rhetorical oratory, where politics is often a cult of personality. I would describe myself as a classical liberal but that makes me a conservative today. Murray Rothbard, the self proclaimed Libertarian, states he has been described as a liberal and a conservative over time with out changing his political perspective an iota. Jefferson, Jackson and Reagan would be politicians I admire. Nixon and Bush 1&2 were a little too big government for my liking. I should mention that the political spectrum replacing the old left-right paradigm goes from anarchy to total government. Problems with the old model are that the centre is not fixed but mobile and there is total government at both ends making it hard to understand what the differences are between the two extremes. Ideologically, of course, there are differences, which may have as many variations as there are individuals who dream of dictating to the masses, but practically there isn't much difference experienced by the man on the street who is just experiencing being totally governed. Edited June 4, 2009 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingIggy Posted June 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Since 1970, the USA has been the most warmongering aggressor among the western, industrialized nations. The other countries have gradually become pacifist. Iggy is right and the right(wing) is WRONG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 4, 2009 Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 Since 1970, the USA has been the most warmongering aggressor among the western, industrialized nations. The other countries have gradually become pacifist. What's so special about 1970? The USA was born of war almost 200 years before that. Just let us know which wars you liked and which ones you don't....cause it really doesn't make a bit of difference! Iggy is right and the right(wing) is WRONG. Of course Iggy is right.....he's an American of convenience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.