Is Canada sick?

[Black Dog]

Fascism is the use of brute force to impose the will of a tyrant. IOW, I see no difference between fascism and tyranny. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were all fascists and tyrants. (They were all psychopaths too, I suspect.)

Fascism is not just another buzzword for tyranny. Fascism and its historical antecedents are marke dby specific traits not shared with other ideaologically-based tyrranies.

Tyrants attain power through various means and I would not limit this to "western democracies with free-market economies". Augustus and Caligula too were tyrants.

Duh. But there's no denying that historical fascism grew out of modern, market-oriented liberal systems.

I conclude that you have never lived in an Islamic State or Kingdom. I don't know if the worst tyrants believe they are inspired by God. Caligula thought he was a God.

Caligula wasn't a fascist.

You are welcome to develop an intricate discussion, in Noam Chomsky style, to analyze the differences between Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini or Idi Amin. As far as I can see, they were all tyrants. We might as well discuss the finer distinctions between the New York Mafia and the Hell's Angels.

Those finer distinctions that you have so little time for are essential to understanding. You lack of intellectual curiosity here is puzzling.

[takeanumber]

The great news here is that we see Conservatives who support Harper, also support Bush.

That should be a signal to proud, patriotic, moderate Canadians to vote against Bush by voting against Harper.

In effect, they argue that the lies wern't lies, and even if they were, the end result was good.

I must ask then, why did Bush make his arguement on the basis that all dictators are bad, and that taking out Hussain would send a powerful signal? Sounds like a great arguement to me. Why didn't he use it?

Could it be.....America is not in the business of spreading democracy?

And if this is so, why hasn't Saudi Arabia shaped up? And what of Kirghizistan (sic)? What of the Sudan?

I smell double standard.

This to me is the defining characteristic of Conservatism in general, and Canadian Conservatism in particular. Let me enumerate the juiciest bits:

1. You will abide by the word of God, our Christian God, so long as you abide by our definition of it, and we're perfectly free to ignore the parts that we don't want to abide by, but you'll abide by what we want you to abide by. (Tithe's are an excellent example of this double standard.)

2. You will abide by traditions, except which traditions that we don't agree with.

3. Lying, when a Conservative politician lies, is not lying, it's pretending to be ignorant so as to gain popular support for the greater good. When a liberal lies, even about something that is not a matter of public policy, it's absolutely horrendous.

4. You will abide by the free market. Farmers are excluded from the free market because they are better people. Moreover, Farmers deserve better social services than those in the cities because people in the cities are evil. Moreover, all of the wealth is drawn from the countryside and goes into the city, and not enough comes back...even though that's the way the free market works, it shouldn't work for good conservative rural folk.

5. You will abide by the rule of law. Except when it comes to seat belts. It is a personal decision as to whether or not you want to wear a seat belt, and the feds have no right to send mounties out to make sure that you're doing that. Moreover, you don't have to stop at rural four-way stops. These are 'laws', but it's alright to bend them.

6. You will abide by the will of the majority. Minorities have gone too far in pushing equal rights in the country. However, the rights of the religious minority are excluded from the will of the majority, because these are good conservatives and as such deserve special rights such as tax exempt status even if they are participating in the political sphere, even though the majority doesn't want them there.

7. You will abide by our communitarian values. We've gone too far in taking care of poor people. The existence Homeless shelters and food banks merely encourage their use. Battered woman's shelters encourage the break up of marriages.

8. You will abide by our traditional family values. The purpose of marriage is for procreation. Except when it comes to allowing infertile heteresexual couples to get married. We see no contradiction in allowing them to get married in spite of the obvious contradiction. By pointing out such a contradiction, you are merely a troublemaker. You also know full well that homosexuals are inferior and cannot raise children, and so the procreation statement is merely 'cover' for our deep seeded hatred of homosexuals. We are sick of political correctness, which is really just another word for 'respect'. We don't respect homosexuals, and as such, we don't want them to get married. Besides, (eyeflutter), we merely think that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to exclusion of all others because marriage is about raising a family. Stop pointing out our contradictions, troublemaker.

