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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Why I hate Conservatism - Part 1

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why I hate Conservatism - Part 1
ggs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6875

posted 01 April 2006 11:21 PM      Profile for ggs        Edit/Delete Post
The Greenhouse Effect

As I understand it, the Conservative position on Global Warming, as promoted by such stalwart organizations as the Fraser Institute and the National Citizens Coalition, has evolved as follows:

It started out with complete denial. Global warming is a myth cooked up by a bunch of tree-hugging, granola munching flakes.

As the evidence to support the case that the world climate is warming piled up, the tune was modified. Sure something appears to be happening; but, it must be part of a natural cycle. There's no way that human activity can be having any influence on the global climate.

Still more evidence and now a slightly different tune. The human impact is probably rather minimal; but, in any event, what's wrong with warmer drier winters? Who wants to shovel snow anyway?

When you point out that this can lead to more frequent droughts, "what do I care, I'm not a farmer" or if I am a farmer, well the drought won't happen here, and droughts are good for comodity prices.

But what about the increased frequency of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and floods? Well yes, they do a lot of damage; but, that stimulates a lot of economic activity. Someone has to rebuild the homes, businesses and infrastructure so such storms offer a wonderful opportunity to anyone who is in a position to take advantage of the situation.

Doesn't that just make you all warm and fuzzy inside?


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 02 April 2006 09:20 AM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Conservatives know that all the world's problems are caused by too much government interference in business interests. If the special interest groups would just get out of the way the invisible hand of the free marketplace would meet everyone's needs. A rising tide lifts all boats. If there is a market demand for good weather then there will be good weather. If there is a market demand for clean water, unpolluted air, and nutritious food then the market will provide. You wisely point out that tornadoes, floods and other natural disasters stimulate economic activity. People whose homes are destroyed and whose children are killed are just being selfish and not thinking about the growth opportunities for big business. Diane Francis said in a TV interview that environmentalists are all communists who want to destroy capitalism. And you know something? She's right!
From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 02 April 2006 09:32 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
Conservatives know that all the world's problems are caused by too much government interference in business interests.

No. Conservatives know that all the world's problems are caused by two men fucking.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 April 2006 10:37 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
If there is a market demand for clean water, unpolluted air, and nutritious food then the market will provide.

But if achieving these things means cutting into corporate profits, then the invisible hand tends to be handcuffed in favour of corporate welfare. Big business and their hirelings in Ottawa and Washington don't really believe in an invisible hand anymore and not since the 1930's. But they do believe in very visible, heavy hand of the state acting in their favour. Capitalism has become a threat to just about every living thing on the planet, including us.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 April 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Conservatism as an ideology has had some coherent mouthpieces over the centuries: Edmund Burke and, more recently, Samuel Huntington, for example. Huntington's piece, Conservatism as an ideology is a useful read to demonstrate the ultimate backwardness of that ideology. Huntington seems to have evolved into a bit of a loose cannon these days, but his essay from 4 decades ago is still worth a look.

However, conservatism will always be a useful perspective for the purpose of identifying and understanding the continuity of society. It takes more substantial and comprehensive points of view to understand change; in this sense, conservatism is like an anchor, slowing progress and acting as a brake on human social development and evolution.

Modern day neocons, as Fidel has pointed out, don't have much in common with the roots of their own ideology; funny, isn't it, considering that they're conservatives, eh?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 02 April 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
A rising tide lifts all boats.

And heck, with global warming and increasingly frequent and severe hurricanes, there will many more rising tides, and those tides will be rising HIGHER AND HIGHER!

Yea, team!


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 02 April 2006 01:45 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A rising tide lifts all boats.


Is this anything like "Make the pie higher"???

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 02 April 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Conservatism is, has always been, and always will be, wrong ... that's the very nature of conservatism: being wrong and refusing to admit you're wrong, and spending every ounce of any creative instinct you might possess to come up with asinine excuses for not recognizing that you're wrong.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 02 April 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Conservatism is, has always been, and always will be, wrong ... that's the very nature of conservatism: being wrong and refusing to admit you're wrong, and spending every ounce of any creative instinct you might possess to come up with asinine excuses for not recognizing that you're wrong.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]


Over the coming weeks (I hope I stay around) it will be enlightening to hear from you re: this post. IMHO one can be conservative on many fronts and be an anarchist or communist.


