Harper following example of US

[SmoothedShredder]

[That's funny because that's how I usually feel after reading one of your diatribes where you paint all anti-Harper sentiment with the same brush and dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't coincide with your point of view.

I think Will has articulated more than you give him credit for; he wrote of specific things in Harper's realm that he likes and why he likes it. What's the problem there? Instead of countering his point with a point of your own you attack his perceived style instead of substance.

Hardly a diatribe... Unless you disagree of course.

AD

Okay, I stand corrected Midpost... sorry it took a while to write... but you get what I'm saying, and I respect that AD hasn't always come to my defecne because I respect that he has some different views, and different ideas on how to move the agenda... just as I respect that one day a party he (and maybe even I) could get behind might acutally futher that agenda...

[AD]

There's a lot of substance in what Will writes. I wasn't speaking to that. It's his way of sneaking in attacks against the anti-Harper crowd as if we can be painted with the same brush that gets my back up. I also think it undermines his point.

Well Will seems to be one of the few fans of Harper here, so how do you think he feels when most people here attack him for simply being that way instead of the reasons why he's that way? Again, instead of countering his arguments you're countering his method of making the arguments.

Your line "as if we can be painted with the same brush" is interesting. The use of the words "We" and "painted with the same brush" seem contradictory to me.

But anyways. I just don't want you "Anti-Harper" folks to run Will out of here simply for participating in the debate with a viewpoint you don't agree with.

You had no idea the broad hippie movement is typically (but not always) associated with the left? And that jambands are typically (but not always) associated with hippies?

Yes I was being coy, but don't you think the movements also had a lot to do with open-mindedness, freedom of expression and non-conforming as well? Everyone here seems to be pretty close-minded to anything they think they disagree with, not to mention pretty conformist to the "Anti-Harper" sentiment.

Just a few thoughts. I gotta go back to work.

AD

[AD]

just as I respect that one day a party he (and maybe even I) could get behind might acutally futher that agenda...

THE MORONTAWA PARTY hehehehe

Memberships start at $1000, payable to me.

AD

[SmoothedShredder]

Gawd I love Montreal-Toronto-Ottawa... I call it the Fresh Water Italy of the world... now when is that Pesky renasiaince going to get here?

I'm also reminded of Ottawa sports radio... where they say "More on sports"... but it sounds like "Moron sports"... man they gotta change that!

Go SENS!!! Win or lose, and this is where we gotta harness our psychic energy with our team... positive Vibration... no picking apart Redden cause of Travel time, no comparissions to Newyikenedhad

GO SENS!!!

[ollie]

Everyone here seems to be pretty close-minded to anything they think they disagree with, not to mention pretty conformist to the "Anti-Harper" sentiment.

Ok, this is what I resent... that my anti-Harper position is automatically deemed conformist. Why am I not allowed to legitimately disagree with his platform?

I also don't know what I did to give you the impression that I want Will run from this forum. I truly value his insight and point of view and I always enjoy an intelligent counter-argument that either reinforces or makes me re-evaluate my point of view (plus he's a Sens fan). All I'm saying is I wish he'd do it without taking barbs at anti-Harper types as if we've all come to that conclusion from the same place. I read a line like the following and can't help but get my back up:

...not that anyone who posts on this boards gives a rats ass about the American Military...

Don't give up on us Will. Educate us. But don't admonish us at the same time.

Finally, yeah, this would probably be a lot easier to discuss if we knew each other and you could read body language and tone into my posts. I am guilty of the "you know what I mean" posting style that Will refers to above. I will try to do better. At least in this forum.

[Booche]

Leafs suck.

[AD]

Ok, this is what I resent... that my anti-Harper position is automatically deemed conformist. Why am I not allowed to legitimately disagree with his platform?

Hehehe. If you look at a group of people that don't like Harper and share that point of view, it's a conformist attitude, if you want to go by the definition of the word. No negative connotations involved there. But the way I wrote it was negative I guess.

Whatever. Everyone's allowed to disagree with everyone else, it just seems like everyone that likes Harper doesn't get a legitimate chance to express the opinions, whereas the anti-Harper people can say whatever the hell they want and anything less or different is treated as 'American' or 'Bush-ian' or 'wrong.' Now I'm generalising too, and it goes beyond this forum into the real world, perhaps to a more extreme level.

