Red Tory/ Blue Tory?

[SamStranger]

I hate it when Red Tories try to pass themselves off as Conservatives. But we see it everyday. Their are too many so-called "Red Tories" in the Conservative party of Canada. And their are just as many "Blue Liberals" in the Liberal Party. I don't respect that. I think all so called "Red Tories" should join the Liberal Party, and all so called "Blue Liberals" should join the Conserevatives. it's really dishonest pretending to be something ur not. In my riding of Brampton-Springdale, Conservative Candidate Sam Hundal lost to Liberal Ruby Dhalla because in the local debate he condemmed the Liberals for supporting abortion. Now thats a real Tory!! But now lets look at the 124 Conservatives that were elected, now how many of them Support Abortion!? Including the Prime minsiter!!?? I have so much respect for Stephen Harper by the way (refer to all my "I Love Harper" posts ) but... Tory's SHOULDall be Social Neo Conservatives. No to gay marriage, no to abortion, no to drugs, yes to punishment for crimes ect. Those are Tory values.

So heres my question to you all. Do you feel the present Conservative Party are true Tory's and Social Conservatives, or too Red?

[Riverwind]

I hate it when Red Tories try to pass themselves off as Conservatives.

I hate it when Neanderthals with socially regressive views insist that they have an exclusive claim on the term conservative or right of center.

[August1991]

I think all so called "Red Tories" should join the Liberal Party, and all so called "Blue Liberals" should join the Conserevatives. it's really dishonest pretending to be something ur not.

How do you propose to tell the difference? Should we give you the power to decide who is a "Red Tory" and who is a "Blue Liberal"?

A viable political party has to be a big tent. It's like airline food, you get the whole meal.

[Black Dog]

Tory's SHOULDall be Social Neo Conservatives. No to gay marriage, no to abortion, no to drugs, yes to punishment for crimes ect. Those are Tory values.

That would be great, actually. Turn the conservative party into a ghetto for the small minority of reactionaries, thus ensuring those ideas stay well out of the political mainstream instead of sneaking in with the Trojan Horse of fiscal conservativism.

(BTW, Sammy: neoconservatives are not generally social conservatives. Neoconservativism is, first and foremost, a foreign policy focused ideology.)

[kimmy]

I hate it when Red Tories try to pass themselves off as Conservatives. But we see it everyday. Their are too many so-called "Red Tories" in the Conservative party of Canada. And their are just as many "Blue Liberals" in the Liberal Party. I don't respect that. I think all so called "Red Tories" should join the Liberal Party, and all so called "Blue Liberals" should join the Conserevatives.

I guess it's people like me that upset you. All I can say is, tough luck for you. The Conservative Party needs people like me. Without us, they're back to a 60 seat opposition party.

I have so much respect for Stephen Harper by the way (refer to all my "I Love Harper" posts ) but... Tory's SHOULDall be Social Neo Conservatives. No to gay marriage, no to abortion, no to drugs, yes to punishment for crimes ect. Those are Tory values.

I also have a great deal of respect for Stephen Harper. One of the main reasons I respect him is that he's too smart to throw his party back into the trash-can by adopting policies that Canadians will never support.

-kimmy

[SamStranger]

I don't get this message board. Are their any other Social Conservatives Like me on here??? Am I the only person with guts enough to say what I really think??

[kimmy]

What do you mean. That only people who agree with you are saying what they really think? Only people who agree with you have guts?

What I really think:

Stephen Harper is a very intelligent man who knows that he needs the support of mainstream Canadians, and he knows that adopting hard-line social conservative policies will lose him the election.

-kimmy

[GuyIncognito]

CANADA is a vast country and its peoples have very diverse moral and political views and as such the ruling party will always be center based as it represents the views many of Canadians.

There is very little difference between the conservatives and liberals these days as these two parties have realized that we do not view situations according to left or right views but rather as the situation dictates.

I think I threw up a little when I read this post.... However I will not debate your right to post such tripe.

...I do think your right wing hatred would fit better in the US.

[apollo19]

I don't get this message board. Are their any other Social Conservatives Like me on here??? Am I the only person with guts enough to say what I really think??

