babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Can the CPC be Reformed, or better another Centrist Party?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Can the CPC be Reformed, or better another Centrist Party?
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 17 October 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've realized that there's a wider range of Conservative thinking in Canada than I once thought, so I'd like to ask Babble moderates their opinion -Gir Draxon, CCO, Long Suffering Conservative, Sean Tisdall, et al. Do you think it's better for "red" Tories and other moderate conservatives to keep trying to regain leadership of the existing CPC, shifting it to a more Canada friendly position, or better to simply try and start rebuilding another national centrist alternative again?

It's my opinion that the Alliance led merger has only given the Federal Liberals a long term lease on government and even less motivation to clean up their act. (not to mention making it more difficult for the NDP to gain ground on the left) I can also see the advantages of trying to recapture the CPC as it stands, and let the radical right and assorted bigots either accept a diminished role again or cut and run themselves. (another PC type of party would still have more room to grow than another Reform Party IMO) I'm not so sure if that is likely to happen within the foreseeable future though.

My own definition of "Red Tory" or "moderate conservative" might differ from others who identify themselves as such, but means to me someone who believes in private enterprise but also a responsibility towards the whole community, and some respect for the traditional role of public institutions in society -not neo-Libertarianism in other words. I'll try to keep my own opinions to a minimum though, and respectfully ask other leftwingers to please allow our Tory refugees their say too, thanks. Anyone else have an opinion on this question?


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 18 October 2005 12:03 AM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I've realized that there's a wider range of Conservative thinking in Canada than I once thought, so I'd like to ask Babble moderates their opinion -Gir Draxon, CCO, Long Suffering Conservative, Sean Tisdall, et al. Do you think it's better for "red" Tories and other moderate conservatives to keep trying to regain leadership of the existing CPC, shifting it to a more Canada friendly position, or better to simply try and start rebuilding another national centrist alternative again?

It's my opinion that the Alliance led merger has only given the Federal Liberals a long term lease on government and even less motivation to clean up their act. (not to mention making it more difficult for the NDP to gain ground on the left) I can also see the advantages of trying to recapture the CPC as it stands, and let the radical right and assorted bigots either accept a diminished role again or cut and run themselves. (another PC type of party would still have more room to grow than another Reform Party IMO) I'm not so sure if that is likely to happen within the foreseeable future though.

My own definition of "Red Tory" or "moderate conservative" might differ from others who identify themselves as such, but means to me someone who believes in private enterprise but also a responsibility towards the whole community, and some respect for the traditional role of public institutions in society -not neo-Libertarianism in other words. I'll try to keep my own opinions to a minimum though, and respectfully ask other leftwingers to please allow our Tory refugees their say too, thanks. Anyone else have an opinion on this question?


I have been to two CPC nomination meetings. I have now told them not to phone, not to write, and in the last election had an NDP sign on my lawn. I would like to be a conservative, but not one like in the CPC.....


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
fast_twitch_neurons
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10443

posted 18 October 2005 12:37 AM      Profile for fast_twitch_neurons     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was also active in the CPC once upon a time, I was somewhat uncomfortable, or very uncomfortable, with many of the people there. Even the CPC in montreal was bothering me, I can't imagine the CPC in Brockville or Bentley. Ultimately the reason I left was that Stephen Harper has a strong opinion on the gay marriage issue (which I've come to disagree with) and no strong opinion anywhere else.

It's a vicious cycle really, they can't become more moderate without bringing in more moderates, and they can't bring in more moderate without first becoming more moderate. I think eventually, one day, it will evolve into a more centrist party simply by natural selection. Bad ideas within Canada will die, or Canada will die. And even if it were to die and we were to see an Liberal-NDP duality, in that new reality both those parties will have to have shifted somewhat rightward in some way so the result would be the same.

I think there's some demand for a restrained government that focuses on doing well what it already handles rather than increasing its horizones, some demand for democratic reform, and then there's people like me who have seen from personal experience how the welfare checque can destroy human beings from the inside out in certain circumstance. The CPC though is presently occupying another niche.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: fast_twitch_neurons ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 18 October 2005 01:52 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
posted by Erik the Red: My own definition of "Red Tory" or "moderate conservative" might differ from others who identify themselves as such, but means to me someone who believes in private enterprise but also a responsibility towards the whole community, and some respect for the traditional role of public institutions in society -not neo-Libertarianism in other words. I'll try to keep my own opinions to a minimum though, and respectfully ask other leftwingers to please allow our Tory refugees their say too, thanks. Anyone else have an opinion on this question?
Private enterprise is not evil, but it has become a 'passe-partout' expression that seemingly encompasses everything from the local family-owned dépanneur or the one-person-talent/skill shop to huge multi-nationals with greedy shareholders and even greedier CEOs. The thing is, a political party attracts a lot of different people, for widely different and divergent reasons. Witness Bev Desjarlais, until recently an elected NDP MP.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 18 October 2005 04:15 AM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those of you who have visited bloggingjamieson.blogspot.com know that we are doing what we can to change the leadership of our party. We also want to move further to the center, on many issues.

Our alliance cousins will fight us every step of the way. I don't expect to make real headway until Harper resigns, probably right after the next election.

Is all my effort really worth it? Damned right it is. I respect the Progressive Party of Canada but in my humble opinion, they don't seem to be catching on with voters.


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
VenomWearinDenim
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9092

posted 18 October 2005 05:05 AM      Profile for VenomWearinDenim        Edit/Delete Post
i once had a dream of a Progressive Conservative Party. I even voted Conservative in the last federal election in the hopes that -somehow, magically- the party would shift to the center. My naivety was ridiculous.

The same naivety led me to consort with various Conservatives and even to consider involving myself. Then I realized with dismay that party activists, regardless of their politics, are non-thinking proselytes (especially the vulgar-Christians). Wedded to spoonfed illusion.

I'm not sure a party with more centrist rhetoric would make any difference. As it is, the rhetoric regarding civil unions, taxation, justice, and whatnot, strike me as adornments intended to differentiate the party from the Liberals, rather than serve as indications of what the party might actually do if given the opportunity to govern. I would expect the taxation promises to fall by the wayside and business as usual (centre-right governance) to continue.

1) A shift in rhetoric might steal liberal votes, but it will also drive rightist voters "out of the market." The difference being ambiguous, it is not surprising that the CPC (not communist) has stuck to their strategy.
2) Besides, the Liberals are in a better position to mobilize center-left prop since they have been doing it (with the help of the state itself) for nearly a century. Obviously, pointing out to the public that the Liberals are not exactly the party of the left is not likely to help conservative fortunes (ie NDP's gain is not CPC's gain)
3) Adopting a centrist stance (in effect creating a second liberal party) is likely to increase disaffection with Cdn federal politics (particularly in AB). {I have a vague memory of some "Reform Party" or some such thing}

Finally, I do consider it important that inter-party competition is not akin to inter-firm competition -that is, the introduction of a party that can credibly compete for government will not necessarily lead to "better" Liberal government.


From: Otto Von Wa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Being
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7768

posted 18 October 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for Being   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
The Conservatives have two alternatives, which ultimately will mean they cannot exist as one party. The two alternatives are represented by the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. Except for acknowledging themselves as 'Conservative', there is nothing in common between the two groups. Combined, they are doing worse than they did as two distinct parties.

Some have calculated that the combined Party would get more seats in Parliament than the two old parties. This is all the merger has managed to accomplish. As far as the popular vote goes, the new Conservative Party is doing worse, even at last election's total of 29%. Even a cursory glance at Conservative affairs shows a considerable degree of infighting between the two groups. They are as compatible as oil and water.

In the long run, the Conservative Party has managed to eliminate the Progressive Conservative Party, with the vast majority of them going to the Liberal Party, which is becoming a Grand Coalition of Red Tories, Blue Liberals, and Red Liberals. (The difference between Blue Liberals and Red Tories is that the former are more loyal to the Liberal Party. They are both neoliberals.)

Still, as a bloc, the Red Tories are around 18% of the voting population. This means that if they decide to go with the Liberals there will be a renewal of the Liberal Party despite attrition from old corruption problems. As always, the Liberals will welcome with open arms those from other parties. Having few 'Principles' makes it easy for them to do that.

In English Canada The only people who are opposed to the Liberal Party now are those who consider that they have 'Principles', namely chauvanist Conservatives, left Social Democrats, and left neoliberals. The vast majority of English Canadians have few 'Principles'.

A sizeable chunk of the people are more concerned about getting things done than 'Principles'.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 18 October 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I've realized that there's a wider range of Conservative thinking in Canada than I once thought, so I'd like to ask Babble moderates their opinion -Gir Draxon, CCO, Long Suffering Conservative, Sean Tisdall, et al. Do you think it's better for "red" Tories and other moderate conservatives to keep trying to regain leadership of the existing CPC, shifting it to a more Canada friendly position, or better to simply try and start rebuilding another national centrist alternative again?

The current CPC is actually more 'Canada friendly' than you infer in the manner you state your question.

It should be obvious by now that Stephen Harper is here to stay as leader of the CPC - having brought a long sought stability to conservative representation in federal politics.

The looming federal election will be unlike any experienced before in Canadian history, with much more at stake than many Canadians appear to realize - dulled as they have been through changes wrought in Canada over the last 3 decades.

The 'Reform Party' is the answer to your query. Efforts to resurrect dominance of the CPC by so-called 'Red Tories' out of Ontario - or to once again successfully split federal conservative voters into disparate sparring elements - will spur a sea change in Canadian politics along the lines of that which took hold in Quebec back in Rene Leveque's day.

quote:
It's my opinion that the Alliance led merger has only given the Federal Liberals a long term lease on government and even less motivation to clean up their act.

Oh ye of little faith ( so to speak). The federal Liberals govern this land through instilling fear in the electorate that those Canadians who
allow faith (read Christianty) to be their guide in life, are incapable of 'loving their neighbours' .

quote:
I can also see the advantages of trying to recapture the CPC as it stands, and let the radical right and assorted bigots either accept a diminished role again or cut and run themselves. (another PC type of party would still have more room to grow than another Reform Party IMO)

Har! Tarring those who disagree with the current course of Canadian politics as 'radical right and assorted bigots' is itself evidence of the successful inculcation of bigotted thought by past incarnations of the Liberal Party of Canada.

quote:
I'm not so sure if that is likely to happen within the foreseeable future though.

You should make some room in your thinking for allowing that the same success which greeted the formation of the Reform Party in western Canada may well attend the call for western provinces to secede from Canada itself.

quote:
My own definition of "Red Tory" or "moderate conservative" might differ from others who identify themselves as such, but means to me someone who believes in private enterprise but also a responsibility towards the whole community, and some respect for the traditional role of public institutions in society -not neo-Libertarianism in other words.