9. George Washington was a hero because he led the charge against British Tyranny. Nelson Mandella is a terrorist because he led the charge against South African aparteid. Aparteid in modern times is a lot different than British tyranny, and you will not point this out repeatedly.

10. You should pay less in tax, and get fewer services. Unless you're from rural Canada. Then you keep your services, like subsidized phone, internet, roads, subsidies, and postal service. Who cares about the problems that face cities?

[The Terrible Sweal]

SUPERB post, takeanumber!

Every word a gem!

[fellowtraveller]

Acts of selfinterested premiers fall short of establishing the general claim of widespread loss of fairplay.

Add in a weak, corrupt federal government headed by a PM who is apparently quite willing to do anything including spending unbudgeted billions of dollars to appease any province that whines.... does that help establish it?

Get it while you can: that is the level of federal provincial dialogue now. How do you think that happened? Does Mr. Martin bear any responsibility for the truly pathetic state of our Dominion?

A real constitutional crisis is surely brewing in this country, and about time too.

[kimmy]

A gem?

1.  You will abide by the word of God, our Christian God...

2.  You will abide by traditions, except which traditions that we don't agree with.

6.  You will abide by the will of the majority.  Minorities have gone too far in pushing equal rights in the country...

8.  You will abide by our traditional family values...

Since I assume all you really have to talk about on these 4 points is the Conservatives' position on same-sex marriage, I'd describe this as hyperbole.

4.  You will abide by the free market.  Farmers are excluded from the free market because they are better people.  Moreover, Farmers deserve better social services than those in the cities because people in the cities are evil.  Moreover, all of the wealth is drawn from the countryside and goes into the city, and not enough comes back...even though that's the way the free market works, it shouldn't work for good conservative rural folk.

10.  You should pay less in tax, and get fewer services.  Unless you're from rural Canada.  Then you keep your services, like subsidized phone, internet, roads, subsidies, and postal service.  Who cares about the problems that face cities?

Suggesting that farmers, or rural Canadians in general, have some kind of privileged access to services that urban Canadians lack is utterly nonsensical.

Considering how much of Canada's wealth comes from resources, and how many urban Canadians are employed by resource-related industries that are dependant on Canada's rural areas, I don't think the rest of the argument really flies, either.

3.  Lying, when a Conservative politician lies, is not lying, it's pretending to be ignorant so as to gain popular support for the greater good.  When a liberal lies, even about something that is not a matter of public policy, it's absolutely horrendous.

Coming from a guy who said this:

Sadly, the Canadian public doesn't have much time or interest in knowing policies, so we'll just resort to the old methods and snappy catchlines. "Hidden Agenda" here we come.

earlier this week, I think you protest this cynicism a bit much.

5.  You will abide by the rule of law.  Except when it comes to seat belts.  It is a personal decision as to whether or not you want to wear a seat belt, and the feds have no right to send mounties out to make sure that you're doing that.  Moreover, you don't have to stop at rural four-way stops.  These are 'laws', but it's alright to bend them.

Who wants to repeal seatbelts?

7.  You will abide by our communitarian values.  We've gone too far in taking care of poor people.  The existence Homeless shelters and food banks merely encourage their use.  Battered woman's shelters encourage the break up of marriages.

Who wants to shut down womens' shelters?

9.  George Washington was a hero because he led the charge against British Tyranny.  Nelson Mandella is a terrorist because he led the charge against South African aparteid.  Aparteid in modern times is a lot different than British tyranny, and you will not point this out repeatedly.

Who is calling Nelson Mandella a terrorist?

-k

[I miss Reagan]

SUPERB post, takeanumber! 

Every word a gem!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya a real gem. A series of false and bigoted insults that can only be refuted by taking the topic of this thread in 10 different directions.