I just really don't like the 'Oh, now we're talking about politics? Where did my blinders go? I'm gonna need them' style that most people I talk to bring to the table.

End rant.

I voted NDP in the last Federal Election because I supported the local candidate and I think Jack Layton has a lot of good ideas. I was considerably anti-Conservative in the past, but I am warming up to Harper and his style. I think it is a refreshing change to see someone in control, rather than tumbling from one controversy / policy position to the next. He seems determined, strong, and unapologetic when sticking to ideals, qualities I believe all leaders must have to be effective. That's not to say I'll be voting for him anytime soon, but I'll wait and see what this Parliament accomplishes and make my choice then.

AD

[SmoothedShredder]

Everyone here seems to be pretty close-minded to anything they think they disagree with' date=' not to mention pretty conformist to the "Anti-Harper" sentiment.[/quote']

Ok, this is what I resent... that my anti-Harper position is automatically deemed conformist. Why am I not allowed to legitimately disagree with his platform?

I also don't know what I did to give you the impression that I want Will run from this forum. I truly value his insight and point of view and I always enjoy an intelligent counter-argument that either reinforces or makes me re-evaluate my point of view (plus he's a Sens fan). All I'm saying is I wish he'd do it without taking barbs at anti-Harper types as if we've all come to that conclusion from the same place. I read a line like the following and can't help but get my back up:

...not that anyone who posts on this boards gives a rats ass about the American Military...

Don't give up on us Will. Educate us. But don't admonish us at the same time.

Finally, yeah, this would probably be a lot easier to discuss if we knew each other and you could read body language and tone into my posts. I am guilty of the "you know what I mean" posting style that Will refers to above. I will try to do better. At least in this forum.

All fair points... Group hug... we'll leave this meeting with the concensus that "Leafs suck!" And with a significant sentiment to the Senators (Though I imagine latecommer Booche may be a bit of a quagmire to this concensus)... the rest is of course up for debate... left perhaps for another more civil (I mean all in all it's pretty civil, being that it's the internet, and all very "risk free" outside of getting hit on the personal feelings level, just gotta keep trucking like Gandhi says (atleast I think he said it )) day.

ed: Anyone else program in Pascal?

but I will admit I can retreat to my "Army of One" when I come across resistance of a population size of this community... then I may be guilty of sticking a baonet or two out from my circled wagon... but I am man enough to apologize for my weaknesses in these situations...

I do however understand your point on conformity... I suppose I need to respect that this is HOME to alot of people that share the same views... but I certainly would welcome a stranger into my home (as intraverted/onlychild that I am) regardless of their beliefs (unless of course that belief was to do me harm)... I suppose that's what I fear, that people here assume that becasue I "paint" myself conservative, that I mean them harm in their home. I don't... I just wish "WE"<-Conservatives, weren't feared so much... and at the end of the day I certainly wouldn't paint myself with one brush, but was worried that if I did choose to paint myself with this brush that I'm not welcome.

[AD]

Will, I had no idea you painted. I picture you doing landscapes with a nice chartreuse background.

GO SENS!

[SmoothedShredder]

You'd be surprised... you ever see the movie THE MAXX... MTV animated series... I really like that style and did some paintings like that...

I also do those doodle sketches that are one line and curve in and around each other... kinda like the spiral guy from Dark City (the movie).

Go SENS!!!

[ollie]

To get this thread back on track... another example of Harper following Bush:

65% of Canadians find 'God bless Canada' an acceptable way for Harper to end speeches

The term has drawn comparisons between Mr. Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush, who regularly ends speaking engagements with "God Bless America."

[SevenSeasJim]

To get this thread back on track... another example of Harper following Bush:

65% of Canadians find 'God bless Canada' an acceptable way for Harper to end speeches

The term has drawn comparisons between Mr. Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush, who regularly ends speaking engagements with "God Bless America."

It's really an empty blessing. How can something non-existant bless a country :wink:

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Given that life is a zero-sum game - some win, some lose - I think the next Ipsos-Reid poll should establish what lame-ass countries God's going to take blessings away from to give to us.