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 April 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No Yards: Conservatism is, has always been, and always will be, wrong ...

OK, but it's usefully wrong and, therefore, worth looking at. My two bits. The most radical thinkers have benefitted from such "looking at". For example, a young radical Karl Marx benefitted from intellectual mentor (conservative) Hegel by inheriting a healthy disdain for liberal intellectual shopping lists of ideas and social improvements, excessive utopianism and eclecticism. This disdain many radicals and socialists share with conservatives.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 02 April 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've found it a real timesaver to immediately disagree with any and all ideas put forth by conservatives. Usually, the ideas are wrong wrong wrong. It's not a perfect system, I grant you... but so far I'm batting a thousand.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 02 April 2006 04:01 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Diane Demorney:
I've found it a real timesaver to immediately disagree with any and all ideas put forth by conservatives. Usually, the ideas are wrong wrong wrong. It's not a perfect system, I grant you... but so far I'm batting a thousand.

Okay Diane D. So go over to the thread you started entitle Suggestions anyone? and describe how your love for John Donne's poetry (1572 - 1631 AD) isn't the least bit conservative.

You are thinking apples and the subject has switched to oranges. It is conservative, for ex., to say I Don't Need a Cellphone nor MP3. Social Democrats have been known to support tax write-offs to encourage high-tech companies to invest in such to create jobs. Who's conservative?

Of course, it gets weirder than that. Hanna Arendt providing intellectual cover for Heidegger who turned fascist, but I am just interested in John Donne and your formula for avoiding the traps of conservatism.


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 02 April 2006 04:28 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by goyanamasu:
Okay Diane D. So go over to the thread you started entitle Suggestions anyone? and describe how your love for John Donne's poetry (1572 - 1631 AD) isn't the least bit conservative.

You are thinking apples and the subject has switched to oranges. It is conservative, for ex., to say I Don't Need a Cellphone nor MP3. Social Democrats have been known to support tax write-offs to encourage high-tech companies to invest in such to create jobs. Who's conservative?

Of course, it gets weirder than that. Hanna Arendt providing intellectual cover for Heidegger who turned fascist, but I am just interested in John Donne and your formula for avoiding the traps of conservatism.



I didn't start that thread. And I never mentioned that I liked Donne (although I do). I mentioned Ondatje.

I was referring to political Conservatives, you know the Conservative-Reform-Alliance Party... not small "c" conservatives. As for your last paragraph, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Diane Demorney ]

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Diane Demorney ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 02 April 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Diane: Right. Raos liked Donne and your Ondaatje.

Politics glides along such opportunistic lines in electoralism that you and and can discuss two different planets in the same thread using conservatism with such divergent meanings!

My mistake on who started the thread; take it as a compliment please.


From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 02 April 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Someone is baiting and askin for a bannin
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
goyanamasu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12173

posted 02 April 2006 05:38 PM      Profile for goyanamasu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. It is merely a big 'C' little 'c' crossed wire about conservatism as the discussion topic.
From: End Arbitrary Management Style Now | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 02 April 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

OK, but it's usefully wrong and, therefore, worth looking at. My two bits. The most radical thinkers have benefitted from such "looking at". For example, a young radical Karl Marx benefitted from intellectual mentor (conservative) Hegel by inheriting a healthy disdain for liberal intellectual shopping lists of ideas and social improvements, excessive utopianism and eclecticism. This disdain many radicals and socialists share with conservatives.



OK, let's not confuse being "conservative" with the having "Conservative" politics.

It is never wrong for anyone to have a 'liberal', 'conservative', or anything in-between, or on the edges, nature and conduct their lives as such ... but POLITICS is not the same thing. Politics implies decisions that affect other peoples lives.

When it comes to politics and human rights, 'liberal' politics may not always be right, but 'conservative politics have proven to be always wrong.

