Mr. Chater Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Word is coming in from the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation and the Globe and Mail that the Management Committee of the Progressive Conservative Party, the governing body of that Party, will soon debate a resolution on whether or not to cut off sales of new PC memberships. Quote
Pellaken Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Yes it would Pell. It would be a party of extreme left wing wackos. Wait a minute...there's already a party like that. It's called the NDP. many in the NDP are socalist we need a mainstreem social party, progressive on the social issues, but something that's centrist on economics. Quote
Neal.F. Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Pellaken, To call being pro-abortion and pro-homosexual "progressive" is a nisnomer if not complete bastardization of the word. "ar is Peace" Freedom is slavery" & "ignorance of strength come immediately to mind. Those types of policies are acually REGRESSIVE in the sense that they devalue the human being, and brings society backward to barabarism. The sooner they are cast into the trashcan of history, the better. Quote
westcoast99 Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 "War is Peace" "Freedom is slavery" & "Ignorance is Strength" come immediately to mind. You're exactly right, and interesting you say this as I am reading 1984 right now. Scary. Quote
Cameron Posted October 19, 2003 Report Posted October 19, 2003 Word is coming in from the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation and the Globe and Mail that the Management Committee of the Progressive Conservative Party, the governing body of that Party, will soon debate a resolution on whether or not to cut off sales of new PC memberships. They should! We are too close to this historic event to have the lefties try and throw it off. I guess they have nothing better to do, wait, they never have anything better to do. Jurassic Joe and his following should be cast out, this is the future and we are part of it. Quote Economic Left/Right: 3.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.26 I want to earn money and keep the majority of it.
RT_1984 Posted October 19, 2003 Author Report Posted October 19, 2003 I really don't give a rat's ass about the NDP. The only possible benefit they can be to Canada in my mind is that they will take seats from the Liberals. That's about it. I don't want a socialist party. I don't need a socialist party. And the sooner that pathetic ideology is destroyed by cold, hard economic facts, laws and realities, the better off we will all be. Marx and Engels are dead and Keynes has been discredited as a philosopher rather than an economist. Long live Milton Friedman. Quote
dnsfurlan Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 I've read a lot of Stephen Harper's material from the past. And I've come to this conclusion. This is not the kind of man who would sell us out, water us down, or jeopardize our electoral success. This is pretty much my sentiment too. We have over a month to ratify this merger. I certainly would like to get more info before doing so. However, this deal is less about specific policy and more about getting relatively like-minded people together again to provide an option to Canadians that neither the Canadian Alliance or the PC Party of Canada could for over a decade. I mean, what were our options? Either: 1) Keep hoping that Canadians would finally see that one party was right and the other wrong? 2) Forget about the past, and move ahead into the future with one party that has a far better chance of selling itself as a serious alternative to the Libs. I think I like 2) better myself. There is still a long road ahead in the development of this new party. Most of us probably won't like some of what happens with it. But, at the end of the day, will it provide the democratic option we can all live with? I sure hope so. And I think that's what we'll be voting for come Dec. 12. Quote
Neal.F. Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 the result of option one can be summed up in two words: LIBERALS FOREVER. Quote
Rob1963 Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 Odd to hear CA'ers calling on their membership to swamp the PC Party in order to vote for this agreement. And I thought one of their platforms was "democracy". Is this democracy? My only guess is that they can't sell it any other way. Shows the desperation of the CA to take over the PC Party since they can't get elected otherwise! Anyone who thinks the New Party (if it happens) will be anything other than the CA/Reform think about this: - Peter MacKay may have gotten his way on the leadership selection, but the one-member, one-vote is still in place for the policy. Whose policies will prevail then???? Quote
Mr. Chater Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 Whatever happens, if this merger is outvoted in December, there will be Hell to pay. Quote
RT_1984 Posted October 20, 2003 Author Report Posted October 20, 2003 "Peter MacKay may have gotten his way on the leadership selection, but the one-member, one-vote is still in place for the policy. Whose policies will prevail then????" - Most of the policies of both parties are the same. We're very close on most issues. Policy wise, in this agreement the PC's certainly got the most concessions with billingualism, the environment and leadership selection. As for any upcoming disagreements: It's called compromise. It's what forming govt. is all about. You can kick up a stink all you like about this party, no body in ever party that has ever existed has agreed on everything. In fact most disagree on many things. Get over it. This is about seeing the big picture and achieving the greater good. Quote