Heck, you make it sound as if private enterprise is inherantly opposed to the 'whole community' .
And perhaps it is if Canada is truly destined to be a Liberal nanny-state whose citizens are entirely reliant on public institutions.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 October 2005 05:38 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
~ yawn ~
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 October 2005 05:41 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Don'tcha just hate it when you open a thread and end up covered in troll splooge?
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean Tisdall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3465

posted 18 October 2005 05:45 PM      Profile for Sean Tisdall   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

I have been to two CPC nomination meetings. I have now told them not to phone, not to write, and in the last election had an NDP sign on my lawn. I would like to be a conservative, but not one like in the CPC.....


Then be one like in the PC Party. There is a progressive-conservative option avilable. The Progressive Canadian party.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Dimension XY | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 18 October 2005 05:49 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
The current CPC is actually more 'Canada friendly' than you infer in the manner you state your question.
It should be obvious by now that Stephen Harper is here to stay as leader of the CPC - having brought a long sought stability to conservative representation in federal politics.

The looming federal election will be unlike any experienced before in Canadian history, with much more at stake than many Canadians appear to realize - dulled as they have been through changes wrought in Canada over the last 3 decades.


Heck, you make it sound as if private enterprise is inherantly opposed to the 'whole community' .
And perhaps it is if Canada is truly destined to be a Liberal nanny-state whose citizens are entirely reliant on public institutions.



In your first 3 sentences you have illustrated beautifully why there is no hope pf the CPC winning the next election. If only Gilles DuCeppe was a federalist!!!! I think he is the only hones politician in the next election....
As for private enterprise, it has no hope either over taxed by every level of government and as poorly served as anyone in Canada.......


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 18 October 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I've realized that there's a wider range of Conservative thinking in Canada than I once thought, so I'd like to ask Babble moderates their opinion -Gir Draxon, CCO, Long Suffering Conservative, Sean Tisdall, et al. ....

I'll try to keep my own opinions to a minimum though, and respectfully ask other leftwingers to please allow our Tory refugees their say too, thanks. Anyone else have an opinion on this question?


Nine posts before the thread got trolled. Better than I expected.

quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:If only Gilles DuCeppe was a federalist!!!! I think he is the only hones politician in the next election....

A-fricken-men to that.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 18 October 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Don'tcha just hate it when you open a thread and end up covered in troll splooge?

Yep.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 18 October 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
In your first 3 sentences you have illustrated beautifully why there is no hope pf the CPC winning the next election.


That's a curious statement.
I said the CPC is Canada friendly - it is.
I said Stephen Harper has stabilized a viable conservative party - he has.
I said the the next election is crucial to Canada's future - it is.

I foresee a Conservative minority government at worst, and potential majority government if the CPC plays it's cards right (so to speak), and NDP supporters don't fall for the Liberal scare campaign again..

quote:
If only Gilles DuCeppe was a federalist!!!! I think he is the only hones politician in the next election....

It's encouraging, refreshing even, to see that the concept of splitting Canada into regional enclaves lends merit to openly anti-federalist platforms, and renders their leadership worthy of high accolades.

quote:
As for private enterprise, it has no hope either over taxed by every level of government and as poorly served as anyone in Canada.......

Private enterprise in Canada these days is best represented by the legal profession - who surely have Canadians' best interests at heart in the relentless pursuit of a 'Just' society.
'Just' survive the womb, and one will live happily ever after...

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 October 2005 06:17 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

I foresee a Conservative minority government at worst, and potential majority government if the CPC plays it's cards right

Wow, I wish I could masturbate as often as you do.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 October 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
Nine posts before the thread got trolled. Better than I expected.

He was looking for responses from MODERATE Conservatives. Maikeru is just another FreakDominion troll.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 18 October 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

It should be obvious by now that Stephen Harper is here to stay as leader of the CPC...

Until he's dumped.

quote:
Efforts to resurrect dominance of the CPC by so-called 'Red Tories' out of Ontario - or to once again successfully split federal conservative voters into disparate sparring elements - will spur a sea change in Canadian politics along the lines of that which took hold in Quebec back in Rene Leveque's day.

In your dreams maikeru.

Interruption to slap CPC-droid over.
Carry on Red Tories.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 18 October 2005 06:28 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

Wow, I wish I could masturbate as often as you do.
He was looking for responses from MODERATE Conservatives. Maikeru is just another FreakDominion troll.


Surely there are other threads for you to bother with your nonsense.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 October 2005 06:29 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

Surely there are other threads for you to bother with your nonsense.

And there are other boards where you'd be welcome so quit trolling this one with your Harper-porn.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 October 2005 06:58 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"I said the CPC is Canada friendly - it is."

Most Canadians would agree that Stephen Harper has George W. Bush's best interests at heart.

"I said Stephen Harper has stabilized a viable conservative party - he has."

If stability is achieved by purging the 'Conservative' party of traditional Canadian conservatives like Clark, Stevens and MacDonald, then stabilize it he has - at a mere fraction of the size of the two combined parties.

"I said the the next election is crucial to Canada's future - it is."

What makes this one any more crucial than the last two? The fact that Stephen Harper is toast if he can't produce better results than seen previously?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean Tisdall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3465

posted 18 October 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for Sean Tisdall   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oooh! Oooh! Partisan Wankery! Let me try!

I predict a PC sweep in the next election of 309 seats! Of course then we'll piss it all away with our "pokes in the eyes and steal our oil International Entente" or 'PITASOOIE' for short with EuroSaddamland that we had absolutely no mandate for as an attempt to provide direction to a floundering government after everyone in cabinet resigns due to crushing allegations of scandal which are posthumously disproven and 20 years after we are reduced to negative 3 seats, David Frum's Anarcho-Synicalist grandkids Moonunit and Noam-Chomsky will write about how I, Sean Tisdall, was the greatest prime minister that Canada has ever known, and that if I were here, President Michael Moore would just stop following our finance minister around with that damn camera screaming, "this is a photo of a dying Iraqi child!" While the evil neo-classical-baroque-liberal party registers all of our firearms and sets us to work on them trendy gaspatcho farms. And then I'll make millions in software and lose it at the track.

Ahh, sleep deprivation.

But seriously, I'm not in the Conservative Party, because they aren't conservative. I'm in the PC Party. [Blatant Plug] I miss telling Alexander that frequently and then having him tell me I'm a NAZI libertarian. Ah, those were the good old days.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Dimension XY | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 18 October 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
"I said the CPC is Canada friendly - it is."

Most Canadians would agree that Stephen Harper has George W. Bush's best interests at heart.

"I said Stephen Harper has stabilized a viable conservative party - he has."

If stability is achieved by purging the 'Conservative' party of traditional Canadian conservatives like Clark, Stevens and MacDonald, then stabilize it he has - at a mere fraction of the size of the two combined parties.

"I said the the next election is crucial to Canada's future - it is."

What makes this one any more crucial than the last two? The fact that Stephen Harper is toast if he can't produce better results than seen previously?



I wouldn't say Harper has george bush's interests at heart, his heart belongs to G*d and only G*d.

He will sell out the country only if and when G*d tells him to,
If he doesn't get the order he will just spend his time deconstructing the Canadian Uncivil service. He will employ thousands of consultants in order to find out how to make government smaller.
He will fire 25000 civil servants and hire 30000 consultants to do it.
He will encourage Quebec to separate, but only if they pay the pensions of all Quebec MP's. faced with that debt, Quebec will refuse to leave.
He will encourage Ontario to separate, because that will make the flight home shorter. He will be baffled when it doesn't.
He will attack Gay marriage again, but give up when he finds out that gay marriages have half the divorce rate of straight marriage and it is making the marriage statistics better....
And finally he will make abortion illegal only to find out women no longer go to a doctor but simply buy an over the counter medication to fix the problem.....


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 18 October 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
"I said the CPC is Canada friendly - it is."
Most Canadians would agree that Stephen Harper has George W. Bush's best interests at heart.


Are you an exception to that group think - or a conduit for it ?
If an exception, then good on you for maintaining independent thought.
If a conduit, I believe you're mistaken.

quote:
"I said Stephen Harper has stabilized a viable conservative party - he has."
If stability is achieved by purging the 'Conservative' party of traditional Canadian conservatives like Clark, Stevens and MacDonald, then stabilize it he has - at a mere fraction of the size of the two combined parties.


It wasn't Stephen who purged the CPC of 'traditional Canadian conservatives' (whatever that may mean) - it was done by conservatives themselves when they repudiated the Progressive Conservative Party .

Joe Clark exlempifies the opposite of those who got out and created a new party which sought and gained enough support from conservative Canadians to form - from dead stop, and against the full venom of those opposed to their mores - what is today Canada's Loyal Opposition.

The CPC is already quite capable of brokering the bring down of the Liberals - that much is known. They are also much better prepared this time around to deal with the sort of venomous campaign Liberals favour.

I don't believe for a moment that any who left the conservative fold due the errant belief that 'radical' elements control the party will not be back if the CPC can show itself - as the Government of Canada - to be as good at that job as they have been in resurrecting a viable conservative party.

quote:

"I said the the next election is crucial to Canada's future - it is."
What makes this one any more crucial than the last two? The fact that Stephen Harper is toast if he can't produce better results than seen previously?


Heck no. Stephen Harper has less to lose if displaced as CPC leader due a failed effort to win the next election - than Canada has to lose if he's not the next PM.
He'll find other work.

Quebec has set the example to follow of how to get the federal government to sit up and pay attention, and the same support structure that tried to 'reform' government in Canada may well follow that lead.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
fast_twitch_neurons
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10443

posted 18 October 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for fast_twitch_neurons     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ichy Smith, when has Stephen Harper ever spoken about God? I may be missing something... it seems he could be an atheist for all we know... Personally I suspect they're all agnostics/atheists. I would hope that's right.

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: fast_twitch_neurons ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 October 2005 10:02 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maikeru, doesn't your penis get sore from all that masturbating?

[ 18 October 2005: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
GreenNeck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10276

posted 19 October 2005 01:19 AM      Profile for GreenNeck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the CPC can be 'reformed' much more; after all, in the last few years it already went from Reform into C.A. and then PC + CA = CPC. The welding of those 2 forces hasn't taken well, and attempts to glue and staple them always seem to tear apart here and there.

From a policy point of view, very little now distinguishes the CPC from the old PC. Most of the Reform planks have been abandoned; any attempt to move more into the 'centre' will result in the most populist elements to probably leave the party again.

In any event, it is doubtful the CPC will ever achieve much success, and even if it did win a majority in the next election, it would probably not last long.