Also, I agree that we can learn from conservatives ... we can learn from the words and actions of any evil vile people or groups, but that doesn't make them any less 'wrong'.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 02 April 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
Someone is baiting and askin for a bannin

Ha! In that case, it was wasted time... I'm too dumb to realize when I'm being baited. Oh, wait a minute...


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean Cain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3502

posted 02 April 2006 11:54 PM      Profile for Sean Cain   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Conservatism is defined in a very simple way: it is the moral justification for selfishness, and the science of making the comfortable FEEL comfortable.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]


From: Oakville, Ont. | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 03 April 2006 02:25 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Conservatism is, has always been, and always will be, wrong ... that's the very nature of conservatism: being wrong and refusing to admit you're wrong, and spending every ounce of any creative instinct you might possess to come up with asinine excuses for not recognizing that you're wrong.


For a moment there I thought you were talking about politicians in general


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
ggs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6875

posted 04 April 2006 07:31 PM      Profile for ggs        Edit/Delete Post
Part 2

Health-Care

The Conservative position appears to be based on the following assumptions:

1. The private sector is always better and more efficient than the public sector.
2. Why should people who can afford better care not have the right to obtain it.
3. Why should people who can afford better care have to subsize those who can't.
4. A public health-care system interfers with the corporate right to profit from people's misfortunes.
5. We can't afford the sky-high cost of public health-care.

We'll start with the first assumption.

The Americans spend twice as much per person as Canada on administrative costs associated with health-care and almost three times as much per person overall on health-care. Despite this, their life expectancy, healthy life expectancy, live birth & infant and child mortality rates substantially poorer than ours. If you look around the world, you will find a very consistent pattern. Countries that have relatively strong public sector health-care and relatively small private sector health-care consistently out-perform, countries that have predominantely private systems in these key indicators. Wouldn't you expect those statistics to be reversed if the private sector was so good? With private systems, you get less for more. That doesn't sound very efficient to me.

I'll leave the second, third and fourth assumptions alone. I think that they speak for themselves.

Now for the final assumption.

We actually spend less public (tax) money per person on health-care than the U.S. We spend far less privately on health-care than the U.S. If our costs are sky-high, how are we ever going to afford the "much more efficient" private American style system promoted by the Fraser Institute.

One more thing.

Marzo, Marzo, Marzo. tsk.tsk.tsk. You should know better than to be so sarcastic. Sometimes people don't see the sarcasm and take what you say literally. Anyway, I had fun reading your comments.

[ 04 April 2006: Message edited by: ggs ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Terry Lider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12301

posted 04 April 2006 07:39 PM      Profile for Terry Lider        Edit/Delete Post
We don't have healthcare in Canada anyway, we have sickcare. It's always after the fact. How about spending a little time on prevention before we dump billions into the pockets of the sickcare industry including pharmaceutical manufacturers?
From: Mississauga | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 04 April 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Terry Lider:
How about spending a little time on prevention before we dump billions into the pockets of the sickcare industry including pharmaceutical manufacturers?

We do. It just comes out of different budgets. Think water treatment, sewage and garbage removal, drug testing, innoculations, meat inspection, safety inspection, anti-smoking campaigns, Police seatbelt and DWI roadblocks, etc.

What else were you wanting the government to do?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 04 April 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

We do. It just comes out of different budgets. Think water treatment, sewage and garbage removal, drug testing, innoculations, meat inspection, safety inspection, anti-smoking campaigns, Police seatbelt and DWI roadblocks, etc.

What else were you wanting the government to do?


Typical right wing hypocrite; against gov't intervention when his pocket book is on the line, all in favour of it when it means rounding up them queers or throwing them poor folk in jail.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 04 April 2006 08:43 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Typical right wing hypocrite; against gov't intervention when his pocket book is on the line, all in favour of it when it means rounding up them queers or throwing them poor folk in jail.

What are you talking about?


