Who is the bigot?

[JerrySeinfeld]

My issue:

I am a right of centre conservative from Alberta. I am also an academic.

I am also pro choice, but anti abortion. In other words I wouldn't mind seeing all parties agree on some initiatives that would attempt to reduce the number of abortions demanded by women. Maybe education about birth control etc. I can't think of anyone on this board who is in favor of MORE abortions.

I have no issue with Gay persons as I agree with Trudeau that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. One of my closest friends is a Gay woman. She and I have discussed this issue and she does not consider me a bigot for drawing the line at marriage. I am in favor of civil unions, not same sex marriage. I think these unions should be afforded the same rights (spousal RSP contributions, family allowances, estate planning etc.) as all other couples. I just don't think it should be called marriage.

I favor exploring new ways to improve our health care system. I'd like to see if we can reduce wait times without breaking the bank. Perhaps some incorporation of private provision or insurance can help improve the efficiency of the current system so that we can continue to have great health care into the future. I am aware that socialist nations such as sweden have private care, so am dumbfounded as to why it's such a bad word here in Canada. I don't want to dismantle the current system, I just want to repair it, and my mind is open to all suggestions -- even private ones.

These (above) are some key issues which have, in the past, been used to paint conservatives in this country as fascists or bigots. In fact, I'd argue that Stephen Harper's views on these issues are very similar to the ones I have expressed here.

I don't see these views as draconian. Certainly they are different from the status quo. This scares many people. The masses hate change. But there is nothing hateful or mean spirited in the above views.

What IS hateful and mean spirited is when people who disagree with the above instantly brand people who espouse these views as "fascists and bigots". It's not fair and it's not condusive to communication in this country.

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech. We are supposed to be a tolerant society which allows all viewpoints to be heard. Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist. In a strange way, the very people calling me a fascist or a bigot and squashing my views are behaving like fascists themselves.

Am I off base here?

[Leader Circle]

Nice post. Even the Lefties & Commies here could not take that away from you. A very reasonable agrument on morals & family values. I am right of center as well, maybe more right than some. I don't consider someone who sticks to their values as a decent living person and stands up for what he believes deserves the title of bigot or fascist. There will always be a difference in opinions, but some people feel that they are so right, they need to ram it down your throat. It is wrong.

So, I would not call you a bigot! Anyone here who does is quite close-minded.

[willy]

Senior Seinfeld, I agree and I agree. You articulated many of the same positions and feelings that I hold. The only difference is that I reside in Vancouver. I also have many gay friends that don't see me as a bigot.

[ScottBrison]

I am also pro choice, but anti abortion.  In other words I wouldn't mind seeing all parties agree on some initiatives that would attempt to reduce the number of abortions demanded by women.  Maybe education about birth control etc.  I can't think of anyone on this board who is in favor of MORE abortions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you 100%, I'm pro-choice as well, but anti-abortion (not in the "it should be banned" way, just in the "alternatives should be readily available and supported" way)

I have no issue with Gay persons as I agree with Trudeau that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.  One of my closest friends is a Gay woman.  She and I have discussed this issue and she does not consider me a bigot for drawing the line at marriage.  I am in favor of civil unions, not same sex marriage.  I think these unions should be afforded the same rights (spousal RSP contributions, family allowances, estate planning etc.) as all other couples.  I just don't think it should be called marriage.

Yeah, it should be called marriage because that's what it is. Persecuting gays, whether it be curtailing actual rights or in name only is still persecution, it perpetuates discrimination. If we deny gays the right to call their unions marriage the discrimination will be continued and given an oppurtunity to grow rather than being eliminated. All people are of equal importance, and should have equality, true EQUALITY, not some half-assed Conservative placating tactic.

I favor exploring new ways to improve our health care system.  I'd like to see if we can reduce wait times without breaking the bank.  Perhaps some incorporation of private provision or insurance can help improve the efficiency of the current system so that we can continue to have great health care into the future.  I am aware that socialist nations such as sweden have private care, so am dumbfounded as to why it's such a bad word here in Canada.  I don't want to dismantle the current system, I just want to repair it, and my mind is open to all suggestions -- even private ones.

