Hey anti-Conservatives, explain Canada
Posted on: March 27, 2010 - 6:05pm
Offline
Hey anti-Conservatives, explain Canada
Due to recent anti-conservative topics on the boards lately, I might as well add this one to the mix.
The Conservative party took over from the Liberals in 2006, and were re-elected in 2008. Our far left Socialist party [New Democratic Party or NDP] is a fucking joke, they 37 seats in parliment, where as the Liberals got 77 [www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/]. That means that the "evil" conservative party got more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined! [However, due to the Bloc Quebicous party, the Conservatives have a minority government.]
So if Conserativism cause so many problems, then why hasn't Canada been in a downward spiral of immorality and corruption since 2006?
- Login to post comments
I don't know jack about Canadian politics, so can you answer a couple of questions for me? Does "conservative" mean the same thing in Canada as America? In my only political science class ever, I learned that "conservative" means sticking to traditional, well tested methods, minimizing government bureaucracy, and allowing the capitalist market to sort things out so long as it doesn't monopolize things.
That's not even remotely what conservativism in America is about these days, so... yeah. That's my question. What do the conservatives believe in in Canada?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It's good to point out that the Conservative party is as far right as it gets in Canada. I don't think it's as far right as the Republican party, however the reason for this topic is that the point of the anti-conservative topics seem to be the more socialist you are, the better, and if you're not a socialist than you'll spiral into immorality and corruption. So since the more socialist parties in Canada aren't in power, [google the Canadian NDP, they're as socialist as you get and don't get a lot of support] then Canada should have then been more corrupt than the US.
I think the broad terms "conservative" and "liberal" are the same in Canada and the US, however I think the dynamics of the countries are different. Almost every government has some sort of rudimentary conservative v. liberal battle. Comparing them doesn't work, at least for me anyway.
I don't know about the conservative group up in canada at all, but if they are successful/noncorrupt, then they probably don't have the same inner workings as the GOP.
Comparing liberalism and conservatism in Canada vs. the U.S. is apples and oranges, and I think you know that.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
I think the more valid observation would be that the more extreme and idealogical you are in either direction, the more dangerous you are to a healthy society. One direction seems to lead in the direction of a country run by petty warlords, whoever can grab local power, the other to a centralized dictatorship.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So you mean they are capitalist, as opposed to socialist? Is the main difference between the two economic policy?
Is the right in Canada's conservative party furiously discussing succession and civil war because of a health care reform bill? If not, I don't think they have much in common with current American politics. I have a lot of sympathy for conservativism, but right now I am beyond disgusted with the Tea Party people (Our extreme right). I post on a forum that is full of them, and every other thread right now is about crazy bullshit like that. Libertarianism is a fucking joke in America thanks to Rush, Hannity and that prick Beck. Hate mongering bastards.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Well Allison, I can't really account for what you have going on up there.
What I can tell you is that there are 10X as many people down here, so the spectrum is more finely divided. So to say that “all of a group of people” are of property X is, if anything, less relevant down here.
=
Far right is just as bad as far left. Extremism is ignorant either way. It is the two party way of thinking that is killing this world. No compromise, either I'm right or you're wrong. Until people get away from black/white thinking we will never progress. If any one group of people had all of the answers everything would be easy. No one seems to be able to move from the extreme edges of political ideology.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell
Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."
It's this non-partisan stuff that is ignorant. Having strong left wing or right wing values does not make one an extremest. It just make one strong in their values. In this respect, moderates are weak. First of all the terms conservative and liberal make no sense at all. I don't know about other countries, but they are just synonyms for republican and democrat. Compromise is not a good thing. Period. It occurs when someone that is correct, concedes too much to someone that is incorrect, thereby delaying justice. Think about how far along America would be if the abolitionists didn't agree to the three-fifths compromise or the Missouri Compromise. Even today, this new healthcare bill is a failure for the left wing. And utter failure even if they want to believe it was a "big fucking deal".
A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce
You got everything right except the "monopoly" part. Not in a conspiracy sense, but in a climate of government protecting the wealthiest. The wealthiest have a monopoly on our political parties.
