If the Liberals win the next Election...

[I miss Reagan]

I live in big city Alberta, and I've dealt with years of Conservative Arrogance.

I think we're seeing a little bit of a pattern here on Maple Leaf Web. I bunch of bitter liberal Albertans coming here to spew. We have you, Black Dog, Sweal. Any other lefties willing to admit they're Albertan. I love you guys!

Urban issues have been systematicaly neglected by the Conservative government.

Just as I suspected, it's you guys who keep voting in our liberal, tax and spend mayor and city council. :angry:

I'm a pretty right wing person compared to people out East, and I don't want what you want....the domination of Canada by the Rural Alberta special interest.

I just love it when you make comments like this. What was the last one... something like "I'm pretty moderate"?. Just like Ceasar, "I'm a centerist".

Hey did I ever tell you how moderate I am? In fact I can't decide whether to join the libs or the cons. (I do like PM He's like an evil version of Bob Newhart, except fatter.)

Liberals are mocked in Alberta -- and systematically so.

No I wouldn't say mocked, I'd say hated. Being a Liberal in the maritimes, is pretty understandible. But a Liberal in Alberta.... it's like the ultimate treason. It's like siding with the enemy, an enemy who wants to destroy Alberta.

I'm a Canadian First. My family has fought for this country. I will continue to put country ahead of province.

This kind of reminds me of the Fifth Estate interview of Stuart Smally where he tears up and says "I've done 5 USO tours".

[takeanumber]

But a Liberal in Alberta.... it's like the ultimate treason. It's like siding with the enemy, an enemy who wants to destroy Alberta.

Wow.

So you were trying to disprove my point about being mocked, and go onto say that we're 'enemies'.

Whew.

So what should be done to Liberals/Greens/NDP'ers in Alberta if they're enemies? What would you have done with us?

Just as I suspected, it's you guys who keep voting in our liberal, tax and spend mayor and city council. mad.gif

City councils in both cities behave more like conservatives.

UOTE

I'm a Canadian First. My family has fought for this country. I will continue to put country ahead of province.

This kind of reminds me of the Fifth Estate interview of Stuart Smally where he tears up and says "I've done 5 USO tours".

Wow, a slur against my family.

----------

Hmmmmm, with attitudes like those, you wonder why 70% of the population doesn't want to vote for you?

[I miss Reagan]

Takeanumber, you are the quintessential Liberal. Attack then run and garner sympathy by making yourself out to be the victim. The complete distortion, and equivocation, of the meaning of the other side's arguments fits perfectly as well.

[takeanumber]

Takeanumber, you are the quintessential Liberal. Attack then run and garner sympathy by making yourself out to be the victim. The complete distortion, and equivocation, of the meaning of the other side's arguments fits perfectly as well.

I quote you directly.

How is that possibly a distortion.

Moreover, I never said that I'm a victim, I'm merely pointing out whenever you demean myself or my family.

And I'll continue to do so.

It serves as a demonstration that whenever you can't grapple with the points that I make, you resort to personal smearing.

In light of what Ablonzy et al have been up to, it's very typical.

That said, I noticed you didn't address anything I had written.

So tell me, what should be done with us 'enemies'.

[I miss Reagan]

*yawn*

[Black Dog]

I think we're seeing a little bit of a pattern here on Maple Leaf Web. I bunch of bitter liberal Albertans coming here to spew. We have you, Black Dog, Sweal. Any other lefties willing to admit they're Albertan. I love you guys!

First, I've been posting here longer than you, kid.

Second: am i bitter? Cynical, totally, but bitter? Naw. I'm used to the hypocrisy of "conservatives" who piss and moan aboyut how badly the West gets screwed by those "eastern bastards" without even noticing how their own homegrown oligarchy sticks it to them over and over again.that's the really hilarious thing: there's an implicit assumption that a independant Alberta would be free of the corruption and arrogance indemic in Ottawa: but even a coursory look at the history of Alberta politics shows that this province constitently produces leaders that make some of the federal crooks look like pikers.

If my fellow Albertans devoted a quarter of their energy towards keeping the bloated, complacant and arrogant provincial government on its toes that they do to tilting at eastern windmills, we'd probably all be better off.

Just as I suspected, it's you guys who keep voting in our liberal, tax and spend mayor and city council

Yeah, we're also going around at night with jackhammers to make potholes. Boo yah.

[I miss Reagan]

First, I've been posting here longer than you, kid.