This statement I have no problem with as well, in fact I made a suggestion on my blog you may find interesting.

http://liberal4life.blogspot.com/2005/06/t...are-ruling.html

These (above) are some key issues which have, in the past, been used to paint conservatives in this country as fascists or bigots.  In fact, I'd argue that Stephen Harper's views on these issues are very similar to the ones I have expressed here.

I don't see these views as draconian.  Certainly they are different from the status quo.  This scares many people.  The masses hate change.  But there is nothing hateful or mean spirited in the above views.

What IS hateful and mean spirited is when people who disagree with the above instantly brand people who espouse these views as "fascists and bigots".  It's not fair and it's not condusive to communication in this country.

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech.  We are supposed to be a tolerant society which allows all viewpoints to be heard.  Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist.  In a strange way, the very people calling me a fascist or a bigot and squashing my views are behaving like fascists themselves.

The only one of those issues I can remember saying anyone was a fascist or a bigot on was the same sex issue, if I said it on any other issue I apologize and withdraw the statements.

However to attempt to curtail the equality of any group of people has elements of fascism, and bigotry. Like it or not it's the truth. It was my intention, using this language, to help the people on the other side to see what they were becoming, not to offend. I admit my language could have been more eloquent, but as you know this issue stirs deep feelings on both sides. It infuriates me to no end that we live in a society in this day and age where we claim to all be equal but we still have a group of people who has to fight this religion enduced hatred. That is why the seperation of Church and State is so very important, so that those who don't subscribe to the beliefs of a majority aren't forced to live their lives in shame and persecution.

[cybercoma]

The only thing that perpetuates discriminatino against gays is the fact that it's not a man and a woman marrying, not the name of their union. Call it whatever the heck you want, there are still people who find it immoral and are entirely opposed to the idea and will discriminate against them regardless.

Why should it not be called marriage, because it's not the union of a man and a woman who are bound by family law which is designed to protect their offspring? It's two people of the same sex living together and loving one another with no need for family law because they will never procreate. It's not marriage because it's not the same thing at all. Civil union, or whatever other label you want to put on it is what it is and yes they should be given the same rights that were outlined by Seinfeld here.

To say that not calling it marriage will somehow foster discrimination is stupid. It's discriminated against because by definition it's different.

[Bakunin]

Great text,

You know what, when we first look at alberta and quebec, we can see the 2 opposite side of canadian politics.

However, i just feel that alberta is the most fascinating and interesting province. the only province i would miss if we ever separate

Isn't it ironic to see the conservative with harper who was in the reform party when he was younger get along with the bloc and duceppe who was a communist when he was young. Both fighting the same ennemy, the rest of canada's liberals.

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech. We are supposed to be a tolerant society which allows all viewpoints to be heard. Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist. In a strange way, the very people calling me a fascist or a bigot and squashing my views are behaving like fascists themselves.

Maybe thats why we can get along. Because we are the less liked and stranger members of the canadian family and we are the one daddy his pointing out as the disfunctional members.

And i just tought about something else, pre 60's quebec was similar to alberta except for the corruption part.

[Newfie Canadian]

Nice post JS.

I confess, when I first skimmed your post, I wasn't sure what you were saying (my bad), but when I really looked, well, nice post.

However, i just feel that alberta is the most fascinating and interesting province. the only province i would miss if we ever separate

I'm sure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will try not to take that personally Bakunin.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, I would think that text is akin to the spin that is trying to be put on the "new look" for Harper.

Why, oh why are we Conservatives so misunderstood. Why oh why when we mean so well and we only want to destroy public health care for the good of - er the common good,do all those nasty Commie - er leftists call us names.

It is really no more than a veiled attack on rationality. An attempt to vilify non Conservatives with the other hand. It categorizes all those who hold "moral" positions as Conservatives and the rest as devils.

I have some news for you, Jerry. There are many of us who opposed SSM who would not be caught dead in the same room as a Conservative. And there is no bigotry in us.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually, I would think that text is akin to the spin that is trying to be put on the "new look" for Harper.

Why, oh why are we Conservatives so misunderstood. Why oh why when we mean so well and we only want to destroy public health care for the good of - er the common good,do all those nasty Commie - er leftists call us names.

