Canadian Conservatism For Dummies

[I miss Reagan]

I think it is worth noting that The Terrible Sweal proclaimed that these 10 points as "An incisive, insightful summary of the degeneracy of conservative 'thinking'. Devastating in its accuracy and humor both."

Takeanumber:

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.)

IMO It's a pretty gross generalization to say that all conservatives are Christian and that they all think along the same religious lines even within the Christianity. But feel free to show me where in the CPC policy declaration it says we want to impose tithing on the people of Canada. For some reason the secular humanist left seems to think religious bigotry and stereotyping is fair play.

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

Can't totally disagree with this one. Our conservative cousins down South had to fight a war against the Dems to eliminate slavery. Gotta love ol' Abe. There are other traditions we want to end as well, like that Canadian Liberal tradition of excessive taxation.

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.

Hmmmm. Devastating indeed.

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.

No you're mistaking us with the NDP.

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.

I'm with Kimmy on this one "who is against seatbelts". And as my ol' Uncle Bob says to his wife, "Dianne what in the hell are you talking about??"

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.

See response to point 2. And I'm not sure how you can make this assertion when the Conservative Party of Canada is the most diverse. I'm quite sure that Rahim Jaffer, Gurmant and Nina Grewal, Bev Oda, and Inky Mark would strongly disagree with you.

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.

Once again I'd like to see where in the CPC handbook it outlines this policy. I also have to wonder why Calgary, the Canadian bastion of conservatism, provides more community volunteer hours at places like these than anywhere else in Canada.

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.

You could've just shortened this and just screamed: "YOU'RE ALL HOMOPHOBES!"

Nevertheless this dead horse has been beaten enough, I suggest referring back to some of the previous same sex marriage threads to get into this again.

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.

What do you have against ol' George? Let me guess you're a tree hugger still pissed that he chopped down that cherry tree. eh?

I think you should call Rob Anders and tell him that you have appointed him spoksman for the CPC. BTW have you been to South Africa lately to see what a lovely place Mandella and his party have turned it into. I have. You should go. I suggest talking a stroll through a park in Jo'burg after dark. Or you could just ask one of the many educated South Africans here in Canada (brain drain result of affirmative action in S.A.) how they feel about what's happened in S.A. the past decade.

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?

What the hell are you talking about Dianne!!!?

I'm sorry for the tongue-in-cheek but it's just so hard to take you seriously. When I lost count of all the fallicies I kinda gave up....

[Guest eureka]

Abe did not fight a war to eliminate slavery. Abe, from his own mouth, did not oppose slavery. The American Civil War was about the three SSSs. Secession, States Rights, and Slavery with slavery third. Slavery came into it as a convenient tool, like WMD, for the majority side which did not have the "benefits" of slavery.

The "Liberal tradition of excessive taxation" seems to have brought Canada one of the lowest taxation levels in the industrialized world. The Conservative tradition, as exemplified by the last Conservative administration, brought us a doubling of the deficit which this Liberal administration has had to deal with while reducing taxes.

Diversity to you, seems to be only a matter of skin colour. I think you should look a little closer at the makeup of political parties. Pointing to a few from very conservative cukltures as an example of tolerance and diversity is a little weak.

Perhaps Calgarians volunteer more at food banks because it is there that the greatest need for food banks arise. Perhaps to assuage the collective conscience. The first food banks appeared in Alberta as the "Conservative" regimes abdicated their responsibility to protect the people.

You may have been in South Africa and seen what you want to see. Did you, by chance, go to one of the beaches where ir costs to get into the better part? Did you see that all the users where white because they could afford it?

Mandela may be trying very hard - he is, but aprtheid is only dead in a legal sense.

[takeanumber]

Well Reagan, you can decry as many of them as you want as 'falacies'.

You know, it's interesting that you keep on refering back to official CPC policy, but you know, an awful lot about what a party does has nothing to do with the policy in its book, but rather, the nature of its people.