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Terry Lider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12301

posted 04 April 2006 09:22 PM      Profile for Terry Lider        Edit/Delete Post
Governments could do more to encourage healthy diets, garbage in garbage out, they could do more to reduce pollution, you don't actually believe our water is healthy, just because it doesn't kill on contact doesn't mean it's healthy, we have people drinking bottled water more than ever, if that's healthy I have no idea, but it's not government that's providing that, and there is little regulation of it. How about bringing back participaction or something like it, esp with obesity at all time highs, cancer is at all time highs, heart disease is the number on killer of men and women, completely preventable, asthma rates are worse than they have ever been,

I think government can do more.


From: Mississauga | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 04 April 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think government can do more.

With less money after they cut taxes and rid us of the GST?

This is why I hate Conservatives. They are fucking stupid. And have no grasp of history and can't see beyond their tiny little worlds.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Terry Lider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12301

posted 04 April 2006 09:35 PM      Profile for Terry Lider        Edit/Delete Post
Both the federal government of Canada and the provincial government of Ontario among other provincial governments are awash in cash, there is plenty of room to cut taxes,

and maybe the Ont Libs can start listing some of those services they delisted.


From: Mississauga | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
snowmandn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6785

posted 04 April 2006 10:05 PM      Profile for snowmandn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"provincial government of Ontario among other provincial governments are awash in cash"

Not the Ontario I live in. Perhaps people on the right's ignorance is how the PCs get any support.

BTW, FYI--John Tory didn't say a word on re-listing health services either.


From: Between the deep blues | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Terry Lider
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12301

posted 04 April 2006 11:16 PM      Profile for Terry Lider        Edit/Delete Post
You may not read about the big revenue influx into the government of Ontario's coffers in the 'communist star' but that is indeed what is happening, now mcguinty is faced with the problem that his budget will be balanced a lot sooner than he had planned, which kind of throws a wrench into his previous plan. or maybe he can figure out a way to spend the couple of billion he has extra this year before it shows up in the budget numbers.

Just heard on the national that Jack is happy with harper's consultative style, esp as contrasted with the style of Martin in the last parliament. Also that some of the words in the throne speech could have been taken right out of the ndp platform.

This parliament could turn out to be very productive for Canadians if this cooperative tone continues well into the next year, and that will be very good for overall respect for politicians by Canadians.


From: Mississauga | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 April 2006 11:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by Terry Lider:
You may not read about the big revenue influx into the government of Ontario's coffers in the 'communist star'

Holy shit! Did he really say 'communist star'???


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
snowmandn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6785

posted 05 April 2006 12:13 AM      Profile for snowmandn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"You may not read about the big revenue influx into the government of Ontario's coffers in the 'communist star'"

Judging by your ability to spell, I read more than you.

"now mcguinty is faced with the problem that his budget will be balanced a lot sooner than he had planned"

I'm honestly, without any use of humour, shocked to see a Conservative buying into the typical Liberal low-balling strategy.

If you recall the reports from the Communist Broadcasting Cooperative, or from any major media, you'll remember that the Liberals watered down their already-watered-down budget expectations two years ago. Instead of being twice-watered-down, they're now meeting their low-balled expectation. A "problem" indeed.

Don't try to use rightist name-calling to get my ralled up. I used to be a rightist myself.


From: Between the deep blues | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Radical Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12367

posted 05 April 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for Radical Progressive        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Conservatism is, has always been, and always will be, wrong ... that's the very nature of conservatism: being wrong and refusing to admit you're wrong, and spending every ounce of any creative instinct you might possess to come up with asinine excuses for not recognizing that you're wrong.

There is no need to get religious. You reasoning sounds quite reactionary and intolerant.


From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 05 April 2006 02:21 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

What are you talking about?


He drifts in and out. He'll be back.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 06 April 2006 11:53 PM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Diane Demorney:
I've found it a real timesaver to immediately disagree with any and all ideas put forth by conservatives. Usually, the ideas are wrong wrong wrong. It's not a perfect system, I grant you... but so far I'm batting a thousand.


Basing your opinion on the source instead of on the facts is the same kind of close-mindedness that we accuse conservatives of.

I like the Fraser Institute's position of marijuana legalization and ending prohibition. Many right-wingers also support electoral reform and pro-rep.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca