Liberal phobia and the cause….

[wulfie68]

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.

Actually he may not be right on but he's not as far off as you say. CANADA has slid progressively to the left ever since the second world war to a point where most Canadians have no idea where we sit on the ideological scales (as evidenced by the self delusional ramblings of SJP and others here). Calling someone like Obama, who does champion programs like gov't run universal healthcare, more gov't involvement and regulation in the private sectors, etc. a mild right winger shows how skewed the Canadian definitions of left and right are.

As for the vote splitting argument, there is some truth on both sides. Presently there is some splitting on the extreme left with the rise of the Greens to compete with NDP and the left fringe of the Liberals. The "center" (more correctly center left) sways back and forth between Liberals and Consevatives. The center and center right gravitate to the Conservatives because there is no where else for them to go, while the extreme right is isolated into little fringe pockets like the Christian Heritage Party. If you go back a decade, before the PCs and Reforms merged, the primary reason Chretien won his majorities is because there was a split on the "right", not because he and his politicies were overwhelmingly popular.

As for the claim of Trudeau being the most beloved PM ever, I've seen some polls from places like the Dominion Institute on that subject and there is a stark regional variance (the West and Quebec having no great love for him, Ontario being the reverse). If I recall correctly he is one of, if not the most popular PM according to the polls but his popularity never approaches 50% of the country never mind 70%. There are also polls that show Trudeau as also being far and away the most hated PM. The most accurate conclusion is that he was probably the most polarizing PM in our history... which is at stark odds with the claim that his biographers and Liberals make that he sought to unite the country...

 

[TenPenny]

JLM - I didn't know that I had to ask you for permission on using the forum.

Here you go, it's yours.

Wouldn't want to upset you by posting anything.

 

[Colpy]

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.

Just a minute....Harper is centrist??? But I thought the Conservatives were "far right"?????????

:roll:

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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.

Well, there is no such thing as total freedom. If there is no government we are left to fend for ourselves and provide our own protection, so we aren't really free. What I feel is ideal is a balance. The forces in play today want so much control on our lives that we lose more freedom than safety is worth. The impaired driving issue is just a vehicle for the totalitarians to gain control. The gun control is a way for the state to get into your home, and a way to ensure the subservience of the populace. Arms control has always led to tyranny, it is used as a means to an end. The use of random searches allows for fishing expeditions, drinking and driving is only an excuse. Studies show that the majority of accidents involving drinking and driving, (80%) have the driver with a BAC of over 1.2, and 50% of those are over twice the legal limit. Statistics are manipulated such that even alcohol in the vehicle is listed as "alcohol as a factor". That is why we now have a legal limit of .05 in NS even though the rate of accidents involving drivers in that range are near zero. But still, we allow the state to suspend licenses, impound vehicles, and possibly now go on fishing expeditions. There are real problems out there, but harrassing everyone will not make it go away, it only gives the stae more power and makes it look like they are solving the problem, just like gun control.

 

[Liberalman]

The Liberal Party Of Canada is the only party to save this country from financial disaster

 

[countryboy]

Posts #541 and #544 are like a breath of fresh air in Spring. Very timely, considering we're in the first day of Daylight Saving TIme.

Good work, guys - common sense, logic, realism, and good writin' all rolled into 2 posts this morning. Thank you for some excellent reading on a Sunday morning.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

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.

No, what I described as far right is closer to anarchy, libertarianism is a centrist government. And it does and has worked in practice, we just haven't seen it in so long we can't recognise it.

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.

I don't disagree that conservative governments "want fully as much government control as liberals do", however, many conservative want them to have less, I wish I could say the same for liberals. Unfortunately governments under both banners are presently left styles of governing. The Liberals might leave things you find important alone, but they have sure made my life more miserable. The present Conservatives, at least until lately, have been more inclined to leave all of us alone. As far as conservatives regulating the bedroom, that ship has sailed. The liberals still regulate mine, that is where I keep some of my guns, so they also regulate the rest of my house.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

That was awesome, Bob, thanx.