And in light of the Liberal scandal, I'm sure you'd agree with that statement. If not, you can tackle it somewhere else.

Not many people here work with parliament on nonstop, I suspect fewer people went to the convention, and I suspect very few people indeed have had the pleasure of working in the Calgary School. I know these people, and I have had these debates with them.

The fact is: they can't resolve the contradictions.

Let's review:

1. Christian God. The party is still dominated by Christians, and it is out of respect to the Mormons that I refer to their God as being 'Christian', although my grandparents would be spinning in their graves.

Now so what? The NDP and Libs are also dominated by Christians as well. However: here's the important difference: the NDP and Libs don't try to shove their religion down everybody's throat.

The Cons...well, we all know what they were doing down at the Republican Convention. It's not a conspiracy. It's the belief that religion has a role to play in public policy debates, which, by definition, is anti-classical-liberal. Disagree? Go back and read the original works on liberalism. It's ALL about containing the evil that ensued when Religion is brought into politics.

As for official Conservative policy: you wont' find it. Yet, just on Wednesday, two members of the Conservative party got up and stated anti-liberal sentiments about the expulsion of the church from the "public square".

I've had the displeasure of saying "Fine, let's invite God into the room, are you ready?" and then engaging in a political debate. Christian Conservatives really don't like this when I point out that they're not following in the footsteps of Jesus, and they ought to be punished, very severely, for not doing so.

There tends to be this thing with Conservatives, just in general, that it's alright for them to pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe and live by, and they feel perfectly free to pick those parts and enforce their interpretation on everybody else.

I have no problem with Christians who live their lives, in their own homes and communities like that. It's quite common in rural parts. That's great. Just don't be going out and pushing those beliefs and certainly don't be pushing their, frankly, heretical interpretations on everybody else.

This contradiction is at the heart of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Now, go ahead and tackle it, Reagan.

--------------

2.

Refer to my previous post. There's a tendency to think of the old days as being good. What they leave out are all the horrendous things we did, and ignore the progress we've made under the Charter.

These sentiments are expressed on nearly a daily basis by Conservative MPs in the House.

These sentiments are expressed on a semester basis by the Calgary School.

---------

3.

The contradiction stands.

I believe Reagan himself demonstrated this form of doublethink best.

--------

4.

It's funny, you'd think that the NDP and the Cons would have nothing in common, but when it comes to pork for the farmers, and protection of 'supply management', they're all for it.

The exeption being two or three MP's from Calgary.

-------------

5.

Seatbelt laws are still blatantly disregarded in most parts of Rural Alberta and interior BC.

It's pure hippocracy to be all about the 'law and order', like these types are, and then to turn around and break the law on a daily basis. That's all.

--------

6.

The unique thing about the few Conservative minorities they have -- they're all by and large against what has been done with the Charter.

You have a few women in the Conservative party...but they rarely advocate for women's rights.

The statement about the contradiction on Majoritarianism stands.

Resolve it Reagan, if you can. I'd like you to explain to me the Conservative position on balancing majoritarianism with minority rights, and explain why religious rights should be not be subject to majoritiarian whims while other minority rights should.

---------

7.

Calgary has good people. Not all Calgarians are conservative (a solid 40% vote for parties other than the Conservatives)

That said, communitarian values almost always cease when we're talking about social programs -- especially for the homeless. I refer you back to Myron Thompson's statements about Calgary's shelters.

His sentiment is shared by many in the party.

-----------

8.

It's interesting that Reagan didn't tackle the procreation contradiction.

Go for it.

I'd like to see you do a better job than the Calgary School, which just shouts, over and over again, that "You're just being a troublemaker!" whenever you raise the contradiction.

---------

9.

The silence of the CPC was stunning following Ander's statements on Nelson Mandella.

Both the CPC and Anders ought to be ashamed for the contradiction.

Would you not agree?

----------

10.

I refer you back to the policy convention. If you were there, you heard PLENTY of this sentiment.

Put another way, "The Honey goes to the cities, the country gets the bullplop."

