"But right now, lets just flame the media. These lazy, mediocre, right-wing bastards let Harper get away with his dishonest stealth campaign. Let him fool a lot of Canadians. Almost cost us our country."

...can you believe how used they are to having left-wing bias in the MSM? ...it's like they don't even try to hide it.

D

Posted by: David Lockwood at January 24, 2006 04:37 PM

---

MyBlahg highlights the absolute worst about the Canadian Left- arrogant, uninformed, and highly detached from reality.

I can hardly believe the things written there are even considered more than comedy.

They made me laugh really hard though!!

Posted by: Joe Canuck at January 24, 2006 04:45 PM

---

i wouldn't give much cred to this lowlife. the bleating and whining is common enough. it's a disservice to give them any air. (i'd say drown the fuckers but i'm crafting a warmer fuzzier personality for my socialist brethren). everything is going to be VERY diplomatic for the next few months...if we last that long.

Posted by: Ottawa Core at January 24, 2006 04:54 PM

---

I still think there will be another election this year... June works for me...

If the Canadian media is to your right, (idealogically) I think you're a member of the Marxist-Lenin party. The Canadian media (particularly the CBC) did everything they could to prevent a liberal collapse.

As long as the sheep in Ontario continue to be easily scared into liberal arms, meaningful reform will be very difficult.

Posted by: Curtis at January 24, 2006 04:55 PM

---

Steve, you wrote:

"The danger is always the same -- from a party, any party, that believes it is no longer answerable to the people."

Historically, its been parties of the Leftist persuasion that best fits this description (Nazi Party, Communist party of China & USSR, Cuba, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.) The exception being Augusto Pinochet's Chile in years past.

But all the while, its the Left that compares Harper, Bush etc to "Nazi's".

If Sigmund Freud were alive today, methinks he would diagnose today's Leftist Malady as a classic case of "projection".

JaserPants

Posted by: JasperPants at January 24, 2006 04:57 PM

---

OMG, the CBC'ers were acting like dear Auntie Marge died last night. Global was more get-down-parrr-tay. Guess which one I watched.

BTW, if Jack Layton thinks he's the kingmaker in this parliament, he can think again. This session is going to require extreme strategic skills from every party leader. Duceppe definitely has that, and I believe Harper does; I'm not so sure about Layton, and God only knows who the Libs end up with!

The best test of the ethicality of your own demands is to see how they would sound to you if the shoe was on the other food.

Posted by: Meg Q at January 24, 2006 05:13 PM

---

The self-evident hypocrisy of Robert McLelland and MyBlahg speaks for itself.

This is a guy that constantly rants that the CPC's views aren't shared by the vast majority of Canadains, but he supports a party rejected by 83% of Canadians.

Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by: Jimmy at January 24, 2006 05:43 PM

---

I can't wait to see how the vote will go on the GST reduction.

Posted by: The Wild Duck at January 24, 2006 05:46 PM

---

Once all the prejudiced labelling has been cast aside, once all the blind party loyalty myopia has been cast aside, we are left with the common purpose of what is good for the country, the mass of ordinary Canadians, and then the task becomes the healing of the malaise and miasma that has been Canadian dysfunctional politics under virtual one party state rule for so many decades.

Liberal corruptions are the inevitable outcome of a quasi-democratic, skewed electoral system that engenders virtual one party rule. You can't blame the humanity of Liberal corruption when the skewed electoral system makes them so.

Both the Conservatives and the NDP, both equally marginalized by this skewed electoral system set down in the post-colonial era 'before the telephone', need to work together now to reform Canadian democracy by instituting democratic electoral reform. The undemocratic colonial-quaint 'first past the post' system needs to be replaced by a transferable ballot or proportional system (and there are many options for this). Parliament needs to become independent of 'presidential' PM control as per congress in the US. The Senate autocratically PM-appointed now, needs to be either abolished re expense, or democratically elected. The judiciary as a supposed check on PM arbitrary power, needs to be not appointed by this same PM, but subject to a parliamentary 'free-vote' vetting process.

Posted by: brock at January 24, 2006 05:50 PM

---

How Surprised Would You Be to Discover Liberals May Have Stolen Seats and Cheated to Minimize their Losses in this Election?

EVEN IN DEFEAT, I BELIEVE LIBERALS CHEATED CAUSING THE CONSERVATIVES TO LOSE A SEAT IN SASKATCHEWAN

Liberals probably cheated in other ridings too and not just in Edmonton Centre where the margin was so great that Anne McLellan had to concede anyway, and you fair-minded conservative folk are too damn (sorry to say this and take it in the sense that it is meant) dumb as a post to see it.