*ouch* no need to get patronizing

I'm used to the hypocrisy of "conservatives" who piss and moan aboyut how badly the West gets screwed by those "eastern bastards" without even noticing how their own homegrown oligarchy sticks it to them over and over again.that's the really hilarious thing: there's an implicit assumption that a independant Alberta would be free of the corruption and arrogance indemic in Ottawa

No I think, those who are into politics realize that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and that government will always include corruption. I think we in the West just want a fair say in how much corruption we will tolerate. Right now we really have no say. Confederation does not work.

but even a coursory look at the history of Alberta politics shows that this province constitently produces leaders that make some of the federal crooks look like pikers.

Hyperbole, Give me a break.

[takeanumber]

Reagan: You still havn't addressed my points, you merely 'yawned'.

So, are we to conclude that you can't confront them?

Right now we really have no say. Confederation does not work.

You have a say. You have 99 seats. You have 30% support roughly, you have 30% of the seats.

Are you asking for more than your fair share?

I thought that was the Right's principled arguement against the Left...

[Black Dog]

No I think, those who are into politics realize that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and that government will always include corruption. I think we in the West just want a fair say in how much corruption we will tolerate. Right now we really have no say. Confederation does not work

Well, i at least applaud your honesty and realism, but I hope you realize how much "we in the West just want a fair say in how much corruption we will tolerate" sounds like "we really want to get ours".

[The Terrible Sweal]

I live in big city Alberta, and I've dealt with years of Conservative Arrogance.

I think we're seeing a little bit of a pattern here on Maple Leaf Web. I bunch of bitter liberal Albertans coming here to spew. We have you, Black Dog, Sweal. Any other lefties willing to admit they're Albertan. I love you guys!

Um, just fyi... I'm not bitter, I'm not Albertan, and I'm not leftist (I'm a classical liberal).

[I miss Reagan]

Um, just fyi... I'm not bitter, I'm not Albertan, and I'm not leftist (I'm a classical liberal).

Oh you're an eastern transplant, even worse . Sweal honestly, how are you a classical liberal? Personally I agree with the following definition:

"Classical liberalism has been so thoroughly defeated by modern liberalism's statism and its coercive homogenization of cultural life that even its name has been appropriated. "Liberal" once referred to a political tradition that honored individual liberty and a cultural ethos that allowed for the best that is known and thought to emerge from the free exchange of ideas. That kind of liberalism is today judged to be a marginal counterculture, especially in elite circles. Thus classical liberals -now know as conservatives - face an uphill battle in their struggle to preserve what is best in our inheritance."

Is your problem with the CPC that you feel they infringe on individual liberty with the views on SSmarriage, and abortion etc.? Honestly, I'm curious Sweal.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Um, just fyi... I'm not bitter, I'm not Albertan, and I'm not leftist (I'm a classical liberal).

Oh you're an eastern transplant, even worse .

I don't live in Alberta.

Sweal honestly, how are you a classical liberal?

Honestly, how am I not?

Personally I agree with the following definition:

"Classical liberalism has been so thoroughly defeated by modern liberalism's statism and its coercive homogenization of cultural life that even its name has been appropriated.

That's a highly digressive and value-laden way to begin a 'definition'. BTW, it is important to remember that the opponents of liberalism are the ones who tagged it's name on the wrong group. It was a very successful bit of spin-doctoring.

"Liberal" once referred to a political tradition that honored individual liberty and a cultural ethos that allowed for the best that is known and thought to emerge from the free exchange of ideas.

Substantially, yes.

That kind of liberalism is today judged to be a marginal counterculture, especially in elite circles.

!!! Marginal counterculture!?!? No. It forms the premises of our western societies.

Thus classical liberals -now know as conservatives

Only so known to the ignorant.

Is your problem with the CPC that you feel they infringe on individual liberty with the views on SSmarriage, and abortion etc.?  Honestly, I'm curious Sweal.

I answered you last time you asked this, I think. Please see the 'Paul Martin THE Monster?" thread here.

[I miss Reagan]

I don't live in Alberta.

Sorry Sweal, I thought you said you lived in Rob Anders' riding. My mistake.

I answered you last time you asked this, I think. Please see the 'Paul Martin THE Monster?" thread here.

Sorry again, I missed that. Interesting thanks.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't live in Alberta.

Sorry Sweal, I thought you said you lived in Rob Anders' riding. My mistake.

I answered you last time you asked this, I think. Please see the 'Paul Martin THE Monster?" thread here.

Sorry again, I missed that. Interesting thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cheers. If you want to discuss classical liberalism some more, well, you know where to find me.

[takeanumber]

Oh you're an eastern transplant, even worse biggrin.gif

Speaks for itself.

----

Classical liberals cannot crawl into bed with the Conservative party because the Conservative Party is not a classical liberal party.