[takeanumber]

1, 2, 6 and 8 do not simply apply to same sex marriage...they apply to general Canadian conservative logic. They hold a double standard ESPECIALLY with respect to the Christian God.

Hardly hyperbole.

4 and 10.

4 was a statement made by several conservatives at the policy convention in Montreal.

10, specifically with respect to post offices, has been repeated during 'Statements by Members' in the house of commons over the past 2 weeks, by a number of rural conservative MPs. The implicit logic that rural canada should be subsidized on everything was also stated repeatedly at the convention.

5 -- nobody wants to repeal them, I'm referring to the conservative tendency to disregard seatbelt laws. I'll direct you to several Alberta surveys on the attitudes of rural albertans (conservatives) towards seat belt laws.

If you listen closely enough, the arguement against seat belts mimics the ones against the gun registry...the whole "making criminals out of us" line comes out, even though it doesn't apply and the two arn't analogous, you'll hear ignorant conservatives use it.

I also listened to a speech during the Manning years that raged against seat belt laws at length. Since it's my tax dollars that fund intensive care units in rural Alberta, I find it totally hippicritical that they break the law when it suits them, but decry everybody else when they do it.

7--See Myron Thompson's comments regarding the shelter money in 1999.

The Conservative party is generally unsympathetic to the homeless and the battered.

9-- See Rob Ander's comments.

[I miss Reagan]

See Rob Ander's comments.

So that's how it works eh? We take one MP's comments and project them as the party line. This should be fun...

[takeanumber]

The party implied that they supported the Ander's statement by defending those statements, and defending Ander's himself.

And we're not talking about the Liberal wrongdoing here (Fry, Obrien, and Parrish), ample amounts have been written on that, and I agree, it's horrendous. At least the Liberals punish them when they step out of line.

[August1991]

The great news here is that we see Conservatives who support Harper, also support Bush.

That should be a signal to proud, patriotic, moderate Canadians to vote against Bush by voting against Harper.

That's pathetic. Your obsession with the US is such that your vote in a Canadian election would depend on your opinion of a US president. Some Canadians truly have an inferiority complex.

TalkNumb, in your usual ADD way, you have managed to criticize the Conservative Party on largely social issues that bear little or no resemblance to what Prime Minister Harper will enact once in power.

The only economic reference you make concerns farm subsidies which, if anything, demonstrate why free markets are superior to government command mechanisms.

By and large, a Conservative government will try primarily to tax less, more simply and better, lessen government regulation, reduce government purchases and limit government transfers.

IOW, it will make the federal government smaller.

If you think the federal government should get bigger, then I suggest you vote for the NDP.

If you are thinking of voting Liberal, then I suggest you post your credit card numbers on this forum and cut out the middleman.

----

You are welcome to develop an intricate discussion, in Noam Chomsky style, to analyze the differences between Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini or Idi Amin. As far as I can see, they were all tyrants. We might as well discuss the finer distinctions between the New York Mafia and the Hell's Angels.

Those finer distinctions that you have so little time for are essential to understanding. You lack of intellectual curiosity here is puzzling.

Intellectual curiousity? I suppose. But it reminds me of Hugo's posts concerning who killed more people: Pol Pot or Emperor Bokassa.

Having had the opportunity to live under or travel through various dictatorial regimes, I have come to the conclusion that they all ressemble one another far more than they differ. I think that is Sharansky's point too (and he's had far more experience with tyranny than I).

Look, in fours years, George W. Bush will not be president. But the only way Bashir Assad will leave power is if somebody kills him or forces him to run away.

There are different types of birds in the world and different types of insects. But no one would confuse a bird for an insect.

[I miss Reagan]

That's pathetic. Your obsession with the US is such that your vote in a Canadian election would depend on your opinion of a US president. Some Canadians truly have an inferiority complex.

So true!! this is what I've been saying all along.