dnsfurlan Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Odd to hear CA'ers calling on their membership to swamp the PC Party in order to vote for this agreement. And I thought one of their platforms was "democracy". Its certainly not a pure solution. However, it is being endorsed because of the Orchard factor. If you think this guy, and the 25% of the membership he carries, has the best interests of the PC Party at heart, I'd think again. Many members of your own party don't like the guy and don't like the fact that he has hijacked a good portion of it. And what's wrong with allowing new members in? Many of them may well be PCers who saw the current state of the party as no reason to renew membership. And, if the sentiment against merger is strong enough within the party, I don't think it should be any problem for them to hold off any "swamping". You have the Orchardites already. A full 90% of the rest would need to vote yes in order for merger to pass. If merger does pass, the majority of true Tories will have given their approval. Shows the desperation of the CA to take over the PC Party since they can't get elected otherwise! Isn't this the kind of bickering we've been engaged in for the past decade? The PCs think the CA is weak and vice versa. This merger means an end to all those petty fights, doesn't it? Anyone who thinks the New Party (if it happens) will be anything other than the CA/Reform think about this:- Peter MacKay may have gotten his way on the leadership selection, but the one-member, one-vote is still in place for the policy. Whose policies will prevail then???? Well think about this. The new party has recieved the endorsements of Bernard Lord, Brian Mulroney, and John Crosbie - among others. This is hardly a takeover by Reform that the naysayers are portraying it to be. Does anyone really think Mulroney would simply put his stamp of approval on a party that stabbed him in the back? For that matter, would Bernard Lord or John Crosbie support a new entity they tought was a simple makeover of the Alliance? Let's try to get some perspective in this discussion. Many people on both sides feel they are losing out. (Many "Reformers" believe the merger deal means the end of their movement). Many more, including the people I mentioned above, think there is far more to gain. Quote
Rob1963 Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Mr. Chater, who is going to pay hell, and to whom? RT 1984, The Founding Principles are nothing more than warm fuzzy statements, 90% of which the NDP and Green Parties likely could support. The crunch comes when the membership puts in place policy and platforms. There are several areas where I and the PC Party disagree with the CA. Issues like Capital Punishment, recall, referenda, regional economic development, hate legislation, bilingualism, etc. dnsfurlan, There is nothing wrong with new members signing up with the new Party if it comes to pass, and that is the party they support. They can do that if and when the new Party is created. I take issue with people who have never supported the PC Party, coming in with the sole purpose of destroying something which I and many others have worked very hard at rebuilding. I just spent over $1000 of my hard-earned money to go to Toronto to elect a leader to lead the PC Party into the next election, as the PC Party of Canada. I don't take too kindly to someone plunking $10 down to vote to negate that. I have no problem if someone can prove that they have been a member of the PC Party in the past, say the last five years (certainly someone who was a member during the rebuilding phase, not someone who was a member in 1993 and then left because they didn't think the PC Party was worth working for), but someone who can prove they were a member at some point within the last five years can have a say in this process. Just because Lord, Mulroney, and Crosby are endorsing this doesn't mean they have a monoploy on right over wrong. After all I supported Peter MacKay (after Scott Brison) for the leadership of the PC Party. Let's just say, It will be a long time before I could support or trust him again!! Quote
Moderate Centrist Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 After all I supported Peter MacKay (after Scott Brison) for the leadership of the PC Party. Let's just say, It will be a long time before I could support or trust him again!! I was once a MacKay supporter too. The big winners here are the Canadian Alliance and Harper. MacKay has shown himself to be a political opportunist. I believe his conduct over the last six months is going to hurt him. Quote
Neal.F. Posted October 25, 2003 Report Posted October 25, 2003 Whatever happens, if this merger is outvoted in December, there will be Hell to pay. If the merger is voted down by Red tories and Orchardistas, there won't be hell to pay.... the momentum has swung to far and events have passed them by. You will see the Conservative Party formed anyway by up to 12 of the current sitting members (Clark, Borotsik and possibly bachand the exceptions) with the CA. The husk of the PROGRESSIVE Conservative party will cease to be a party in Parliament in any case, and will garner fewer votes than the Greens in the next election. Heck, with Orchard around, they may as well join the Greens! It's too late to turn back now. The truth is, the country could have been spared 7 of 10 years of the Liberal government had they done the right thing in time for '97. The Lieberals only got 38% of the vote, and the little weasel held his majority by a mere 4 seats. The problem then wa the aggressive "Join us, or we'll crush you" attitude of Reform. Had they approached the PCs back then with a Bouquet instead of a machine-gun, we'd have been spared a whole host of boondoggles, and odious pieces of legislation like C-250, gay marriage and legalization of mind-altering substances. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.