I think most people here have the "guts" to say what they really think, it is just that their views are different from yours. In response to your original question, I think the CPC is a mix of what the parties before the merger were -- both blue tory and red tory. I hate to break it to you, but when you talk about neoconservatism you should know what economically it and neoliberalism are one and the same (did you shudder hearing the word liberal?). If you had your "way", the Conservative party would be back to being a party which would be unable to govern Canada because of it's specific regional biases.

[Leader Circle]

I don't get this message board. Are their any other Social Conservatives Like me on here??? Am I the only person with guts enough to say what I really think??

I am definitely a social Conservative too Sam. The problem with telling the truth is, tolerance is the word for the week in Canada and if we say what we think we will be black-balled for it. For example, Gwyn Morgan is branded a racist for saying that many Haitians & Koreans cause crime.(God forbid) Canada has swung to the left alot over the past 30 years with the influence of guys like Trudeau and Chretien, yet their fiscal policies are very Conservative style. I am anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-drug as well as anti-terrorist, but we can not speak our mind because it is not acceptable to hardcore lefties and they rule the social circles in Canada.

I find it funny for it to be called "hatred" and "ignorant" to be socially Conservative, yet when a large street poster was put up in my town, with a baby's picture with the slogan,"I am a child, not a choice", it lasted a week and someone vandalized it and marked it out and wrote PRO-CHOICE! Why do these people who call us intolerant, resort to vandalism to prove their point?

I disagree with you saying the Red Tories need to join the Liberal party, because Kimmy is right, we'd be back to 60 seats(28 from Alberta...LOL) and on the wrong side of the house of commons. I do think we need to allow some of the policies of the social cons to come into the house of commons, because if we don't, our religious freedoms will be gone, unless of course, we are muslim!!! The soft centrist people are in definite majority in Canada and they will be swayed in different directions by the message of the day. Many are very wishy-washy and will go which way the wind blows and who sells the best at campaign time, regardless of the truth. This is the reason that telephone solicitors do so well in Canada, because some people will believe anything you tell them.

It is sad that it has to be this way, but the media is very influencial in deciding elections. If you heard everyday that Stephen Harper is scary & eats kittens(LOL), eventually you will start to believe that he is in fact scary and not vote for him. The problem with the last election is the media was fed up with the Liberals cockiness and decided to ride them over things like the Sponsorship Program and mismanagement of public money and people bought it and voted in Harper. If Harper falls out of love with the media, like it has been lately, he will not likely get voted back in.(If the Liberals actually find a leader) The Liberals are better at telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth.

If social Conservatives want the current gov't to be in power for longer than a week, we have to keep our true feelings quiet, because in today's standard we are considered bigots. We need the Red Tories to do the talking, which is probably why Harper has told his caucus to not talk to the press!

The more I watch the news lately, the more I socially Conservative I become and I know it is not right, but tolerance for me is wearing thin, I am truly tired of people claiming to be oppressed, yet all our laws are changed for their few causes. Maybe my beliefs are American because there are no more team players in Canada, just solo superstars! At this point I am okay with being called a bigot for standing up for what I believe!

[Black Dog]

I am definitely a social Conservative too Sam. The problem with telling the truth is, tolerance is the word for the week in Canada and if we say what we think we will be black-balled for it. For example, Gwyn Morgan is branded a racist for saying that many Haitians & Koreans cause crime.(God forbid) Canada has swung to the left alot over the past 30 years with the influence of guys like Trudeau and Chretien, yet their fiscal policies are very Conservative style. I am anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage and anti-drug as well as anti-terrorist, but we can not speak our mind because it is not acceptable to hardcore lefties and they rule the social circles in Canada.

Thing is, there's nothing particularily conservative (in the classical sense) about any of those pet so-con positions. It's a bit contradictary to beleive in small government from a fiscal standpoint while believing in the right of the state to interfere in personal matters such as abortion or sexual orientation.

I find it funny for it to be called "hatred" and "ignorant" to be socially Conservative, yet when a large street poster was put up in my town, with a baby's picture with the slogan,"I am a child, not a choice", it lasted a week and someone vandalized it and marked it out and wrote PRO-CHOICE! Why do these people who call us intolerant, resort to vandalism to prove their point?