It is really no more than a veiled attack on rationality. An attempt to vilify non Conservatives with the other hand. It categorizes all those who hold "moral" positions as Conservatives and the rest as devils.

I have some news for you, Jerry. There are many of us who opposed SSM who would not be caught dead in the same room as a Conservative. And there is no bigotry in us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am going to copy and paste your response and substitute some words (in brackets) to show you what my point was:

"Actually, I would think that text is akin to the spin that is trying to be put on the "new look" for <communists>.

Why, oh why are we <communists> so misunderstood. Why oh why when we mean so well and we only want to destroy public <this country the USA> for the good of - er the common good,do all those nasty <McArthyists> call us names.

It is really no more than a veiled attack on rationality. An attempt to vilify non <communists> with the other hand. It categorizes all those who hold "moral" positions as <communists> and the rest as devils.

I have some news for you, Jerry. There are many of us who opposed <the war> who would not be caught dead in the same room as a <communist>. And there is no bigotry in us."

OK, get the point? Your post (with some words substituted) looks like something McArthy-ists would have said in the communist witch hunt in the USA. Can you see the complete, blanket lack of tolerance you have demonstrated?

[The Terrible Sweal]

...  I am in favor of civil unions, not same sex marriage.  I think these unions should be afforded the same rights (spousal RSP contributions, family allowances, estate planning etc.) as all other couples.  I just don't think it should be called marriage.

Why?

These (above) are some key issues which have, in the past, been used to paint conservatives in this country as fascists or bigots.

I don't think anyone has raised either the concept of fascism or bigotry in relation to the healthcare debate. When that one breaks into name-calling it is usually along the lines of 'communist' or 'rapacious capitalist'.

... there is nothing hateful or mean spirited in the above views.

Just because you think that doesn't make it so.

What IS hateful and mean spirited is when people who disagree with the above instantly brand people who espouse these views as "fascists and bigots".

Well, we've already dispensed with the idea that people make that claim regarding health care.

Regarding SSM, I have reached my point of view anything but "instantly". I have concluded that opponents of SSM are basically acting out of bigotry after many many months of trying to deciphyer their rationale. In each case the objection winds up being based on grounds that simply make no sense other than as an irrational opposition to being made equal with someone they don't like.

But I keep an open mind. If you have a sensible answer for my first question in this post: "WHY?", maybe it will be apparent that you are not basing your view on bigotry. Try me.

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech. 

No one is hindering your freedom of speach. To pretend that your freedom of speech is being hindered makes you appear ludicrous.

We are supposed to be a tolerant society ...

Tolerant does not mean we must never disagree.

Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist. 

Because you don't have an accurate picture of reality.

Am I off base here?

Yes, I think that you are off base.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is really no more than a veiled attack on rationality.

Bingo.

[kimmy]

I don't think anyone has raised either the concept of fascism or bigotry in relation to the healthcare debate.  When that one breaks into name-calling it is usually along the lines of 'communist' or 'rapacious capitalist'.

Perhaps advocates of more private participation in healthcare are not vilified as fascists or bigots. But certainly vilified. We've often seen opponents try to break this into an "either or" choice where if you're not 100% behind the Canadian model, then you must be talking about "US style healthcare", some Dickensian nightmare-world where poor people are dying in the street right in front of the hospital, while inside gaggles of nurses attend to a few wealthy patients in silk robes eating smoked salmon sandwiches with the crusts removed.

Why, just last week I was in a thread where someone accused supporters of more private healthcare of "loving their ideology more than they love their children." Now, if that's not vilification, then what is?

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

...  I am in favor of civil unions, not same sex marriage.  I think these unions should be afforded the same rights (spousal RSP contributions, family allowances, estate planning etc.) as all other couples.  I just don't think it should be called marriage.

Why?

These (above) are some key issues which have, in the past, been used to paint conservatives in this country as fascists or bigots.

I don't think anyone has raised either the concept of fascism or bigotry in relation to the healthcare debate. When that one breaks into name-calling it is usually along the lines of 'communist' or 'rapacious capitalist'.

... there is nothing hateful or mean spirited in the above views.

Just because you think that doesn't make it so.

What IS hateful and mean spirited is when people who disagree with the above instantly brand people who espouse these views as "fascists and bigots".

