bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I have flipped through this entire thread. Nothing contradicts the basic point of my OP (but maybe I missed something). My OP? First, Stephen Harper and his government are honest. They don't steal. (You won't hear about this on the CBC or read about this in Canada's MSM.) The simple fact is that Stephen Harper does not steal and so far, he does not allow his ministers or caucus members to steal. I am honest when I make that claim. Second, some people disagree with Stephen Harper. In a civilized society, that is their right. Because they disagree with him, they claim that Harper is dishonest. I think that disagreements should have a better basis. Harper may be a right wing fanatic idiot but he is not dishonest. So far, there is no evidence that he is "on the take". Remarkably, there is no hint that anyone in his government is on the take. By Canadian political standards, Harper's government is remarkable. I think this is a narrow view of honesty. It's like praising someone who doesn't rob the people he assaults. I'm inclined to agree with you that this government is not "on the take." That's good, though hardly praiseworthy. (I don't steal either...aren't you going to say some nice things about me now?) That's not the only measure of "honesty." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I think this is a narrow view of honesty. It's like praising someone who doesn't rob the people he assaults.Do you live in PEI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Do you live in PEI? I do not live in PEI, if that's relevant. NB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I'm inclined to agree with you that this government is not "on the take." That's good, though hardly praiseworthy. (I don't steal either...aren't you going to say some nice things about me now?) That's not the only measure of "honesty." Aren't you missing the point? August started out by comparing Harper's government to all those years of Liberal/Chretien corruption, scandal and so on that ended up with millions of dollars stolen in AdScam. Now you blithely blow off the present government being "not on the take." as "That's good, though hardly praiseworthy." Yes, they're all supposed to be honest but for decades they haven't been! That was the flippin' point! Or do you simply take Liberal dishonesty as "no big deal"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) That's not what a social conservative is at all. I think you might need to brush up on your accepted definitions. As with any attempt to pigeon-hole people or parties within a particular orthodoxy, one size does NOT fit all - and it's a matter of how extreme they are in adherence to the definition. One definition of Social Conservatism is: It puts family ahead of government, children ahead of personal aggrandizement, espouses public religion, and personal responsibility/charity, not government as Santa Claus. It opposes the attack on societies morals, and believes government should protect the people from these attacks, just as certainly as government has a responsibility to protect the people from physical attack. Interestingly, Michael Ignatieff has yet to put his personal mark on the Liberal party. There seems little doubt that his philosophies have been molded through the lens of American politics......and both the Republican AND Democratic parties - and the entire US - are much more Conservative and Christian than Canada - quite a bit to the right of Stephen Harper's Conservative Party. Assuming that Mr. Ignatieff actually HAS a vision, we should not be too surprised that such a vision would create a more right-wing Canada than the road that Harper is slowly guiding us down. Edited December 31, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Aren't you missing the point? August started out by comparing Harper's government to all those years of Liberal/Chretien corruption, scandal and so on that ended up with millions of dollars stolen in AdScam. Now you blithely blow off the present government being "not on the take." as "That's good, though hardly praiseworthy." Yes, they're all supposed to be honest but for decades they haven't been! That was the flippin' point! Or do you simply take Liberal dishonesty as "no big deal"? No. I'm saying that if the Conservatives are not financial thieves, that does not automatically make them an "honest government." Obviously, honesty and dishonesty are not soley the providence of money matters. Edited December 31, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I think the number of broken promises indicates that Harper and his government are not honest. Then again I would say they are at least as honest as most governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Canadians will ony know IF Harper is/was honest by having an election and another party taking over and reporting what the Harper government was all about! I rather compare Harper's gov't to Mulroney's, and how similar they are, or are they?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Canadians will ony know IF Harper is/was honest by having an election and another party taking over and reporting what the Harper government was all about! I rather compare Harper's gov't to Mulroney's, and how similar they are, or are they?? Sadly you can make the claim that they are all similiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Canadians will ony know IF Harper is/was honest by having an election and another party taking over and reporting what the Harper government was all about! So, the Liberals are auditors-in-waiting? Hmmm. I rather compare Harper's gov't to Mulroney's, and how similar they are, or are they?? It's not easy to give an opinion and in the same breath question its validity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Canadians will determine the mans honesty and integrity by what ever means they choose to, their right to an opinion is a given. That said, it is all about how the man plays the game. Arrogance mixed with ignorance will not cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I think the number of broken promises indicates that Harper and his government are not honest. Then again I would say they are at least as honest as most governments. They very possibly could be. But to clarify, I wasn't basing my remarks on a comparative view; I was responding directly to an unequivocal assertion that they are "honest." Which is flatly untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I'm not certain that a ranking of "most honest" is applicable to politicians of any stripe. More appropriate might be "least dishonest". In that respect, Harper's goverment gets high marks in my books. Least dishonest in my lifetime anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Honesty in government is very nearly an oxymoron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Better get that out to the news. A "social conservative" is for social programs,i.e., the welfare state, but his view is tempered by fiscal responsibility, they are more to the left of the true conservative. What you are saying is Liberals have moved to the right. And now, to win arguments, you redefine words? I don't know anyone who uses the term "social conservative" in the context you're trying to, and I see no reason why anyone should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 And now, to win arguments, you redefine words? I don't know anyone who uses the term "social conservative" in the context you're trying to, and I see no reason why anyone should. In my mind a social conservative is a person who bases their political opinions on religious infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 In my mind a social conservative is a person who bases their political opinions on religious infrastructure. Generally, I would agree, though I've met a few a-religious people who held pretty strong social conservative views, but in general, if you see a social conservative, you're looking at a person whose views on morality are largely inspired by his religious beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Generally, I would agree, though I've met a few a-religious people who held pretty strong social conservative views, but in general, if you see a social conservative, you're looking at a person whose views on morality are largely inspired by his religious beliefs. A second meaning of the term social conservatism developed in the Nordic countries and continental Europe. There it refers to liberal conservatives supporting modern European welfare states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism In other words religious zealots, or whackjobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 In other words religious zealots, or whackjobs. I didn't see that definaition but please do distort to fit you definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 As with any attempt to pigeon-hole people or parties within a particular orthodoxy, one size does NOT fit all - and it's a matter of how extreme they are in adherence to the definition. One definition of Social Conservatism is: Of course, but that's not the generally accepted definition. A social conservative isn't, for the most part, a socialist conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism Good thing we don't live there, eh? It's probably useful to stick with the definitions that we actually use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Good thing we don't live there, eh? It's probably useful to stick with the definitions that we actually use. Ah, but I was all ready to use "conservative" in the way it's used in Iran or Saudi Arabia and "socialist" as it was used by the Nazis. Geez, this having to actually debate using terms in any sort of context sure does suck. Edited December 31, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 I didn't see that definaition but please do distort to fit you definition. I am not trying to distort anything. I am saying that zealots, those people who follow the religious dictates they so strongly believe in are whack jobs. Religion is one thing and politics another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 Of course, but that's not the generally accepted definition. A social conservative isn't, for the most part, a socialist conservative. I'm not sure what you mean by the term Socialist Conservative - that's really an oxy-moron. While you can make arguments around the edges, I think the definition that I provided is pretty close to the mark as it relates to American politics and still accurate in Canada, but a little more diluted. What would your "core" definition be? It puts family ahead of government, children ahead of personal aggrandizement, espouses public religion, and personal responsibility/charity, not government as Santa Claus. It opposes the attack on societies morals, and believes government should protect the people from these attacks, just as certainly as government has a responsibility to protect the people from physical attack. 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.