Was the poster in a public place?

The more I watch the news lately, the more I socially Conservative I become and I know it is not right, but tolerance for me is wearing thin, I am truly tired of people claiming to be oppressed, yet all our laws are changed for their few causes. Maybe my beliefs are American because there are no more team players in Canada, just solo superstars! At this point I am okay with being called a bigot for standing up for what I believe!

Have you ever stopped to think about why people would find your beliefs oppressive and intolerant?

[Argus]

I don't get this message board. Are their any other Social Conservatives Like me on here??? Am I the only person with guts enough to say what I really think??

I don't think there are that many Canadians who can chalk up a straight list of check marks all the way down the rigid social/fiscal conservative line. I think most people here would agree that I'm generally pretty conservative, but that conservatism has a libertarian slant to it in many cases. Am I in love with the homosexual culture? Not particularly. But do I think the government ought to be telling people who they can sleep with? Nope. I'm not overly enthusiastic about abortion on demand, but again, I don't see it as the state's right to intervene. I don't have a problem with porn or strippers or hookers because that's an individual choice. That being said, I'd just as soon not have any sex trade workers in the family.

I believe in government doing what it needs to do, ie, defence, border enforcement, pensions, foreign affairs, health care (yes, I do think national health care is necessary), road building, port maintenance, etc. I don't think government should be funding ballet and other arts groups, nor most any cultural or ethnic groups, nor associations of people, especially those put together to lobby for something or other. August posted a list of federal grants to organizations and individuals the other day, and I didn't see a single one which the government ought to be handing out. I think government should only be doing what it has to do, because nobody else can or will or should do it properly. But by the same token government should not be intervening in people's lives unless they have to for public order or safety or for something of overriding national importance.

[Leader Circle]

Thing is, there's nothing particularily conservative (in the classical sense) about any of those pet so-con positions. It's a bit contradictary to beleive in small government from a fiscal standpoint while believing in the right of the state to interfere in personal matters such as abortion or sexual orientation.

Was the poster in a public place?

Have you ever stopped to think about why people would find your beliefs oppressive and intolerant?

I am not asking the gov't to step in as far as sexual orientation, just not allow same sex marriage. Who gives a shit whether they are gay or not, I just don't think we need to change the definition of marriage to accommodate 1% of the population. As far as abortion, it is in the same category as gay marriage. Neither will help stabilize the aging population and it is just another "women's rights" issue that causes grief for moral people. I do say in the case of rapes & deformities, there are more arguements for abortion, but abortion for convenience boggles the mind. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!"

Yes the poster was in a public place, but I don't see the relevance of that. If the people who put it up got permission to put it up, people need to leave stuff alone.

I know why people find my beliefs intolerant. It is because what used to be commonly acceptable isn't anymore, the word traditional is considered bigotry. I am not out to take anything away from anyone, but when rights are taken from me or rules changed because someone is offended, I have a problem with that. If I tried to change every law that offended me, I would have my life's work cut out for me. I hate the seatbelt law, but try to fight it is useless, because I am a white heterosexual male of english origin(damn my ancestors!). If a gay rights group or women's lib group or any minority decided that the seatbelt law was oppressive, it would get changed. I know the last part is not true, but it awfully seems that way.

You may say nothing has been taken from me, just rights granted to people who deserve it, but I am a smoker and I am fully aware that it is not good for my lungs, but why should it be okay to treat me like a second class citizen because I smoke? If my lungs gave out, I am put to the bottom of the list for lung transplants, yet an obese person who wrecks there body by overeating or an alcoholic who wrecks his liver has a much better chance of getting transplants. Why is that? It seems like a form of oppression to me. I am addicted to cigarettes that were sold to me by my government, yet I don't deserve any respect because smoking is taboo? Should people who have reckless sex and catch diseases not get treatment?

The smoking laws in Ont & Que are a form of oppression, but try changing those! Is the government intolerant to my feelings by making smoking in public illegal? Should I have a smokers rights march? Might be a short one because we'd all be out of breath!!

What I am getting at is, there are lots of things that are intolerant & oppressive, but the only ones getting resolved are the ones for visible minorities, gays, french, natives & women.

