Liberal phobia and the cause….

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
And this one wasn't addressed to me. However, here I am. I didn't realize we had ironclad rules about this "open" forum so I am concerned that I might have stepped out of line sometime in the past, and I wish to clarify this rule in order to avoid being chastized for such an oversight. I know you have far more experience here, so could you please spell out the policy on commenting for me?

Secondly, I respectfully suggest that when you're going to discipline someone for breaking a policy or rule, that your reach inward to your natural liberal tendencies of tolerance and understanding, thus setting the example for us boorish conservative types on how to do it with a sense of grace, aplomb, and good taste? It would be beneficial to see an exlempary example of fair and balanced application of these important core values.

Thank you.

There are no rules countryboy; anybody is free to answer any post. However, his comment ‘I neither confirm nor deny’ does not make sense, since nobody asked him to confirm or deny anything. My post was addressed to that comment of his. He is free to answer any of my posts, I have no problem with that.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Are you making a spurious accusation there Cliffy?

Care to clarify that before I report it?
I wasn't being serious, just playing on words in response to: "That sounds like a threat of violence and name calling Cliffy." I didn't think you were being serious either. You recently talked about hunting deer. Killing an animal is a little more damaging than punting one. And I wasn't serious about drop kicking yappy little dogs. I thought you would have figured out by now that I try not to harm anything. I just have a weird sense of humour I guess.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
What is it with you, bob? The post was not even addressed to you, it was in response to a post by ironsides. If he has any comments on it, he will get back to me, or do you presume to speak for him?

You neither confirm or deny it? Why should you? I didn't ask you to confirm or deny it. The post was not addressed to you.

Oops, I answered the wrong post, sorry mom.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Now, whether you are an acolyte is a matter of opinion, isn't it?

No it isn't, in your case it is merely an assumption, and not based on fact but on conjecture. But you do like labels in your black and white world.

And I am not busy blaming conservatives, I blame whoever is in power. It is not my fault that conservatives invariably end up screwing up the economy. Reagan, two Bushes, Mulroney, Mike Harris, Harper (to the extent that he is running the biggest deficit in the history of Canada) etc.

Five of them are no longer in power. You have failed to mention Bob Rae and your buddy Pierre.

In my opinion, anybody blaming Bush meltdown on Clinton (the Bush meltdown occurred 7 years after Clinton left office, now I understand how conservatives also blame Carter for the meltdown, if they can blame somebody who left office 7 years ago, surely they can blame somebody who left office 30 years ago) is being purely partisan and purely absurd.

This tail does not wag that dog, we have little control on what goes on to the south.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
No it isn't, in your case it is merely an assumption, and not based on fact but on conjecture. But you do like labels in your black and white world.



Five of them are no longer in power. You have failed to mention Bob Rae and your buddy Pierre.



This tail does not wag that dog, we have little control on what goes on to the south.

I think it's a waste of time arguing with S.J. until he realizes Prime Minister is a political job, not a financial one. Politics is involved mainly with enacting legislation, banks look after the money. If you want to blame someone for a financial crisis, you should look at the head honcho of the Bank of Canada.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Well, if the vote splitting does not affect the left (there is perpetual vote splitting between Liberals and NDP), why should it bother the right? Vote splitting is a fact of life. there definitely was vote splitting on the left as well as on the right when liberals won three majorities.

You don't seem to understand, there was not perpetual vote splitting between Liberals and NDP but between the PC's and Liberals. It wasn't really vote splitting but the swing votes of the undecided. Sure there are some Liberals who lean toward NDP and vise versa, but their numbers aren't that large. The PC party suffered a meltdown, (deserved or not) which left a lot of voters without a secure home other than the Liberals. Most people have a misunderstanding of what left and right really are, and I'm sure most folks on this thread are the same. We do not have a true and viable right wing party in North America, or much of the world (except maybe in Switzerland and Israel).
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
I think it's a waste of time arguing with S.J. until he realizes Prime Minister is a political job, not a financial one. Politics is involved mainly with enacting legislation, banks look after the money. If you want to blame someone for a financial crisis, you should look at the head honcho of the Bank of Canada.