Resolve the contradiction between being anti-subsidy/free-market, and pro-subsidy/protectionist.

---------------------

That said Reagan, if you don't think as many Conservatives do, with all these contradictions, say so.

Don't try to defend them. The best conservative minds have tried, and frankly they've failed, miserably. Every time they try, they just expose more and more of their mean spiritedness towards their community and fellow Canadian.

Now, anybody is perfectly free to point out NDP and Liberal contradictions, of which there are many -- but let's not excuse the Conservative contradictions merely because other parties have them. Let's tackle them head on and see what we can come up with to reject them.

And no, they're not ridiculous. Many centrists and leftists on this forum recognize the arguements and are nodding. There is truth in them.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think it is worth noting that The Terrible Sweal proclaimed that these 10 points as "An incisive, insightful summary of the degeneracy of conservative 'thinking'. Devastating in its accuracy and humor both."

I'm happy to address the points where you made a lucid counterpoint:

Argus:

Takeanumber:

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.)

IMO It's a pretty gross generalization to say that all conservatives are Christian and that they all think along the same religious lines even within the Christianity. But feel free to show me where in the CPC policy declaration it says we want to impose tithing on the people of Canada. For some reason the secular humanist left seems to think religious bigotry and stereotyping is fair play.

IMO it's a pretty lame response to resort to the 'not all' defense. It insults the voters' intelligence to suggest the connection between rightwing parties and social conservatism is in their imaginations. Where do social conservatives turn to pursue their agendas? Not the NDP, Bloc, or Liberals.

Social conservatives accurately perceive where they can be most politically effective -- in conservative parties. When those same parties try to pretend this fact is imaginary they invite the suggestion of a hidden agenda.

[kimmy]

I'm busy with other things today, but I'll pop in when I get a chance to post some thoughts. I'm sure you're all quivering with anticipation. I just mention this by way of saying that nobody should have a tantrum if I don't respond to their favorite argument right away. I'll get there, eventually, if I feel so inclined.

I'll address the Rob Anders comments first.

Rob's an idiot, quite obviously.

I was tempted to leave it at that but I'll elaborate.

Rob Anders was, technically, somewhat correct. My information seems to indicate that communist ideology was indeed a feature of the ANC's early philosophies.

And, in response to the government's crackdown on the ANC, Mandela founded the

"Umkhonto we Sizwe", or MK, which was an armed, paramilitary group that attacked targets within the country. One can certainly argue that their actions were justified by government oppression, and further justified as a response to the Sharpeville massacre. Morally I have no problem at all with taking up arms in a situation like that. But terrorism sounds like an accurate description, from an objective, technical standpoint. Perhaps it's the moral shading of the term that's uncomfortable here: people we *don't* like are "terrorists", people we *do* like are "freedom-fighters". Uprisings we *don't* like are "revolts" or "insurgencies", uprisings we *do* like are "revolutions".

At any rate, what makes Rob Anders in this instance is not that he was wrong, but that he thought it would be a good idea to talk smack about an internationally revered human rights figure. There are other incidents where Rob Anders proves he's an idiot as well, they seem to occur on occasions when he opens his mouth.

My research of the incident indicates it occured when John McCallum introduced one of those fuzzy-wuzzy motions to declare Mandela an "honorary Canadian" or something like that. Anders' objection denied the motion a unanimous approval. The motive was to spite the Liberals, after the Liberals had denied the official opposition the chance to participate in a celebration of the Queen's 50th wedding anniversary. Anders was playing tit-for-tat politics; he chose an extremely poor issue to do so.

Why didn't the Alliance censure him? well, they did. According to Don Martin and the "vote out Rob Anders" website, he was muzzled by the party. Why didn't they publicly rebuke him? Well, I found a quote from Chuck Strahl criticizing Anders; I'm sure there were others. But mostly, I think it boils down to the same reason Harper was restrained in his comments about Cheryl Gallant during the election. He has to walk a line between giving his MPs the freedom to speak, and the need to present the party in a positive way. Sometimes those goals are at cross-purposes.