Well, we've already dispensed with the idea that people make that claim regarding health care.

Regarding SSM, I have reached my point of view anything but "instantly". I have concluded that opponents of SSM are basically acting out of bigotry after many many months of trying to deciphyer their rationale. In each case the objection winds up being based on grounds that simply make no sense other than as an irrational opposition to being made equal with someone they don't like.

But I keep an open mind. If you have a sensible answer for my first question in this post: "WHY?", maybe it will be apparent that you are not basing your view on bigotry. Try me.

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech. 

No one is hindering your freedom of speach. To pretend that your freedom of speech is being hindered makes you appear ludicrous.

We are supposed to be a tolerant society ...

Tolerant does not mean we must never disagree.

Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist. 

Because you don't have an accurate picture of reality.

Am I off base here?

Yes, I think that you are off base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad you set me straight. So to summarize:

"Tolerant does not mean we must never disagree" -- YOUR words; you should heed them.

Calling people who disagree with you "bigots" is intolerant.

With re: Gay Marriage. The onus isn't on me to prove that being against gay marriage isn't bigotry. You are the one who use the term BIGOT. The onus is upon you to prove your point. Please show me where Amnesty International has cited gay marriage as a HUMAN RIGHT.

[Argus]

[quote name=eureka' date='Jun 24 2005, 11:10 AM

I have some news for you, Jerry. There are many of us who opposed SSM who would not be caught dead in the same room as a Conservative. And there is no bigotry in us.

[/quote]

Said the bigot.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't think anyone has raised either the concept of fascism or bigotry in relation to the healthcare debate.  When that one breaks into name-calling it is usually along the lines of 'communist' or 'rapacious capitalist'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps advocates of more private participation in healthcare are not vilified as fascists or bigots. But certainly vilified. We've often seen opponents try to break this into an "either or" choice where if you're not 100% behind the Canadian model, then you must be talking about "US style healthcare", some Dickensian nightmare-world where poor people are dying in the street right in front of the hospital, while inside gaggles of nurses attend to a few wealthy patients in silk robes eating smoked salmon sandwiches with the crusts removed.

SOME people take positions that would amount to that outcome. I agree it is never proper to attribute such a position to someone who doesn't actually hold it, but do you really think that in the proper cases just saying the truth about an idea counts as 'vilifying' the proponent of it??? How then can a meaningful policy discourse be conducted if persons cannot speak of means and ends, choices and consequences?

Why, just last week I was in a thread where someone accused supporters of more private healthcare of "loving their ideology more than they love their children." 

Now, if that's not vilification, then what is?

An accurate assessment of what people themselves indicated. If someone runs, is it vilification to call him a runner? If someone steals your bike, is it 'vilification' to call her a theif?

[kimmy]

I agree it is never proper to attribute such a position to someone who doesn't actually hold it,

And yet that's what passes for debate in this country, at least on the subject of healthcare. If you don't agree, go back and review the past election.

An accurate assessment of what people themselves indicated.  If someone runs, is it vilification to call him a runner?  If someone steals your bike, is it 'vilification' to call her a theif?

Your intent on applying that assessment to everybody who voted for "option A" in your crappy poll is exactly what I'm talking about.

-k

[Argus]

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech.  We are supposed to be a tolerant society which allows all viewpoints to be heard.  Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist.  In a strange way, the very people calling me a fascist or a bigot and squashing my views are behaving like fascists themselves.

Am I off base here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There has been a growing tendancy among those on the left who are generally rarely exposed to views contrary to what you'd see on the CBC to believe that what the CBC stands for is basially "canadian". It is moral. It is righteous. It is noble. Their own political views are rarely supported by much more than an emotional belief that their view is "right". Despite that, many cling to them as sacred, and grow outraged when anyone disagrees.

An example. Some idiot - I mean, someone on the left, believes that they have a plan to help the poor (it doesn't matter if their plan is workable or not). Since it is their plan, and since it is designed to help the poor, then there can be no disagreement. To disagree is to not want to help the poor. Thus your disagreement is not merely a difference of opinion but takes on a moral tone. If you don't support the plan, then you don't care about the poor. You are therefore selfish, greedy, and thoughtless. You deserve to be treated badly because you are a terrible human being.

