Should the Conservative Party become liberals?

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes the Liberals created the legislation that legalized DPA's in Canada after the Conservatives laid the foundation for bringing them to Canada in the first place. They are of like mind on the issue of DPA's.   You are too but you're stuck between the hard and stupid place you usually find yourself in - in this case having to look like you don't support Trudeau while supporting what he supports at the same time.

Of course there's bias in the media nobody said there wasn't.  All I'm saying is that the right wing's fear of it is so irrational, flaky and stupefying that it's morphed into a rabid full blown conspiracy theory that's on par with anti-vaxxing.  Speaking of which you and half the other conservative wing-nuts around here remind me of the way hard-boiled anti-vaxxers try to tone it down a little and refer to their paranoia as hesitancy instead.  You see the same thing with assholes who try to bring some respectability to their racism by referring to it as concern.

In the meantime how do you feel about having your tongue up the rear end of a President who truly believes the media-party and deep-state are one and the same very real thing?  You really don't think that reflects on you at all do you?  That's the power of bias for you.

What a dolt. There was no need for DPAs before the CPC created a ten-year ban for companies caught doing exactly what SNC did. 

Re: media bias, I'm glad that you're now acknowledging that it's real, not may people ever make actual progress, but now you need to understand how important the media is for protecting our democratic processes. Separation of the major branches of our government being one of them. 

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

His case went to trial, that's why it came up again 3 years later.

His case was a joke, over a $90,000 travel claim from a senator. That's like your family arguing about a dime that went missing from the counter. In the end Duffy wasn't found to have done anything wrong.

[eyeball]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

What a dolt. There was no need for DPAs before the CPC created a ten-year ban for companies caught doing exactly what SNC did.

Who care's about SNC, it's just one company. The issue is that you can't bring yourself to admit you have no problem with DPA's. Doing so would be tantamount to supporting Trudeau and realizing that there's no difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes favouring powerful companies.  Liberals simply got caught favouring one of their favourites is all.

Like I asked earlier, how do you think this would have played out if SNC was an Alberta based oil company?

 

Quote

Re: media bias, I'm glad that you're now acknowledging that it's real, not may people ever make actual progress, but now you need to understand how important the media is for protecting our democratic processes. Separation of the major branches of our government being one of them.

You're saying the media is like a branch of the state that's responsible for separating, checking and balancing the abuse of power and corruption within the state?  Hmmmm and just how deep does this branch (sounds more like a root actually) of the state go?

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Who care's about SNC, it's just one company. The issue is that you can't bring yourself to admit you have no problem with DPA's. Doing so would be tantamount to supporting Trudeau and realizing that there's no difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes favouring powerful companies.  Liberals simply got caught favouring one of their favourites is all.

Like I asked earlier, how do you think this would have played out if SNC was an Alberta based oil company?

I care about SNC, this was a big deal. Everyone should. Not just that they were given special treatment, but all the rule-breaking and underhanded tactics by the PM to create that law for them and then force it on Canadians.

I am not 100% familiar with the entire DPA law so I won't say how it should be applied in all circumstances but companies that commit serious crimes like SNC did definitely shouldn't be protected. I'm sure that there are some laws which could be broken which shouldn't result in 8,000 job losses but like I said I am not completely familiar with that law so I won't make a blanket statement. 

If SNC was an Alberta-based oil company of course laws should still apply to them if they commit serious crimes. 

Quote

You're saying the media is like a branch of the state that's responsible for separating, checking and balancing the abuse of power and corruption within the state?  Hmmmm and just how deep does this branch (sounds more like a root actually) of the state go?

The media is given important protection right in the constitution because they're a fundamentally important part of our democracy. 

The notion that a PM can give $1.4B (that's $1,400,000,000.00) to the state-owned media corporation plus "select" media outlets and then ban other media outlets for no better reason than "we don't like you" should be a huge concern for you. 

Our government is going much further than that though to quell dissenting opinions.

They're stepping in to regulate social media and they're also criminalizing speech about politicians which is inaccurate. Trudeau probably doesn't realize how quickly that will backfire on him. 

This is just common sense eyeball. I shouldn't have had to explain this to you.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

We need fewer identitarians and more definitionists - people who maintain that the original definitions are best. i.e. I'd restore the original definition of right and left wing so we can stop identifying with some stupid pendulum that swings back and forth like a wrecking ball.

Look more closely at the far more important relevant axis which runs up and down especially the top where the pendulum seems to swing from.

I'd like to ight that part of the structure up...with a laser beam.