As I have argued elsewhere, the Conservative party embodies anti-liberal policies and attitudes on abortion, marriage, women, equality, communitarian values and worse -- economics.

To summarize why this is the case:

1. Abortion

Classical liberal: Although I have personal feelings about the choice to have an abortion, one must respect the right of the individual to decide for themselves, and provide equal opportunity and access to the said services regarding that choice.

Conservative Party: We don't respect the right of a woman to choose, and though we dont' have it in our platform, that's not to prevent a private members' bill followed by a free vote to deprive women of that choice. Focus on the Family, dammit.

2. Marriage

Classical liberal: If two men or two women want to get married and have children, that is their choice. Children benefit, the community benefits, and the rights of the individual is respected. If churches want no part of it, they are free to have no part of it, however, the church has no role in the public policy debate (true classical liberalism.)

Conservative: We really don't believe in homosexuality and we're going to go all out to ensure that their relationships are not sanctioned by society. Because we believe in this view, we believe that the souls of children are harmed by such families (religious arguement). We have the right to force our religious beliefs on everybody else.

3. Women

Classical liberal: Women have the right to equality in the workplace and in society.

Conservative: Women's traditional role is in the household, and much of society's ills derive from the deterioraton of these 'traditional family values'.

4. Equality

classical liberal: Everybody has the right to equal treatment by public institutions. Society benefits from the equality of opportunity and the supremacy of meritocracy over aristocracy.

Conservative: We have gone too far in pushing 'equal rights' in this country. Aristocracy isn't so bad...why shouldn't we have the right to preserve our rightly place at the top of society for our children?

5. Communitarian Values

classical liberal: Everybody has the freedom to participate in their communities.

Conservative: Only like-people should reside in specific communities...if you don't fit in...get out. (This is exemplefied by how the homeless are treated in urban areas, and how people who don't go to church are treated in rural alberta). Moreover, if you're handicapped...stay home and be happy with the 700 bux a month we give you.

6. Economics

classical liberal: Laissez-faire dominant, minor government intervention.

Conservative: Laissez-faire dominant: with the exception of subsidies for:

Farmers (BSE, Wheat, Oats, Millet, any other grain, Pork, Chicken, Alpaca, goat and milk)

Auto Industry (What's good for the auto industry is good for ontario)

Banks

Friends of Klein, Harris. (Gotta hand out the pork).

Friends of Harper, supporters of the Calgary School (Should they win.)

Energy (ie. Oil) companies.

Rural Postal Service

Rural Telephone Service

Rural Electricity Service

Rural Roads

Rural Internet Service

----------

The Conservative Party of Canada is not a Classical Liberal party.

[Hawk]

You basically played every stereotype about Conservatives, it makes me wonder what exactly you are trying to prove? Nothing you have said is factual, in fact I would say most of it is partisan BS

1.  Abortion

Classical liberal:  Although I have personal feelings about the choice to have an abortion, one must respect the right of the individual to decide for themselves, and provide equal opportunity and access to the said services regarding that choice.

Conservative Party:  We don't respect the right of a woman to choose, and though we dont' have it in our platform, that's not to prevent a private members' bill followed by a free vote to deprive women of that choice.  Focus on the Family, dammit.

I wont even touch this one, thanks for putting words in my mouth though... had trouble doing it myself =p

2. Marriage

Classical liberal:  If two men or two women want to get married and have children, that is their choice.  Children benefit, the community benefits, and the rights of the individual is respected.  If churches want no part of it, they are free to have no part of it, however, the church has no role in the public policy debate (true classical liberalism.)

Conservative:  We really don't believe in homosexuality and we're going to go all out to ensure that their relationships are not sanctioned by society.  Because we believe in this view, we believe that the souls of children are harmed by such families (religious arguement).  We have the right to force our religious beliefs on everybody else.

Hmmm, interesting... so what about people that ARENT religious that dont support homosexual marriage? I guess they just couldn't exist since it is only religion that has a problem with them right?... LoL

Oh yeah, and what about civil unions? Or didn't you know that most conservatives aren't opposed to them? Of course you knew that, I mean it is obvious in your extremely well-thought-out post.

3.  Women

Classical liberal:  Women have the right to equality in the workplace and in society.

Conservative:  Women's traditional role is in the household, and much of society's ills derive from the deterioraton of these 'traditional family values'.

Yet more wisdom from the all-knowing left, I guess a housewife is less than dirt in your eyes then? What if the woman chooses to work at home? Is that not her own choice? Why are you forcing women into the workforce, isn't that for woman's rights what affirmative action was for racism?