[geoffrey]

Tory's SHOULDall be Social Neo Conservatives. No to gay marriage, no to abortion, no to drugs, yes to punishment for crimes ect. Those are Tory values.

That would be great, actually. Turn the conservative party into a ghetto for the small minority of reactionaries, thus ensuring those ideas stay well out of the political mainstream instead of sneaking in with the Trojan Horse of fiscal conservativism.

I'm actually going to agree with you on this Black Dog.

One thing you've got to do Sam Stranger is be able to logically defend the arguments you present. Emotionally and religiously, I'm not ok with abortion, I'm not ok with gay marriage, and I'm not ok with drugs. But unless I can present my argument in a rational fashion, I don't see how I can possible ask others to follow me with my beliefs. I don't like abortion, I don't like gay marriage, ect., ect., so I just won't engage in such activities. If I have a solid argument, like I believe I do with the drug issue, then I bring it out into a more policy debate.

If you can tell me a convicing logical argument against gay-marriage or abortion that isn't religious, and is sound, I'm on board. I haven't heard one yet and haven't been able to come up with one. I oppose both, I'd be at pro-life demonstrations if I believed in the effectiveness of demonstrating. But honeslty, I can't claim that they should be policy without proof of my thoughts... proof that non-Christian, non-conservatives, would see logic in.

(BTW, Sammy: neoconservatives are not generally social conservatives. Neoconservativism is, first and foremost, a foreign policy focused ideology.)

Correct, in Canada, conservatives tend to be more neo-liberal than anything else... this be the group I associate myself in. Less government... neo-cons seem to believe in more government, more spending, less taxes, more debt.

I don't get this message board. Are their any other Social Conservatives Like me on here??? Am I the only person with guts enough to say what I really think??

I am social conservative, very much so. I don't have some complex where I believe everyone should follow my beliefs though.

[Black Dog]

I am not asking the gov't to step in as far as sexual orientation, just not allow same sex marriage. Who gives a shit whether they are gay or not, I just don't think we need to change the definition of marriage to accommodate 1% of the population. As far as abortion, it is in the same category as gay marriage. Neither will help stabilize the aging population and it is just another "women's rights" issue that causes grief for moral people. I do say in the case of rapes & deformities, there are more arguements for abortion, but abortion for convenience boggles the mind. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!"

I think both of those can and have been covered elsewhere, but I think the sentiment voiced by Argus and geoffery is bang on: if you don't like a cetain behaviour, don't indulge in it.

Yes the poster was in a public place, but I don't see the relevance of that. If the people who put it up got permission to put it up, people need to leave stuff alone.

If it's not on private property, it's not vandalism. If the people who put it up felt it was okay to use public space for voicing their political view, I see no reason why someone can't do the same to the poster.

I know why people find my beliefs intolerant. It is because what used to be commonly acceptable isn't anymore, the word traditional is considered bigotry. I am not out to take anything away from anyone, but when rights are taken from me or rules changed because someone is offended, I have a problem with that. If I tried to change every law that offended me, I would have my life's work cut out for me. I hate the seatbelt law, but try to fight it is useless, because I am a white heterosexual male of english origin(damn my ancestors!). If a gay rights group or women's lib group or any minority decided that the seatbelt law was oppressive, it would get changed. I know the last part is not true, but it awfully seems that way.

Has it occurred to you that many "traditional values" have been used as instruments of oppression?

You may say nothing has been taken from me, just rights granted to people who deserve it, but I am a smoker and I am fully aware that it is not good for my lungs, but why should it be okay to treat me like a second class citizen because I smoke? If my lungs gave out, I am put to the bottom of the list for lung transplants, yet an obese person who wrecks there body by overeating or an alcoholic who wrecks his liver has a much better chance of getting transplants. Why is that? It seems like a form of oppression to me. I am addicted to cigarettes that were sold to me by my government, yet I don't deserve any respect because smoking is taboo? Should people who have reckless sex and catch diseases not get treatment?

The smoking laws in Ont & Que are a form of oppression, but try changing those! Is the government intolerant to my feelings by making smoking in public illegal? Should I have a smokers rights march? Might be a short one because we'd all be out of breath!!