I'd like to hear about some of your travels Aug. I too have visited some of these dictatorships and communist countries which many leftists seem to defend as some sort of Utopia as opposed to the fascist USA .

[Black Dog]

Intellectual curiousity? I suppose. But it reminds me of Hugo's posts concerning who killed more people: Pol Pot or Emperor Bokassa.

Having had the opportunity to live under or travel through various dictatorial regimes, I have come to the conclusion that they all ressemble one another far more than they differ. I think that is Sharansky's point too (and he's had far more experience with tyranny than I).

Look, in fours years, George W. Bush will not be president. But the only way Bashir Assad will leave power is if somebody kills him or forces him to run away.

There are different types of birds in the world and different types of insects. But no one would confuse a bird for an insect.

It's very easy to lump Hitler, Stalin and any other mass-murdering dictator into the same pile and leave it at that. It's also ignorant. While they may share some traits, they also differ in many, many ways. Understanding tyrrany is essential to preventing it. If just assuming "it can't happen here" is all one has to rely on, then chances are, it will happen here.

[Guest eureka]

Would you then favour the "taking out" of the American government. August? It had been supplying tinpot dictators with what I am sure the indigenous populations thought of as WMD for a very long time. There is also good reason to fear that they may supply actual WMD since they are now ignoring the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement.

For Fascism, I think the response has been adequate so I will not add to it. Fascism has on a number of historic occasions bubbled near the surface of the US. Tyranny is what it now has.

[Argus]

The great news here is that we see Conservatives who support Harper, also support Bush.

That should be a signal to proud, patriotic, moderate Canadians to vote against Bush by voting against Harper.

Do you actually think for one moment you are a moderate?!

As for supporting Bush. Bush is not Canada's enemy. There is no linkage between being against Bush and being patriotic. What you are actually saying is that if people don't hate the Americans like you do then they aren't proper Canadians. They aren't "patriotic". Apparently "patriotic" means agreeing with your politics.

You know, there's a Baptist church in Texas which recently kicked out all those who don't support Republicans. Do you really not know how similar your mindset is to the bible thumping moron who runs that church? You are both utterly intolerent, self-righteous, and full of spite and hate for those who disagree with your politics. You are every bit as "moderate" as that Baptist preacher.

2.  You will abide by traditions, except which traditions that we don't agree with.

Conservatives generally do have a respect for traditions, because traditions are the heart of a nation. Traditions are a shared bond between people who grew up in the same land. Those who despise traditions generally despise the nation which gave birth to those traditions. And I see a lot of hate from those like you who rant and rave so much about how "unCanadian" others are. Ironic, ain't it?

This to me is the defining characteristic of Conservatism in general, and Canadian Conservatism in particular.  Let me enumerate the juiciest bits:

Don't bother. I've seen it before. It's the same kind of dehumanizing rant every little petty bigot and hatemonger makes against people who either have different politics, or different religious beliefs, or a different ethnic makeup. It's all about portraying them as subhuman people who are immoral, aren't patriotic (and thus are disloyal and dangerous), and is usually followed, in safe company, with suggestions about how to "deal with" these people you don't like.

In fact, it looks very similar those anti-Communist rants that Joseph McCarthy used to make. I can see him (and you) now, mouth drawn into a grimace of hate, lips turned up into a sneer, eyes bugging out with outrage as he (and you) enumerate the moral deficiencies and lack of patriotism of anyone and everyone who doesn't share his and your righteous political beliefs. The fact most of the accusations were either untrue or grossly exaggerated meant nothing to him, for he had no sense of self honesty. In your case I think you're just too sanctimonious and stupid to recognize or care about things like that.

[I miss Reagan]

I think you are right Argus. Some of these usual suspects would likely describe themselves as "slightly" left of center or actually centerist as Ceasar claimed to be lol. I'm not sure they realize the political spectrum is more circular rather than linear and that they are a lot closer to the intolerant bible thumping radicals than us Conservatives are.