Also I dont understand where you are getting the deterioration of 'traditional family values' coming from women rights being a concern for conservatives, since some of the staunchest (and knowledgable) supporters of Conservatism are women themselves =p

4.  Equality

classical liberal:  Everybody has the right to equal treatment by public institutions.  Society benefits from the equality of opportunity and the supremacy of meritocracy over aristocracy.

Conservative:  We have gone too far in pushing 'equal rights' in this country.  Aristocracy isn't so bad...why shouldn't we have the right to preserve our rightly place at the top of society for our children?

Public institutes and level playing field for all people? Sure why not.

Special rights, legalities, and exemptions? Not a chance, that isn't equality.

You are mixing up preferential treatment with equality. Conservatives are all for equality, we just aren't for pampering and crippling minorities.

5.  Communitarian Values

classical liberal:  Everybody has the freedom to participate in their communities.

Conservative:  Only like-people should reside in specific communities...if you don't fit in...get out.  (This is exemplefied by how the homeless are treated in urban areas, and how people who don't go to church are treated in rural alberta).  Moreover, if you're handicapped...stay home and be happy with the 700 bux a month we give you.

90% of my best friends don't go to church, and I do. Redneck Yokel (poster on this site) is one of them, and he is a Buddhist Conservative. Try again sherlock.

Not to mention we both live in a Mormon town, and our circles of friends contain almost every religion on earth (including Islam, I work with immigrants from Iran and Afghanistan regularly)

As for AISH and the other welfare you are complaining about, start looking into who actually claims it and you will find most of them aren't really handicapped at all =p I know 3 families personally who are on AISH and one is a second generation AISH family (parents lived on it and passed on the 'heritage' to their children). Nobody in their families are disabled.

6.  Economics

classical liberal:  Laissez-faire dominant, minor government intervention.

Conservative:  Laissez-faire dominant:  with the exception of subsidies for:

Farmers (BSE, Wheat, Oats, Millet, any other grain, Pork, Chicken, Alpaca, goat and milk)

Auto Industry (What's good for the auto industry is good for ontario)

Banks

Friends of Klein, Harris.  (Gotta hand out the pork).

Friends of Harper, supporters of the Calgary School (Should they win.)

Energy (ie. Oil) companies.

Rural Postal Service

Rural Telephone Service

Rural Electricity Service

Rural Roads

Rural Internet Service

----------

The Conservative Party of Canada is not a Classical Liberal party.

Whats wrong with supporting Farmers? or maintaining Rural servers and roads? Isn't that what the government is supposed to do? Oh yeah, and helping oil development, wow that is just stupid man... I mean, heck, you guys thought it was dumb a few decades ago, it totally didn't pay off though... I mean, its not like we are debt-free now or anything =p

As for the Liberals winning the next election, I am disgusted enough that they weren't overthrown with the budget. I personally hope the Liberals win the next election so Albertans will suddenly realize the East (at least the socialist Easterners) doesn't care about the country at all and would rather have a proven corrupt government in power rather than one supported by the West. I think its a good time for a revolution =)

In closing, the act of 'voting for the monster you know' is worse than not voting at all.

[fellowtraveller]

Post #40 is complete and utter crap, if it is referring to the Conservative Party platform. It's OK Sparky, hold off on the fear - mongering for now...... the time will come.....

If the author is referring to small-c conservatism: who cares, as there is no mainstream political party in Canada that promotes any of that.

Abortion for example.... Martin and Harper have exactly the same comments and attitudes privately and publicly. Privately and personally, both have indicated that they are opposed to abortion. Publicly ans as a matter of Liberal /Conservative party policy, both have repeatedly said that they have NO intention of introducing any legislation on abortion. Canada has no abortion laws, and that won't change no matter who governs.

[takeanumber]

That's the reaction I was looking for! Finally some vinegar!!!

You basically played every stereotype about Conservatives, it makes me wonder what exactly you are trying to prove? Nothing you have said is factual, in fact I would say most of it is partisan BS

Well, it's hardly a stereotype, I've been in the orbit of Calgary School for the better part of a decade now, I know how the elites of the party think. It's hardly a stereotype...I know Conservative thought...I know how many of you REALLY think because I've had the time and experience in pealing away the political correctness, that's all.

I'm not really trying to prove anything.

I think many things I'm saying is in fact factual, and I think they resonate with many people on this board. I know this because moderates and classical liberals here support most of my assertions, and moreover, Conservatives often retort with personal attacks, swearing, and smears -- and so, you know when you start getting called names, you're hitting a nerve that's awfully close to the truth.

That said, let's review.

