In my very first blog posting back on September 15, 2005, I am quoted as writing:
"I think Liberals are complete idiot's."
Some well intentioned friends of mine felt I was being somewhat "harsh" by name calling and a little arrogant. I explained to them:
"First off, that statement does nothing to bolster my own ego so it cannot be one of arrogance. Secondly, it is not name calling if the statement is true!"
With just under a week to go until E-Day (election day), Liberals are once again reaffirming that very statement that I made. With the lasting impression of the Liberal "military" attack ads on the Conservatives still fresh in the minds of Canadians, they have become literally a desperate bunch saying whatever comes to mind in hopes that it will bear some resemblance of logic!
In typical Liberal spin, Prime minister Paul Martin was busy last week doing yet more damage control by trying to deflect the attention away from "The Ad". First by admitting to the approval of it personally and then turning his story completely around and saying he did not approve of it. "The Ad" somehow ended up on a blogsite first! Huh? Don't believe me? See for yourself
As you can clearly see and hear from that vid clip, I have been completely exonerated for calling Liberals idiots. According to what you just saw, they (Liberals) also think of themselves as idiots!
Now in order to play fair I have drawn something from a Peter Worthington (Sun Media) article (slightly altered) just to show I am not as impartial as a Liberal and to practice only what they are good at preaching. Tolerance. So without further delay here are:
"16 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE LIBERAL"
1.) Because you believe in the Official Languages Act and that every public servant, even in the most remote part of B.C., should be fluent in French -- but government business in Quebec should be in unilingual French.
2.) Because you believe only lawyers from Quebec are qualified to be prime minister of Canada.
3.) Because you believe the federal government should be completely controlled by Quebec.
4.) Because you believe all criminals are just poor misunderstood victims of society and can be easily and quickly rehabilitated; also, only they have "rights," not the victims of their crimes.
5.) Because you believe criminals like Karla Homolka should be pampered by living in a "cottage" with her own key, and be allowed to have pyjama parties and go out on shopping trips; that killers in prison "resorts" on the Pacific coast should eat filet mignon, have barbecues, go whale-watching and have their own golf course, while our senior citizens have to eat leftover Kraft Dinner.
6.) Because you believe mass murderers under the age of 18 should be protected by the Young Offenders Act (now the Youth Criminal Justice Act) and that law-abiding citizens don't have the right to know who they are.
7.) Because you believe it is fair that Quebec is the sole province allowed to be in charge of its immigration policy; that they receive five times the amount of federal immigration money that Ontario does, even though Ontario has to teach many of them how to speak English, while Quebec only allows immigrants who already know French.
8.) Because you believe it is only fair that Liberals steal as much tax money as possible from us, through every conceivable means, from the HRDC boondoggle to the $2-billion gun registry that doesn't work.
9.)Because you believe that if your family is the victim of a home invasion you should NOT have the right to protect them in our own home.
10.) Because you believe in huge government bureaucracy and high taxes, and that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
11.) Because you believe in having essentially no military because everyone loves us and we will never be called upon to protect our country.
12.) Because the NDP's Jack Layton smiles too much.
13.) Because Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have a hidden agenda and are very scary people.
14.) Because you believe that we should alienate our neighbours to the South; that all Americans are morons and know nothing about Canada; and that we should continue to align ourselves more closely with our true friends, France, China and Russia.
15.) Because you believe everything the Liberal-controlled media tells me, especially the CBC.
16.) Because you believe that no one should ever be held responsible or accountable for his or her actions in today's society. It is always someone else's fault.
These are definetly desperate times..that call for change. I am curious...how will you vote and why? Are you voting Liberal because Paul Martin says (again) that the Conservatives are to scary? Are you a past Liberal supporter who is dumping them this election and choosing another party? Are you going to vote at all?
January 23, 2006 may God bless Canada. Until next time...