Agreed 100%.  Wait - it's money right ? 

[DrYouth]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

We need fewer identitarians and more definitionists - people who maintain that the original definitions are best. i.e. I'd restore the original definition of right and left wing so we can stop identifying with some stupid pendulum that swings back and forth like a wrecking ball.

The original definitions of left and right had the right as monarchists and those defending the rights of the nobility and clergy against a left that wanted a constitution to constrain the powers of the monarch and allow a small percentage of male property owners the right to have a say in government.

I doubt you want to restore those original definitions... 

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

We need fewer identitarians and more definitionists - people who maintain that the original definitions are best. i.e. I'd restore the original definition of right and left wing so we can stop identifying with some stupid pendulum that swings back and forth like a wrecking ball.

Look more closely at the far more important relevant axis which runs up and down especially the top where the pendulum seems to swing from.

I'd like to ight that part of the structure up...with a laser beam.

I much prefer populists over elitists whether they on the left or right or wherever.  You're right, the LIberals and CPC are elitist parties.

I'll take Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, and Doug Ford over Kathleen Wynne any day even though Ford's an uneducated dolt.  At least people like Sanders and Ford aren't bought and paid for, and care about the little people, even if their policies aren't perfect.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I care about SNC, this was a big deal. Everyone should. Not just that they were given special treatment, but all the rule-breaking and underhanded tactics by the PM to create that law for them and then force it on Canadians.

The only thing you and any other conservative cared about this whole affair was the process. The fact it was a Quebec based business with deep ties to the Liberals made it really easy for Conservatives to completely bypass the issue of DPA's in the first place and make big hay about things like Trudeau's feminist creds and instead.

I cared deeply about the SNC affair because of the way it brought DPA's to light.  How DPA's came to be lit up was just par for course business as usual backroom insider bullshit we've come to expect from Ottawa forever.

 

Quote

I am not 100% familiar with the entire DPA law so I won't say how it should be applied in all circumstances but companies that commit serious crimes like SNC did definitely shouldn't be protected. I'm sure that there are some laws which could be broken which shouldn't result in 8,000 job losses but like I said I am not completely familiar with that law so I won't make a blanket statement.

Exactly, even after months of hearing about DPA's in the media and posting links yourself that explain them and how they came to be in Canada you still don't understand the huge step backwards DPA's represent from the usual stance Conservative political parties in particular take towards criminals.

And the rationale? If we don't our competitors will and we'll only hurt ourselves. This is the point where Conservatives get all weepy like Liberals and sob about communities of hard-working families and their children.  We bleat the same pap when it comes to peddling things like fossil fuels, asbestos and weapon systems.  Wah, virtue sucks.

 

Quote

If SNC was an Alberta-based oil company of course laws should still apply to them if they commit serious crimes.

Well sure but In a fucking pig's eye if you think the roles wouldn't have reversed and Conservatives would be going to bat for the oil company while the Liberals mucked about in the shit looking for something to point at.

There'd still be dick all being said about the how slimy DPA's are from Liberals though.  You can only count on real left wing parties for that.
 

Quote

The media is given important protection right in the constitution because they're a fundamentally important part of our democracy.

The media is just a thing. People who work in the media have no more right's than anyone else and even less if you consider how badly whistle-blowers are regarded by governments and especially their supporters.

You really are oblivious to how badly your unquenchable adoration for Trump reflects on you aren't you?  It's cute listening to you discuss how badly bias can influence someone's thinking.

 

Quote

The notion that a PM can give $1.4B (that's $1,400,000,000.00) to the state-owned media corporation plus "select" media outlets and then ban other media outlets for no better reason than "we don't like you" should be a huge concern for you. 

Why can't a Conservative PM simply kill the cbc whenever they feel like it when they're power?  How hard can it be if its such a huge concern?
 

Quote

 

Our government is going much further than that though to quell dissenting opinions.

They're stepping in to regulate social media and they're also criminalizing speech about politicians which is inaccurate. Trudeau probably doesn't realize how quickly that will backfire on him.

This is just common sense eyeball. I shouldn't have had to explain this to you.

 

What you need to explain is why right-wing governments are just sitting around pissing and moaning about the clear and present dangers of media bias without doing anything themselves to control the media.

[eyeball]

Don't these belong in the thread on the Preamble to the Constitution?

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Agreed 100%.  Wait - it's money right ? 

 

1 hour ago, DrYouth said:

The original definitions of left and right had the right as monarchists and those defending the rights of the nobility and clergy against a left that wanted a constitution to constrain the powers of the monarch and allow a small percentage of male property owners the right to have a say in government.