[AD]

The term has drawn comparisons between Mr. Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush, who regularly ends speaking engagements with "God Bless America."

Come on.

The term has drawn comparisons between Mr. Harper and Alan's Grandma, who regularly ends Alan's sneezing engagements with "God Bless You."

AD

[ollie]

FWIW, I love saying "God bless you" to sneezing aetheists.

[Birdy]

... oops clicked add post to soon!

Edited April 25, 2006 by Guest

[Birdy]

jesus! how i missed this today is beyond me.

i tend to agree with Will... this forum can be a little disheartening from time to time if you're a person with an opposing viewpoint. i remember when i first started posting, i'd literally want to quit occasionally because i felt people were just soooooo pissed off reading what I wrote and what I believe. It's the one liner jabs and stuff like that that do get to a person. but i carried on anyway because i knew and believed in my own good intentions, and because there IS another way from the bounds and strides of 'liberalism'. something else can work.

i'll admit the anti-harper stuff really kind of annoys me. When you strip him of his politics, he is a man just as much as you or I, and I'm not the type of person who could ever possibly judge a man so quickly, nor deem him "Hitler" or "evil". Nor am I the type of person to even remotely find this funny or take it in jest. Considering a large amount of anti-Harper thought is based on nothing other than pure propaganda, i question whether a lot of people have even really given the man a chance, and that also bothers me. i know a LOT of very good and decent people who belong to the CPC and who in a different world, could very well be in Mr. Harper's shoes. and for their own good hearts, i would hope chance would be given. sometimes though, the sheer amounts of anti-harper this, anti-harper that that flies rampant around this place, i don't think their own good hearts would even stand a shot. i don't admire that about liberalism at all and i get that impression of liberalism from the sheer amounts of 'liberally' minded people in here who spew the stuff. liberalism jades people and turns good words such as "self-interest" and "profit" into mean and ugly words, because liberals don't have faith in humanity. i have faith in humanity. mankind is good.

i do know though that there a few of you on this board [cough]ollie[/cough] who really are anti-conservatism in their own political ideologies and as a result when i read their posts about harper, i know where they're coming from. mainly because [cough]ollie[/cough] et. al. has taken the opportunity to get into it and show that he didn't just learn it from a michael moore (that one's for you DEM ) tape.

but deep down, although we disagree A LOT, i can tell you all are decent people, and that's why I stuck around. I know when in debate it's fun to get a dig in every once in awhile, I just wish some consideration given to right wing thought and to the true nature of humanity before y'all become haters.

[ollie]

i do know though that there a few of you on this board [cough]ollie[/cough] who really are anti-conservatism in their own political ideologies and as a result when i read their posts about harper, i know where they're coming from. mainly because [cough]ollie[/cough] et. al. has taken the opportunity to get into it and show that he didn't just learn it from a michael moore (that one's for you DEM ) tape.

I feel so misunderstood today. I am not anti-conservative (big C or little c). I specifically don't like Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. His roots are Reform and I believe that a leopard doesn't change his spots. Time will tell.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

liberalism jades people and turns good words such as "self-interest" and "profit" into mean and ugly words, because liberals don't have faith in humanity. i have faith in humanity. mankind is good.

Not historical liberalism - that was a political philosophy predicated on all the cornerstones of capitalism like private property and the pursuit of happiness and all that stuff; what they wanted was a lifting of restrictions - the "liber" (L: free) part, particularly around expressions of faith, which was subsequently rendered something privatised in liberal philosophy (much to the consternation of present-day social conservatives, who want to return religious authority to the public sphere).

I'm dodgy on "humanity", I'm sorry to say. I like persons, but people can sometimes really suck. I'm with Nietzsche there; people gravitate towards the herd, as a short-circuit to prevent them from looking things square in the face and acting authentically and with strength. He was down on both democracy and Christianity for that; I'm holding out hope for both of them for their own respective virtues, but as a cautious pessimist, knowing how easily we surrender our inner conscience (whether we like to admit it or not).