Cliched? Yes, but many of the left are cliches. And so many arguments the left puts forward invariably take on a moral tone to them. If you disagree with them on abortion you're evil and hate women. If you disagree on SSM, you're an evil homophobe who doesn't believe in equality. If you disagree on health care you're evil and want to destroy public health care. There seems to be no room in their tiny minds for the possibility that you might believe your opinion is more workable and will help the greater number of people (never mind the possibility that it actually IS more workable and will help more people).

No, their plan is perfection itself. If you are opposed to their plan, then you obviously are opposed to the alleged purpose of their plan, as well, be it helping the poor, achieving equality among races or sexes or sexual orientations, or bringing peace in our time.

I've been talking politics a lot of years, and I don't recall seeing this level of simplistic, self righteous ignorance twenty years back. The left then tended to be better educated, and at least attempted to support their idiot endeavours with some logic. Now their arguments tend towards emotional nonsense. And how can you argue against someone's opinion when it's based on nothing but emotion? Believe me, using logic with such people is largely a waste of time. It's like trying to use logic to convince the pope that birth control isn't sinful. It just won't fly.

There also is far, far less tolerance among these people for different opinions and different beliefs. Twenty years ago you could freely argue politics, even extreme politics, without name calling. Now even fairly mild disagreement draws sweeping denunciations as to the morality of those who disagree with them. Because, after all, everything they want is for the best, and if you disagree then you obviously want - the worst. Note idiotic accusations about the Tories wanting to destroy health care, and even to destroy Canada. It's not possible they could simply believe their plans are better. No, they MUST realize the perfection of Liberal/NDP schemes, and therefore, since those schemes are meant to bring about a more perfect Canada, well, obviously Conservative plans are meant for the opposite.

And why would you show any respect for such an evil person? And why should such a person even be allowed to speak? Nothing wrong with shouting them down. Nothing wrong with trying to shut them up. They're bad people, after all.

It is this absurd moralizing which brings down the tone of debate, a moralizing which has its base in ignorance, emotional immaturity, self-centredness, intellectual laziness, and a general lack of education.

[JerrySeinfeld]

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech.  We are supposed to be a tolerant society which allows all viewpoints to be heard.  Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist.  In a strange way, the very people calling me a fascist or a bigot and squashing my views are behaving like fascists themselves.

Am I off base here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There has been a growing tendancy among those on the left who are generally rarely exposed to views contrary to what you'd see on the CBC to believe that what the CBC stands for is basially "canadian". It is moral. It is righteous. It is noble. Their own political views are rarely supported by much more than an emotional belief that their view is "right". Despite that, many cling to them as sacred, and grow outraged when anyone disagrees.

An example. Some idiot - I mean, someone on the left, believes that they have a plan to help the poor (it doesn't matter if their plan is workable or not). Since it is their plan, and since it is designed to help the poor, then there can be no disagreement. To disagree is to not want to help the poor. Thus your disagreement is not merely a difference of opinion but takes on a moral tone. If you don't support the plan, then you don't care about the poor. You are therefore selfish, greedy, and thoughtless. You deserve to be treated badly because you are a terrible human being.

Cliched? Yes, but many of the left are cliches. And so many arguments the left puts forward invariably take on a moral tone to them. If you disagree with them on abortion you're evil and hate women. If you disagree on SSM, you're an evil homophobe who doesn't believe in equality. If you disagree on health care you're evil and want to destroy public health care. There seems to be no room in their tiny minds for the possibility that you might believe your opinion is more workable and will help the greater number of people (never mind the possibility that it actually IS more workable and will help more people).

No, their plan is perfection itself. If you are opposed to their plan, then you obviously are opposed to the alleged purpose of their plan, as well, be it helping the poor, achieving equality among races or sexes or sexual orientations, or bringing peace in our time.

I've been talking politics a lot of years, and I don't recall seeing this level of simplistic, self righteous ignorance twenty years back. The left then tended to be better educated, and at least attempted to support their idiot endeavours with some logic. Now their arguments tend towards emotional nonsense. And how can you argue against someone's opinion when it's based on nothing but emotion? Believe me, using logic with such people is largely a waste of time. It's like trying to use logic to convince the pope that birth control isn't sinful. It just won't fly.