14 comments:
I know nothing about Canadian politics, I read carefully your post and tried to isolate the elements which could be extrapolated to other societies. Of course, I found gross exagerations like the assumption that Canadian liberals believe that "all Americans are morons". When a conservative reads something like that, he/she probably smiles and agrees. Since you are a reasonable conservative, I will use the opportunity to try to understand the conservative point of view.
I believe that type of sarcastic or cynical statement about Liberals thinking Americans are morons is derived from the way our Liberal government has treated the American government over the last few years. That being with an attitude of arrogance and contempt. An attitude that somehow portrayed a childish display of "we are better then they are"
In my opinion, Canadian Liberals are a national embrassment when it comes to our relations with our neighbours to the south (US). The 16 points that you read are not to far from the truth. There is an example from an actual expeirence that could back up each point.
For example, about a year after the 9/11 attacks our then Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, was on a television broadcast "insinuating" that the Americans had brought these actions(attacks) upon themselves because of their capitalist views. As a Canadian, I was very humilated by the statements. How could our national leader possibly blame Americans for an unprovoked attack?
Over the last few years we have had Liberal members of parliament refer to the President of the United States as a "moron" and one went as far as to say that she "hated those American bastards!" (Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish) These type's of comments are very unbecoming of an individual in such a high profile position. To make matters worse, the people of Canada saw no reprimand for this display of immaturity.
This attitude of anti-Americanism does nothing for US/Canada relations. It certainly does not reflect Canadian values. (Although a Liberal would tell you it does)
A Canadian conservative view, such as is mine, would have more of an attitude of :
"We may not agree on everything (like Iraq) but we back you as friends"
I will be glad to see the Liberals gone next week. (Hopefully) I have alot of respect, admiration, and love for my fellow Americans. Liberal views are not my views or most Canadians for that matter.
Those statements (Americans are morons), unfourtanetly Marco, were not to far off the mark! Thats the realm of Liberal world.
Marco: I stand corrected on that Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish's qoute. She said:
"Damn Americans...I hate those bastards!"
I would like you to read the following link. It comes from a non partisan site and explains in more detail the attitudes of this statement and how it was (or was not) handeled by our Prime Minister:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/weinreb083004.htm
You may get a better insight as to why I take my own shots at Canadian Liberals. I would be interested in your comments after you have read the article.
As I stated before Marco, sadly some of those statments are not an exageration, they are reality!
I read the article and I think that if there is an extreme point of view, it cannot be extrapolated to the millions of Canadian liberals. Personally, I do not insult even the people I do not like so I regard someone who insults other people or political systems as simply "off the hook".
As I said in my comment, if you do not mind, i wuld like to know better how a conservative mind works. A simple question first. Why do you guys seem to favor accumulation of wealth in few hands? A think the question is a good starting point.
Another thing. I will invite to this blog a new Canadian, former American, blogger. She can probably add some insight.
You make a good point here Marco when you say:
" ...I think that if there is an extreme point of view, it cannot be extrapolated to the millions of Canadian liberals. Personally, I do not insult even the people I do not like..."
I feel I have been somewhat misunderstood on this. For the most part it is Liberal ideology I tend to go after. You are correct in saying I should not "lump" all Liberal Canadians into the same group. That would be unfair. It is important to note, Marco, that the article was one incident of many that have occured over the years. A large majority of the Liberal MPs have, in a more toned down sentiment, expressed an attitude of anti-Americanism. One that I do not support. I tend to get resentful when they boast about representing this attitude as Canadian values.
I will also concede that I have from time to time been known to, as I might state it, "question" certain individuals...in my head shaking, sarcastic sort of way I may come across as insulting. Often, in frustration, I am questioning lack of rational but insult is not the intent. But, again, I recognise what you are pointing out. If I am completely honest, being that I am human, I will probably do it again.
Now to your question:
"Why do you guys seem to favor accumulation of wealth in few hands?"
Please correct me if I am mistaken but I am left with an impression that you may think Canadian Conservatives are somewhat the equavilent of your American Republicicans. That would be correct when it comes to social policies but I would not entirely agree with this statement regarding wealth from the Canadian side. Our Conservatives would be considered more "Liberally" ecomnomic.