Why is it that when Rob Anders says something dumb, he's assumed to be voicing the unspoken opinions of the whole party... but when Hedy Fry says something even stupider, she's ... uh, well, ... what was it, again? It couldn't have been that she was just a rogue element or something, because she was a long-standing cabinet minister. Perhaps it was that she was just off her medication or something; Chretien didn't feel her comments were of importance, and if I recall correctly didn't even remove her from Cabinet.

-k

[willy]

You know, it's interesting that you keep on refering back to official CPC policy, but you know, an awful lot about what a party does has nothing to do with the policy in its book, but rather, the nature of its people.

And in light of the Liberal scandal, I'm sure you'd agree with that statement.

I will take exception to that. The CPC party has a much stronger link between policy and action. The Reform genesis of the constitution is what changed this party and is the key difference to the old PCs.

The tired old Liberals I do agree don't care what their members say they stand for.

takeanumber, don't confuse the provincial PC's with the federal CPC. Have a look at the constitution of each and you will see some subtle but significant differences. Governance structure may glaze the eyes of most people but as the Canadian Constitution has impacted us as a country so do party constitutions.

[I miss Reagan]

You know, it's interesting that you keep on refering back to official CPC policy, but you know, an awful lot about what a party does has nothing to do with the policy in its book, but rather, the nature of its people.

I know I'm responding to your appeals to common liberal stereotypes and your contrary to fact hypothesis. It'd be good for you to at least try to back up your nonsensical rantings with some sort of facts.

1. Christian God. The party is still dominated by Christians, and it is out of respect to the Mormons that I refer to their God as being 'Christian', although my grandparents would be spinning in their graves.

Now so what? The NDP and Libs are also dominated by Christians as well. However: here's the important difference: the NDP and Libs don't try to shove their religion down everybody's throat.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Is it that you decide who can be called a Christian and who can not. That's pretty phairisaical if you ask me. And what do the Mormons have to do with the price of rice in Seattle?

The Cons...well, we all know what they were doing down at the Republican Convention. It's not a conspiracy. It's the belief that religion has a role to play in public policy debates, which, by definition, is anti-classical-liberal. Disagree? Go back and read the original works on liberalism. It's ALL about containing the evil that ensued when Religion is brought into politics.

Now we're affirming the consequent are we? If the Cons are down at the GOP convention, and the GOP have a lot of Christians in the party who arguably want to limit separation of church and state... then the Cons are down there because they want to limit the separation of church and state in Canada. WTF?

As for official Conservative policy: you wont' find it. Yet, just on Wednesday, two members of the Conservative party got up and stated anti-liberal sentiments about the expulsion of the church from the "public square".

So where do you draw the line? Are you going to take the word 'God' out of the National Anthem? Are you going to make Siehks take off their turbans as RCMP officers because they are employed by the state? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to but should churches have the same rights as everyone else?

I've had the displeasure of saying "Fine, let's invite God into the room, are you ready?" and then engaging in a political debate. Christian Conservatives really don't like this when I point out that they're not following in the footsteps of Jesus, and they ought to be punished, very severely, for not doing so.

That's pretty arrogant of you. Do also tell Budhists that they're not following Budda and tell them that they ought to be reincarnated as slugs?

You know I hate to nit-pick at the fallacies because political discussions usually inadvertently involve this sort of thing. But I can't help it when someone seems to be purposely engaging in overtly eristic argumentation. You make such vague and provincial generalizations that are impossible to prove. And the petty arguments like "conservatives don't where seatbelts, there for they are hypocritical about law and order". Here's some advice. Take a look a Kimmy's most recent post on Rob Anders. She makes a clear and consise argument and backs it up with specific information. Try following her lead.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

I'll address the Rob Anders comments first.

Rob's an idiot, quite obviously.