Well, yes, but the PM can drive or direct financial policy, but he, (no matter who he is) is too ill equipped to manage the economy, it just can't be done, it is just too big a beast. It is the PM who thinks he can that ends up in trouble. The Governer of the Bank of Canada is given the tool of interest rates for control. He is given a hammer, and every problem starts to look like a nail. The economy is a dynamic thing that is too diverse to expect government to control it. John Maynard Keynes was a proponent of government intervention, and he had a system that worked for the times, basically built a rocketship that only he could fly and others failed miserably trying. I believe that the government's role in the economy is to regulate and referee, but not manipulate.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Some "Party Faithfuls" fail to realize that all voters are not like that..
In my lifetime I have probably voted for all parties except the Bloc and Social Credit....
We are not all blind faithfuls believing in a single political party...I look for the representative that will work for me, or I never vote for him/her again...not because he/she is a Liberal...Conservative...or NDP

The party leader make a difference too....I would not vote Liberal while Iggy is the leader, because he's a Canadian of opportunity.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
You don't seem to understand, there was not perpetual vote splitting between Liberals and NDP but between the PC's and Liberals. It wasn't really vote splitting but the swing votes of the undecided. Sure there are some Liberals who lean toward NDP and vise versa, but their numbers aren't that large. The PC party suffered a meltdown, (deserved or not) which left a lot of voters without a secure home other than the Liberals. Most people have a misunderstanding of what left and right really are, and I'm sure most folks on this thread are the same. We do not have a true and viable right wing party in North America, or much of the world (except maybe in Switzerland and Israel).

Looks to me like you have it backwards. Both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing parties. Even "socialist" Obama is a moderate right winger in his policies. So far as Canada is concerned the Conservatives are moderate right wing and the Liberals centre left. Vote splitting in Canada usually occurs on the left with the NDP, Liberals, and Greens sharing the vote. There really aren't any viable right wing parties to pull votes away from the Conservatives. Fortunately, most Canadians simply have the good sense not to vote for them most of the time.
 

Trex

Electoral Member
Apr 4, 2007
917
31
28
Hither and yon
The title of the thread starter is invalid and without merit.

The majority of Canadians do not have a "phobia" about the Federal Liberal Party.
And they never have had one.
Nor do they have a "phobia" about the Federal Conservative Party.

Both the parties standings in the polls and as represented by their seats in the House represent exactly where the voters of Canada wish them to be.

Thus, democratically speaking, all is as it should be.

That of course does not mean I, or anyone else, necessarily agrees with the current political standings.

It's fine and good to try and sway others to your particular viewpoint concerning politics in an online debate.
But if you seriously believe that others have some type of mental impairment because they do not completely agree with your individual political beliefs?

Well,spooky stuff that.

Trex
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
Looks to me like you have it backwards. Both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing parties. Even "socialist" Obama is a moderate right winger in his policies. So far as Canada is concerned the Conservatives are moderate right wing and the Liberals centre left. Vote splitting in Canada usually occurs on the left with the NDP, Liberals, and Greens sharing the vote. There really aren't any viable right wing parties to pull votes away from the Conservatives. Fortunately, most Canadians simply have the good sense not to vote for them most of the time.
Good evening Bar Sinister,
good point, the 13 year Conservative drought , after Mulroney to Chrétien, proves your point. The Canadian voter did show do diligence when it comes to we had enough. :smile:
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
The title of the thread starter is invalid and without merit.

The majority of Canadians do not have a "phobia" about the Federal Liberal Party.
And they never have had one.
Nor do they have a "phobia" about the Federal Conservative Party.

Both the parties standings in the polls and as represented by their seats in the House represent exactly where the voters of Canada wish them to be.

Thus, democratically speaking, all is as it should be.

That of course does not mean I, or anyone else, necessarily agrees with the current political standings.

It's fine and good to try and sway others to your particular viewpoint concerning politics in an online debate.
But if you seriously believe that others have some type of mental impairment because they do not completely agree with your individual political beliefs?

Well,spooky stuff that.

Trex

You said a mouthful and all of it sensible. No there is no reason to be paranoid about any political party. The important thing to realize is they are basically all the same- in it for themselves and the electorate is secondary. I get such a laugh out of people who connect themselves to a political parties. Why be a slave for THEIR benefit? I get such a kick out of this "left" and "right" B.S. They adopt whatever platform best ensures their longevity. For the time being I'm happy enough with Harper and when I get unhappy I'll vote for someone else, but realistically right now there is no one any better to vote for.
 

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
Looks to me like you have it backwards. Both the Democrats and Republicans are right wing parties. Even "socialist" Obama is a moderate right winger in his policies. So far as Canada is concerned the Conservatives are moderate right wing and the Liberals centre left. Vote splitting in Canada usually occurs on the left with the NDP, Liberals, and Greens sharing the vote. There really aren't any viable right wing parties to pull votes away from the Conservatives. Fortunately, most Canadians simply have the good sense not to vote for them most of the time.