There also is far, far less tolerance among these people for different opinions and different beliefs. Twenty years ago you could freely argue politics, even extreme politics, without name calling. Now even fairly mild disagreement draws sweeping denunciations as to the morality of those who disagree with them. Because, after all, everything they want is for the best, and if you disagree then you obviously want - the worst. Note idiotic accusations about the Tories wanting to destroy health care, and even to destroy Canada. It's not possible they could simply believe their plans are better. No, they MUST realize the perfection of Liberal/NDP schemes, and therefore, since those schemes are meant to bring about a more perfect Canada, well, obviously Conservative plans are meant for the opposite.

And why would you show any respect for such an evil person? And why should such a person even be allowed to speak? Nothing wrong with shouting them down. Nothing wrong with trying to shut them up. They're bad people, after all.

It is this absurd moralizing which brings down the tone of debate, a moralizing which has its base in ignorance, emotional immaturity, self-centredness, intellectual laziness, and a general lack of education.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent post Argus. Except you should have left out the "idiot" part, because I guarantee you that is the only part that the lefties will latch onto in their retort.

It's sooooo true, though. I was raised in a marxist household and whenever I have a (healthy) debate with my father I always ask him: "do you SERIOUSLY think that Harper, Klein et al are sitting in some smoke filled room plotting the demise of health care?" I can just picture it

Harper "god-DAMN this UNIVERSAL health care. I hate it when average citizens get coverage. We need to do something about this. We need to GAIN POWER and DESTROY the system so that only our rich friends can get care and EVRYONE ELSE WILL SUFFER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA........."

It sounds absurd, but that seems to be what lefties really believe, or WANT voters to believe so they can cling to power and the staus quo.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I agree it is never proper to attribute such a position to someone who doesn't actually hold it,

And yet that's what passes for debate in this country, at least on the subject of healthcare. If you don't agree, go back and review the past election.

An accurate assessment of what people themselves indicated.  If someone runs, is it vilification to call him a runner?  If someone steals your bike, is it 'vilification' to call her a theif?

Your intent on applying that assessment to everybody who voted for "option A" in your crappy poll is exactly what I'm talking about.

Well maybe there's some people who voted that way by mistake, or some who voted that way to satisfy a contrarian or iconoclastic impulse. But they shouldn't need me to carve out their exceptions for them.

But as to those who voted that they want their kids to have worse healthcare than the rich, I wish you would enlighten me on what other possible interpretation I should apply.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Excellent post Argus.  Except you should have left out the "idiot" part, because I guarantee you that is the only part that the lefties will latch onto in their retort.

It's sooooo true, though.  I was raised in a marxist household and whenever I have a (healthy) debate with my father I always ask him:  "do you SERIOUSLY think that Harper, Klein et al are sitting in some smoke filled room plotting the demise of health care?"  I can just picture it

Harper "god-DAMN this UNIVERSAL health care.  I hate it when average citizens get coverage.  We need to do something about this.  We need to GAIN POWER and DESTROY the system so that only our rich friends can get care and EVRYONE ELSE WILL SUFFER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA........."

  It sounds absurd, but that seems to be what lefties really believe, or WANT voters to believe so they can cling to power and the staus quo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Other than your fraternity-lampoon elaborations, can you offer any reason for voters not to think that the Conservatives are the party least favourable to universal public health care?

[Black Dog]

Excellent post Argus. Except you should have left out the "idiot" part, because I guarantee you that is the only part that the lefties will latch onto in their retort.

It's sooooo true, though. I was raised in a marxist household and whenever I have a (healthy) debate with my father I always ask him: "do you SERIOUSLY think that Harper, Klein et al are sitting in some smoke filled room plotting the demise of health care?" I can just picture it

Harper "god-DAMN this UNIVERSAL health care. I hate it when average citizens get coverage. We need to do something about this. We need to GAIN POWER and DESTROY the system so that only our rich friends can get care and EVRYONE ELSE WILL SUFFER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA........."

It sounds absurd, but that seems to be what lefties really believe, or WANT voters to believe so they can cling to power and the staus quo.

Are you familiar with Hannah Arndt?