I doubt you want to restore those original definitions... 

 

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I much prefer populists over elitists whether they on the left or right or wherever.  You're right, the LIberals and CPC are elitist parties.

I'll take Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, and Doug Ford over Kathleen Wynne any day even though Ford's an uneducated dolt.  At least people like Sanders and Ford aren't bought and paid for, and care about the little people, even if their policies aren't perfect.

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The only thing you and any other conservative cared about this whole affair was the process. The fact it was a Quebec based business with deep ties to the Liberals made it really easy for Conservatives to completely bypass the issue of DPA's in the first place and make big hay about things like Trudeau's feminist creds and instead.

I cared deeply about the SNC affair because of the way it brought DPA's to light.  How DPA's came to be lit up was just par for course business as usual backroom insider bullshit we've come to expect from Ottawa forever.

Don't put words in my mouth eyeball, you're even not smart enough to understand things that have been explained to you over and over again. 

SNC was rotten on every level and I am offended by every single one of them, and rightly so. 

The CPC never tried to bypass the idea that the law was created in the first place. They're the first people I ever heard talk about it.

If you care more about Trudeau's new DPA law more than you care that he created it for SNC and then tried to force the AG to use it for SNC and then fired her and badmouthed her and banned her from speaking in her own defence about what happened, that's pretty weird.

"Uh, I'm pretty offended that this new law is here but mostly I'm upset about how it might be used in the future. This recent application by Trudeau, for a company with a history of bribing Liberal politicians, was not that big of a deal in my esteemed opinion". - eyeball 

Quote

Exactly, even after months of hearing about DPA's in the media and posting links yourself that explain them and how they came to be in Canada you still don't understand the huge step backwards DPA's represent from the usual stance Conservative political parties in particular take towards criminals.

And the rationale? If we don't our competitors will and we'll only hurt ourselves. This is the point where Conservatives get all weepy like Liberals and sob about communities of hard-working families and their children.  We bleat the same pap when it comes to peddling things like fossil fuels, asbestos and weapon systems.  Wah, virtue sucks.

I only know of one single application of the DPA law. The scumbag PM created it so my guess is that it's bad for the country but I won't pretend to be the guy to go into an in-depth discussion about the intricacies of it. 

Quote

Well sure but In a fucking pig's eye if you think the roles wouldn't have reversed and Conservatives would be going to bat for the oil company while the Liberals mucked about in the shit looking for something to point at.

There'd still be dick all being said about the how slimy DPA's are from Liberals though.  You can only count on real left wing parties for that.

You're on a hypothetical, I'm dealing with facts. I don't protect criminals. 

Quote

The media is just a thing. People who work in the media have no more right's than anyone else and even less if you consider how badly whistle-blowers are regarded by governments and especially their supporters.

You really are oblivious to how badly your unquenchable adoration for Trump reflects on you aren't you?  It's cute listening to you discuss how badly bias can influence someone's thinking.

 

Why can't a Conservative PM simply kill the cbc whenever they feel like it when they're power?  How hard can it be if its such a huge concern?
 

What you need to explain is why right-wing governments are just sitting around pissing and moaning about the clear and present dangers of media bias without doing anything themselves to control the media.

This is proof that you have literally no clue what's going on. I'm not even going to bother explaining this all to you, but you should take a second to think about what it would mean if conservatives took the stance that it's necessary for the government to take control of the media.

What the media gets away with is up to people with a remote control, not a government office. We need to see through their BS instead of propagating it. It's not always going to be this obvious.

[cannuck]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I care about SNC, this was a big deal. Everyone should. Not just that they were given special treatment, but all the rule-breaking and underhanded tactics by the PM to create that law for them and then force it on Canadians.

I am not 100% familiar with the entire DPA law so I won't say how it should be applied in all circumstances but companies that commit serious crimes like SNC did definitely shouldn't be protected. I'm sure that there are some laws which could be broken which shouldn't result in 8,000 job losses but like I said I am not completely familiar with that law so I won't make a blanket statement. 

If SNC was an Alberta-based oil company of course laws should still apply to them if they commit serious crimes. 

The media is given important protection right in the constitution because they're a fundamentally important part of our democracy. 

The notion that a PM can give $1.4B (that's $1,400,000,000.00) to the state-owned media corporation plus "select" media outlets and then ban other media outlets for no better reason than "we don't like you" should be a huge concern for you. 

Our government is going much further than that though to quell dissenting opinions.