I would be for that concept as a theory, but the cost of living, banks, credit cards, home market, EVERYTHING is becoming more and more a free for all.
There is no reason a pill should cost 50 bucks. There is no reason a $1,500 wheel chair should be billed $4,000. There is no reason a pound of chicken wings should cost 8 bucks. This is nothing but sheer greed at the expense of the working class and poor.
Wealth is not my problem. The pay gap and the climate where people are having to work more and more and get less and less. The pay gap in America is far too lopsided and making it increasingly harder for the middle and poor classes to make ends meet.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The Republican party, as a whole, is not conservative and is generally based on the latest Christian moral panic, in whatever form it currently presents itself as. Emotionally insecure Christians provide terrible examples as to what constitutes conservatism. Also, the Republican Party appears to be based on defending the desires of "flyover" territory, and thus has a great deal of victim mentalities and persecution complexes of its own making. The unique thing about the current 'purgations' in the Republican Party is that they are disavowing the centrists and scarce remaining liberals of their particular (and, at times, meaningless) party label.
Bob Spence's, HBD's, and Answers' replies seem highly relevant here -they reverberate well within my own worldview-, althouth HBD leaves out how readily monopolies, oligopolies, and big business in general have found a home in the conservative governments of the Cold War Era.
My position is that personal liberty> social justice. Always.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
And brian beat me to the punch, some what, on the point of monopolies. The republican voter base has no interest in disabling monopolies.
Which is partly due to excessive taxation on behalf of a number of idiot figureheads
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
ding ding we have a winner!
Thumbs up
And they would get taxed less IF the middle and poor didn't have to turn to government to protect them. If they want less "nanny state"(which right now is the nanny for our wealthy class) then they need to stop being so fucking jaded as to pretend the only way to contribute is to work 80 billion hours a week.
People are more productive when they don't feel like they are drowning. People are more productive when they feel the people that they work for actually care. People are more productive if they have a life outside the job. People are more productive when they can spend time with their family.
The Wal Mart class is great at making it's CEOs and shareholders rich, but lousy at long term thinking. A cheap product now does not mean a better society later. It just means you are good at making money.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
On this, we are in complete agreement. (Has that ever happened before?)
One of the reasons I avoid discussions of politics like the plague is that I disagree with damn near everybody because damn near everybody thinks in political dichotomies. Over here, we have Team Anarchy, otherwise known as the Bad News Bears. Over there, Team Marx is telling us that the only reason communism didn't work was misinterpretation of The Lord and Savior Karl's Holy Writ. To the left, Team Socialist is blaming all the ills of society on corporations, and on the Right, Team Capitalist is blaming them on the poor.
Personally, I believe the only system that has any merit at all is one that incorporates elements of several political philosophies, without elevating any of them as the answer to all of life's problems. The fundamental problem is that utopia is impossible, and it's also impossible to agree on what ought to be the biggest goal of a government. Do we want to eliminate poverty? We can do that, but with wealth redistribution comes a certain unavoidable unfairness. Some people really do work harder than others, and it doesn't feel fair to work so hard without also making a lot more money.
We can say the same kind of thing about any societal goal. You want this? Ok, but you have to sacrifice some of that. The only solution that makes any sense is to hybridize the government such that some things are socialized while others remain largely unregulated by the government. Prevent abject poverty as best you can. Allow people to create their own rewards if they want to elevate their standards of living, but don't let them create an unsustainable income gap. Encourage small businesses by preventing enormous businesses from using predatory market tactics, but don't regulate so heavily that it becomes impossible to grow. Etc, etc...
As several have said, there's no existing political philosophy which, taken to an extreme, allows this kind of pluralism.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Thank you!
But out of all the implemented systems I do think the best attempt, all be it slaughtered by revisionists, is that of the age of Enlightenment and the U.S. Constitution that leaves the door open for competition, but has many times failed to protect the populous from monopolies. That is not due to the intent of the founders, but more so what corrupts all forms of power. Thought is dependent on humans, but humans never have the same thoughts and thus utopias are absurd.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I go back and forth about whether the U.S. system ever really worked. Part of the problem is that the founding fathers lacked the ability to see into the future. They couldn't have possibly imagined multinational corporations leveraging international assets as part of a predatory price gouge to knock out a rival company.