---------

QUOTE(takeanumber @ May 20 2005, 02:16 PM)

1.  Abortion

Classical liberal:  Although I have personal feelings about the choice to have an abortion, one must respect the right of the individual to decide for themselves, and provide equal opportunity and access to the said services regarding that choice.

Conservative Party:  We don't respect the right of a woman to choose, and though we dont' have it in our platform, that's not to prevent a private members' bill followed by a free vote to deprive women of that choice.  Focus on the Family, dammit.

I wont even touch this one, thanks for putting words in my mouth though... had trouble doing it myself =p

Yeah, I caught the Cons on this one a few months ago. They can't prevent a private members bill, and their party philosophy demands a free vote...so, you know, the right to choose is at risk, by implication of party logic.

QUOTE(takeanumber @ May 20 2005, 02:16 PM)

2. Marriage

Classical liberal:  If two men or two women want to get married and have children, that is their choice.  Children benefit, the community benefits, and the rights of the individual is respected.  If churches want no part of it, they are free to have no part of it, however, the church has no role in the public policy debate (true classical liberalism.)

Conservative:  We really don't believe in homosexuality and we're going to go all out to ensure that their relationships are not sanctioned by society.  Because we believe in this view, we believe that the souls of children are harmed by such families (religious arguement).  We have the right to force our religious beliefs on everybody else.

Hmmm, interesting... so what about people that ARENT religious that dont support homosexual marriage? I guess they just couldn't exist since it is only religion that has a problem with them right?... LoL

Oh yeah, and what about civil unions? Or didn't you know that most conservatives aren't opposed to them? Of course you knew that, I mean it is obvious in your extremely well-thought-out post.

Sure, plenty of people who arn't religious hate homosexuals.

As for civil unions, it's just another way to be seen to be moderate, but to create a seperate but equal institution.

It's called segregation, and it was tried in the Southern United States before it was ruled that 'seperate but equal' is not equal...that by the sheer fact of being seperate, it isn't equal.

It's the same logic here (not the same scale of attrocity).

You propose that you're being generous by saying, "fine, we'll keep the word 'marriage' for ourselves, but since we don't like you/agree with your lifestyle, we're going to create a SEPERATE institution.

Well then, if you have no problem with homosexuals, then why not grant them equality?

How is giving them the right to equal marriage, actual marriage, wrong?

The reality is, you trick yourself into believing seperate is equal. It isn't.

You should try to resolve this contradiction for yourself.

If you truly dont' have a problem with homosexuals, then you should have no problem giving them equality.

If you have no problem with equality, you should have no problem with equal marriage.

QUOTE(takeanumber @ May 20 2005, 02:16 PM)

3.  Women

Classical liberal:  Women have the right to equality in the workplace and in society.

Conservative:  Women's traditional role is in the household, and much of society's ills derive from the deterioraton of these 'traditional family values'.

Yet more wisdom from the all-knowing left, I guess a housewife is less than dirt in your eyes then? What if the woman chooses to work at home? Is that not her own choice? Why are you forcing women into the workforce, isn't that for woman's rights what affirmative action was for racism?

Also I dont understand where you are getting the deterioration of 'traditional family values' coming from women rights being a concern for conservatives, since some of the staunchest (and knowledgable) supporters of Conservatism are women themselves =p

Good for you, you understand the difference between old anti-liberalism and new anti-liberalism.

I'm impressed. (really, no sarcasm here. You're the first con on this board to understand the distinction.)

As a small 'l' liberal, I am stronly opposed to new anti-liberalism, that is, the creation of new inequality: ie. affirmative action. I believe in equalizing the playing field at birth and strong anti-racism laws...protections, not props.

However, I have seen evidence that in the new conservative party, there is a strong tendency to confuse real liberalism (true equality) with new anti-liberalism, and as such, they become old anti-liberals, that is, defenders of OLD bigotry.

This includes denying sihks the right to wear a turban with their RCMP uniform, and being anti-pay equity.

As a small l liberal, I believe that if a woman wants to stay at home, she should be afforded the respect and opportunity for doing that. I do not believe however in Conservative policies that would see incentives for women to stay at home. (Ie. I, as a tax payer, do not want to pay you so that your wife can stay at home.)

There should an equalization of opportunity there.

Glad that you realize and understand the difference.

QUOTE(takeanumber @ May 20 2005, 02:16 PM)

5.  Communitarian Values

classical liberal:  Everybody has the freedom to participate in their communities.

Conservative:  Only like-people should reside in specific communities...if you don't fit in...get out.  (This is exemplefied by how the homeless are treated in urban areas, and how people who don't go to church are treated in rural alberta).  Moreover, if you're handicapped...stay home and be happy with the 700 bux a month we give you.