They're stepping in to regulate social media and they're also criminalizing speech about politicians which is inaccurate. Trudeau probably doesn't realize how quickly that will backfire on him. 

This is just common sense eyeball. I shouldn't have had to explain this to you.

The backroom guys would tell you it added up to $2.2, not 1.4 - so there is some cooking of the books involved.

Hardly an "independent" media!

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The backroom guys would tell you it added up to $2.2, not 1.4 - so there is some cooking of the books involved.

Hardly an "independent" media!

I'm aware of $795M that went to CBC (not necessarily all to CBC Newz) and $600M to "select media outlets". This is the first I heard that the total is $2.2B. Where did you see that?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Don't put words in my mouth eyeball, you're even not smart enough to understand things that have been explained to you over and over again.

If you say so...

Quote

"Uh, I'm pretty offended that this new law is here but mostly I'm upset about how it might be used in the future. This recent application by Trudeau, for a company with a history of bribing Liberal politicians, was not that big of a deal in my esteemed opinion". - WestCanMan eyeball 

 
 

Quote

 

I only know of one single application of the DPA law. The scumbag PM created it so my guess is that it's bad for the country but I won't pretend to be the guy to go into an in-depth discussion about the intricacies of it. 

You're on a hypothetical, I'm dealing with facts. I don't protect criminals.

 

Well its real simple, the fact is that Conservatives love DPA's as much as Liberals do and for the very same reason.  But don't take it from me there are plenty of Conservative supporters here, who hate Liberals as much as you, who could explain why.  Go ask Shady or Argus they'll have you up to speed and correctly positioned in no time.

 

Quote

This is proof that you have literally no clue what's going on. I'm not even going to bother explaining this all to you, but you should take a second to think about what it would mean if conservatives took the stance that it's necessary for the government to take control of the media.

I  certainly don't have any proof of a Deepstate run by a Media-Party.  Your hero Trump talks like he does though, he talks about the Deepstate all the time and calls the media an enemy of the people.  Why shouldn't we expect a government will act to protect it's people when the leader of that government believes the state is being or has been taken over by enemies of the people?

That would be pretty irresponsible of him not to take action wouldn't you think?

 

Quote

What the media gets away with is up to people with a remote control, not a government office. We need to see through their BS instead of propagating it. It's not always going to be this obvious.

Yes I've only said this about a thousand times now. 1001th time is the charm I guess.

Edited December 28, 2019 by eyeball

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm aware of $795M that went to CBC (not necessarily all to CBC Newz) and $600M to "select media outlets". This is the first I heard that the total is $2.2B. Where did you see that?

check your PM

[SpankyMcFarland]

No, they shouldn’t do that if they ever want to run the country again. Such a libertarian platform is way outside the Canadian political mainstream. 

[taxme]

On 12/21/2019 at 8:55 AM, Argus said:

Classical liberals, that is. The author makes a reasonable case that classical liberalism is basically today's conservatism minus the social conservatism.  Also that the Liberals are not the least bit liberal but are actually illiberal.

So what is a liberal, really? “Libertas” is Latin for liberty and “Liberal” shares the same root (“liber”). In the political realm, liberalism originally (or classically) denoted holding a philosophy based upon the concept of individual freedom. Hence “classical liberalism” is a set of beliefs that has at its root a conviction that the purpose of civilized society is to provide for the liberty of the individual. “Don’t tell me what to do” is the liberal mantra. Real liberals believe that people should largely control their own lives — that they should be free to say what they think, to have sex with and marry whom they please, to worship as they wish, to buy and sell what they want, to be responsible for themselves and to leave other people alone.

The modern version of liberalism means essentially the opposite. It embraces an expansive welfare state, extensive regulation of individual behaviour and speech, redistribution of wealth, unequal application of the law in pursuit of equality of outcome and myriad other managerial policies. Those who now call themselves Liberals in the political realm are now illiberal in their sensibilities and aspirations. Governments supervise, subsidize and control virtually every aspect of modern life: markets and financial systems, public schools and universities, health care, media, food production, energy production, telecom services, the professions and even speech. Our courts do not believe in equal application of the law. We are eroding the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process. We have abandoned even the expectation that laws will be written, clear and understandable to all. Instead citizens are subject to the arbitrary discretion of government agencies that pursue their own agendas. Identity politics reign and the surveillance state steadily expands.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/right-now-the-liberals-arent-liberals-anymore-but-the-conservatives-can-and-must-be

They are already a liberal party. They just cannot call themselves a liberal party. That is taken. They maybe could call themselves the liberal/conservative party though. That could work for them. Just saying. LOL.