I am sort of pissed that they didn't think the separation of church and state through a little more thoroughly and make the first amendment much more clear. They certainly had the ability to imagine the church using its considerable resources to influence legislation to their advantage. They certainly knew something about the harm religious laws can do.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I don't know, the big trading companies of the day demonstrated the power of industry hadn't they? Or do you think they were still not in the same league as a multinational of today?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Indeed, but you omit how many of these individuals privately admire the wealthy and powerful of society.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
This is getting out of my knowledge base very quickly, but I really don't think so. The biggest reason for this is the power of industrialization and computerization. I mean, even with the existence of immense and powerful companies like the Dutch East India, the concept of a "supermarket" was unfathomable. If memory serves, the first self service "supermarket" was Piggly Wiggly, and that was around 1920. Until the telephone and telegraph made information transfer quick and efficient, it was impossible to coordinate the kind of multinational machinery necessary to sustain something as powerful as, say, Walmart, whose merchandise is coordinated from literally all over the world and shipped "just in time" to eliminate the need for enormous stockpiles of inventory.
Could the founding fathers have imagined the possibility that one store could literally drive entire districts of specialty shops out of business? I don't see how. They would have had to anticipate science that wasn't invented yet.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Adam Smith's Trading Co. and East India Trading Co. demonstrated very similar multinational proportions of economic strength... (there may have been others, as well)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Or, as the Supreme Court recently ruled, leveraging said assets to influence the presidential election.
I think they thought it through pretty well actually. The math is quite simple. Two points in the Constitution clearly call for religion to stay out of government. Zero points in the Constitution call for mixing religion and government. What they couldn't forsee was the level of stupidity that a large portion of the country's population would display.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Well, the problem is in the lack of specificity. For instance, non-profits are required by law to open their books to the IRS -- unless they're a church. The reasoning has traditionally been that the first amendment is meant to say that the government has no business knowing what the church is doing with its money. Consequently, as Scientologists know well, if you're in the business of shadiness, the best way to insulate yourself against prosecution is by invoking religious exemption. We really have no way to even start guessing at how much money has been put to questionable use by the church because of this interpretation of the constitution.
I doubt that's what the framers had in mind. But they didn't say, so we just have to guess. I realize that Jefferson, et al, did speak with more specificity in letters and other writings, but that's not the Constitution, and Justices are correct in saying that they're bound by the Constitution itself, not any other documents, even those written by the founding fathers.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
And the history of Colonial America is unambiguously geared towards preventing another Anglican Church. The problem, of course, is the 'Constitutionalist's' obsessive focus on the letter of the law (as opposed to the spirit of the law) and the (slavery-oriented) Tenth Amendment...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
As dumb as your response is, I will respond to it. Being ideologically as far to one way of thinking as possible is ignorance in its purest form. Being strong in your values is good, being completely partisan is the exact same as following everyone off of a cliff just because they are in the same group you are. The terms "conservative" and "liberal" do make sense, because the identify you as being either conservative or (you guessed it) liberal. These are descriptive labels that have been applied to specific ideologies. I don't exactly follow what your problem is with this idea, other than the fact that you wanted to disagree with someone. Your defensiveness just proves that you are one of the people I am talking about.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell
Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."
no, the reason socialism didn't work (communism was never claimed by anybody) is that the world socialist revolution, which seemed so imminent in the first three decades of the 20th century, never happened. for communism to be reached, socialism cannot work in isolation, whether it be in a single nation or in groups of nations united in socialist solidarity. lenin himself frequently remarked that the future of the russian revolution depended on the revolutions in western europe. "socialism in one country" is a stalinist innovation and an outright fallacy, but ultimately it wasn't about misinterpretation, it was about objective conditions that never happened.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I told myself to go to the next to last post, find one misconception and respond to it.
Misconception located in: "Being ideologically as far to one way of thinking as possible is ignorance in its purest form."