And then of course, there's still...

www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003425.html
www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover012106.htm
www.lostbudgie.blogspot.com/2006/01/canada-election-day-stay-vigilant.html
www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=med&document=jan2206&dir=pre&lang=e&textonly=false
www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/40086
www.andrewcoyne.com/2006/01/please-stand-by.php#comments

Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 24, 2006 06:08 PM

---

There is so much wrong with McLelland's post one scarcely knows where to begin. His stable coalition idea is based on the flawed assumption that Jack can provide the support for a stable coalition. Unless recounts move some seats around, Jack can only push the Tories to 153 seats, which is two short of a majority coalition.

Harper could form a real stable coalition with either the Liberals or the Bloc, but neither seems likely (or attractive to him).

The issue by issue approach is the only sensible way to govern. Harper will get his accountability act (probably supported by all parties) and his GST cut (if the Liberals can't support it, they'll abstain -- they can't go back to the polls for a while now). His child care allowance may have to wait, or he'll get it by making a trade off on some other issue that's important to one of the other parties that he can live with. You do what you have to do.

He may yet be able to deliver on his promises and run an effective government. What will all the haters do then?

Posted by: p-air at January 24, 2006 06:41 PM

---

Well at least dealing with Newfoundland and Labrador should be alot easier for the Minority Conservative government with the responses from all of the Leaders on issues affecting NL. Alot of the responses have alot in common and shouldn't be to hard to come to a compromise on. Or if they buck them because of Partisanship only they can be shown for what they are Hypocrits.

PREMIER of Newfoundland and Labrador Danny Williams list of issues affecting NL.
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/0103n01.pdf

Party leaders responses.
Conservative
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/01harper.pdf
NDP
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/01layton.pdf
Liberal
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/01martin.pdf
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2006/exec/01mclellan.pdf

Stand up for Canada!
Make it Work!
Honk Honk!

Posted by: NL Expatriate at January 24, 2006 06:49 PM

---

Another easy but substantial endeavor to unite this country IMHO would be to complete the remaining 350 km Quebec Lower North Shore road.

Not only would this encourage people to visit and explore Quebec more but it would also benefit Newfoundland and Labrador by making it possible to do round trip tours of Quebec and Labrador or if you want take the 1/2 hour ferry crossing to Newfoundland.

Completing the LNS road would also open up that coast line to aquaculture and tourism.
Maybe a National power corridor could be included in conjunction to transmitt NL's Oil and Gas or Electricity to the rest of Canada.

IMHO Access to NL through Quebec is the way to alleviating Quebec alienation and increasing more interaction between English and french Canada by completing this remaining 350 km separating Quebec from NL.

Posted by: NL Expatriate at January 24, 2006 06:57 PM

---

Just checked out "My Blahg".

This Robert McLelland guy and most of his commenters should seek professional help, My God such delusions are a sure sign of a shattered mind.
Hatred like that shown in his comment section must keep these people in a state of rage 24/7.
It would be funny if it were not so dreadfully sad.

Posted by: Durward at January 24, 2006 07:12 PM

---

Ah, the election is over, yet the blood-letting doesn't stop! The vilifications being flung back and forth about who's evil, who cheated, who deserves and doesn't deserve, what's just plain right and plain wrong, it all puts me in mind of Palestine and Isreal. Or the USSR and the USA (remember how communists all had two heads and fangs?).

No-caps conservatives and liberals in Canada speak a different language from each other. So do urban and rural people. So does English Canada and French Canada. Admit it: we're each scared of the other side and what their words mean, if they really do mean what we think they mean. And yet we base our politics along these lines of fear and miscomprehension. Step back a bit and look at it: this is really a stupid way to make decisions.

I've voted for every party in Canada in my life so far, and I'm heartily sick of this left-right-centre thing. Why can't a party get down off its high philosophical horse and just develop policies based on what's likely to work, instead of what fits the agenda?

I'm tired of it.

And I can't be the only one. Look at the election results. They mean: SHUT UP AND RUN THE COUNTRY. They don't give anyone a hug.

Posted by: Clearcut Blogging at January 24, 2006 07:13 PM

---

Listen, firstly the liberals are broke as hell... We, as in the Tories, still have money. I don’t mean a little money, I mean a lot of money. Remember that because I'll get back to it. The NDP are also broke, as are the Bloc. No party wants to hold an election any time soon, because the only ones who can afford it are the Tories.

Couple of things to remember... based on what I saw of the election, I'd guess the Tories have about 5 mil left in the bank. I have heard that the liberals are nursing a 34 million dollar deficit... I am not sure how much credibility I put in that number.

You can say what you like about Paul Martin, but he was a kick ass fund raiser, and I believe McKenna (my guess as next Lib leader) will be strong in that arena as well, but it will take the Lib’s time. If I had to guess I'd say the Lib’s are probably around 4 to 5 million in the hole... at the most 10 mil. They spend big on advertising, as is evidenced by the high quality of their commercials. (Just so you understand, I’ve made two commercials in my life of similar quality to the ones the liberals put out, and both cost upwards of a million dollars. That didn’t include airtime. The Tories ad’s, while effective in their own way, were seriously low budget. Mine were done in the states, and I did them there because it was cheaper than doing them here. I still had to pay union, but it wasn’t quite as high).