What I am getting at is, there are lots of things that are intolerant & oppressive, but the only ones getting resolved are the ones for visible minorities, gays, french, natives & women.

Smoking is a choice. Race, gender or sexual orientation is not. Also: what laws are so oppressive? You're not being arrested, you'r enot being denied the right to smoke in your home or on the street. If you think laws prohibiting you from smking in certain places are tantamount to being treated as a second-class citizen, you have no idea what it means to be oppressed.

[Biblio Bibuli]

If you think laws prohibiting you from smking in certain places are tantamount to being treated as a second-class citizen, you have no idea what it means to be oppressed.

Oh sure Black Dog ... are you trying to tell us you're really a "Black Dog" who has been put at the back of the bus & "treated as a second class citizen"? You KNOW what it feels like? You were brought up in Alabama in the 50's ... or the Transvaal?

The guy has a point. Once people were treated as garbage based on their ethinicity. Now it's being a smoker or fat or a born again Christian. Same shit. People wanting to feel superior to another group.

And don't say ... they have a choice. Apparently really obese people don't have much of a choice. I'm not sure why ... but I believe them ... they can't seem to stop the behavior. Smokers too.

We're just as intolerant today as the Nazis & the Boers.

Do not fat people cry? When you cut a smoker does he not bleed?

(Substitute black people or Jews at your leisure.)

[Leader Circle]

Yes the poster was in a public place, but I don't see the relevance of that. If the people who put it up got permission to put it up, people need to leave stuff alone.

If it's not on private property, it's not vandalism. If the people who put it up felt it was okay to use public space for voicing their political view, I see no reason why someone can't do the same to the poster.

Smoking is a choice. Race, gender or sexual orientation is not. Also: what laws are so oppressive? You're not being arrested, you'r enot being denied the right to smoke in your home or on the street. If you think laws prohibiting you from smking in certain places are tantamount to being treated as a second-class citizen, you have no idea what it means to be oppressed.

So you promote vandalism if it is on public property?? Your parents never taught you respect for other people's property?? I think it is pathetic that people think this kind of thing is okay.

The first smoke or first pack is a choice, after that, it's a way of life. You never been addicted to anything?

Race & gender are not a choice, but lately I think people will choose their sexual orientation to get ahead. Homosexuality is a growing trend because they see how much stroke that homosexuals possess!!

I find it hard to believe that you don't find this(smoking bans) to be oppression? With a statement like that, you have the nerve to call righties close minded, ironic!

[Biblio Bibuli]

I think people will choose their sexual orientation to get ahead.

That's what EVERY eunick says.

[newbie]

The first smoke or first pack is a choice, after that, it's a way of life. You never been addicted to anything?

Lots of people have quit smoking without any assitance whatsoever. Moot point IMV.

"I find it hard to believe that you don't find this(smoking bans) to be oppression?"

Your right to smoke ends where I breathe. Very simple really.

[SamStranger]

I don't get this message board. Are their any other Social Conservatives Like me on here??? Am I the only person with guts enough to say what I really think??

I am social conservative, very much so. I don't have some complex where I believe everyone should follow my beliefs though.

I dont want others to follow my beliefs, frankly I dont care. I just find it hard to let loose on this board because the majority of people here are liberals, and dont pay attention to what I say anyways. A rational reason why I dont support gay marriiage, abortion ect. I have many reasons. Firstly its a religioous thing. The bible clearly states that God hates 3 things, and one of them is the shedding of Innocent blood. You know in Exodus it says if 2 men are fighting and one man knocks over a pregnat woman, and causes her to lose her baby, that man should be killed. That shows you how bad abortion is. Gay marriage is a whole diff thing. Being gay in general is a majour sin. We all have a mom and a dad, male and female, thats how we were all created. So being gay is simply against the natural order of things. Two men cannot create a child, so they were not meant to be together. And to put it quite simple, women are stunning, beautiful, and simply amazing- I would die witout my wife, and I dont understand how gay men reject these beautiful creatures.

I was born a Tory and ill die a Tory. Social Conservatives will one day rule the commons, I don;t thing the merger of the Torys was a very good idea. Blue and Red torys mixed, and thats gonna cause problems when the Gay marriage debate re-surfaces. I think Harper should put some more Social Conservatives in the senate, and fast!