90% of my best friends don't go to church, and I do. Redneck Yokel (poster on this site) is one of them, and he is a Buddhist Conservative. Try again sherlock.

Not to mention we both live in a Mormon town, and our circles of friends contain almost every religion on earth (including Islam, I work with immigrants from Iran and Afghanistan regularly)

As for AISH and the other welfare you are complaining about, start looking into who actually claims it and you will find most of them aren't really handicapped at all =p I know 3 families personally who are on AISH and one is a second generation AISH family (parents lived on it and passed on the 'heritage' to their children). Nobody in their families are disabled.

This is where you really fall down.

First:

90% of my best friends don't go to church, and I do. Redneck Yokel (poster on this site) is one of them, and he is a Buddhist Conservative.

That would be the exception.

Not to mention we both live in a Mormon town, and our circles of friends contain almost every religion on earth (including Islam, I work with immigrants from Iran and Afghanistan regularly)

Alright, so most of you go to church?

How are those who don't go to church...how are they treated?

As for AISH and the other welfare you are complaining about, start looking into who actually claims it and you will find most of them aren't really handicapped at all =p I know 3 families personally who are on AISH and one is a second generation AISH family (parents lived on it and passed on the 'heritage' to their children). Nobody in their families are disabled

Alright, 'sherlock', so since a few people abuse the system, everybody in your community turns a blind eye to it, and DON'T REPORT THE ABUSE (wtf is with that?!?!?!?) and proceed to argue that because there's a abuse, EVERYBODY WHO IS TRULY HANDICAPPED SHOULD SUFFER?

That's the true definition of Conservatism right there: the absolute lack of empathy.

You jumped straight to the logic that since some people abuse it, we're going to punish everybody. That's conservative justice right there.

If that's what small town Alberta is selling: no thank you!

Whats wrong with supporting Farmers? or maintaining Rural servers and roads? Isn't that what the government is supposed to do? Oh yeah, and helping oil development, wow that is just stupid man... I mean, heck, you guys thought it was dumb a few decades ago, it totally didn't pay off though... I mean, its not like we are debt-free now or anything =p

You proved my point.

Your answer is: "where's my pork?"

The line of your party is both: "Pork: cut it out" and "Where's our pork?".

It's hypocritical.

Apparently the free market should only apply to those who live in the city and generate the bulk of the wealth in this country.

---------

I look forward to your excellent reply.

[I miss Reagan]

-Law and Order policies of the CPC tend to be overly statist and class biased;

How?

-social conservatism and theocratic influences;

I can see your point here. However, I think this is way overblown. There are a lot of religious types in the party, but it is not the conservative agenda to go anywhere near abortion. Same Sex marriage; there are a lot of people of all political stripes who are opposed. But I don't think the CPC should have brought it to the forefront.

-economic policies which favor (unmeritorious) entrenched interests at the expense of individual opportunity (to exercise merit);

I disagree, but what examples are you refering to?

and

-a tendency to draw upon non-Reasonable criteria or analyses.

with respect to what?

BTW, I am not intending to imply any comparisons to the Liberal Party here.

[newbie]

From Hawk:

"...As for AISH and the other welfare you are complaining about, start looking into who actually claims it and you will find most of them aren't really handicapped at all..."

Sounds like a quote from Ralph Klein's policy manual.

[Shakeyhands]

You basically played every stereotype about Conservatives, it makes me wonder what exactly you are trying to prove? Nothing you have said is factual, in fact I would say most of it is partisan BS

Huh?

I wont even touch this one, thanks for putting words in my mouth though... had trouble doing it myself =p

My guess is you won't touch it and neither will the Conservatives until the get into power (God forbid) and then a private members bill will most certainly refresh your memory and spur all into action...

Hmmm, interesting... so what about people that ARENT religious that dont support homosexual marriage? I guess they just couldn't exist since it is only religion that has a problem with them right?... LoL

Oh yeah, and what about civil unions? Or didn't you know that most conservatives aren't opposed to them? Of course you knew that, I mean it is obvious in your extremely well-thought-out post.

I'm sorry, if you aren't opposed to gay marriage from a religious perspective why would you have an issue with the wording? For an unreligious person semantics would be the only issue? Correct?

Whats wrong with supporting Farmers? or maintaining Rural servers and roads? Isn't that what the government is supposed to do? Oh yeah, and helping oil development, wow that is just stupid man... I mean, heck, you guys thought it was dumb a few decades ago, it totally didn't pay off though... I mean, its not like we are debt-free now or anything =p

Far and away my favourite quote. Just so you know, there are rural areas all over this great land, and our Government maintains these, not sure of your point.