If one was to observe the last 13 years of Liberal rule then your statement would apply more accurately. Currently the Canadian Liberal Government is under multiple RCMP(Royal Canadian Mounted Police) investigations where charges have been laid and some have been convicted. You would had to have follow the scandals over the last few years to understand it all. I will sum it up like this...what our government did is no different then what went on with ENRON.
As a Conservative I do not favour accumalation of wealth in the hands of a few. I live just above the poverty line so why would I support a party with those types of policy platforms? However those types of policies can creep in anyway. That is an unfourtunate reality in politics regardless of which party is in power.
If you wil recall I told you in one of your blogs that I had taken that political online test? I came up as a Social Conservative yet an economic Liberal. In the mix of all that I ended up as a Tolatarian!(go figure). The final report stated about me:
"You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness."
I would suggest that most Canadian Conservatives share these very same views. Trust me, I know many including my own Conservative federal MP. A Canadian conservative would be considered a "right of center" where an American Republican would more likely be considered just plain "right wing"
I hope this answers your question. I responded as I understood it.
I will also look forward to your American/Canadian blogger friend's input. It would be very interesting hearing an American's perspective who now resides in Canada.
Anymore questions for this Conservative?
Thanks for your answer. It was true that I believed that you could be like a typical right wing American. You mentioned cases of corruption within your Liberal government. As far as I know, corruption is not part of any ideology.
Another question: Why do conservatives have a negative attitude against homosexuals?
Marco: You noted that:
"corruption is not part of any ideology."
This made me realise I did not exactly provide you with any "real" evidence as to why I would feel the Liberals are the one's spreading the gap by putting more money into the hands of the few wealthy as opposed to the Conservatives. Here are some examples:
1. Corporate Tax Cuts
Canada's are among the lowest effective taxes (27.4%) on corporate income of all industrialized countries, with effective rates of taxation far lower than in the US (40%). But even as health care and education funding stagnated, Paul Martin dished up a 35% decrease in tax rates for corporations--far more than the 21% break for families.
2. Enriching the Wealthy
According to the government's handy tax calculator, a single mother of one child earning $15,000 annually would save a much-needed $569. By contrast, a single man making $125,000 annually would save over $4,000. Though people earning under $40,000 make up 70% of Canadian taxpayers, this same 70% received only 36% of the total cuts in 2000.
Martin's fiscal policies as finance minister(his position prior to becoming Prime Minister) have already resulted in a major increase in the gap between the rich and the poor.
I know you did not ask but I felt I should clarify that rather then "rant" about ongoing criminal investigation"s into the Liberal Party of Canada.
Your next question regarding homosexuals...I am very glad you asked this one. It is not often an individual with Conservative views is even given the chance to respond. Quite often we are shouted down and called homophobic, bigoted, and Intolerant (hence my name).
I will first answer your question with a question. Why is it always "assumed" that Conservatives have negative attitudes about gay people?
I would like to point out, before I explain my position, that when the vote on same sex marriage in this country came down...it was ONLY the Conservative party that allowed it's members to vote "freely according to their conscience and the will of their constiuents" A stark contrast to the Liberals who only allowed that for backbenchers while Cabinet minister's were told to tow the party line.
3 conservatives voted in favour of same sex marriage while 34 Liberals voted against it and 2 Cabinet minister's resigned their positions rather then tow the line and vote for something they were not in favour of.
Now to address your question directly.
Speaking as a Conservative and a Christian I will say, for the record, that I do not recognise a same sex realtionship as "natural". I do not recognise it as an "alternative lifestyle". And I do not, and never will, recognise it in matrimony. Does this make me negative towards homosexuals for simply disagreeing with their chosen lifestyle? Must I "support" or "superficially condone" a lifestyle in order that I not be considered negative (and all those other names)? I find this to be a contradiction in terms.