[Black Dog]

Oh sure Black Dog ... are you trying to tell us you're really a "Black Dog" who has been put at the back of the bus & "treated as a second class citizen"? You KNOW what it feels like? You were brought up in Alabama in the 50's ... or the Transvaal?

Uh...no. But I'm not the one yelling "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

The guy has a point. Once people were treated as garbage based on their ethinicity. Now it's being a smoker or fat or a born again Christian. Same shit. People wanting to feel superior to another group.

Uh...no. Like I said, smokers and fat people aren't being thrown in prison. They enjoy all the same rights as anyone else. The comparison between how smokers or the obese are regarded by society versus the historical treatment of homosexuals, women and visible minorities is completely fatuous.

And don't say ... they have a choice. Apparently really obese people don't have much of a choice. I'm not sure why ... but I believe them ... they can't seem to stop the behavior. Smokers too.

We're just as intolerant today as the Nazis & the Boers.

When we start putting smokers in camps, then you might have a point. Until then:

So you promote vandalism if it is on public property?? Your parents never taught you respect for other people's property?? I think it is pathetic that people think this kind of thing is okay.

I have no problem with a political response to a political statement.

The first smoke or first pack is a choice, after that, it's a way of life. You never been addicted to anything?

Yeah. I used to smoke. Then I quit.

Race & gender are not a choice, but lately I think people will choose their sexual orientation to get ahead. Homosexuality is a growing trend because they see how much stroke that homosexuals possess!!

Or maybe homosexuality is just more visible thanks to the fact that many of the barriers to public acknowledgement of homosexuality have been removed. Still: there's a lot of stigma attached to homosexuality. It's no walk in the park.

I find it hard to believe that you don't find this(smoking bans) to be oppression? With a statement like that, you have the nerve to call righties close minded, ironic!

Smoking bans are restrictive, but justified in the interests of public health. Other than where you can light up, what rights of yours are being trampled?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Other than where you can light up, what rights of yours are being trampled?

Oh Rosa! Aside from where you can sit, what rights of yours are being trampled? Just sit at the damned back & be done with it.

Of course it's not on the same scale as Dachau, but is it just a matter of scale? I mean ... the South Africans weren't actually burning the black folks ... so that makes it better than the Nazis?

[Black Dog]

Oh Rosa! Aside from where you can sit, what rights of yours are being trampled? Just sit at the damned back & be done with it.

Of course it's not on the same scale as Dachau, but is it just a matter of scale? I mean ... the South Africans weren't actually burning the black folks ... so that makes it better than the Nazis?[/

Answer the question: what civil rights are being violated?

[gc1765]

Oh Rosa! Aside from where you can sit, what rights of yours are being trampled? Just sit at the damned back & be done with it.

Ha, what a poor comparison! Don't forget the other "Jim Crow" laws of the time: No intermarriage, Separate schools, bathrooms, restaurants, drinking fountains, apartments...even talking about equality was illegal. It's not as if non-smokers are saying that smokers and non-smokers can't get married. By refusing to give up her seat, Rosa Parks was protesting against all of those laws. On the other hand, smoking in public is much different because it puts other people's health in jeopardy. My right to breathe clean air is more important than your right to smoke.

[kimmy]

Other than where you can light up, what rights of yours are being trampled?

Oh Rosa! Aside from where you can sit, what rights of yours are being trampled? Just sit at the damned back & be done with it.

Of course it's not on the same scale as Dachau, but is it just a matter of scale? I mean ... the South Africans weren't actually burning the black folks ... so that makes it better than the Nazis?

Comparing the act of smoking to the act of being black is a bit of a non-starter. You can choose to smoke your cig later, you can choose to quit smoking, you can choose to not start smoking in the first place. None of that can be said of skin color.

While I can understand that people feel they have a right to pursue whatever leisure activities they wish, that right is not without limit, and when it becomes inconvenient or harmful to others, you've reached that limit. Your leisure activity might be smoking, for other people it might be model rocketry. The only difference I see is that I've never seen a model rocketry enthusiast bring his stuff to a restaurant and expect to launch it while people are trying to eat.

-k