I agree with the literal and almost certainly unintended meaning of this statement - that everyone alive is purely ignorant.
Now in order to respond to the misconception in what I think you meant to say - that being "completely partisan" is ignorance in purest form, I will look at the idea of partisanship in economical theory.
Before I can get to the crux of your claim, I first want to digress widely in order to put some context into this "partisan" business. I browsed through the Reuters(.com) financial news today and picked 4 random headlines:
1) Markets are holding their breath while waiting to see what German Caucelor, ECB and IMF are going to do about Greece. Good news: guaranties are being worked out.
2) DowJ benchmark next year depends on the effects of job initiatives by the fed, but the bailout of Greece helps restore confidence regardless.
3) Markets cringe as the South Korean naval vessel was sunk last week, ending flat on friday. Good news reestablishes investor confidence - from SK: "North Korea didn't do it."
4) Google vs. China vs. Baidu: Google pull-out due to Chinese policy gives market over to Baidu - investors waiting for Chinese response.
5) Let markets, not protectionism, control imigration (followed reuters.com to forbes.com link here)
It took me a bit to find the 5th article, but I wanted to include it. The ratio of a policy advocation(propaganda) vs. reporting at Reuters is about 1:5, although the assumptions from policy advocation are present in each and every article.
Tell me, what's wrong with this picture? Reuters is reporting more on government policies around the world than it is doing any fancy economic calculation. What does that mean for REAL macroeconomics? It means that money is made by knowing where it will be pured in by decree, not by calculation. What does that mean for the subject of economy at our universities, if money is not made by calculation? Well, look at the content of the 5th article. It is clear that the purpose of economic theory is simple administration at best and an opinion factory for the educated "elite" at worst, accent on the latter.
Now, you and I can be "partisan" Keynesians or the disciples of Hayek, but the markets will have nothing to do with our theory, while their existence depends on the soft bedding of quarantined population opinion we generate. Economical theory partisanship is not partisanship at all - it is just you placing your opinion within the narrow range of the opinion quarantine. Being "moderate" within this range is no less laughable. It is no great streach to assert that the political theories are, if anything, even more on the opinion factory side, making political partisanship and centrism complete and utter shams.
Now that we have established the bullshit that is the modern partisanship-centrism fad, what about REAL partisanship? Well, there is a lot of research pointing at usefulness of extreme strategies, depending on the nature of the problem you aim to solve. Extreme singlemindedness solves mount Fuji-type problems efficiently. Rugged landscape-type problems can be solved with use of brute force single minded strategies, but using combination with heuristics instead is very efficient. Dynamic landscape (complex) problems are solved by using extremely singleminded often opposing strategies(simulated annealing is a perfect example) used locally in combination with global decision heuristics. In this respect, extreme singleminded strategies are great, combined with purpose given by the global decision heuristics.
Where does that leave you? Hopefully it leaves you abandoning this partisanhip-centrist mindfuck to start with.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Because Canada is relatively cool and the United States is completely fucked up?
I used to think it was the other way around I mean, what did canada ever do. Then I consider what we have done, and doing nothing is probably better.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
@ZuS
I appreciate you doing the research necessary to run off a centrist, but I never said I was a centrist in the first place. I am fairly liberal on some points and conservative on other points. I have nothing against people that trend either way, but I have a big problem with people who vote or believe a certain way just because it is on the side that they most associate with because they are "supposed to". I still firmly believe that a mixture of ideologies provides the best results, rendering us as thinking people and not robots.
The only point I ever tried to make was that people that are completely partisan are usually complete morons. I didn't think that it would be that hard to figure out.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell
Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."
When did Canada ever actually develop their constitution?
Oh... right, 1982, about 200 years after us. But hey, don't let me get me get in the way of a good old fashioned Bash America thread...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I am sorry if I sounded as if I was reprimanding you. I think you missed my point because I made you defensive with my tone - that wasn't my intention.