For example, I do not support alot of your values regarding atheism and evolution. Would you then consider me negative towards your lifestyle because I do not see things the way you do? I hope not! I enjoy our interaction. I am certainly not offended that you do not agree or support alot of my views and values.
Would I not look ridicoulus if everytime an individual did not support my Christian lifestyle I accused them of being bigoted and intolerant towards Christian values? That anyone who disagreed with me was a discriminating Christianphobe? Of course I would.
In my workplace(of 51/2 years) are 54 employee's. One of my most valued work/friendships is with a homosexual. I respect them, interact, and accept them as my fellow human being and recognise them as a creature made in the image of God. I will even go as far as to say that I love them as a dear friend.
I just do not acknowledge their lifestyle. And I should not be forced to thru name calling. I will not be shouted down into "forced acceptance". In a democratic society I should have the right to disagree as I see fit without fear of reprecussion of any kind. This is the true meaning of tolerance.
I think you would find, Marco, that although a large number of Conservatives may not support a homosexual lifestyle this in no way makes them negative towards them as people.
Quite often I hear some of the most vile crap coming out of the mouths of those that would condemn people, like me who disagree, all in the name of tolerance. I would suggest that they would not know tolerance if it slapped them upside their close minded, bigoted heads.
At the end of the day all I have is my testimony and it is up to you whether or not you believe it. That is, although I do not acknowledge homosexuality as a "normal" and "acceptable" lifestyle, I still care about them as people. I would also suggest that most Conservatives do.
PS: I thought it was important to mention that my gay friend at work vote's Conservative! LOL
ITO:
I read your recent response w/some amazement.
Many of the same items you accuse liberals of doing in your country, are occurring in mine.
The flip side, is that it's xtian republicans (conservatives!) doing it.
"Would I not look ridicoulus if everytime an individual did not support my Christian lifestyle I accused them of being bigoted and intolerant towards Christian values?"
This is an accusation being bandied about in my country. By Xtians. Who are in charge.
"It is not often an individual with Conservative views is even given the chance to respond."
How odd. Substitute Conservative for Liberal (in my country), & that's what's happening here.
The whole thing's just...eerie. Excepting the stats & names, it's just like looking at my newspaper in the USA.
I have a post about gay marriage at my blog, if you're interested, BTW.
RA: I will be checking out your posting. I briefed it the other day but did not have time to read the whole thing. I will be going back to it.
I wrote an entry October 15/05 called "I am not an animal". It is short but it is just a take on my view of comparing homosexuality to the animal kingdom and the implications it can have on society. My guess is we will disagree but I still welcome the "other" side of any topic.
Alanita: Thank you for popping by. My country is in the middle of an election which is why you see alot of political postings. I actually do write about other stuff as well.
I wrote an entry October 30/05 titled "When a man loves a woman". This was my ode to my wife. Similiarly along the lines of your posting re: Your man. The one I commented that I had enjoyed reading.
ACK! Ok, I didn't get to the end of all the comments... I had to respond..... someone may have said this already but my typing finger was itching....
Our Conservatives would be considered more "Liberally" ecomnomic.
NO!! Every party in Canada is on the right when discussing economics (even the NDP my friend). If you have a party that says 'we need to have a balanced budget and we need to be running a surplus' they are NOT socially minded. A good friend of mine is from France and she was floored when listening to the election coverage, and all the candidates, even our supposedly 'socialist minded' NDP talking about running a surplus in the budget. No where else but north America can a supposedly 'socialist-leaning' party claim that they'll have a surplus.... it's non-sense. Even the US, with all of it's faults understands that a country should not be running a surplus. Reinvest it, and you should even out at the very worst... you should NOT have $48 billion just hangin around in the Ottawa coffers like Harper wants in his '5 year plan'. Rubbish!!! If you have that much money with nothing to do, friggin fix the health care system, create better child care programs, unload some student debt.... $1 billion would relieve all the student debt outstanding in Canada right now.... we could EDUCATE our young people for FREE and not doom them to a life of debt and living pay cheque to pay cheque, so that they could reinvest in the economy and become good little consumers faster, thus boosting that $1 billion back into the economy almost immediatly... .but why would we do something sensible like that??