Huzzah and Bravo! Careful, though, I was taken to task by the moderator for referring to Anders as 'a moron'. What's worse, I am seriously thinking of voting conservative but Anders is the rep for where I live! Bah! I can't win for losing! Not only is there no viable candidate in my area, I get to find Anders' anti-gay, pro-religious propaganda in my mailbox!

I, myself, am a secular, open-minded, left-wing conservative, so it is tough to find any decent people in our political system. The best and smartest people I know are too smart to go into politics. It seems a haven for retired lawyers and mafia-don wannabes.

The House of Commons should hang a sign out front.."Wanted:Politicians. Weasels only need apply."

[I miss Reagan]

Abe did not fight a war to eliminate slavery. Abe, from his own mouth, did not oppose slavery. The American Civil War was about the three SSSs. Secession, States Rights, and Slavery with slavery third. Slavery came into it as a convenient tool, like WMD, for the majority side which did not have the "benefits" of slavery.

Honest Abe didn't oppose slavery? "from his own mouth": "We have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. The Republican Party think it wrong - we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We think it is wrong not confining itself merely to the persons of the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong which in its tendency, to say the least, affects the existence of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, insofar as we can prevent it growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it."

Anyway I had no intention of debating the complexities of the US civil war but I think we can all agree that the issue of slavery played a major role in the conflict.

The "Liberal tradition of excessive taxation" seems to have brought Canada one of the lowest taxation levels in the industrialized world. The Conservative tradition, as exemplified by the last Conservative administration, brought us a doubling of the deficit which this Liberal administration has had to deal with while reducing taxes.

I would like to know where you are getting this from and who you are comparing us to?

Diversity to you, seems to be only a matter of skin colour. I think you should look a little closer at the makeup of political parties. Pointing to a few from very conservative cukltures as an example of tolerance and diversity is a little weak.

Ah, so diversity only includes those who are not from conservative cultures. Hmmm So I guess we can exclude Africans, Asians... Sounds pretty typical of the liberal mentality of: tolerance only if we agree them.

Perhaps Calgarians volunteer more at food banks because it is there that the greatest need for food banks arise. Perhaps to assuage the collective conscience. The first food banks appeared in Alberta as the "Conservative" regimes abdicated their responsibility to protect the people.

Is this an admission that perhaps we can trust the good nature of people rather than have a government nanny state?

You may have been in South Africa and seen what you want to see. Did you, by chance, go to one of the beaches where ir costs to get into the better part? Did you see that all the users where white because they could afford it?

Mandela may be trying very hard - he is, but aprtheid is only dead in a legal sense.

Honestly I have never been to a beach where I've had to pay to get in. I never have really heard of them. If you say they are there I can understand why. Violent crime is so rampant you need security everywhere you go. My good friend who lives in Cape Town had his ass kicked and his arm broken by some criminal on the beach. The beaches I went to I had to pay someone to watch my car. I was threatened with violence at one beach though. Elsewhere I was robbed and another time some guy tried to car jack me. We should start another thread on the state of South Africa. How extreme affirmative action is chasing all the money makers out of the country. How Mandella's ANC refuses to punish violent crime. How the victims of violent crime have no rights. How the borders are basically open to violent criminals streaming down from places like Nigeria. I could post the emails I get from another S. African friend about violent baby rapes and murders that happen daily.

[Guest eureka]

You might read Lincoln's correspondence not his speeches. Certainly slavery played a significant role but it was a convenient afterthought for many in the Union.

For taxation, I am comparing Canada to every country in OECD as I have posted over and over without ever getting it into the skull of a "Right Winger." It happens to be a fact that has appeared in countless business articles for several years now.

I have also posted that the total of all taxes in Canada amounts to 36% of GDP whereas it is 30% in the US. The difference is largely covered by our healthcare system.

Diversity includes people of all cultures as I said and implied which is not what you try to impute to me. It is not the parading of a few coloured people and boasting of that as an open, inclusive attitude that is so clearly lacking in representation.

