Harper the Disgrace

[ToadBrother]

This reminds me of the studies that use statistical analysis to conclude that blacks tend to be less intelligent and asians are more intelligent. Both analyses may be true but largely meaningless since the variations with the groups far exceeds the variation between groups. Perhaps we should dig up those studies on races now that people have suddenly decided that this statistical approach is useful if it gives results they like.

I don't think there's anything the least bit controversial about people of low education tending towards racism and extreme social conservatism. But where the game gets played badly is when you say "Therefore all conservatives are stupid racists..."

[TimG]

I don't think there's anything the least bit controversial about people of low education tending towards racism and extreme social conservatism. But where the game gets played badly is when you say "Therefore all conservatives are stupid racists..."

You can't take two distributions that almost completely overlap and then draw conclusions from slight differences in the mean. This is what the race studies did and this what this political leaning study did. They are junk analyses that only exists to serve a political objective.

[Accountability Now]

The study makes no generalization, other than less intelligent people are more likely to be Conservatives. If you are insulted by that, take it up with the study's author.

First off....you are the one that posted this so don't hide behind the author as if you have nothing to gain from it.

Second...and more importantly....the article doesn't state that less intelligent people are more likely to be Conservatives, it says they are likely to be 'social conservatives'. You do realize there is a difference, don't you? Here....I'll help you out. There are four types of conservatives in Canada:

- Economic

- Social

- Conservative Populism

- Red Toryism

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2008/HarperRecord/Understanding_Stephen_Harper.pdf

The fact that you would conflate social conservatives will ALL Conservatives speaks volumes about you.

So I guess the question is just how many Conservatives are 'social conservatives'?

In modern times, however, social conservatism has not been as influential in Canada as in the past. The main reason is that right-wing, neoliberal politics as promoted by leaders such as Paul Martin and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have not been linked to moral or social conservatism.^[1] That is, there is no large political party behind it, and social conservatives have divided their votes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism_in_Canada

So in trying to tie back to the OP about Harper, I feel that the last part of that quote is very important. To further illustrate this I offer another insight:

Stephen Harper's core ideological commitments are rooted firmly in the traditions of economic conservatism, and they have been for some time

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2008/HarperRecord/Understanding_Stephen_Harper.pdf

Your conflation of the study is one thing but then trying to tie it back to Harper even though he is not known as a social conservative is another which shows that your list full of opinions bear no credibility

It appears that not only is your list BS but so is your attempt to qualify your list.

[Accountability Now]

I don't think there's anything the least bit controversial about people of low education tending towards racism and extreme social conservatism. But where the game gets played badly is when you say "Therefore all conservatives are stupid racists..."

I just saw your post after I posted mine above. You are absolutely correct.

[waldo]

I am posting this comment in accordance with the rules of his forum and in accordance with the Charter RIghts of Canada. If indeed this forum is objective and free of bias, there will be no need nor cause to delete it. None-the-less I am taking a screen shot for the purpose and benefit of my article on "Political Propaganda & The Media" to be published on the 15th of October. For the record this is screen shot no.27.

it is unfortunate your previous like post/thread was deleted, rather than just a couple of the distracting posts. I'll also try again with the same/similar post content I initially added; intended to supplement the same theme as yours... speaking to the corruption and undermining of democracy by the Harper Conservative governments:

from the non-partisan organization Voices-Voix Coalition, an exhaustive report on the current Harper Conservatives government --- Dismantling Democracy - Stifling Debate and Dissent in Canada

[cybercoma]

I don't think there's anything the least bit controversial about people of low education tending towards racism and extreme social conservatism. But where the game gets played badly is when you say "Therefore all conservatives are stupid racists..."

Not all Conservatives are stupid racists, but stupid racists tend to be Conservative. And more importantly, it's incredibly unethical to be fostering this vote with dog-whistle politics.

[TimG]

And more importantly, it's incredibly unethical to be fostering this vote with dog-whistle politics.

People offended by TWU are no different than the people offended by niqabs. If you say people offended by niqabs are bigots then the same is true of people offended by TWU.

[Gleason]

Thank you Waldo. That is an incredible link you gave me and I am digesting it now. I will reply later. Thanks again. This is the stuff the Conservatives need to pay attention to if they want to keep their party united. If they can't take this seriously as constructive criticism then they will have to hand off the lead to someone whose values are better aligned with these ideals.

[The_Squid]

...and in accordance with the Charter RIghts of Canada.

Saying this is dumb. You have no Charter Rights on this forum.

It would be like you telling me I can't kick you out of my house because you have Charter Rights. It doesn't work that way. And when you insist that it does, it makes you look a bit foolish and diminishes whatever good points might be in the rest of your post.

[Gleason]

I was referring to the freedom of speech and expression. Sorry. I should have been more clear.

[waldo]

Saying this is dumb. You have no Charter Rights on this forum.

is it? In the context of freedom of expression, there is an onus on the board moderator/operator. Certainly board specific rules prevail and I don't interpret this as a suggestion those rules are in question in that regard; however, short of the thread OP not aligning with board rules, some level of interpretation on why a thread was deleted remains. In the absence of an explanation on why a thread was deleted, it might open up concerns over objectivity and bias.

[ToadBrother]

is it? In the context of freedom of expression, there is an onus on the board moderator/operator. Certainly board specific rules prevail and I don't interpret this as a suggestion those rules are in question in that regard; however, short of the thread OP not aligning with board rules, some level of interpretation on why a thread was deleted remains. In the absence of an explanation on why a thread was deleted, it might open up concerns over objectivity and bias.

There is no onus on a moderator or owner of a site. They are not under any obligation to abide by what you view as an appropriate standard, or even by any concrete standard at all. That is their freedom. Your freedom is to decide whether you want to contribute on any particular site or not.