The reality is our country is badly divided across regional lines, thanks in no small part from the Liberal Party tactic of pitting Canadians against each other for electoral gain.

It is only a matter of time for both oil and natural gas prices to increase again. Oil at 100$ a barrel or more could occur before 2006 is over. When that happens, Ontario and Quebec economies will be thoroughly clobbered, while Alberta will swim in more cash than ever before. The pressure on the Feds to 'do something' about this will be enormous. A Liberal government will have little problem with this, as it has few votes to lose in the West; the CPC party will be torn apart. Reform II may be in the cards, and this time will be openly separatist, much like the Bloc.


From: I'd rather be in Brazil | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 19 October 2005 02:59 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GreenNeck:

...it is doubtful the CPC will ever achieve much success, and even if it did win a majority in the next election, it would probably not last long.


I'm interested in finding how you draw the conclusion that a CPC majority would lead to a short-lived tenure of office or breakdown of the party.
Do you see it as due an inability amongst conservatives to find common ground ?

You also pose the scenario that a dramatic increase in the price of gas, coupled with, presumably, a Liberal majority favouring Ontario and Quebec, would lead to similar disintegration of the CPC, followed by invigoration of regional separatist sentiment.

How is it that such thinking is so rare to Canadians, having experienced the near breakup of Canada in the recent past, alongside the successful and meteoric rise of the Bloc Quebecois ?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 19 October 2005 03:09 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ALSC

Perhaps you might respond to this. My impression is that the Alliance side of the merger, takeover, call it what you will, now control a substantial number of the key positions in the party. Even if as we both suspect, the Harper Conservatives seriously tank in the next election, how in the world are the reasonable Tories ever going to wrench back control of the party from these freaks that presently control it?

[ 19 October 2005: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 19 October 2005 07:48 AM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Allow me to use myself as an example -- why am I in this game? Why do I bother against such incredible odds? Answer: I want power and I want it bad.

Not just for its own sake -- but to change this country for the better -- to push and implement moderate, mainstream Canadian values that all segments of society can relate to, and hopefully support, to at least a limited degree. I want to build consensus in this country. And we red tories also have our social justice agenda -- making Canada a better place for all.

Now that my speech is over: our alliance cousins are realizing that they have no hope of ever getting into office. They couldn't sell Manning, Day or Harper to a plurality of Canadian voters. Ding, ding, ding, the bell goes off.

They can stick to their blessed principles, or they can move to the center and have a legitimate shot at power down the road. Everyone loves a winner. Right now, the CPC is the biggest loser on the block. As Preston might say, "reform", or descend into the realm of political insignificance and irrelevance.


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 October 2005 08:40 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
But they feel (and not incorrectly) that it's not they're policies being rejected, it's them personally, as western (Alberta) Conservatives.

And to a large extent they're right, but not for the reasons they think. It's not that they're conservative or from Alberta, it's that despite what they say their policy is, or what they promise, we know that they're the same bunch of bigoted thugs they've always been, only now by lying about it, they're even less principled than Liberals.

Even if they were to wake up and smell the coffee, and drop their opposition to marriage, it wouldn't help them a bit, anymore than their newfound support for bilingualism, immigration and (almost) a woman's right to choose hasn't helped them. Why on earth would any thinking person put into power a bunch of bigoted scum who hide their bigotry to get into power? Why would anyone believe they won't show their true colours once in power?

It's going to take more than a red tory as leader. It's going to take the replacement of all those disgusting Reformers in their caucus.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 19 October 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

Even if they were to wake up and smell the coffee, and drop their opposition to marriage, it wouldn't help them a bit, anymore than their newfound support for bilingualism, immigration and (almost) a woman's right to choose hasn't helped them. Why on earth would any thinking person put into power a bunch of bigoted scum who hide their bigotry to get into power? Why would anyone believe they won't show their true colours once in power?

I know, I know! Because they're delusional?

Word RB.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 19 October 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Why on earth would any thinking person put into power a bunch of bigoted scum who hide their bigotry to get into power?

Surely you jest.
Hiding a proclivity for homosexual union whilst campaigning for public office was de rigeur worldwide, including in Canada until very recently.
Those who posit support or opposition to SSM are entitled to their view, and entitled to espouse it publicly.
Strictly heterosexual marriage is a long founded belief, every bit as entrenched in society as homosexuality.

You're as bigot(t)ed, moreso even, towards those who posit opposition to SSM in Canada, and far more politicised, than virtually all whom you excoriate.
Oh, there are those radicals who, like yourself, preach constant hate for people who espouse
alternate beliefs from your own, but they are the thugs of any society.
There is no need for the reformation of the CPC, nor any need to moderate their platform any further to appeal to Canadians who think as you do - it won't win your vote anyway.

What is probably more necessary is for Canadians to shake themselves free of the radical thought that conservatism is eeevil, and to refuse blind acceptance of stereotypical derogations.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 October 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Could someone else please call up the standard reply to these "you're the bigot because you're intolerant of my intolerance" idiots?
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 19 October 2005 06:25 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

Surely you jest.
Hiding a proclivity for homosexual union whilst campaigning for public office was de rigeur worldwide, including in Canada until very recently.
Those who posit support or opposition to SSM are entitled to their view, and entitled to espouse it publicly.
Strictly heterosexual marriage is a long founded belief, every bit as entrenched in society as homosexuality.

You're as bigot(t)ed, moreso even, towards those who posit opposition to SSM in Canada, and far more politicised, than virtually all whom you excoriate.
Oh, there are those radicals who, like yourself, preach constant hate for people who espouse
alternate beliefs from your own, but they are the thugs of any society.
There is no need for the reformation of the CPC, nor any need to moderate their platform any further to appeal to Canadians who think as you do - it won't win your vote anyway.

What is probably more necessary is for Canadians to shake themselves free of the radical thought that conservatism is eeevil, and to refuse blind acceptance of stereotypical derogations.


One of the big concerns of the CPC was the right of Christian ministers to preach hatred from their pulpits without fear of Gays having a legal recourse to stop them. Imagine if they wanted to preach the same about Jews or Blacks?
They wanted some kind of union for Gays, but not with the word marriage. Do you know anyone whose marriage has suffered since gays got married....
Even now when gays are murdered in this country, the police give the case as little time or effort as possible. Why should it be that gay murders are so often unsolved, they can't claim gays don't talk to the police like they do with Black murders, so why is it. Most police are rather conservative, and if the Liberals can't make them do any work, God help Gays when the conservatives are in office.


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 19 October 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ALSC

I see a huge, maybe insurmountable gap between the Alliance and the moderate Tories. I also see a big gap between different elements in the Liberal party.

Rather than trying to butt heads against the proverbial brick wall, perhaps the moderate forces in all three political parties, the CPC, the Liberals, and the social democrats, might consider joining forces and start up a brand new political party.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 19 October 2005 07:43 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Maikeru is just trying to divert the thread away from its original intent. If he wants to start another "Harper needs Canada Less than Canada needs Harper" thread then he's free to do so. If they want to run on that slogan next campaign, so much the better. If Maikeru wants to start yet another SSM debate instead, then he can just check out all the other ones weve already had here, and see if he can come up a single point that hasn't been made and/or rejected a dozen times before. Then post it elsewhere, puh-leease.

Saying that I'm tarring all "Conservatives" as Eeevil (in Presto like parody I presume) is errant nonsense, as is his implication that I'm selling the "Liberal" line somehow. I clearly stated some differences between moderate Tories and radicals in my opener, and said why I'd honestly prefer another centre leaning party. One hopefully different enough to matter. Which comes back to the question again.

VWD said earlier: "...I do consider it important that inter-party competition is not akin to inter-firm competition -that is, the introduction of a party that can credibly compete for government will not necessarily lead to "better" Liberal governmenent."

If he's still there, I'm kind of curious what he means by that exactly. Or if others see it the same way now.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 19 October 2005 07:50 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
ALSC... Rather than trying to butt heads against the proverbial brick wall, perhaps the moderate forces in all three political parties, the CPC, the Liberals, and the social democrats, might consider joining forces and start up a brand new political party.

Didn't Hellyer try to make the argument before, a kind of grand anti-corporate coalition of Orchard Tories, disgruntled Trudeau Liberals, nationalist NDPers and Greens? Thing was he tried to use his CAP minnow as the vehicle to swallow the bigger fish.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 19 October 2005 10:16 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Could someone else please call up the standard reply to these "you're the bigot because you're intolerant of my intolerance" idiots?

Sure...no problem.
"I'm rubber, you're glue - what you say bounces offa me and sticks to you"
Please copy and paste into your favourite word processing program for future reference.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 19 October 2005 11:04 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

One of the big concerns of the CPC was the right of Christian ministers to preach hatred from their pulpits without fear of Gays having a legal recourse to stop them. Imagine if they wanted to preach the same about Jews or Blacks?


Heck, that's a pretty serious accusation Ichy.
I imagine you have a reference handy.

quote:
They wanted some kind of union for Gays, but not with the word marriage. Do you know anyone whose marriage has suffered since gays got married....

Obviously, the idea of a civil union between homosexuals that does not include the word marriage is as intolerable to some as the converse is to others - regardless of party lines.
I note that Bev Desjarlais in no longer affiliated with the NDP.
Is she married ?

quote:
Even now when gays are murdered in this country, the police give the case as little time or effort as possible. Why should it be that gay murders are so often unsolved, they can't claim gays don't talk to the police like they do with Black murders, so why is it. Most police are rather conservative, and if the Liberals can't make them do any work, God help Gays when the conservatives are in office.

This just defies belief.
You allege that police neglect their duties in the case of homosexual murder, due being 'rather conservative' - then call upon God for salvation from conservative governance.
What about the perps?
Are they conservative as well ?

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 19 October 2005 11:33 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I think Maikeru is just trying to divert the thread away from its original intent.

There's some truth in that.
Your intent includes painting the current CPC leadership as needing replacement to shift the party to 'a more Canada friendly position'

You brand those who now comprise Canada's 'Loyal Opposition' as outcasts to Canadian values - yet they achieved that privelege due the support of your fellow Canadians.

I posit that Canadians who are not absorbed in politics can and will soon revisit the belief that the current CPC is 'hard right' - and find it the most 'centrist' and 'Canada friendly' of any.

In a way, this thread is akin to those 'let's examine who could replace Jack Layton' threads that pop up from time to time and get blasted for raising the topic.

quote:
If he wants to start another "Harper needs Canada Less than Canada needs Harper" thread then he's free to do so. If Maikeru wants to start yet another SSM debate instead,

How about masturbation ?
It seems pretty popular herein...