Thanx, sorry, I didn't produce it though. I just wish they would show that in schools, but I also wish "The Peter Principle" was required reading too, oh well.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Posts #541 and #544 are like a breath of fresh air in Spring. Very timely, considering we're in the first day of Daylight Saving TIme.

Good work, guys - common sense, logic, realism, and good writin' all rolled into 2 posts this morning. Thank you for some excellent reading on a Sunday morning.

By jeez, any time there me son, only too glad to contribute to yer Sund'y readin' from the granite planet. BTW, I concocted a rather more wordy missive in post 514 I believe, which you may read at your leasure.;-)

 

[bobnoorduyn]

The Liberal Party Of Canada is the only party to save this country from financial disaster

Only to plunge us into invasive and controlling government policies. I would rather live poor and free than rich and subservient, but the rich part will only last as long as they wish it for you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The Liberal Party Of Canada is the only party to save this country from financial disaster

At least that is how it worked out in the past.

 

[countryboy]

By jeez, any time there me son, only too glad to contribute to yer Sund'y readin' from the granite planet. BTW, I concocted a rather more wordy missive in post 514 I believe, which you may read at your leasure.;-)

Just read it - once again, well done! I particularly liked your point on 'pandering to the progressives' - couldn't agree more.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't disagree that conservative governments "want fully as much government control as liberals do", however, many conservative want them to have less, I wish I could say the same for liberals.

That may be true for some conservatives, but not others. Especially the extreme fringe of the conservative party in Canada, or the religious right in USA want the type of government control that I have described here.

 

[countryboy]

That may be true for some conservatives, but not others. Especially the extreme fringe of the conservative party in Canada, or the religious right in USA want the type of government control that I have described here.

I remember how irritating it used to be when I would be playing my old records and, if there was a little scratch on one, it would skip and play the same bit over and over and over and over and over...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, what I described as far right is closer to anarchy, libertarianism is a centrist government. And it does and has worked in practice, we just haven't seen it in so long we can't recognise it.

When has Libertarianism worked in practice? I can’t think of a single Libertarian government.

I remember reading a sci fi book a while ago which described Propertarian government, that was an extreme form of Libertarianism. In that, there was absolutely no involvement of government in anything. Roads were owned by private companies, they charged people to use their road. There was no military, if the country was invaded, private citizens would band together, form an army and repel the invaders.

Government did not print money; the value of the money was inherent in the money itself. Thus they had coins of one ounce gold, half an ounce gold, one ounce copper, half an ounce copper etc.

It was a fascinating read, and reading the novel, one could almost believe that it would work. But I haven’t seen any Libertarian government in practice.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I remember how irritating it used to be when I would be playing my old records and, if there was a little scratch on one, it would skip and play the same bit over and over and over and over and over...

So what is your point? That does not make what I said here any less true.

 

[JLM]

I remember how irritating it used to be when I would be playing my old records and, if there was a little scratch on one, it would skip and play the same bit over and over and over and over and over...

:lol::lol::lol::lol: I think I see what you're trying to say.........not sure all others will:smile:

 

[countryboy]

:lol::lol::lol::lol: I think I see what you're trying to say.........not sure all others will:smile:

Someone already asked about it. :lol:

 

[lone wolf]

over and over and over and over and over....

...some call that nagging too....

 

[JLM]

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.

Sorry, didn't want to cause hard feelings. I just feel as I stated, that if the cops stop me to check for being impaired I have no problem with it. As it is it's been over 10 years since I've been stopped by a cop for anything, so I just don't see them as practicing public harassment, and with the number of idiots I observe every day on the road, for the roads to be safe there has to be closer scrutiny than there is right now. Unless a person's driving or vehicle condition catches the attention of the cops I doubt if they would stop anyone just for the sake of doing so. The one exception may be criminals known to them.