[Michael Hardner]

There isn't enough discussion about the OP here. I'll say it again: put questions about moderation in the Support & Questions forum.

[The_Squid]

I was referring to the freedom of speech and expression. Sorry. I should have been more clear.

There is no "freedom of speech and expression" on the forum if it's outside the rules that are determined by the Mods...

And calling people "hypocrites" before they even post a reply is probably against the rules and might cause your post to be deleted/locked again...

[waldo]

There is no onus on a moderator or owner of a site. They are not under any obligation to abide by what you view as an appropriate standard, or even by any concrete standard at all. That is their freedom. Your freedom is to decide whether you want to contribute on any particular site or not.

freedom of expression is not MY standard! I held up the board rules caveat and indicated I didn't think they were in question... in that regard. The onus I speak to is an implicit respect of freedom of expression to the point that interpretation of rules applied to content does not run afoul of the rules. Short of rules respecting freedom of expression (which I suggested wasn't in question), short of adherence to those rules, in the absence of an explanation as to why a thread was deleted, interpretations remain... concerns over objectivity and/or bias might be construed.

[The_Squid]

is it? In the context of freedom of expression, there is an onus on the board moderator/operator. Certainly board specific rules prevail and I don't interpret this as a suggestion those rules are in question in that regard; however, short of the thread OP not aligning with board rules, some level of interpretation on why a thread was deleted remains. In the absence of an explanation on why a thread was deleted, it might open up concerns over objectivity and bias.

Yes, you are 100% correct Waldo.

But "Charter Rights" implies something beyond "forum rules", don't you think?

[Charles Anthony]

Now before a bunch of Harperites start spewing your loyal and unconditional support, I ask that you at least read the article first. If there is anyone out there that can really deny any part of this article is true, I am all ears.

I am posting this comment in accordance with the rules of his forum and ....

.... it is being locked due to a demonstrable intention to violate the forum rules and guidelines:

Be Polite and Respect Others

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

No Trolling/Flaming

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people.

Posting "Harperites" is clearly inflammatory and only meant to annoy.

Feel free to re-post this topic but make sure that your renewed attempt does not violate the forum rules and guidelines.

[Gleason]

Many people here at this forum give endless praise to Stephen Harper for even the smallest achievements, yet when others raise the many negative points, strange things happen to the thread and excuses are made to move or lock the thread. If this forum is truly objective and unbiased then let us debate the issues fairly without shutting down people who don;t agree with you. I hereby present 70 reasons why people should not vote for Harper. http://www.alternet....mocracy-and-law

If anyone disagrees please say why and which one of these 70 points do you disagree with. This forum is full of his positive plus praise, now can we have equal time and space to discuss the negative? Hiding the issues does not resolve them nor give us a chance to even debate them. Thank you in advance for your objectivity gents.

Screen Shot No. 30

Edited October 5, 2015 by Gleason

[Argus]

Many people here at this forum give endless praise to Stephen Harper for even the smallest achievements,

Yeah? Let's see a list of names.

yet when others raise the many negative points, strange things happen to the thread and excuses are made to move or lock the thread.

You mean when you start a bonehedaed topic which is nothing more than an excuse to bitch at the Tories it gets locked as being pointless? You might have noticed there are all sorts of topics on the list regarding issues in the election, as well as more than a few that are like this one, nothing more than a summary of whiny sniveling complaints from the Left.

How is this topic going to provoke any different conversation than "Harper the Disgrace", for example? It's just a bitchfest from someone who can't even start his own topic, but has to grab a page off some other site to use that instead.

Moderators, I vote to delete this topic or just merge it with the other I HATE HARPER thread, Harper is a Disgrace. It's the same roundup of ultra left talking points anyway.

[PIK]

Good post argus. How about a list on ''every time justin opens his mouth '' Gives us plenty of reason not to vote for him. Imagine the list for Chretien ,back when he had no competition.

[angrypenguin]

Good post argus. How about a list on ''every time justin opens his mouth '' Gives us plenty of reason not to vote for him. Imagine the list for Chretien ,back when he had no competition.

Ha! Maybe I should start one of those. Mulcair and Trudeau Fups.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah? Let's see a list of names.

You mean when you start a bonehedaed topic which is nothing more than an excuse to bitch at the Tories it gets locked as being pointless? You might have noticed there are all sorts of topics on the list regarding issues in the election, as well as more than a few that are like this one, nothing more than a summary of whiny sniveling complaints from the Left.

How is this topic going to provoke any different conversation than "Harper the Disgrace", for example? It's just a bitchfest from someone who can't even start his own topic, but has to grab a page off some other site to use that instead.

Moderators, I vote to delete this topic or just merge it with the other I HATE HARPER thread, Harper is a Disgrace. It's the same roundup of ultra left talking points anyway.

On this I agree with you. The poster may have toned down the invective, but the post is still blatantly hostile. Beyond that, who is going to sift through 70 points, some of which are clearly absurd.

I'm anything but a Harper supporter, but I fail to see what such a post contributes. It's inflammatory, isn't likely to produce any kind of reasonable discussion, and I can tell you, I'm not going through 70 claims. I looked at the first five and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

[The_Squid]

Screen Shot No. 30

What does this mean?

[PIK]

Has harper ever swore at a member of the house of commons?? Has he flicked the finger at Canadians?? Has he ever grabbed a protester by the throat?? He has never done any of this, but it was done by the trudeaus. But when they do it, they are hero's. There has been a lot of unwarranted negativity towards harper, I just hope people are smart enough to realize that.

Edited October 5, 2015 by PIK

[Charles Anthony]

Moderators, I vote to delete this topic or just merge it with the other I HATE HARPER thread, Harper is a Disgrace. It's the same roundup of ultra left talking points anyway.

Done.