And perhaps I don't understand the whole scenario, but why would the Federal government care about oil development? Does the revenue generated not all stay in Alberta (I'm really asking here..) I assume I am not misreading your sarcasim at the end.

As for the Liberals winning the next election, I am disgusted enough that they weren't overthrown with the budget. I personally hope the Liberals win the next election so Albertans will suddenly realize the East (at least the socialist Easterners) doesn't care about the country at all and would rather have a proven corrupt government in power rather than one supported by the West. I think its a good time for a revolution =)

Albertans (the few like you ) need to stop their freakin' cryin. For Gods sake. You sound like a bunch of American conservat..... OHHHHH! I get it now.

Revolution? I'd gladly drive out to personally kick some Albertan ass. I really would. Give us a break and sit down.

[Hawk]

That's the reaction I was looking for!  Finally some vinegar!!!

Well, it's hardly a stereotype, I've been in the orbit of Calgary School for the better part of a decade now, I know how the elites of the party think.  It's hardly a stereotype...I know Conservative thought...I know how many of you REALLY think because I've had the time and experience in pealing away the political correctness, that's all.

I'm not really trying to prove anything.

I think many things I'm saying is in fact factual, and I think they resonate with many people on this board.  I know this because moderates and classical liberals here support most of my assertions, and moreover, Conservatives often retort with personal attacks, swearing, and smears -- and so, you know when you start getting called names, you're hitting a nerve that's awfully close to the truth.

That said, let's review.

---------

So you are outright saying stereotypes for conservatives are right but stereotypes for Liberals are wrong? Or what exactly are you trying to say? LoL, careful

Also, when did I call you a name? o.0

Yeah, I caught the Cons on this one a few months ago.  They can't prevent a private members bill, and their party philosophy demands a free vote...so, you know, the right to choose is at risk, by implication of party logic.

Implication is hardly fact, rather it is a thing of perspective... especially if you are claiming it logically. That is not proof or fact, so I will ignore it and any furthur ramblings/conspiracy theories about this.

Sure, plenty of people who arn't religious hate homosexuals.

As for civil unions, it's just another way to be seen to be moderate, but to create a seperate but equal institution.

It's called segregation, and it was tried in the Southern United States before it was ruled that 'seperate but equal' is not equal...that by the sheer fact of being seperate, it isn't equal.

It's the same logic here (not the same scale of attrocity).

You propose that you're being generous by saying, "fine, we'll keep the word 'marriage' for ourselves, but since we don't like you/agree with your lifestyle, we're going to create a SEPERATE institution.

Well then, if you have no problem with homosexuals, then why not grant them equality?

How is giving them the right to equal marriage, actual marriage, wrong?

The reality is, you trick yourself into believing seperate is equal.  It isn't. 

You should try to resolve this contradiction for yourself.

If you truly dont' have a problem with homosexuals, then you should have no problem giving them equality.

If you have no problem with equality, you should have no problem with equal marriage.

Put simply, your first sentance basically moots your entire original post meaning I won the point. This extra mumbo jumbo about segregation was not part of the original argument, but since you seem to think it so important I suppose we could discuss it.

Segregation in and of itself proves nothing, it is merely seperation of people based on race/sex/sexual orientation/etc. To deny that such seperate qualities do not exist is ignorance, and to expect every different people/race/sex/etc to all co-exist perfectly and in harmony is also ignorance. Therefore segregation will ALWAYS exist, because by nature a perfect society is impossible.

That said, expecting everyone to accept homosexuals is also ignorance, since to some it might be ok to be gay and to others downright disturbing. Most people however dont have a problem with gay people that practice their homosexuality behind closed doors (like most straight couples do until marriage). However when segregation becomes a problem is when one group tries to take and change something that another group has had for a very long time, in this case marriage.

Redefining a tradition of another group is not a very nice thing to do, and if it was a white man trying to redefine a tradition of some native tribe there would be hell to pay... which is why it is interesting that nobody has a problem with homosexuals trying to redefine heterosexual tradition.

However most (not all but most) heterosexuals wouldn't mind civil unions because it is not threatening traditional marriage. That is of course strictly non-religious people, as religious people have many many more reasons to not accept homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Good for you, you understand the difference between old anti-liberalism and new anti-liberalism.

I'm impressed.  (really, no sarcasm here.  You're the first con on this board to understand the distinction.)

As a small 'l' liberal, I am stronly opposed to new anti-liberalism, that is, the creation of new inequality:  ie.  affirmative action.  I believe in equalizing the playing field at birth and strong anti-racism laws...protections, not props.