(p.s. I do like Michael Moore and am not afraid to say it - though I'd still rather get my first-hand sources independently from people who are actual practicing journalists and academics and not just clever editors/ funny fat guys with baseball caps).

[Birdy]

i long for old school liberalism.

as for gravitating towards the herd, i always wonder what external elements are in place that make this herd do evil and if we stripped external elements away, would mankind be good?

i'd like to think so. fostering the entire 'we can't do it on our own' ideas of existence (not quite literally) surely doesn't do anything to help the problem of gravitating towards the herd... and this is where my biggest problem with liberalism lays. it's entirely cyclical.

ollie, i'm sorry to misunderstand you. to me you do come across as pretty anti-conservative... except for in the seal hunt thread, i tended to agree with you mostly in there.

you're right though... time will tell with harper... i'm not all for the man either, but i'm by no means 'anti-"... i'm looking forward to that particular moment of truth.

[d_rawk]

i long for old school liberalism.

Of course you do

Classical liberalism is what contemporary conservatism is trying to recreate. (I recognize that you don't identify as conservative per se, but I also recognize that your sympathies are primarily with the classical liberal/conservative approach). Even the most conservative parties in Canada and the US are all liberal, in the grand sense. But I think we've had this conversation before ...

I'm not exactly sure what you mean in the rest of the post (which is my failing, not yours. Sleep has not been coming easily). I have a sense that I'd partially agree with it and partially disagree with it if I did. Some people really can not 'do it on their own', for a variety of reasons, some of those reasons the very result of the factors that empowered others to prosper on their own. So do we create victims, and then leave them to wither? Or what of those who are disadvantaged for reasons that we can't, by any stretch of the imagination, take responsibility ... still ... should they be abandoned? I don't think that I want to live in that type of country (or world, for that matter, but a step at a time).

I'm not enamored of Harper - no surprise - but I had said pre-election that if it were to be a minority government, I'd rather see the Conservatives get in than the Liberals. And I maintain that still. One thing that he is doing right is giving the sense that he has a plan, or vision, or focus, or leadership. That alone - regardless of what the actual plan might be - is enough for many people, for a variety of reasons. It is what people hoped for in Martin, and didn't get. I think the Liberals will learn a bit from this, and benefit from it. They needed a timeout and a period of introspection badly. I think (hope?) that I might be able to stomach their next incarnation.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I love the way that disagreements get resolved here. Another thing that makes me proud of this Great Timewaster .

I mean, look how things try to get resolved in the real world of politics:

and of course,

Plus, in today's news,

St. John's council votes for kinder, gentler debates

Councillors in St. John's, N.L., have voted to give themselves legal protection against verbal abuse after the mayor called another municipal politician "a stupid old woman."

The vote to modify the city's harassment policies came Tuesday night, spurred by the remark Mayor Andy Wells made about Coun. Shannie Duff during a private meeting this winter.

After a public firestorm, Wells withdrew the comment last Friday.

...

Wells said only time will tell whether behaviour on council will actually change because of the latest vote.

"I will abide by the provisions of the bylaw," he said. "So I guess I'll get as boring as the rest of them."

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest
favourite picture won't link! :(

[Birdy]

Some people really can not 'do it on their own', for a variety of reasons, some of those reasons the very result of the factors that empowered others to prosper on their own. So do we create victims, and then leave them to wither? Or what of those who are disadvantaged for reasons that we can't, by any stretch of the imagination, take responsibility ... still ... should they be abandoned? I don't think that I want to live in that type of country (or world, for that matter, but a step at a time).

well neither do i... that's not entirely what I meant.. i mean i [am] 'socially liberal' according to some quiz along the line. people do need assistance.. but there are people who don't need assistance, but who receive it as it is an easier option.. that's what i'm talking about and how the current welfare state attracts these kinds of people... and once you're in, it's entirely a mental cycle where you can't get out.

this is why i wrote 'not literally'.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest

[d_rawk]

Ah, ok Birdy. I see what you were getting at now. I was reading it in a more general sense. (I also misread 'cyclical' as 'cynical' )

Evil Mouse, don't forget:

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

- is that Taiwan? Those were the sorts of shots I'd gone looking for. Those guys are famous (Indian parliament can get good and stroppy, too).