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 19 October 2005 11:35 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No No, Maikeru. This isn't about you or your positions on homesexuality. I was asking Red Tories and Moderate Conservatives here if they think they have a better chance of regaining control of the CPC as it stands, or whether it might be better to start another party again. Simple open ended question that has nothing to do with your particular inclinations. Take part if you actually have a opinion that has something to do with question raised, thanks.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 19 October 2005 11:55 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
No No, Maikeru. This isn't about you or your positions on homesexuality. I was asking Red Tories and Moderate Conservatives here if they think they have a better chance of regaining control of the CPC as it stands, or whether it might be better to start another party again.

Heck Erik...I am a Moderate Conservative.
And I've been pointing out to you that it's you who needs to adjust your thinking from what you believe about 'moderate conservatives' to what is actually the case.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 October 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Heck Erik...I am a Moderate Conservative.


Just not a progressive conservative. Would it be fair to say a "regressive" one?

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 12:09 AM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
No No, Maikeru. This isn't about you or your positions on homesexuality. I was asking Red Tories and Moderate Conservatives here if they think they have a better chance of regaining control of the CPC as it stands, or whether it might be better to start another party again. Simple open ended question that has nothing to do with your particular inclinations. Take part if you actually have a opinion that has something to do with question raised, thanks.

You are right, I started to write a reply, and stopped. The only hope for persons who have any conservative viewpoints, and I believe for this country is if Stephen Harper is shown to be the red necked homophobe he really is, and he is run out of Ottawa. Should he win the election, the only hope for Gay People is to move to someplace safe. I believe from his handling of Belinda Stonach and her boyfriend Peter mcKay that he is cold, ruthless and willing to sacrifice anything to get even. I believe he forced Stronach out of the party because he did not like the attention she and McKay were getting and he did it in spite of the vote that might have made him Prime Minister. There is not one quality in Steven harper that makes him worthwhile as a Candidate for PM excepting if we were at War. He is ruthless enough to win a war, particularly since he would not care who got killed as long as he got his way. He is a petty little man leading a nasty perverted little party.


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Captain Obvious
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9009

posted 20 October 2005 12:34 AM      Profile for Captain Obvious     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
[QB]But they feel (and not incorrectly) that it's not they're policies being rejected, it's them personally, as western (Alberta) Conservatives.

This is very true. I was reading a Globe article this morning on a new poll. The first 3 or 4 comments were from Westerners and every one of them touched on this exact point-- Harper does so poorly because he's a Westerner, and Central Canada "doesn't like" Westerners.

It's part of their identity myth though; repeat it often enough and it becomes a justification. I know people routinely argue that Alberta will never separate, but I am less convinced. At the least, I expect to see separatist parties gain some popularity after the next election results return too many Liberals and it is "all Ontario's fault." Another good reason to vote NDP.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 20 October 2005 01:18 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
And even more so, another good reason for electoral reform. Almost a third of Albertans voted Liberal or NDP in the last election and were rewarded with 7% of the seats.

Of course 36% of Canadians voted for the PCs under REAL Albertan Joe Clark, more than than Toronto-born Stephen Harper can ever hope to attract. But because Harper's a bigoted idealogue American wannabe like his fellow Ontarian Stockwell Day, he's considered a real Albertan and Clark a traitor, by a certain noisy segment of the Alberta population and virtually all their media.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 04:20 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

Just not a progressive conservative. Would it be fair to say a "regressive" one?


More fair than saying 'pudding pounder', but 'regressive' - no.
There are a number of issues I believe should be revisited time and again - abortion policies foremost among them.
As a moderate conservative, I'm content to place the issue on the back burner until it can be dealt with responsibly as a separate and important issue rather than 'the only issue' of the period .
I believe that such an issue is of such importance that to ignore reassessment of the ongoing consequences of current abortion policies is folly.
Those who demanded the 'right to choose' time and again - until they prevailed - should be the example to those who support the 'right to life' to do the same.
That's 'progressive' thinking. Moderate even.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 04:36 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
You are right, I started to write a reply, and stopped. The only hope for persons who have any conservative viewpoints, and I believe for this country is if Stephen Harper is shown to be the red necked homophobe he really is, and he is run out of Ottawa. Should he win the election, the only hope for Gay People is to move to someplace safe.

Calm down little feller. The qualities you ascribe to Stephen Harper are a construct run wild.
The good folks who elected Stephen Harper, and those who supported his elevation to leader of the Loyal Opposition, and maintain that support, have no wish to do to homosexuals what you want for Harper.
Furthermore, if married to a same sex partner, your bolt holes are limited, so the sensible thing to do is discard your unfounded fears of fellow Canadians - even those who don't cotton to SSM .

quote:

I believe from his handling of Belinda Stonach and her boyfriend Peter mcKay that he is cold, ruthless and willing to sacrifice anything to get even. I believe he forced Stronach out of the party because he did not like the attention she and McKay were getting and he did it in spite of the vote that might have made him Prime Minister.


Where do you get this stuff ?
If Harper forced Stronach out of the party, why would the Liberals have had to pay a Cabinet post for her fidelity?

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rambler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10194

posted 20 October 2005 04:41 AM      Profile for Rambler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the best chance for reformation of the CPC is in proportional representation. Under a PR system, the right vote can be split without worries of having no representation in Ottawa. The bible thumpers can all vote for the Christian Heritage party, and leave an area open for a socially progressive conservative party to flourish. As a rural Canadian, I feel almost forced to support the conservative party even with their crappy social record as they are the only party which actually makes rural, and agricultural concerns a plank in their policy platform.
From: Alberta | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 20 October 2005 04:55 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the two groups in the CPC have a future together as they appear to be diametrically opposed to each other. After they get crushed in the coming election, the main issue will be who gets control of the name of the party. Calling the Harperites Tories is really not very appropriate and a bit misleading to say the least.

Liberals aren't liberals, New Democrats aren't new, and the Harperites are more US Republican than conservative.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 20 October 2005 04:56 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
I wouldn't say Harper has george bush's interests at heart, his heart belongs to G*d and only G*d.

He will sell out the country only if and when G*d tells him to . . .


Ichy, I have to echo other posters here who would like links to this assertion. It is not that I am saying you are wrong or that I consider it inconceivable that Harper might be another "religious" end of times rapture fanatic -- I just have never read nor heard him make it an issue. I see pictures of him on Parliament hill participating in anti-abortion rallies, but he never seems to discuss it -- or be called on it.

maikeru -- can you not see that you do your cause no good by posting your particular view on this particular site? I am very interested in the views of conservatives and their perspective of the future of this country. Your specific views, meh.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 05:06 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
This is very true. I was reading a Globe article this morning on a new poll. The first 3 or 4 comments were from Westerners and every one of them touched on this exact point-- Harper does so poorly because he's a Westerner, and Central Canada "doesn't like" Westerners.

It's part of their identity myth though; repeat it often enough and it becomes a justification.



Good point.
By the same token, repeat that Stephen Harper's leadership is shaky, or that he's a red-necked homophobe often enough and many will parrot that as well.

quote:

I know people routinely argue that Alberta will never separate, but I am less convinced. At the least, I expect to see separatist parties gain some popularity after the next election results return too many Liberals and it is "all Ontario's fault." Another good reason to vote NDP.


Interesting perspective, but somewhat confusing.
Do you mean that If the Liberal's lose ground to the NDP in Ontario, western separatists may be somewhat placated ?

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 05:31 AM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
maikeru -- can you not see that you do your cause no good by posting your particular view on this particular site? I am very interested in the views of conservatives and their perspective of the future of this country. Your specific views, meh.

Heck siren, I'd say my 'cause' is better served on this site in general, and thread in particular, by my views than, say, Ichy's - whose conservaphobia is astounding.

If, as you claim, you're truly interested in the views and aspirations of conservatives, you'll find my views are neither radical nor uncommon, however much they may not conform to your understanding of conservative 'types'.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 October 2005 06:18 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Obvious:

It's part of their identity myth though; repeat it often enough and it becomes a justification.



It goes nicely with all those other myths -- like how the NEP was all about "screwing Alberta" for the benefit of Ontario, like how Alberta owes its prosperity to the "rugged individualism" of its citizens, like how "the west" = Alberta, ad nauseum. Their little myths are as stubborm , pervasive, and impervious to reality and the truth as the myth of how Levesque was "stabbed in the back and betrayed" during the supposed "Night of the Long Knives".

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 20 October 2005 08:17 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are a number of issues I believe should be revisited time and again - abortion policies foremost among them.
As a moderate conservative, I'm content to place the issue on the back burner until it can be dealt with responsibly as a separate and important issue rather than 'the only issue' of the period .
I believe that such an issue is of such importance that to ignore reassessment of the ongoing consequences of current abortion policies is folly.
Those who demanded the 'right to choose' time and again - until they prevailed - should be the example to those who support the 'right to life' to do the same.

]

Gee Mac, thus post here puts you squarely in the neo-con fundie camp. You're a moderate? Well, thanks for the morning laugh asshat.

Personally, I'm waiting as well until the time is right to fight for what I believe in - the elimination of all Harper Tories (oh wait! that's already happening). Those who demand the right to chose a bigoted and hateful Canada need to be re-assesed. Then we can properly deal with them, you know, all proper like.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mike Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10619

posted 20 October 2005 08:35 AM      Profile for Mike Williams        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by leftcoastguy:
I don't think the two groups in the CPC have a future together as they appear to be diame
trically opposed to each other.

That's what the NDP/Liberals would love to think. Creating a sense of division that doesn't really exist may give them a false sense of security.

The CPC's policies, agreed by a large majority of members in Montreal this past March, are very much in tune with the social policies of the old PC party while accommodating the fiscal/economic conservative values of the old CA. Everyone wins.

And Harper did get an 84% approval rate.

After they get crushed in the coming election, the main issue will be who gets control of the name of the party. Calling the Harperites Tories is really not very appropriate and a bit misleading to say the least.

Liberals aren't liberals, New Democrats aren't new, and

the Harperites are more US Republican than conservative.


What a hoot! If anything, the Cons are even to the left than the US Democrats. The CPC supports proposes higher tax rates than the US Democrats, a publically-funded healthcare system for all Canadians (unlike the Dems). And the CPC would never bring Canada to a massive fiscal deficit (unlike the current US administation).

There's no measurable religious movement in the CPC; there's already the CHP for that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 20 October 2005 09:43 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Williams:

What a hoot! If anything, the Cons are even to the left than the US Democrats. The CPC supports proposes higher tax rates than the US Democrats, a publically-funded healthcare system for all Canadians (unlike the Dems). And the CPC would never bring Canada to a massive fiscal deficit (unlike the current US administation).