Obviously, volunteering at food banks is not an indication that "we can trust the good nature of people." It is a demonstration of the worst aspects of the neoCon regimes. The greater need in Calgary came through the early and more extreme of the assault on the poor by the Conservative governments there.

perhaps we should not bring Mandela into this but the South African beach (and park) comment is factual.

[cybercoma]

This entire thread from top to bottom has ridiculous written all over it. It's the same old tired fight of Liberals accusing Conservatives of being some heinous evil machine, hell-bent on destroying the country. This is complete idiocy, not even worth the bandwidth used to view it.

[The Terrible Sweal]

This entire thread from top to bottom has ridiculous written all over it.  It's the same old tired fight of Liberals accusing Conservatives of being some heinous evil machine, hell-bent on destroying the country.  This is complete idiocy, not even worth the bandwidth used to view it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YAWN!

Someday maybe you right wingers will learn that vapid dismissals do not amount to valid rebutals.

[Pateris]

Sweal,

I wish you left wing pinkos would stop completely distorting the views of the Conservative Party in an attempt to scare people into voting for a party bereft of a vision for this country.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal,

I wish you left wing pinkos ...

I'm not left wing, I'm a classical liberal.

... would stop completely distorting the views of the Conservative Party ...

When I discuss the Conservative Party, I present it as accurately as possible. The CPC IS the party of the religous right, if any one is. The CPC IS the party that favors provincial power over federal power. The CPC IS the party most likely to cut people loose from social support. It IS the party which would be coziest with the lunatic Bush regime. None of these points is a distortion.

...in an attempt to scare people into voting for a party bereft of a vision for this country.

Instead of a party with a vision noone in their right mind wants?

[Guest eureka]

Of course the "Conservatives are "hell-bent" on destroying the country. Is their whole platform - if such a word can be used for rotten wood - not to remake the country in a different mold?

How can they do that without destroying what we now have? Will it never get through to you who call youeselves conservatives that this party is the furhest thing from conservatism that Canada has ever seen? They are a motley collection of radicals with only a common interest in overturning our institutions.

I have no particular objection to Right Wingers - after all, we can't all have intelligence and wisdom - but I do prefer them to be conservative.

[Guest eureka]

Of course the "Conservatives are "hell-bent" on destroying the country. Is their whole platform - if such a word can be used for rotten wood - not to remake the country in a different mold?

How can they do that without destroying what we now have? Will it never get through to you who call youeselves conservatives that this party is the farthest thing from conservatism that Canada has ever seen? They are a motley collection of radicals with only a common interest in overturning our institutions.

I have no particular objection to Right Wingers - after all, we can't all have intelligence and wisdom - but I do prefer them to be conservative.

[I miss Reagan]

This entire thread from top to bottom has ridiculous written all over it. It's the same old tired fight of Liberals accusing Conservatives of being some heinous evil machine, hell-bent on destroying the country. This is complete idiocy, not even worth the bandwidth used to view it.

Yes I know. It's my fault. I guess I was bored, sometimes it's just too hard to ignore the buffoonery .

[takeanumber]

I can see that the substance of what I said hasn't been attacked too much, rather, assumtions have been made about myself being a pinko, blah blah blah.

And then we just head right into name calling. Fabulous.

I'll address two salient points:

1. Anders:

Such a spirited defense of Anders, and a wonderful rejection of the 'quality of character' arguement.

For me, policies are temporal. Policies are important, and party policy is quite important. But things happen, and policies have to change.

The character of the people in office matter.

That's a normative statement to be sure. Go ahead and refute it.

I think character matters.

The way that Anders was dealt with, and moreover, the justification in calling Mandella a terrorist because he's a communist (?), well -- you'll just have to live with that.

What kind of man denegrates a hero out of tit-for-tat politics?

What kind of people, in a party, stand by a man who does that?

As for the Liberals, they certainly tossed and distanced themselves from Hedy Fry, very quickly. Sure, it was a little bit slow, that goes to show their character. We're not talking about Liberal character are we now?