If you have a good understanding of right and left, (which most don't, and those who do don't let on) you would see that even the Republicans aren't right in a practical sense. Far left is total government control and on the far right is no government control. If you see how much control the governments have on the lives of citizens you may realize that we are pretty close on the spectrum to the US. All of our, (and their) political parties are concerned with is power, how to achieve and maintain it. Their advertised ideological differences are what attracts voters to one side or the other, but for all intents and purposes they all have the same goal. If the party in power is not interested in relinquishing power to the people and maintains big government it is left wing. Many people equate Stalinist style socialism with the left and NAZI style fascism with the right, this is totally erroneous. Both are far left governments, it was Stalin who first obfuscated the terms in an attempt to distance his style from Hitler's while the only difference was that Stalin was an equal opportunity tyrant. The obfuscation, or lie, stuck. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Though it is a generalization, it is the "progressives", or liberals who like to perpetuate this lie to equate conservatism with fascism, which in some cases is not far from the truth. Just as some liberals demand things totally illiberal, tyrannical in fact, which is why I dislike all encompassing labels. So we end up with qualifiers, "classical" liberals and conservatives, or other labels like libertarian, the list is long.

If you look at the legislation in place now that controls our lives, everything from bicycle helmet laws to firearms bans, it was promoted by "progressive" folks. Now if you think the Conservatives are right, just look at what they have coming down the pipe, they want to enact legislation that will allow police to randomly stop motorists for sobriety testing, a clear violation of our constitutional protection from unlawful search and seizure. More pandering to the "progressives", (sorry, needed the label).

An extreme right government doesn't exist because by definition it means no government control at all, contol is invariably handled by local thugs, much like Somalia, or early wild West US. A centrist government balances the rights and freedoms of its citizens, one person's freedom shouldn't infringe on the rights of another. A centrist government sets rules of fair play without trying to control all aspects of the lives of citizens. A centrist government is limited government with the people having the balance of power. It has been a long time since we have seen that. In fact, the original Reform Party is what is now the LIberal party. They were a party of the right, (or right of the conservatives at the time). They were against the ideal of the strong central government of Sir John A. The parties have switched sides, more or less, over the years.

We seem so concerned about the economy and want the government to control it, (which they really can't) but overlook all the freedoms we lose as the government controls what they can, us. We demand the government protect us, but who will protect us from government? "Peace, order, and good government", Peace comes easily at a huge cost; freedom. With that comes order. Good government? China has that, just ask any of their commissars. Funny thing about democracy, people are so willing to collectively vote away their freedom. If we can't live as equals under freedom, we will live as equals under slavery.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I think it's a waste of time arguing with S.J. until he realizes Prime Minister is a political job, not a financial one. Politics is involved mainly with enacting legislation, banks look after the money. If you want to blame someone for a financial crisis, you should look at the head honcho of the Bank of Canada.

Wrong, JLM. PM is the head of the government and as such is indirectly responsible for everything that goes on in the country. He gets the credit or the blame for everything that happens.

That is why if a country wins a war, the credit goes to the PM, even though he did not fire a single shot. I was in UK during the Falklands war, Mrs. Thatcher won the second term purely because of the Falklands victory, she was deeply unpopular just before the start of the war.

That is why Bush was so roundly condemned by Americans when Iraq war went south. It is the same with the economy, if economy is doing well; PM gets the credit, if it isn’t. PM gets the blame.

Harry Truman had a sign on is desk, ‘The buck stops here’. Perhaps Harper and other conservative politicians should have a sign on their desk, ‘The buck stops here only if something good is happening, otherwise the buck stops with the liberals.”
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Five of them are no longer in power. You have failed to mention Bob Rae and your buddy Pierre.

Five of them are no longer in power, so what is your point? Does that excuse them for their economic mismanagement? As to Rae, when did you see a post by me defending him? I have never defended Rae. Anyway, when he was the Premier of Ontario, he was not a Liberal, but NDP.

Same with Trudeau, when did you see praise Trudeau for his economic mismanagement, or when did you see me blame his economic mismanagement on somebody else (as conservative routinely do, they blame Mulroney fiasco on Trudeau, the two huge Bush fiascos on Obama, Clinton and Carter)?

Trudeau was the best PM we have ever had, the best one we will have for a long time to come, in spite of his economic mismanagement, not because of it.,