[takeanumber]

Whoa. Slow down there. I didn't imply that if you support Bush that you're a bad, unpatriotic Canadian, I said that good, patriotic Canadians should sit up and take notice of what Harper has in store for us, and how similar his policies are to Bush's.

If you love Bush, you'll Harper.

I went onto enumerate several double standards of Canadian conservatives, which, laughably, conservatives have failed to tackle.

The reason: you can't.

I headed you off at the pass, and you can't argue each point on their merits.

Argus gets props for trying to hit the 'traditions' line.

Well, here's a classic example of traditions.

Canadian is a country that was founded on anglo-saxon, Christian values. Since then, Canada has evolved and shed some of the worst anglo-saxon traditions: these include residential schools, internment camps, exclusion of asian immigration, and of course, restriction of suffrage.

One of the last gasps of the bigotted side of the anglo-saxon Christian value group was the RCMP Turban fight.

Thankfully, we've shed most of those traditions.

To this statement, there will be two Conservative reactions. These are denial, and defense.

The Denial line is to disassociate anglo-saxon values and Christian values from internment camps, residential schools, asian immigration and restriction of suffrage. Where did the idea that Canada was to be 'white' come from? The answer: from anglo-saxon traditional values, is pretty straightforward, but will be denied by the dumbest of conservatives. When pushed on where these values came from, they will reply, vaguely, "not from anglo-saxon values...".

The Defense line is a defense of the old policies. They'll start off by attacking aboriginals in general, blaming them for their own plight, and the residential schools in particular. They'll quote how much money goes to the natives, make some burning door reference, and conclude that 'we've made it up to them many times over'. They'll defend asian immigration by denouncing 'political correctness' and making some reference to how 'white folk can't get no jobs in HongCouver'. As for the restriction of suffrage, they'll argue that it was all evolutionary, and as for the internment camps...well, that was self-defense.

With Conservatives, it's clear: there are values, and the values that everybody in the country should abide by, as per Argus, by those who were here first. Well, if we're going by that logic, should we not be following aboriginal traditions?

No, for some reason, they set anglo-saxon values as being the most ideal, and we should all live our lives as though it's 1921.

It's classic Canadian conservatism to insist that you're all for 'letting the individual decide' while simultaneously forcing everybody in the country to live by their moral standards, and living their lives as conservatives want you to -- their way.

[The Terrible Sweal]

SUPERB post, takeanumber! 

Every word a gem!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya a real gem. A series of false and bigoted insults that can only be refuted by taking the topic of this thread in 10 different directions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An incisive, insightful summary of the degeneracy of conservative 'thinking'. Devastating in its accuracy and humor both.

[I miss Reagan]

I went onto enumerate several double standards of Canadian conservatives, which, laughably, conservatives have failed to tackle.

The reason: you can't.

I headed you off at the pass, and you can't argue each point on their merits.

Oh *gag* give me a flippin break, don't flatter yourself. I think the message was clear from the cons on the forum that your falacy ridden insults were hardly worth responding to.

Nevertheless we can delve into your mudslinging if you like in another thread...

[August1991]

It's very easy to lump Hitler, Stalin and any other mass-murdering dictator into the same pile and leave it at that. It's also ignorant. While they may share some traits, they also differ in many, many ways. Understanding tyrrany is essential to preventing it. If just assuming "it can't happen here" is all one has to rely on, then chances are, it will happen here.

I agree BD. And I'll go further.

It is too often assumed that the major debate of the past century was between the "left" and the "right". Depending on how you view this, the "left" represents the poor and weak and the "right" the rich and powerful. Or, the "left" represents socialism and the "right" capitalism. You can characterize these terms however you want.

In fact, I'd argue that the major theme of the 20th century was the dispute between "tyranny" and "freedom".

[Black Dog]

August: see new thread in "Morals etc."