And thus ends my angry rant.
ps - I'm not even gonna touch the homosexuality debate you just raised up there either.... cause that's where we disagree stongly, and I'll just get angry. I'm sensitive on that one.
Sorry - correction... not EVERY party, we do have a communist party and I assume that they atleast are socialist when it comes to their economic policies..... I would hope!
ITO:
"I wrote an entry October 15/05 called "I am not an animal". It is short but it is just a take on my view of comparing homosexuality to the animal kingdom and the implications it can have on society. My guess is we will disagree but I still welcome the "other" side of any topic."
Well, that was one of the reasons I wrote the post. The other was that I went toe-to-toe w/a theist on another blog for many mos. on this same issue.
The comparison is made (at least in the US) for the benefit of those who term the act 'unnatural', when it is anything but.
Mandora: Good to have you back in action you wildcat you! I just knew I could draw you out. Now regarding my statement:
"Our Conservatives would be considered more "Liberally" ecomnomic."
This was in comparison to American Republics. (C'mon now..you gotta agree with that!)
Regarding all your other "ranting". Have you read the Conservative Blue Book? Even the Liberals accused the Conservatives of being unable to maintain a surplus. Not that they tell the truth on anything anyways.
Your next comment:
" I'm not even gonna touch the homosexuality debate you just raised up there either"
I agree with you. You definetly did not read the whole comment thread thoroughly. I did NOT raise the homosexual issue. Marco wanted to understand a Conservative's view and I responded quite honestly, fairly, and even sensitivley. There was no debate! I answered HIS question from my perspective.
I think you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. (That would be the "left" side I presume.)LOL
Nice to see you back.
RA: I read your entry again. Well written. You made some points that got me thinking BUT.....not convinced. Without writing an entire blog in my comment section in response I think I will consider this topic for a future blog. Often I hesitate with this because I am often misunderstood.
As you may be aware, myself being a Christian, it is automatically assumed I have some sort of "negative attitude" towards them which is not the case.
I just do not recognise the lifestyle as just what you address on your blog. That being "natural". Homosexuals or people that support gay marriage cannot position me to "accept" this lifestyle anymore then I could do the same to others to "accept" the Christian lifestyle.
I know you could not completely understand my position but if I may try...When someone comes along, who "claims" to be a Christian(Claims being the key word) perhaps wearing a shirt or carrying a place card that says something repugnant such as:
"God hates fags" This does not represent the true Christian view.
There are all kinds of sexual sin described in the Bible. Not just homosexuality. God is very clear that He despise's "these sinful ACTS" but that He loves the individual regardless.
So when I write my views I want people to understand, not necessarily support, what angle I come from. It is not one of condemnation but simply one of disagreement.
Thank you for the warm welcome on my return. I'll try to be around more - life's been throwin me some curve balls lately, lets hope we're good now.
Anyway....
Sorry, I know that you didn't raise the issue, someone else did...when I said 'you' I really meant everyone, but it's your views that I disagree with :)
As far as the conservative surplus, I have NOT read their blue book, I'd like to, just havn't had the chance... but - with cuts to social programing that will inevitably follow this new governments creation, I don't see how they could NOT have a surplus. Maybe not the $48 billion that Harper wants, but it'll be something.
AND I don't agree that our conservatives are more liberal economically than the republicans... or rather I should say I'm not convinced. I have yet to see them run the country so we'll see what happens. Frankly, I'm afraid of what Harper will do to social programs, and I'm suspicious of anyone who thinks that $25 a week is helpful for childcare. Thats not an effing option, that's a slap in the face....
In short, I hope your opinion of these guys is right, not mine. But, I'm unconvinced and very very suspicious that my view might be closer to the truth.
Post a Comment