There's no measurable religious movement in the CPC; there's already the CHP for that.


Are you from Bizarro Canada? That's the only explanation that makes sense.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 20 October 2005 09:44 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If, as you claim, you're truly interested in the views and aspirations of conservatives, you'll find my views are neither radical nor uncommon, however much they may not conform to your understanding of conservative 'types'.
Maikeru, your views are clearly that of a former Reformer and rabid Harperite, when it is obvious that the thread was meant to ellicit the opinions of the red Tory ilk. You are simply trolling here.

Why are you so desperate to disrupt this particular discussion?

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean Tisdall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3465

posted 20 October 2005 10:30 AM      Profile for Sean Tisdall   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
No No, Maikeru. This isn't about you or your positions on homesexuality. I was asking Red Tories and Moderate Conservatives here if they think they have a better chance of regaining control of the CPC as it stands, or whether it might be better to start another party again. Simple open ended question that has nothing to do with your particular inclinations. Take part if you actually have a opinion that has something to do with question raised, thanks.

To wit: another party, let the CPC become the Alliance - Mulroneyite coalition and we can start awwwwl over again.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Dimension XY | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 11:48 AM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:
Calm down little feller. The qualities you ascribe to Stephen Harper are a construct run wild.
The good folks who elected Stephen Harper, and those who supported his elevation to leader of the Loyal Opposition, and maintain that support, have no wish to do to homosexuals what you want for Harper.
Furthermore, if married to a same sex partner, your bolt holes are limited, so the sensible thing to do is discard your unfounded fears of fellow Canadians - even those who don't cotton to SSM
Where do you get this stuff ?
If Harper forced Stronach out of the party, why would the Liberals have had to pay a Cabinet post for her fidelity?

I don't have a partner. I bought a dog, who is probably better company. And she does all the important things a partner of a 60 year old can do. Sleeps on the couch, snores a lot, and breaks wind often..... and on a cold night that svelte 150 pound body keeps one side of the bed toasty warm...

As to where do I get this stuff. That whacko in Ottawa told Belinda Stronach that she had no place to go in the CPC. The two of them had a loud argument just prior to her decision to leave the party and she started discussions with Peterson. That was published in most newspapers, and was common knowledge. So running up to a really important vote, where little Stevie really needs every single vote he has, he picks a fight with a one of the two people who gets really good press for the party, and gives the party a more human face, and decides to tell that Star, that she is going no place in politics. She has no future as long as he is on the throne. How stupid does he have to be to do that?
What kind of political morons are in the CPC that would allow a potential PM to do something that stupid. Chretien wasn't that stupid and he hated Paul Martin with a passion.

As for the Liberals having to Pay her with a cabinet seat, I am sure Paul Martin was nearly beside himself with glee. As well he should have been. Harper snatched defeat from victory, and there should have been a recall of his leadership, the day after Stronach crossed the floor. The man is inept. The party poorly led, and there is no hope of defeating the Liberals while he is in any place of importance. Maybe he is capable of polishing the furniture in the house of commons, more than that is questionable...


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Captain Obvious
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9009

posted 20 October 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for Captain Obvious     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

Interesting perspective, but somewhat confusing.
Do you mean that If the Liberal's lose ground to the NDP in Ontario, western separatists may be somewhat placated ?

I'm not sure that anything would placate a true-blue separatist. But it may help in stemming the flow of support, because it robs the myth of one of its emotional justifications: i.e. that Ontarians don't care about corruption and will elect the same party no matter what they do.

I don't know how many times I've seen this argument (although it is certainly not limited to separatists) and its not like this is the first election it would be called into play. I do think that has a particularly strong resonance right now however.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me tell you a story.
I read 5 newspapers a day, almost every day. Recently the Justice Minister announced that the sentence for making Crystal meth was going to be raised to life in prison.

I went to the internet to a secret place called google, and looked up a recipe for Crystal meth. It's most important ingredient is pseudoephedrine, an ingredient in cold remedies, now anyone with a clue can make crystal meth in their basement. It is cheap to make and relatively easy to make. and a small investment can make a lot of drugs....If you are interested google it an take a look. It occurred to me that if you took the cold medications off the shelf that you could stop a lot of kids from making crystal meth, often chemists shop lift the stuff to save a bit on production.
So I phoned Vic Toews and got his answering machine. So I tried Ottawa and got their answering machine. Then I spoke to an answering machine in Grimsby. Eventually I found a secretary in Niagara Falls. I said this is seriously important. Handle this right and the CPC will look enlightened for a change. She wrote it all down and I emailed her the needed information She thought maybe on Monday we can do something about this. When I phoned back a week later, they hadn't started to move.
The reason I phoned. The police chiefs of ontario came out and said that repositioning the cold medications should be the first step in controlling Crystal Meth. So instead of Vic Toews coming out with the suggestion as CPC policy and having the Police Chiefs come out in agreement with CPC policy, the CPC came out in favour of harsher sentences in support of the Liberal Party. You have to want to win, in order to win. I have been a Liberal. In the same position the Liberals would have been all over the Draconian measures being proposed, and presented the removal of Cold medications to behind the counter as the only logical and least expensive thing to do. They would have gone on and on about the numbers of children who would be saved by this action instead of imprisoning the makers, simply remove the ability to make it....And they move very very quickly when they are in opposition and see an advantage. The sentence for making Crystal meth was BTW 10 years, but nobody ever gets 10 years or serves it. Now they have a life sentence to not use.....


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 02:13 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Maikeru quote: I foresee a Conservative minority government at worst, and potential majority government if the CPC plays it's cards right (so to speak),

Actually, Maikeru is right. If the CPC 'Evangelical Party' gets the rest of their most devious plan implemented, there will soon be a CPC government in the land.

Maikeru quote: It's encouraging, refreshing even, to see that the concept of splitting Canada into regional enclaves lends merit to openly anti-federalist platforms, and renders their leadership worthy of high accolades.

He’s right about this too! Once they engineered the demise of the Liberals in Quebec, and they did engineer that quite masterfully, they knew they could split off enough of Canada through mass manipulation so that the CPC could cut the Liberals down to a much weaker base. If you were paying attention, you would see this was absolutely part of the master plan.

Maikeru quote: Private enterprise in Canada these days is best represented by the legal profession

Sounds strangely exactly like the Christian Right Republical line. That’s because it is!

Ichy quote: I wouldn't say Harper has george bush's interests at heart, his heart belongs to G*d and only G*d.

Funny thing Ichy would bring this up. Actually, as the Evangelical Party of Canada, the CPC isn’t about ‘their god’. It’s a religion whose sole purpose is political power. Their ‘commander-in-chief’ worldwide is in fact G.W. Bush!

fast_twitch_neurons quote: Ichy Smith, when has Stephen Harper ever spoken about God? I may be missing something... it seems he could be an atheist for all we know... Personally I suspect they're all agnostics/atheists. I would hope that's right.

Oh, how uninformed can Canadians be? Stephen Harper is Christian Missionary Alliance, a member of a small sect of ‘Born Again’ Evangelicals whose main sect is in the U.S. Stephen has been a card carrying member since his early 20’s. He isn’t about to tell you that after what happened to his genius ‘co-conspirator’ Stockwell Day in 2000! No, Evangelical Party by stealth is more like it!

Maikeru is playing all of you with his tripe! He wants to ‘single-handedly’ with the help of a few ‘set –up’ people, convince you that the Extreme U.S. Christian Right taking over Canada is not only a good thing, but that these NEANDERTHALS are a bunch of moderates!

Reality, you were right about this truth twister. He thinks he can fool all of the people, all of the time! Unfortunately, that’s the hallmark of a member of this CPC Party!

If you think the Puritans were a rough bunch, wait until this bunch gets their hands on Canada!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

Wow, I wish I could masturbate as often as you do.



See, I don't think some people understand the definition of "troll", as it refers to online behavior.

Just because someone disagrees with someone else, that doesn't make that "disagree'r" a troll. This is a discussion board. How can you have a *meaningful* discussion, when all you want to read are posts which agree with yours?

How sad that you can't post your views in a way that doesn't shit all over those who don't share your opinion. It just highlights the fact that you think everything you think/say is right.

I suspect you wouldn't post a tenth of this drivel if you were face-to-face with the posters on here.

And that, perhaps, is the *truest* definition of being a troll.

B.B.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 20 October 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BB

You're clueless and you are at the wrong place at the wrong time.


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Actually Reality Bites belongs on this Board. Tells it like it is, and if you don't like it, eat pucks!

I'll bet you 50 to 1, if Reality was face to face with you, you would be made into punk mush!

In fact, Reality always calls them as they are, losers!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 20 October 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A troll is someone who posts in a style deliberately intended to annoy people. The content of their posts (e.g., their opinions) is not what makes them a troll, although a person may come to a website and express an opinion that they know will be considered outrageous, with the intention of provoking indignant responses. That never happens here, though. Everyone who comes to babble is genuinely interested in starting an intelligent debate, not in pissing people off by doing niggly little things like ending every single one of their posts with a "signature".

God bless the NDP!

G.S.


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rambler:
I think the best chance for reformation of the CPC is in proportional representation. Under a PR system, the right vote can be split without worries of having no representation in Ottawa. The bible thumpers can all vote for the Christian Heritage party, and leave an area open for a socially progressive conservative party to flourish. As a rural Canadian, I feel almost forced to support the conservative party even with their crappy social record as they are the only party which actually makes rural, and agricultural concerns a plank in their policy platform.

Thanx Rambler-- I find myself in the same boat. I'm not thrilled with what I expect from any potential Conservative gov't, but at this time, I am primarily a single-issue voter. What a political party claims as its stance on said issue is, for me, most revealing about said party's actual attitude on all the rest of the issues facing Canadians.

So I'm stuck with the current incarnation of the federal Conservatives.

However, if a more moderate party came along, filled with members who had a proven record of honesty/integrity, and lead by someone with even an *ounce* of charisma and leadership (and can anyone honestly tell me the leader of *any* of the federal parties has *any* charisma/charm/magnetism?), I certainly would take a hard look at them; as I'm sure many Canadians would.

B.B.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 03:18 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
A single issue voter?

How enlightened is that? Wow, so if you really cared about the country, maybe you would take some time to find out what the rest of the issues are!

How decrepit can the brainless be?

I bet we can guess what your single issue is. Better yet, why don't you come right and and SPRAY IT!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 20 October 2005 03:26 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
equalizer, it really is time for you to step back and take a breath. Check out the forum guidelines. Personal insults are frowned upon. (Particularly those with no political framework. Call a bigot a bigot or a fascist a fascist and you'll likely - though not always - get a pass. Call anyone 'brainless' and you're likely to be viewed as such yourself.)
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
There seems to be a group of people on this forum who are creating so many threads that no one will focus on anything important or relevant to the politics of the day!