However, I have seen evidence that in the new conservative party, there is a strong tendency to confuse real liberalism (true equality) with new anti-liberalism, and as such, they become old anti-liberals, that is, defenders of OLD bigotry.

This includes denying sihks the right to wear a turban with their RCMP uniform, and being anti-pay equity.

As a small l liberal, I believe that if a woman wants to stay at home, she should be afforded the respect and opportunity for doing that.  I do not believe however in Conservative policies that would see incentives for women to stay at home. (Ie.  I, as a tax payer, do not want to pay you so that your wife can stay at home.) 

There should an equalization of opportunity there.

Glad that you realize and understand the difference.

I also agree that you shouldn't pay for my wife to stay at home =)

That would be the exception.

Not really, since as I say later I have a mix of religions (including plenty of atheists, as I am involved in Computer Sciences) and almost all of them are Conservative. The 'right-wing religion' isn't nearly so real as most on the left fear.

Alright, so most of you go to church?

How are those who don't go to church...how are they treated?

No we just live in a Mormon town, that doesn't mean we attend the church (although I do have alot of Mormon friends as a result)

Those that dont go to church are treated great, you could ask them but as for my experiences with other religions I am not a part of... they treat me and my friends very well.

Alright, 'sherlock', so since a few people abuse the system, everybody in your community turns a blind eye to it, and DON'T REPORT THE ABUSE (wtf is with that?!?!?!?) and proceed to argue that because there's a abuse, EVERYBODY WHO IS TRULY HANDICAPPED SHOULD SUFFER?

That's the true definition of Conservatism right there:  the absolute lack of empathy.

You jumped straight to the logic that since some people abuse it, we're going to punish everybody.  That's conservative justice right there.

If that's what small town Alberta is selling:  no thank you!

That logic also sounds socialist, you know since alot of people are smoking pot anyways lets legalize it.. but that is a discussion for another time, just be aware that logic goes both ways.

As for reporting, they have been repeatedly. The problem is the system doesn't work, and it is terribly easy to get welfare in Canada. That is why I dont support our current systems, it is to much empathy and not enough research. Welfare is not for bums and people who dont want to work, it is for people who CANT work. At least that is the way it is supposed to be.

You proved my point.

Your answer is:  "where's my pork?"

The line of your party is both:  "Pork:  cut it out" and "Where's our pork?". 

It's hypocritical.

Apparently the free market should only apply to those who live in the city and generate the bulk of the wealth in this country.

---------

The free market can apply wherever it wants, but when you have centralized management that controls the farmers market it is kind of hard to do anything in that free market... in fact one could say it actually isn't that free at all.

[ruski_canuk]

Um - I'm an Albertan, why are people ready to kick my ass?

The reasons for Alberta's hostility are clear and it really is a miracle that we haven't left this sorry country years ago. The east tells us what we should believe on moral issues (Gay Marriage is progressive right, oh and those against abortion are crazy), steals are money (15 billion a year in transfer payments) and gives it to Quebec and the maritimes, does not appoint our elected senators nor initiates any democratic reform and refused to elect our politicians because they are from say Calgary...

Anyways - its not crying, its fact and if the Liberals get in again there will be a strong movement for separtism in this province. We'll see who is crying after Alberta leaves.

Oh - I'm not a separtist. What we really need is simply a respect for the regional diversity. Instead of telling us that we are evil for wanting to consider some private health care, for example, let us experiement with it and see how we can make Canada's system, which is excellent, sustainable. Why not let the east have gay marriages if the majority so says over there and ban it here if it is the will here. Stop trying to save Quebec and the maritimes by building them into welfare states. The people there can be strong if their resources are granted to them and are not fed handouts. This country is diverse let it stay so. Quit telling us we are not Canadian because we think differently then Toronto.

Oh - and quit voting in those Liberals.

Justin Anderson

[I miss Reagan]

Albertans (the few like you ) need to stop their freakin' cryin. For Gods sake. You sound like a bunch of American conservat..... OHHHHH! I get it now. 

Hey news flash buddy, conservatives now have control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. The liberal dems are the ones cryin .

Revolution? I'd gladly drive out to personally kick some Albertan ass. I really would. Give us a break and sit down. 

You libs are so violent and intolerant when it comes to conservative views, yet so passive when it comes to fighting real threats.

[Riverwind]

Hey news flash buddy, conservatives now have control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.  The liberal dems are the ones cryin  .

The US is as geographically divided as Canada. Republicans are as disliked as much as CPC in the cities and large states like New York and California.