Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154 
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 29th, 2004, 07:56 AM
How did that old ABC laundry soap ad go... 'I can't tell the difference... can YOU tell the difference?'
How did that old ABC laundry soap ad go... 'I can't tell the difference... can YOU tell the difference?'
Member
Posts: 85
Location: Nova Scotia
Location: Nova Scotia
July 29th, 2004, 12:17 PM
#1
This party is almost indistinguishable to the PC party post 1986.
The constitution is almost a carbon copy of that of the former PC Party.
The vast majority of CRCA and PCPC supporters supported the same parties provincially.
Stephen Harper was elected by default cause two weak candidates stood in his way. There was no CRCA takeover, it was a fusion back to the old party.
Prior to 1986 he, and most of the old CRCA caucus and members were members of the PC party of Canada. Some were MPs.
#2
In sum, Canadian conservatises are far more moderate and less influenced by the religious right than the United States.
It comes as no surprise that a few people who are clearly on the left can't see the difference, or don't want to. Its the same type of mentality that people have in relation to members of a different culture. Often times caucasans find it very different in passing to tell the difference between one east asian and the other yet exagerate small differences in theirselves.
Anyway, the fear mongering of the Liberals worked, quite obviously. Now watch after all the campaigning they did on the left to try and paint a stark contrast from the CPC they will as always take on a conservative-lite form of governance. The Ontario caucus of the Liberal party might be as conservative as the Ontario caucus of the Conservative Party.
#1
This party is almost indistinguishable to the PC party post 1986.
The constitution is almost a carbon copy of that of the former PC Party. The vast majority of CRCA and PCPC supporters supported the same parties provincially. Stephen Harper was elected by default cause two weak candidates stood in his way. There was no CRCA takeover, it was a fusion back to the old party.
Prior to 1986 he, and most of the old CRCA caucus and members were members of the PC party of Canada. Some were MPs.
#2
In sum, Canadian conservatises are far more moderate and less influenced by the religious right than the United States.
It comes as no surprise that a few people who are clearly on the left can't see the difference, or don't want to. Its the same type of mentality that people have in relation to members of a different culture. Often times caucasans find it very different in passing to tell the difference between one east asian and the other yet exagerate small differences in theirselves.
Anyway, the fear mongering of the Liberals worked, quite obviously. Now watch after all the campaigning they did on the left to try and paint a stark contrast from the CPC they will as always take on a conservative-lite form of governance. The Ontario caucus of the Liberal party might be as conservative as the Ontario caucus of the Conservative Party.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,065
Location: Montréal, Québec
Location: Montréal, Québec
July 29th, 2004, 12:54 PM
I didnt support the Liberals, and most likely never will. But the difference between Bush's Policies and Harpers, are minimal. Of course, you must put them into prospective.
But, I did hope Harper would of gotten a minority goverment. Would of been better for the party I supported.
I didnt support the Liberals, and most likely never will. But the difference between Bush's Policies and Harpers, are minimal. Of course, you must put them into prospective.
But, I did hope Harper would of gotten a minority goverment. Would of been better for the party I supported.
Member
Posts: 85
Location: Nova Scotia
Location: Nova Scotia
July 29th, 2004, 02:15 PM
I didn't say you did, simply that you bought their propaganda hook line and sinker.
This party is the same party that has always been the traditionnal alternative to the Liberals in Canada. Not some new, scary fanatical christian right wing party. This party carries on the tradition of the Progressive Conservative governments of the past, like em or love em.
The fact of the matter is Harper is far more moderate than Bush. That was what I said, Harper would not see the light of day as the leader of the Republican party. He is not enough of a Conservative. this is what I mean.
If you put it that way I suppose there are not that huge of policy differences between Bush and Martin. Or Bush and Blair...Or even between Schroder and Bush...etc I think these "small differences" make all the difference. Atleast in our democracy where contrasts aren't so massive.
Personally I am a supporter of the Conservative party but would never vote Republican if I lived in the United States...
I didn't say you did, simply that you bought their propaganda hook line and sinker.
This party is the same party that has always been the traditionnal alternative to the Liberals in Canada. Not some new, scary fanatical christian right wing party. This party carries on the tradition of the Progressive Conservative governments of the past, like em or love em.
The fact of the matter is Harper is far more moderate than Bush. That was what I said, Harper would not see the light of day as the leader of the Republican party. He is not enough of a Conservative. this is what I mean.
If you put it that way I suppose there are not that huge of policy differences between Bush and Martin. Or Bush and Blair...Or even between Schroder and Bush...etc I think these "small differences" make all the difference. Atleast in our democracy where contrasts aren't so massive.
Personally I am a supporter of the Conservative party but would never vote Republican if I lived in the United States...
Newbie
Posts: 26
July 29th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Quoting
It's because the United States has different laws than Canada, the same reason you can drive in New Hampshire without a seatbelt, but not in New Brunswick, else you'll get an $85 fine.
That raises the question, at least for me, of what we're allowed to say about the US (or British, or German, or Iraqi) elections. If I can sit here and post things about why should never ever ever consider voting for George Bush, why can't Michael Moore comment on Stephen Harper?
I know Moore is more famous and influential than I could ever hope to be, but if I can comment on the US election why can't Moore comment on the Canadian election?
I don't like foreigners meddling in our business, but we do meddle in theirs.
I know Moore is more famous and influential than I could ever hope to be, but if I can comment on the US election why can't Moore comment on the Canadian election?
I don't like foreigners meddling in our business, but we do meddle in theirs.
Newbie
Posts: 11
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
August 3rd, 2004, 12:41 PM
the whole notion that conservatines would even bother to press this issue is pathetic. ( sorry i'm not replying to the last post, but the general discussion)
Memebers of the right are constantly looking for people to blame other then themselves. The reason why the conservatives lost the election is because there ideolgoy is based on false promises, a history of proving to be uneffective time and time again (economic and social policies), having a unemotional robot for a party leader. and benefits only the rich.
Who the **** are the conservatives to accuse anyone of spreading propoganda? I'm going to make a claim against the anchors of CNN, CNBC, ABC, Fox News, and the writers of the New York Times and Wall Street journal. **** I could have a feild day of filling claims against people. please waste somebody elses time.
the whole notion that conservatines would even bother to press this issue is pathetic. ( sorry i'm not replying to the last post, but the general discussion)
Memebers of the right are constantly looking for people to blame other then themselves. The reason why the conservatives lost the election is because there ideolgoy is based on false promises, a history of proving to be uneffective time and time again (economic and social policies), having a unemotional robot for a party leader. and benefits only the rich.
Who the **** are the conservatives to accuse anyone of spreading propoganda? I'm going to make a claim against the anchors of CNN, CNBC, ABC, Fox News, and the writers of the New York Times and Wall Street journal. **** I could have a feild day of filling claims against people. please waste somebody elses time.