Could this be a deliberate RIGHT WING maneouver to dilute this Board so that everyone will be scattered, dilute the focus! Sounds right on!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 03:33 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:
A troll is someone who posts in a style deliberately intended to annoy people. The content of their posts (e.g., their opinions) is not what makes them a troll, although a person may come to a website and express an opinion that they know will be considered outrageous, with the intention of provoking indignant responses. That never happens here, though. Everyone who comes to babble is genuinely interested in starting an intelligent debate, not in pissing people off by doing niggly little things like ending every single one of their posts with a "signature".

God bless the NDP!

G.S.



Man--

What the heck is the matter with you people? The fact that I sign my posts with B.B. is annoying? Really?!

If you go through my posts, you'll find that I'm just trying to express my opions without being unecessarily nasty. If anything, I try to incorporate a little humour and common sense.

Unlike some people.

And as for the threats I received earlier in this thread-- puh-lease. Again, all you're doing is showing your infantile attitude. My point, which was obviously missed by a some, was that people seem to lose their sense of decorum when on these boards; they wouldn't say half the things they do.


And since I don't want to be annoying, I will cease with my niggling sig (or my siggling nig, for the dyslexics).


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 20 October 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik the Red:
I've realized that there's a wider range of Conservative thinking in Canada than I once thought, so I'd like to ask Babble moderates their opinion -Gir Draxon, CCO, Long Suffering Conservative, Sean Tisdall, et al. Do you think it's better for "red" Tories and other moderate conservatives to keep trying to regain leadership of the existing CPC, shifting it to a more Canada friendly position, or better to simply try and start rebuilding another national centrist alternative again?

It's my opinion that the Alliance led merger has only given the Federal Liberals a long term lease on government and even less motivation to clean up their act. (not to mention making it more difficult for the NDP to gain ground on the left) I can also see the advantages of trying to recapture the CPC as it stands, and let the radical right and assorted bigots either accept a diminished role again or cut and run themselves. (another PC type of party would still have more room to grow than another Reform Party IMO) I'm not so sure if that is likely to happen within the foreseeable future though.

My own definition of "Red Tory" or "moderate conservative" might differ from others who identify themselves as such, but means to me someone who believes in private enterprise but also a responsibility towards the whole community, and some respect for the traditional role of public institutions in society -not neo-Libertarianism in other words. I'll try to keep my own opinions to a minimum though, and respectfully ask other leftwingers to please allow our Tory refugees their say too, thanks. Anyone else have an opinion on this question?



From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by equalizer:
A single issue voter?

How enlightened is that? Wow, so if you really cared about the country, maybe you would take some time to find out what the rest of the issues are!

How decrepit can the brainless be?

I bet we can guess what your single issue is. Better yet, why don't you come right and and SPRAY IT!


Well done.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 20 October 2005 03:46 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillyBrindle:
If you go through my posts, you'll find that I'm just trying to express my opions without being unecessarily nasty. If anything, I try to incorporate a little humour and common sense.

Unlike some people.


quote:
I couldn't possibly care less what he does in his own bedroom; the simple fact is the man is, at best, mentally unstable, and at worst, a fricken THIEF!
Not the sort of individaul who should hold a position of public trust.

B.B.


So what IS the "single issue" that motivates you? Equalizer's way of asking you was perhaps somewhat indignant, but would you care to answer?


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 03:50 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillyBrindle:


Man--

What the heck is the matter with you people? The fact that I sign my posts with B.B. is annoying? Really?!

If you go through my posts, you'll find that I'm just trying to express my opions without being unecessarily nasty. If anything, I try to incorporate a little humour and common sense.

Unlike some people.

And as for the threats I received earlier in this thread-- puh-lease. Again, all you're doing is showing your infantile attitude. My point, which was obviously missed by a some, was that people seem to lose their sense of decorum when on these boards; they wouldn't say half the things they do.


And since I don't want to be annoying, I will cease with my niggling sig (or my siggling nig, for the dyslexics).


B.B. is Billy Brindle!!!!1 I thought you were a Pagan signing your posts Blessed Be... a standard sign off.
Oh my...


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

I don't have a partner. I bought a dog, who is probably better company. And she does all the important things a partner of a 60 year old can do. Sleeps on the couch, snores a lot, and breaks wind often..... and on a cold night that svelte 150 pound body keeps one side of the bed toasty warm...

As to where do I get this stuff. That whacko in Ottawa told Belinda Stronach that she had no place to go in the CPC. The two of them had a loud argument just prior to her decision to leave the party and she started discussions with Peterson. That was published in most newspapers, and was common knowledge. So running up to a really important vote, where little Stevie really needs every single vote he has, he picks a fight with a one of the two people who gets really good press for the party, and gives the party a more human face, and decides to tell that Star, that she is going no place in politics. She has no future as long as he is on the throne. How stupid does he have to be to do that?
What kind of political morons are in the CPC that would allow a potential PM to do something that stupid. Chretien wasn't that stupid and he hated Paul Martin with a passion.

As for the Liberals having to Pay her with a cabinet seat, I am sure Paul Martin was nearly beside himself with glee. As well he should have been. Harper snatched defeat from victory, and there should have been a recall of his leadership, the day after Stronach crossed the floor. The man is inept. The party poorly led, and there is no hope of defeating the Liberals while he is in any place of importance. Maybe he is capable of polishing the furniture in the house of commons, more than that is questionable...



I always thought people joined political parties and sought higher office because they believed so strongly in certain ideals that they felt called to represent the constituents of this country who share those ideals.

How does having a hissy-fit at your party leader negate all those ideals to such an extent that one would feel compelled not just to leave the party, but to cross the floor and join a party one would formerly have spent a lifetime decrying? Especially right before such a vote.

Two words: moral bankruptcy.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 03:56 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Not intending to be indignant, but why would someone keep referring to a single issue, but never come right out with it!

When you are hiding something that affects the 'real meaning' of your discussion, it begs the question why? And, because the Right Wing is very 'intollerant', it seems there is a valid level of distrust in their 'hiding' their true intentions.

If this is the case, come right out and tell people what your 'one issue' is!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 04:02 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by obscurantist:

So what IS the "single issue" that motivates you? Equalizer's way of asking you was perhaps somewhat indignant, but would you care to answer?


Sure-- firearm ownership and the right to maintain it. (*Cringing*...)

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: BillyBrindle ]


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 04:07 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Billy quote: Two words: moral bankruptcy.

Doesn't ring true! What do firearms have to do with moral bankruptcy! Sounds like someone is 'trying' to hide the morality issues behind the gun lobby!

Guns are not, and never have been a 'moral' issue. And in Canada, we don't have a right to bear arms moral code.

Methinks this is disingenous banter!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by equalizer:
Billy quote: Two words: moral bankruptcy.

Doesn't ring true! What do firearms have to do with moral bankruptcy! Sounds like someone is 'trying' to hide the morality issues behind the gun lobby!

Guns are not, and never have been a 'moral' issue. And in Canada, we don't have a right to bear arms moral code.

Methinks this is disingenous banter!


Um, with regard to the moral bankruptcy comment, I was addressing a specific topic (Ms Stronach), not her (current) party. I was alluding to the fact that I couldn't see any real justification in her crossing the floor at that time, other than her own opportunism.

As for firearms ownership and morality, this probably isn't the thread for it. I'd be happy to describe in another thread however.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by equalizer:
Billy quote: Two words: moral bankruptcy.

Doesn't ring true! What do firearms have to do with moral bankruptcy! Sounds like someone is 'trying' to hide the morality issues behind the gun lobby!

Guns are not, and never have been a 'moral' issue. And in Canada, we don't have a right to bear arms moral code.

Methinks this is disingenous banter!


I have owned firearms in the past. I do not own any right now. but the couple of million dollars for a registry that is now 2 billion is just nuts. Particularly since we have more gun violence now than we ever had when the guns were not registered. Hand guns have always been strictly controlled. all the firearms regiustry was supposed to do is register long guns. When it came in it was already illegal to own an unregistered hand gun. And to carry your handgun you had to get a second license. If you were going to the range your handgun had to be in a locked case, unloaded in the trunk of your car. Now that we have had the gun registry for so many years we have drive by shootings. And kids with handguns. Things are worse. That is immoral.


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillyBrindle:

Um, with regard to the moral bankruptcy comment, I was addressing a specific topic (Ms Stronach), not her (current) party. I was alluding to the fact that I couldn't see any real justification in her crossing the floor at that time, other than her own opportunism.

As for firearms ownership and morality, this probably isn't the thread for it. I'd be happy to describe in another thread however.



okay Billy, you are at work. Your boss calls you in and says Billy, "I don't like you, and I don't like the fact that your father is rich and that your boyfriend is next in line to head the company. So I thought I would take this opportunity to tell you that you have no future here as long as I lead the company."

So you discuss this with a friend of your really rich Dad. A couple days later he says "By the way Billie, Liberal widgets would love to hire you at a bigger salary with a huge promotion and a lot of responsibility are you interested?"

And you would say "no I would rather be a back bencher with no visibility for the next 10 years with that egomaniac for a boss.."

Of course you would.

Don't be so naive. The leaders job is to make sure he keeps everyone content, and to make sure things are smooth. As a leader Harper should be sweeping floors or polishing doorknobs or something useful.


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:


okay Billy, you are at work. Your boss calls you in and says Billy, "I don't like you, and I don't like the fact that your father is rich and that your boyfriend is next in line to head the company. So I thought I would take this opportunity to tell you that you have no future here as long as I lead the company."

So you discuss this with a friend of your really rich Dad. A couple days later he says "By the way Billie, Liberal widgets would love to hire you at a bigger salary with a huge promotion and a lot of responsibility are you interested?"

And you would say "no I would rather be a back bencher with no visibility for the next 10 years with that egomaniac for a boss.."

Of course you would.

Don't be so naive. The leaders job is to make sure he keeps everyone content, and to make sure things are smooth. As a leader Harper should be sweeping floors or polishing doorknobs or something useful.


Since you asked me a questiona AND answered it for me, I guess I don't need to respond.

But maybe I will anyway.

I certainly understand what you are trying to say, but with respect, I don't think that's an accurate analogy. My point from the original post wherein I expressed my thoughts on this was, that politics, and specifically (in this case) federal politics should never be "just a job". It must be a calling. I know it sounds hokey, but it seems that when anyone in Ottawa approaches politics with the attitude that it's simply their employment, people are always able to sniff out their insincerity.
Don't you get that vibe from Ms Stronach?