So yeah, character is lacking in the Conservative party.

The overarching character is meanness and double standardness.

I've stated a number of double standards with respect to the role of religion, traditions, rule of law, economics, social justice, and communitarianism.

The fact that nobody from the right wing on this board have attempted to resolve the contradictions just shows me that they can't...and so they do the conservative thing:

deny deny deny, denegrate denegrate, denegrate.

Same old, same old.

[I miss Reagan]

What a load of dung. I feel like I'm being trolled, oh well.

(edited)

What kind of man denegrates a hero out of tit-for-tat politics?

I don't know, maybe somebody should ask Mandella why he denegrated my hero by calling him a racist. (hint, my heros have always been cowboys )

What kind of people, in a party, stand by a man who does that?

The kind of party that supports free speech and the right to express one's opinion. The kind of party that wants to change this elected dictatorship.

The overarching character is meanness and double standardness.

... Edited May 12, 2005 by I miss Reagan

[takeanumber]

Reagan: perhaps you could answer the points without the personal attacks.

I don't attack you personally.

Thanks.

[I miss Reagan]

Reagan:  perhaps you could answer the points without the personal attacks.

I don't attack you personally.

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I honestly don't think I've been attacking you personally rather than your opinions. If I have been too harsh it's been response to the sweeping generalizations you have put forward which falsly claim my party has some hidden agenda of bigotry among other absurd claims. Point out any personal insults that offend you and I'll remove them.

[takeanumber]

  What a load of dung. I feel like I'm being trolled, oh well.

QUOTE

I think character matters.

LOL. Really, is this why you vote Liberal?

..

QUOTE

denegrate denegrate, denegrate

Don't look now, but isn't that exactly what you've been doing... huh.gif

You don't know who I vote for, and you clearly meant that as an insult.

I have never denegrated you.

You're free to attack my opinions: in fact I prefer it.

I'd really prefer it if people on these boards would attack the content of the statements as opposed to blanket dismissals of the entire statement merely because you don't like how they read. That goes for the right, left, and centre.

------------

Reagan: Does character matter?

Resolve the inherent tension between the conservative desire to impose their religion/morality/traditions on everybody else, and the opposite conservative desire to free everybody from regulation. That is, the conservative double standard of simultaneous social regulation and economic deregulation.

Then resolve the inherent contradiction in economic deregulation between urban and rural, in that rural areas are to get more pork, whereas the urban areas will continue to get screwed.

Then I want you to resolve the most tricky of the contradictions: the simultaneous upholding and denegration of communitarian values, and the simultaneous upholding and denegration of the supremacy of the individual.

If you need specific examples of these contradictions in action, I'm more than happy to provide them to you, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Finally, does Character matter?

Cheers Reagan.

[I miss Reagan]

Done.

Although I do think you are "denigrating" conservatives and thought you were defending the Liberals.

[takeanumber]

I'm pointing out the double standards in conservative thought...and I'm very serious about the double standards.

It is perfectly possible to be against both the Liberal and Conservative parties. Being critical of conservative thought by no means implies that one is a Liberal.

Takers?

[Pateris]

take a number,

I agree on the dichotomy of some Conservatives wanting to free people from regulation while others want to impose morality. But these are not necessarily the same people.

Just like not all Liberals are crooks, not all Conservatives are social conservative, religious (let alone christian).

To me the big difference between the political parties in Canada is:

Conservative: Small Government - trust people to make their own decisions, help those who REALLY need help.

Liberal: Big Government - trust bureaucrats to make many decisions, limit choices of the individual, try to help as many people as you can even if it doesn't make sense

NDP: Huge Government - trust bureaucrats to make ALL decisions for people, help EVERYONE, make everyone the same.

Admittedly, there are nuts in the Conservative Party (like Rob Anders - he's just an idiot). But hey - the Liberals had Carolyn Parrish and still have Hedy Fry. And The NDP has Jack Layton