Liberal phobia and the cause….

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
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.


That is interesting Bob and makes good sense. I would only question one thing. Should we be having total freedom when by having it others may be put at risk. As far as I'm concerned the cops are welcome to stop me any time to check for impaired driving. There is nothing worse than to hear of an innocent person killed by a drunk driver and the only people I can see being "unduly" inconvenienced are the drunk drivers. I believe that safety for the many has to supercede freedom for the few. Good post Bob.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
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).

I will agree with you as far as Canada is concerned, we really don't like right wing parties. Conservative Party did not win power until Harper moved sharply to the centre.

But are you saying that the Republican Party in USA is not a right wing party? I consider it a truly right wing party, with their stand on banning abortion, generous use of death penalty, mandating teaching of Creationism in public schools ( a large chunk of Republican Party wants to do that), their 'Manifest Destiny', their hatred of homosexuals and other minorities and so on.

I consider it truly a party of the right. Indeed, I would argue that there is no party in USA representing the left. Democratic Party represents the centre and the cenre right, while Republican party represents the right and the far right.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
"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.,"-

You forgot to add "In my opinion" - Many think he was the worst.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
"But are you saying that the Republican Party in USA is not a right wing party? I consider it a truly right wing party, with their stand on banning abortion, generous use of death penalty, mandating teaching of Creationism in public schools "

You aren't listening again S.J. - Bob just explained to us that Right Wing means no control by Gov't....................didn't think that was a difficult concept.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
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.

In a way you are right. PM perhaps cannot do a whole lot to improve the economy, that has to come from the private sector. However, PM (or President) can do a lot to make economic situation worse, he can do that easily.

And the borrow and spend economics practiced by conservatives for the past 30 years (since Reagan) has caused untold damage to the economy. So has the attitude of complete deregulation, let the business do what they want, no checks and balances, the attitude that was adopted by the Republicans for 12 years.

So yes, government may not be able to do much to help the economy (except perhaps to get out of the way), but it can do a lot to harm the economy and that is precisely what the conservative politicians have been doing for the past 30 years.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
didn't think that was a difficult concept.
To those that use critical thought maybe.

Which I must say, you seem to be in an abundance of these days. My hats off to you sir. btw: That doesn't mean I agree with everything you've said, but you have put forth some very substantial thoughts, though in contradiction to my own, made me think outside the box.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
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.

Quite so, Bar. That is what I have been saying all along. Obama is too conservative for Canada. If he ran in Canada, he would have to run as the leader of the Conservative Party and I would vote against him.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
To those that use critical thought maybe.

Which I must say, you seem to be in an abundance of these days. My hats off to you sir. btw: That doesn't mean I agree with everything you've said, but you have put forth some very substantial thoughts, though in contradiction to my own, made me think outside the box.

Thanks, Bear, I try my best.......:smile:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
And the borrow and spend economics practiced by conservatives for the past 30 years (since Reagan) has caused untold damage to the economy. So has the attitude of complete deregulation, let the business do what they want, no checks and balances, the attitude that was adopted by the Republicans for 12 years.
What hogwash, it was under Clinton that Glass-Steagall was repealed. He had the power to veto it, but chose to sign it into law.

This repeal, was instrumental in the economic down turn.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Quite so, Bar. That is what I have been saying all along. Obama is too conservative for Canada. If he ran in Canada, he would have to run as the leader of the Conservative Party and I would vote against him.
And if Harper ran in the US, he would have to run under the Democrats, as would the rest of the country.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
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.

That may be true in some abstract sense, bob. But that is not how it works in practice. What you are describing as far right is really Libertarianism (no government involvement of any kind), that is not conservatism.

Conservatives want fully as much government control as liberals do, only they want it in different areas. The areas that liberals would regulate (behavior of the corporations, minimum wage, welfare for the poor, education for everybody etc.), conservatives don't want government involvement there. The areas that liberals would leave alone (abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, pornography etc.), conservatives want government control in those areas. Liberals want to regulate the boardroom, conservatives want to regulate the bedroom.

So theoretical definitions and how it works in practice are two totally different things.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
"Wrong, JLM. PM is the head of the government and as such is indirectly responsible for everything that goes on in the country."

That is B.S.- Gov't's role (as I've said many times) is to enact legislation and to a less extent act as a watchdog- mainly to do with things like public safety - especially minorities (like children at risk).
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
"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.,"-

You forgot to add "In my opinion" - Many think he was the worst.

Not in my opinion JLM, but in the opinion of a great majority of Canadians. He was voted the best PM ever, you know. Also, according to the last poll taken he was liked by about 70% of Canadians.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
"But are you saying that the Republican Party in USA is not a right wing party? I consider it a truly right wing party, with their stand on banning abortion, generous use of death penalty, mandating teaching of Creationism in public schools "

You aren't listening again S.J. - Bob just explained to us that Right Wing means no control by Gov't....................didn't think that was a difficult concept.

And I have tackled that issue in a separate post.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
"Wrong, JLM. PM is the head of the government and as such is indirectly responsible for everything that goes on in the country."

That is B.S.- Gov't's role (as I've said many times) is to enact legislation and to a less extent act as a watchdog- mainly to do with things like public safety - especially minorities (like children at risk).

That is not how it works out. People give the PM or the President the blame or the credit for everything that happens under his watch. That is why when the economy is a mess, the ruling party loses. When the economy is going along great, the governing party usually wins.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
As far as I'm concerned the cops are welcome to stop me any time to check for impaired driving.

Do you think that the police should be allowed to seize your car for a day because they 'suspect' you of drunk driving?[Washington State] Or seize your car for a week because you have been accused (ie, not convicted) of speeding?[Ontario]

Where do we draw the line at being forced to produce papers at any time of the day or night, when we are going about our innocent business?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Do you think that the police should be allowed to seize your car for a day because they 'suspect' you of drunk driving?[Washington State] Or seize your car for a week because you have been accused (ie, not convicted) of speeding?[Ontario]

Where do we draw the line at being forced to produce papers at any time of the day or night, when we are going about our innocent business?
50 over isn't innocent business.

Radar has a record, the new laser radar, takes real time video of the offending vehicle.

Kind of takes the guess work out of conviction.

But I do somewhat agree with your position.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Do you think that the police should be allowed to seize your car for a day because they 'suspect' you of drunk driving?[Washington State] Or seize your car for a week because you have been accused (ie, not convicted) of speeding?[Ontario]

Where do we draw the line at being forced to produce papers at any time of the day or night, when we are going about our innocent business?

Where the hell did I say that? If you are going to participate in the forum you should try using some common sense for a change. I said check for impaired drivers, not impounding anyone' s car. Now if he were to smell booze on the guy's breath and he couldn't walk a straight line, that would be something different. However no matter what happens, the safety of the innocent person is paramount.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Where the hell did I say that? If you are going to participate in the forum you should try using some common sense for a change. I said check for impaired drivers, not impounding anyone' s car. Now if he were to smell booze on the guy's breath and he couldn't walk a straight line, that would be something different. However no matter what happens, the safety of the innocent person is paramount.

JLM, you have said you agree with being stopped for no reason and searched (checked) for impairment. I asked if you supported these other things. If you can't read plain English, you certainly don't need to give me advice. Try re-reading it before you act like a fool.