I've always found that the best leaders have been those who were/are uncompromising in their beliefs. I think to be an effective *political* leader, this is even more true. Take, for example, Mr. Trudeau. Whether ot not one agreed with his politics, one could *feel* the depth of his committment to his ideals. That's possibly part of the reason why he was so effective and magnetic as a political figure.

Ms. Stronach has shown me absolutely zero in this area of her personna.

That's what I was trying to say.

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: BillyBrindle ]


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 05:06 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:

I have owned firearms in the past. I do not own any right now. but the couple of million dollars for a registry that is now 2 billion is just nuts. Particularly since we have more gun violence now than we ever had when the guns were not registered. Hand guns have always been strictly controlled. all the firearms regiustry was supposed to do is register long guns. When it came in it was already illegal to own an unregistered hand gun. And to carry your handgun you had to get a second license. If you were going to the range your handgun had to be in a locked case, unloaded in the trunk of your car. Now that we have had the gun registry for so many years we have drive by shootings. And kids with handguns. Things are worse. That is immoral.


Thanx Ichy! Well said. I wish I was more eloquent with words.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 20 October 2005 05:14 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know it sounds hokey, but it seems that when anyone in Ottawa approaches politics with the attitude that it's simply their employment, people are always able to sniff out their insincerity.
I don't know about that. This dimbulb told my mother on her doorstep in Richmond Hill that he was running for Parliament because he needed the job - and she swears he was dead serious.

He's been re-elected time and time again, and so far as I know, has never made a useful contribution to our democracy in his lifetime.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
BillyBrindle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10636

posted 20 October 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for BillyBrindle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
I don't know about that. This dimbulb told my mother on her doorstep in Richmond Hill that he was running for Parliament because he needed the job - and she swears he was dead serious.

He's been re-elected time and time again, and so far as I know, has never made a useful contribution to our democracy in his lifetime.


I'd laugh if that wasn't so depressing.

Maybe you CAN fool all of the people, ALL of the time.


From: n/a | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 20 October 2005 05:27 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not a conservative, red or otherwise, but from a tactical perspective I'd like to put tuppence in.

I'll take for granted the basic idea of a split between Alliance types (who in turn are made up of two sorts with some overlap--the religious social conservatives and the market fundamentalist far neoliberals) and "red tories" (distinguished by relative social liberalism and a belief that markets need some restraints in order to conserve a good way of life, including in some cases "green" restraints), what can the red tories do?

As I see it, there are two basic directions they can go. First, as has been mentioned, they can push for proportional representation, so that distinctive "red tory" parties would be more viable and, even if probably unable to grow to majority status, probably able to gain concessions for their point of view in coalition governments whether Liberal or Alliance based.

It strikes me that the other thing they can do is to look at the institutions that feed into the Alliance mindset and base, and seek to influence them directly at the root. Specifically, the churches and other faith organizations on one hand, and the organizations for pushing market ideology on the other, such as "think tanks" and fake grassroots organizations such as the National Citizens' Coalition.
Take the churches. As many left-wing people of faith on these boards have pointed out, the so-con position is not the only one available to Christians. Progressive conservatives might want to consider putting together networks for steering Canadian faith organizations away from US-style bible belt beliefs and politics. Moderate those groups, and sever them from US influence, and one source pushing the CPC, and indeed Canadian society as a whole, to the right is distinctly diminished.
The market-fundamentalist PR is harder to affect because it is deeply elite-controlled and backs the interests of those elites. But there has to be a way to mount a moderate-conservative critique of the radical-market project.
Meanwhile, take the NCC. It represents itself as a democratic, grassroots organization even though it clearly isn't one. People can buy memberships, but can't do anything with them. But, say a whole lot of moderate conservatives bought memberships and then invited all members to a convention where discussions were held on what policies the NCC should pursue and press conferences spoke pointedly about the fact that the NCC did not appear to be following the policy preferences of its members, even though those members were the grassroots right wing that the NCC claimed to represent. It might be possible to mount a challenge to, or create some transformation in, the NCC, turning it into a vehicle for the beliefs of the right-wing portion of the public rather than of some unaccountable millionaires. Or at least pointing up the fact that it is not, in fact, representing the average conservative citizen.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Ichy, you just twisted that right into a pile of Right Wing regurgitated knots.

The issue is, whether the right to bear arms is a moral issue, not the illegal use of handguns!

I still have doubts whether BillyBrindle has come clean with his true moral objections!

At this point who cares.


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 07:17 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
The NCC change to reflect the values of the little guy?

Wish that were true. The NCC was established at the time Public Healthcare was formed in Canada. The reason for the group's existence is to annihilate public healthcare! That is the
exact reason they formed, and it is doubtful they will ever let go of their 40 year long goals! It's about the money!

The NCC is run by the most wealthy, influential big Multinationals in the world. The Multinational Private Health Care Industry, and the Multinational Drug Companies. With corporate interests as powerful and self-serving as these, it is unlikely they would care what any average person has to say.

And what media is going to push the agenda of the little guys these days? Haven't heard much of that in mainstream media anywhere lately.

When Harper pushed at the Supreme Court to overturn the 3rd Party spending rules as President of the NCC, the goal was to make it legal for these Corporate Snakes to advertise freely during an election, and twist the subject ever so nicely so that they could get influence every voter during an election.

Harper walked right from the NCC Presidency, right into leadership of his party, so to assume he doesn't share the NCC goals is to dream in technicolour! The thing that is most troubling is that the Conservatives don't disclose their true intentions.

On May 11, 2004 Harper said on City TV in a morning interview with Adam Vaughn that he "didn't object to Americans buying up our hospitals, or to privatization". Not one media ran that on the evening news! Very odd to say the least, but I have that on tape!

So to believe Harper has changed his stripes and now favours public healthcare is just too far fetched for the imagination! And to believe that the average Joe could influence the money bags at the NCC is hard to imagine at the best of times.

Maybe moderates have to form their own coalition to stand up to the money bags. That would require organization, commitment, and lots of donations to counter an obviously deep pocketed opposition by the NCC. Individuals who donate to the NCC are just being taken for a ride, if they are moderates!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 07:20 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
Maikeru, your views are clearly that of a former Reformer and rabid Harperite, when it is obvious that the thread was meant to ellicit the opinions of the red Tory ilk. You are simply trolling here.

Why are you so desperate to disrupt this particular discussion?



You're wrong here on all points lard.
a) The closest I am to a former 'Reformer' is acquaintance with a founding member who was my Dad's best friend. I didn't even know that until I attended a fund-raiser at the behest of a good friend, and found myself sitting next to him. He was as astonished to see me as I was pleased to see him.

b) I'm as rabid a 'Harperite' as those here who back Jack Layton, and hammer those who question his leadership herein from time to time.
Having met Stephen Harper in person, and observing his leadership qualities over time, I am as confident he is PM material as you might be with Jack Layton's qualities were the pendulum to swing as far left in Canada as in England when Ramsey Macdonald first visited the King.

c) I'm a moderate conservative, the co-respondent named in the original affidavit - having gone through the molting of a juvenile fascination with socialist mores and finding them lacking in common sense.
The turnaround came due the many of that persuasion who used 'we' to express views I disagreed with.

d) I engaged your earlier courteous address of opinion with the dignity it deserved. That's not trolling.
Maikeru, doesn't your penis get sore from all that masturbating? is trolling.

e)I don't attempt to disrupt any discourse here, but am well aware of the sort who do, and the lengths they'll go to in belittlement of valid views they oppose.
By staking a claim as a moderate Conservative, I am providing a more useful service to the objectives of this thread than, say, you.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 07:26 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
In Maikeru own mind he is a moderate. But he gets to define what he thinks that is in his own mind.

So when the majority of the world doesn't see his views as moderate, he just shuts them off and continues in his own little world.

They say if you say something long enough you can come to believe it yourself.

Maikeru, to the world at large in this country, you are not a moderate!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 07:47 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ichy Smith:
I don't have a partner. I bought a dog, who is probably better company. And she does all the important things a partner of a 60 year old can do. Sleeps on the couch, snores a lot, and breaks wind often..... and on a cold night that svelte 150 pound body keeps one side of the bed toasty warm...

You old fart ! I'll bet your dog even looks like you !
My dog is a border collie / flat coat retriever cross (redneck/serf stock) - handsome and feisty ! My daughters have orders to own a dog during marriage to distinguish them from men (or women - please God no).

quote:
As to where do I get this stuff. That whacko in Ottawa told Belinda Stronach that she had no place to go in the CPC.

Quite clearly, he was right - she didn't - by her own actions. Harper's instincts were correct.

Bev Desjarlais is now sitting as an independent due her actions.
Can you see a difference between the two?
The former was a leadership candidate for the newly minted CPC, the latter a convert drafted by the NDP, and who honoured the integrity of her colleagues by sitting as an independent .

quote:
What kind of political morons are in the CPC that would allow a potential PM to do something that stupid. Chretien wasn't that stupid and he hated Paul Martin with a passion.

You've allowed for an interesting sidelight here.
Chretien was hardly 'charismatic'.
He was at best 'journeyman' defence ala Serge Savard - at worst Marlin Brando as the Godfather.

quote:
Harper snatched defeat from victory, and there should have been a recall of his leadership, the day after Stronach crossed the floor. The man is inept. The party poorly led, and there is no hope of defeating the Liberals while he is in any place of importance. Maybe he is capable of polishing the furniture in the house of commons, more than that is questionable...

I take it you've named your dog 'a long suffering conservative'...right

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 08:06 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Everyone is no good to Maikeru, that's what is so odd about him!

Oh, except for Holier than thou Stephen and the lying Pallister party! The CPC motto is win at any cost, who cares who gets crushed as long as we get to dominate the rest of those poor suckers!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 20 October 2005 08:16 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rambler:
As a rural Canadian, I feel almost forced to support the conservative party even with their crappy social record as they are the only party which actually makes rural, and agricultural concerns a plank in their policy platform.

To which BillyBrindle concurred.

Is BSE a concern in your rural environment? The NDP really worked to carve out a response to it in Alberta and federally.

quote:
The Alberta NDP's commitments to rural Alberta go beyond the immediate BSE crisis. We will:

• Push for better federal-provincial farm income programs
• Support the Canadian Wheat Board, producer cooperatives, and orderly marketing that gives farmers a fair return from the marketplace
• Support REAs and rural gas coops, proven as a way to provide stable and affordable energy supplies
• Encourage environmentally friendly farming practices, such as shelter belts, organic farming and maintaining woodlots
• Review of intensive livestock operations, including their environmental and water quality impacts.