Let me try to put it more simply: do you think that some form of armed resistance movement within US on account of domestic and foreign US/corporate policy is something you would at least contemplate to be justified? If not, then ask yourself what would it take? Complete destruction of a foreign country? Way past that mark. Unwanted US military presence in 100+ countries in the world? That was old news in the 60es. Economic strangulation of a whole population? That is like the modus operandi, not even a special event in US foreign policy - it's just what we do. When will you consider fighting back legitimate? When will you consider - ok, they have crossed the treshold of an aggressor and should expect the same back?
Where does that leave politically viable positions like liberal and conservative? In the Wonderland with Alice, talking to the mad hatter and the fat cat. Intellectual and moral quarantine, the definition of hypocrisy.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Spare me the "DATZ UNPATREEATIK!!!!111" finger pointing please. My great-great-great-grandfather (or whatever) was a general in the Civil War. So I'm allowed.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Again I repeat, because some people have problems paying attention...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Oh, don't worry, you're not in the way.
Glad to hear it! Now, while we are still participating in such a ridiculously petty and infantile struggle as 'point out the flaws and errors' of someone else's country, what exactly does the war record of one your ancestors have to do with the validity of your arguments or if you're "allowed"?
I could always use some free entertainment...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The point is, actually, that this isn't "someone else's country." In fact, it's mine, probably more than it is yours, and therefore I have the right to criticize it. And neither you nor I have any rights over the Native Americans who the white Europeans brutally slaughtered to take over this continent in the name of God.
I can't wait to hear you qualify this remark...
I be to differ here. I reserve every right to send every Injun packing to the west on the Trail of Tears, while butchering their kids in the name of manifest desti.....errrrrr.....
How did North American genocide get involved here? Are you going to throw in slavery of said Native Americans, Chinese, and Blacks as well, just to push this thread further into the edge of irrelevance, asininity, and derailment?
Are you that determined to prove your childish sense of entitlement to everyone else who stumbles into this thread?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
So basically your question is, in a choice between apples and oranges, should you choose banana?
I really don't see how you can compare two nations with entirely different ideologies in their parties and act like it meshes somehow.
Most conservatives in the states I meet consider all of Canada to be our backwards socialistic neighbor where people die in lines for medicine. They don't differentiate Canadian parties because they are so similar to each other compared to U.S. politics. ALL your parties should be fairly conservative, since conservatism is just keeping the status quo and if people are happy with something they won't want to change it much.
But keep on grasping. It is entertaining. Maybe you will build a few more men to knock down. Like conservatism having something to do with morality.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
LOL Let me guess, you've never even been to another continent.
Another ridiculous ad hominem. This thread is now completely derailed and irrelevant! I'd congratulate you, but...
Is that all you've got?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I am sorry for not just letting this thread die, but I feel like I need to clear up any misunderstandings before I move on.
I still do not claim any political stance. Perhaps you misunderstood me in your attempt to make some sort of point, but I am for taking every situation as it comes and analyzing it at that point. I'm not sure how this isn't getting across. I am anti partisan in every way. That is not to say there isn't a trend in my ideology, but literally my only point was that strict partisanship usually involves ignoring half of the facts presented. It isn't that hard to understand, but I will put it plainly just to end it. Being completely partisan just for the sake of being partisan is ignorant at the least, dangerous at the extreme. I don't think I have made it that hard to understand.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell
Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."
I'll take that as a yes.
Which would prove WHAT, exactly?
Actually, I did make a brief trip to Ireland, once. I still don't understand what the living motherfuck that says about me... other than the person asking the question is a complete idiot.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
"Conservative" in Canada does not mean the same thing as it does in the U.S. In the last few decades, the entire political spectrum of the U.S. has shifted far, far right. Canadian Conservatives support their single-payer health care system, a position that is considered part of the fringe left here. Hell, it was Richard Nixon, a conservative, who did the most to expand government control of health care in U.S. history. That's how far to the right-wing we've gone just since the 70's.
1: Because Canadian conservatives are more liberal than American liberals.
2: Canada has a balance between the two parties that get elected. The conservatives fuck some things up and fix others. The liberals repair the conservative fuckups and then make their own fuckups to make up for it, which the conservatives then fix the next time they are in power. Ad absurdum.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.