[The Terrible Sweal]

... If you disagree with them on abortion you're evil and hate women. If you disagree on SSM, you're an evil homophobe who doesn't believe in equality. If you disagree on health care you're evil and want to destroy public health care. There seems to be no room in their tiny minds for the possibility that you might believe your opinion is more workable and will help the greater number of people (never mind the possibility that it actually IS more workable and will help more people).

Okay so far. People who won't hear out someone who disagrees with them are not very smart or fair. But then there are people whose ideas are not workable, and not just and when their ideas are tested in discourse and found faulty they persevere against reason to demand that they be 'respected' or 'tolerated' when such respect or tolerance really means they just want their way, anyway. That's where I draw the line.

.... how can you argue against someone's opinion when it's based on nothing but emotion?

Exactly.

I've been talking politics a lot of years, and I don't recall seeing this level of simplistic, self righteous ignorance twenty years back.

You're right. Public discourse was much better before the triple crown of social destruction came along: Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney.

And why should such a person even be allowed to speak?

Why do conservatives insist on repeating this mendatious claim that they are being denied free expression. Give ONE example. Just ONE.

[kimmy]

Your intent on applying that assessment to everybody who voted for "option A" in your crappy poll is exactly what I'm talking about.

Well maybe there's some people who voted that way by mistake, or some who voted that way to satisfy a contrarian or iconoclastic impulse. But they shouldn't need me to carve out their exceptions for them.

But as to those who voted that they want their kids to have worse healthcare than the rich, I wish you would enlighten me on what other possible interpretation I should apply.

As I said in the thread itself, it could be that people believe a system where their kids receive worse healthcare than the rich might also provide their own kids a *better* standard of care than a system where everyone suffers equally.

And as I said in the thread itself, I think the way the question was phrased is an attempt to impugn the motives or character of those who question our present system ("the truth hurts," I believe you said in the thread.)

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

Your intent on applying that assessment to everybody who voted for "option A" in your crappy poll is exactly what I'm talking about.

Well maybe there's some people who voted that way by mistake, or some who voted that way to satisfy a contrarian or iconoclastic impulse. But they shouldn't need me to carve out their exceptions for them.

But as to those who voted that they want their kids to have worse healthcare than the rich, I wish you would enlighten me on what other possible interpretation I should apply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said in the thread itself, it could be that people believe a system where their kids receive worse healthcare than the rich might also provide their own kids a *better* standard of care than a system where everyone suffers equally.

Could be. But the question didn't ask them any of that. It asked whether they want equal or worse care for their children. Those who answered the question as you suggest deliberately imported an ideological assumption into a the question in order to justify not marking 'equal to the rich' for their children.

And as I said in the thread itself, I think the way the question was phrased is an attempt to impugn the motives or character of those who question our present system ("the truth hurts," I believe you said in the thread.)

Not really. My question was not really a "crappy poll". It was an attitudinal test. It was not designed to impugn motives and character, more like identify them. Consider: personality testing theory

[Guest eureka]

You are an academic, Jerry. I would gently suggest, therefore, that you work on improving your analytical skills. Your paraphrases of my words bear no connexion to what I said.

As for Argus's "excellent" post, it was, as Monte Python might say; "silly."

I have opposed SSM principally for one reason. That reason is that "Marriage" has a;ways been the union of two biologically and genetically complementary individuals. SSM does not share that. Therefore, I oppose it and no one has yet given me a satisfactory idea to get around that.

That is my reason and no other. Tradition and religion does not enter into it. If you think that is bigotry, then so be it but I would suggest that you invest in a good dictionary.

Healthcare, read the Reform Party Caucus Statement of, I think, 1989. Written by Harper and containing all the evols the opponents of Harper claim is the "Conservative agenda. I have referred to this several times but none of those on the "Right" want to have their illusions shaken. I don't think Harper has changed his spots.

My position, again as I have often said, is that investigations and studies of healthcare in Canada and elsewhere - even by such "Right Wingers" as Kirby and Mazankoski, have all concluded that the Canadian model is best but needs some tinkering. Comparisons of private and public elsewher have shown that private has always led to a deterioration of public: to a bleeding of resources and funding. That is in those European systems, too, that so many talk about without troubling to find out actuality.