In the last (Alberta) election the NDP were front and centre on rural issues with the local candidates being farmers and ranchers.

Federally, the NDP and Conservatives worked together to investigate where the BSE relief money was spent (and why so many small producers got left out in the cold). The NDP members wanted access to the financial books of large meat packing plants (like Lakeside which received some 33 million in BSE relief) but the Conservatives said they would not support such an incursion on industry. So the investigation ended there.

It is frustrating (in Alberta) to hear rural voters suggest that the conservatives are on their side. They really aren't, they are on the side of big agricultural owners and operators.

But maybe you both were referring to the gun registry which I don't really see as a rural issue. . .


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 20 October 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by siren:
It is frustrating (in Alberta) to hear rural voters suggest that the conservatives are on their side. They really aren't, they are on the side of big agricultural owners and operators.

I don't hear other parties paying near the amount of lip service to rural issues as I hear the Conservatives doing.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillyBrindle:
Sure-- firearm ownership and the right to maintain it. (*Cringing*...)


Willy (Mink) Deville:

My daddy he once told me
Don't think you can be a man
With just a bullet in your gun
And a pistol in your hand

Guns are now outlawed
And only outlaws have guns
And you can't walk the streets
Feeling safe anymore

Only thieves on parole
And the cops out on patrol
Walk the streets feeling safe
Ain't it strange hit the floor
Due to gun control

In this land of milk and honey
We tried so hard to make our own
You've got your freedom of choice
Living clean or living wrong

The power of persuasion
Like your loved one's broken bones
And if not your wife and child
You lose everything you own

Only thieves on parole
And the cops out on patrol
Walk the streets feeling safe
Ain't it strange
Due to gun control

Let me see ya dance
Let me see ya dance
Let me see ya dance partner dance
Ain't it strange out of range
Due to gun control

In this great country of ours
Yes we have finally grown
Built with sweat and muscle
And tape recorded telephones

Only thieves on parole
And the cops out on patrol
Walk the streets feeling safe
Ain't it strange
Due to gun control

Let me see ya dance
Let me see ya dance
Let me see ya dance partner dance
Ain't it strange hit the floor
Due to gun control


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 08:54 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by equalizer:
Ichy, you just twisted that right into a pile of Right Wing regurgitated knots.

The issue is, whether the right to bear arms is a moral issue, not the illegal use of handguns!

I still have doubts whether BillyBrindle has come clean with his true moral objections!

At this point who cares.


I'm sorry morals are for things like priests chasing little boys, or people battering their wives or their kids. Now for a Native American it might be a moral issue, but for me it is far simpler. I don't mind registering my guns when/if I own them, but I want it done easily and efficiently. No one can say the gun registry is either.

And it wasn't right wing at all. My Uncle was on the Police Pistol team, I was in the Cadets in High school. As I say I owned guns and many of the ideas of the gun registry were not bad some of them were just plain stupid.

Since the government sets penalties for crime why do they plea bargain away the time for using a gun. We have plenty of Gun laws, why weren't they enforced, or even worse why are they still not enforced?

When the former Speaker of the house ran for election, my parents were on his first election team. I was a scrutineer and a poll captain for him. I used to drive the limo he took to the airport on ocassion to. He was not a Conservative. I left the Liberals because Chretien was a crook IMHO. He wasn't even an elegant crook, and most Canadians aree with me. He killed our own military men, simply because he wanted to choose the helicopters himself, and then well he just didn't. Their blood is on his hands. And Martin. Martin makes Chretien look like a Choirboy.....


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 20 October 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

I take it you've named your dog 'a long suffering conservative'...right

My little doggie is named Agatha. And she is the same breed my family owned in Cornwall before they came to Canada. Wee Aggie is a Bull Mastiff.... She is 150 pounds of muscle. She is fond of Shit Tzus for some reason that escapes me.... And I am constantly warning people to make sure their kids don't hit my dog, cause those small bones stick in her throat.....


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 09:11 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Conservatives aren't paying any service to the small operators on the farm.

They want to get rid of the wheat pool, which clearly favours big players. The little guys will no longer be able to garner collective pricing, and will be forced as single family farms to try to sell their wheat on their own, no collective power, and they will get taken to the cleaners, if they can find a market at all!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 20 October 2005 09:16 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by equalizer:
Conservatives aren't paying any service to the small operators on the farm.

Truth be told not one federal party really gives a damn about the plight of the farmers. Sure lip service is paid but when push comes to shove all 4 federal parties do not really care enough about the plight of the farmer to do a damn thing.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by equalizer:
Once they engineered the demise of the Liberals in Quebec, and they did engineer that quite masterfully, they knew they could split off enough of Canada through mass manipulation so that the CPC could cut the Liberals down to a much weaker base. If you were paying attention, you would see this was absolutely part of the master plan.

Ichy...take some notes!

quote:
Actually, as the Evangelical Party of Canada, the CPC isn’t about ‘their god’. It’s a religion whose sole purpose is political power. Their ‘commander-in-chief’ worldwide is in fact G.W. Bush!

The horror...the horror !
Hilareeee!

quote:
Oh, how uninformed can Canadians be? Stephen Harper is Christian Missionary Alliance, a member of a small sect of ‘Born Again’ Evangelicals whose main sect is in the U.S.

Gag ! Stephen Harper believes in GOD fer God sakes - he must be a nutball !!

quote:
Maikeru is playing all of you with his tripe! He wants to ‘single-handedly’ with the help of a few ‘set –up’ people, convince you that the Extreme U.S. Christian Right taking over Canada is not only a good thing, but that these NEANDERTHALS are a bunch of moderates!

Do not send him any money, or agree to marry him for citizenship!

quote:
Reality, you were right about this truth twister. He thinks he can fool all of the people, all of the time!

He broke your heart - it's payback time !

quote:
If you think the Puritans were a rough bunch, wait until this bunch gets their hands on Canada!

In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking - now heaven knows - anything goes !!
Cole porter - circa 1930's

quote:
In Maikeru own mind he is a moderate. But he gets to define what he thinks that is in his own mind.

We know otherwise...right, =izer ??

quote:
Maikeru, to the world at large in this country, you are not a moderate!

I am exactly that - a moderate Canadian!
You're the newbie radical here, although you've some excuse - having been wrongly educated

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
equalizer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9687

posted 20 October 2005 09:25 PM      Profile for equalizer        Edit/Delete Post
Delusional thoughts from a truly 'Born Again' hideabout!

If you think that most people want the little bushies running the country, despite the mighty audacious comments you like to make, you stand on quicksand!


From: Land of the free | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 09:31 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Truth be told not one federal party really gives a damn about the plight of the farmers. Sure lip service is paid but when push comes to shove all 4 federal parties do not really care enough about the plight of the farmer to do a damn thing.

You guldarn radical farmers are always looking for special privileges ! Jest who the hell do you think you are - the backbone of this country or sumpin' ??

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
maikeru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10028

posted 20 October 2005 09:48 PM      Profile for maikeru        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by equalizer:
If you think that most people want the little bushies running the country, despite the mighty audacious comments you like to make, you stand on quicksand!

All things in moderation, =izer.
The majority of Americans wanted George Bush as President - but this is Canada, and he's not in the running. You've been bamboozled, or are attempting to bamboozle others.
Moderate Conservatives in Canada are not discontent with Harper's leadership of the CPC - they're discontent with Liberal governance.
To date, the Governor General has not called upon the CPC to form the government. This is due the NDP bolstering Liberals in lieu of the Libereals having an outright majority - and with it the ability to ignore NDP counsel.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 21 October 2005 12:17 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I don't hear other parties paying near the amount of lip service to rural issues as I hear the Conservatives doing.

Perhaps you're not listening?

If the Greens were actually "green" they should be a natural ally for family and other small farm operators. In their absence the ndp try, certainly at the provincial level. At the federal level I hardly hear the ndp on any issue at all.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 21 October 2005 12:37 AM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Don'tcha just hate it when you open a thread and end up covered in troll splooge?

Reverse trolling. Charming.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 21 October 2005 01:21 AM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
Interesting. didn't take long for all the folks who were specifically not invited to show up and immediately start doing the bigot-hop while simultaniously hurling wanker insults.Churlish behavior.

Canada is not following precedent regarding marriage and unrestricted access to abortion.Canada is setting the precedents.It is doing so because that is what the majority of Canadians want.

For an opposition leader,specifically the leader of the Official Opposition to oppose and debate proposed legislation is one thing.For that same leader to vow to continue opposing after the legislation has passed is another.Mr. Harper has lost much moderate support because he can not appear capable of governing for the benefit of all Canadians.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 21 October 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since my family values do not include hate, greed, xenophobia, homophobia and misogyny, I probably won't be voting for the CPC.
quote:
posted by maikeru: There is no need for the reformation of the CPC, nor any need to moderate their platform any further to appeal to Canadians who think as you do - it won't win your vote anyway. What is probably more necessary is for Canadians to shake themselves free of the radical thought that conservatism is eeevil, and to refuse blind acceptance of stereotypical derogations.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 21 October 2005 08:07 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Outlander hit the nail on the head.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ichy Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10594

posted 21 October 2005 10:05 AM      Profile for Ichy Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maikeru:

All things in moderation, =izer.
The majority of Americans wanted George Bush as President - but this is Canada, and he's not in the running. You've been bamboozled, or are attempting to bamboozle others.
Moderate Conservatives in Canada are not discontent with Harper's leadership of the CPC - they're discontent with Liberal governance.
To date, the Governor General has not called upon the CPC to form the government. This is due the NDP bolstering Liberals in lieu of the Libereals having an outright majority - and with it the ability to ignore NDP counsel.


What the hell are you going on a bout? I was at the last two nomination meetings in my riding. In my whole life I have never seen such a nasty gathering of holier than thou riffraff, out to preach light and goodness to the unwashed. In Niagara the big things were repealing gay marriage and ending abortion. The Candidate they elected whose last name is Dykstra is a nice guy, but he is extremely religious. The more liberal or middle of the road Conservatives had no choice or voice in the meeting. All of the candidates were there to repeal those two issues, and frankly the meeting was far less democratic than the meetings of the reform party. Canadians don't need to be beaten back to the dark ages by the frenzied pronouncements of the bigotted adherents of the saviour on a stick.... Abortion is not the business of strangers, who don't pay the price of their own cherished beliefs and I would love to see you repeal Gay marriage, it would give us a chance to rip the special rights accorded to the religious community right out of the books. It is time Churches and religious organizations paid Corporation tax, property tax and they should have no right to act as charity. at best they are nasty little private clubs, attended by mostly braindead bigots


From: ontario | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 21 October 2005 11:00 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Too long!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca