Ezra Levant Makes Sense
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Well, we're just a bunch of fringe extremists anyway. He's probably out polling the locals to make sure all his beliefs conform to the majority opinion. If they don't, he'll tweek them accordingly, so then he could come back assured that he's not a fringe extremist.
I'm starting to pity him. Could ou imagine how difficult it must be to have to go out and poll the locals every two weeks just to make sure you never hold fringe or extremist ideas?
And think of how difficult it must be at bookshops too, always having to ask for sales statistics to find out what books are popular so as not to buy any of the 'fringe' books.
And think of how difficult it must be at bookshops too, always having to ask for sales statistics to find out what books are popular so as not to buy any of the 'fringe' books.
Must be hard to vote too. I guess he just looks at the latest polls to see which party seems to be most popular, and then votes for that one.
No, somehow I doubt that. I'm guessing he just votes Liberal but expect them to poll the public and just go with the majority opinion anyway. But as we can see, the Liberals hadn't done a good job with the green shift, which made them fringe extremists. And you see what happened. It's not good to be a fringe extremist. If you conform to the majority view, you'll win every time.
No, somehow I doubt that. I'm guessing he just votes Liberal but expect them to poll the public and just go with the majority opinion anyway. But as we can see, the Liberals hadn't done a good job with the green shift, which made them fringe extremists. And you see what happened. It's not good to be a fringe extremist. If you conform to the majority view, you'll win every time.
I bet he has 1.7 kids and 1.3 dogs and 0.9 cats, along with 1.1 wives, 1.2 cars, and 0.8 motorcycles. I'd love to see his house. But it would be hard to find in his cookie-cuter suburb where everyone looks the same.
By your own arguments, one quarter of the population represents the fringe. You supported the Liberals in the last election and they had one quarter of the popular vote. By your own standards, you are on the fringe.
I was thinking, this must be a real challenge for him. He wa supporting the Liberals but the Conservatives ended up getting more votes. That makes the Conservatives less on the fringe than the Liberals. I wonder if he'll shift next year, or just recommend that the Liberals shift right a little to become more mainstream again?
I don't think he does. That's why the posts are usually so silly and so often contradict his previous posts.
Yeah you're right. I've been a little mean lately. Sorry SJP.
And I know not enough about Levant to comment on his ideas. My main issue is with rejecting them just because of who he is.
I thought you preferred the bottom? ;-)
Don't apologise, you weren't wrong.
I don’t think any of that will be necessary. Liberal Party is the natural party of government in Canada. Unless history means nothing, unless Canadian have moved sharply to the right (which I seriously doubt), Liberals will be back in power again. It is not a question of if, but when.
The normal order of things is a prolonged liberal rule, like we had with Trudeau or Chrétien. After a long liberal rule, people get fed up, or bored with liberals, they get tired of seeing the same faces in the news again and again. They start looking for every reason not to vote Liberal, every reason to vote Conservative, and conservatives come to power.
Usually conservatives make a royal mess of the economy (like under Mulroney or under the current Messiah). Also their social conservatism puts people in Ontario and Quebec off. After a few years people begin to realize why they had kept conservatives out of power for so long. They get thoroughly fed up with conservatives, after one term, at most two terms (like they did with Mulroney) and they vote in Liberals again.
After ten or more years of Liberal rule, people forget why they kept Conservatives in the opposition for so long, vote them in, and the whole madness starts over again.
So unless historical tends have become totally meaningless, I expect Liberals to be in power again, if not this election, at least after next election. I realize this sounds like impossibility to many Harper acolytes, they probably are under the impression that paradise has appeared in Canada, that we are now in for perpetual Conservative rule (like they have in Alberta). But they are in for disillusionment. Hell (Liberal rule) will appear in Canada again, question is only when, not if.
No problem, Machjo It takes a big man to apologize. At least you are not a gutter mouth, like some of my fans, some of my poodles here. You can make your point without resorting to personal abuse, without filth, venom spouting out of your mouth. That is a rare quality for a conservative.
As to Levant, I don't think we can ever agree on that, let us just drop it.
You really are a joke. I bet you can't even support any of that tripe with some proof, regarding me anyways.
I would love to some proof that I was a gutter mouth to you.
You know I wasn't, you know your only issue with me is, I embarrassed you when I punched so many holes in your silly commentary.
So go on oh mighty righteous one, prove I was a gutter mouth to you.
So in other words, we should vote for the party owing to its long tradition rather than its new ideas? That discourages inovation because the party knows that as long as it remains the same that its core will keep voting for it. I have a friend who votes Liberal because her parents voted Liberal! I'm serious. I'm sure we have that for any old party. That's what I like about new parties.
But you're right. Most Canadians think like that, and so the Liberals wil keep winning election after election, just rehacking the same ideas.
By the way, this is one thing that has turned me off voting at times. The eternal repetition of it. Remember Reciprocity in late 1800s to early 1900s? That was a major political debate at the time. Then we had the NAFTA debate under Mulroney in the 1980s, decades later. My God, couldn't we be debating something new instead of just renaming an old issue pulled out from some dusty cupboard?
Problem is, with so many mindless voters, we'll be debating the same old again in 80 years from now. So you tell me, what's thepoint of voting then?
I'd rather vote for a party that intends to make beneficial structural reform of the economic system to make it efficient while presenting ideas that have never been debated yet. That by definition, is fringe. And I'mn happy to belong to it. All the great political figures of history focussed on radical change, not just rehacking old ideas.
Come on, look at the last election, and tell me what was relly new about it?
Free trade? Think reciprocity. Legalize marijuana? Yeah, somewhat new to Canada, but still similar to ending Prohibition in the US. Increasing vs.reducing taxes? Same old socialist vs. capitalist stuff from over a hundred years ago. Green shift? That was somewhat unique in that it moved away from the usual right-left issues and focussed rather on what ought to be taxed as opposed to how much to tax, which is really ust the same seesaw thing. In that way, it oved away from quantitative debate to structural debate. Official Bilingualism? Heck, Gibbon covers it as a major issue between Latin and Greek in the Roman Empire!
Seriously, with a more educated (supposedly) population, could there not be a party out there that could focus more on new ideas that have not been debated before? Are we really that sheepish?
Look at Marareta Handzlick, Willy Brandt, Tommy Douglas, etc. These were pioneers. I don't necessarily agree with all their ideas, but at least they'd introduced new ideas that had never been debated before. Overall, I have more resepct for a politician who can avoid rehacking the same old debates and resent new ideas even if I don't agree with them (as long as there is a logical argument behind it and that it's well-intentioned), than a politician who just sticks to the tried and true methods, even if I agree with many of his ideas in comparison to the other candidates. I'd still think of him as a mediocrity, and appreciate the fact that the other politician at least made the effort of coming up with new ides. You never know, someone else might take his ideas, polich them up, improve them a bit, and come up with a truly good idea. But sheepish mediocrity is not the way to go.
Do you really consider me a conservative?
Here are some of my beliefs. Tell me how conservative they are:
I beleive in the adoption, creation, or revision of a universal auxiliary language like Esperanto or some other easy language for world-wide international communication.
I believe in the adoption or creation of a world currency.
I beleive in the promotion of a gradual transition from national military forces to a world military force.
I believe in the gradual implementation of world citizenship.
I believe that every working man and woman ought to give a percentage of his or her income to a school to teach all children.
I believe in the elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty.
And in your mind, I'm a conservative?
Unless you lock step along with sjp, you are a conservative Machjo.
I support gay rights...
I support Native rights and reperations...
I support Prochoice...
I do not believe that religion has a place in our schools or our Gov't...
And yet, in sjp foggy eyes, I'm his typical caricature of a right winger.
Go figure.
Seems to the simplest way to be labeled a Con or right winger with sjp, is to disagree with him.