So that means a minimum of 18 months, probably more like a couple of years to be really ready to rock on the Liberal side. Until they approach the point where they have at least 10 mil for a campaign, they are going to play real nice with the Tories.

There is an aside to this, the Tories know the liberals are hurting cash wise, and so are the NDP and Bloc... this will give them a significant stick for the first year when it comes to budget time. They don't give a shit about going to the polls again as long as it is undeniable that they had nothing to do with forcing an election. Thanks to their Alberta base, they have access to money anytime they need it, as long as it's legit, and they are without question the best positioned to win another snap election.

I assure you, the first hint of resistance from the opposition is going to garner a quick reminder of this from the Tories. As long as they don't try anything to radical, they are going to get away with a lot.

Secondly, the Liberals are not going to pull the trigger until they are absolutely positive they can boot the Tories out of Ontario. There's no point otherwise, because they will still be suffering a credibility issue in Quebec, and they don’t stand a snowball’s hope of hell in Alberta or the rest of the prairies. BC will turn Tory blue if they see good results from Stephan, again a checkmate for the liberals.

Nope, short of a serious fuck-up by the Tories, this is going to be one of the most stable if not the most stable, minority in the history of the nation. Stephan will fuck himself on the fixed election date platform, so he can't engineer his own defeat.

The liberals are about to sit back, let the Tories have a couple of years of free reign, or relatively free reign, and in year 3 watch the burners go up as the Lib’s test the waters with their new leader.

The NDP are totally screwed in the process. I do mean totally. They are about to spend at least 2 years as the most useless party in the nation, and sitting right beside them will be the Bloc.

The liberal situation will allow Harper to almost completely disregard Layton. In fact, I think it will be almost embarrassing how ineffectual Jack is about to become, and anything that fucks Duceppe is a good thing.

Yep, I am very certain the Lib/s and Tories are about to become bosom buddies until at least 2008.

The question then becomes, “how fast can the Tories implement their plans”? I think they will move as fast as they are allowed given the bureaucrats, who will be dragging their feet somewhat. What I can tell you is that guys like Prentice, Solberg, Harper himself... these guys are not stupid.

Prentice is a good example when it comes to the gun registry. Jim is very techno savvy. His firm handled a suit for me and some friends against Bell about 5 years ago, and while I can't say I was happy with the outcome of the suit... through no fault of Jim's, I can tell you that he knew exactly what we talked about when we went into the mechanics of what we did. Additionally, he is very popular with the first nations and he believes very much in them, and their cause for quasi-independance.

Harper is a brass tacks kind of guy, and if you give him enough bureaucratic bullshit answers, he'll just say "fuck-you" and go find out himself. The man's mind is like a steel trap, and he never forgets anything.

That’s sort of why I'm excited. The party is riddled with seriously smart specialists, and the backgrounds are very diverse. I can tell you that none of them will be baffled with bureaucratic babble, and heads will roll fast if the institutional welfare recipients of Ottawa, otherwise known as “Government Employee’s”, get in their way.

They've been waiting too long to put up with crap.

The one place I can see true weakness is in the Healthcare side. They will have to rely a lot on professionals for advice in that arena, and that's what always screwed the Liberals. None of them really knew what the pro's were talking about and it resulted in fiasco’s like the gun registry.

Our people are smarter. That's the beauty of Alberta, people keep the KISS principle first and foremost in their minds. The more complex it is, the more likely they will garbage it. Saskatchewan has practicality coming out of its ass, and there is so many good people from the other provinces with seats in Ottawa, and knowledge.

I expect that Ontario is going to be both happy, and pissed, in the coming months.

That's okay by me, as long as we start fixing the real problems. Like the Unity issue. I'm sick of seeing bloc members get elected, and it's Chretiens and Trudeau's fault. Nope, time to have the hard conversations, and bury this bullshit for a couple of decades.

I don't think Harper will solve it all, but someone has to have the balls to try, and he's got zero to lose. Hell, 2 years ago he was a leader for the Alliance, and look where he is today.

I think the best thing about Stephen is that he's a beer drinking, hockey watching, I put my pants on one leg at a time, and I don't owe the elite, old money easterner's a god damn thing, kinda a guy.

That's got to be good for all of us.

What you should be more worried about is Harper getting used to power… that’ll suck eventually.

But for now, relax and enjoy the show, because it’s Harper’s ride for the next couple of years, all he has to do is keep a rein on the Cheryl Gallants of the world. He’s proven that he can do that, and I’m sure he will continue to go more and more main stream

PS… Oh, one other thing, fuck you Dumaris, you don't own this guy, Alberta does.

Posted by: Joe Calgarian at January 24, 2006 07:36 PM

---

there
a
is
problem
with
the
text

Posted by: at January 24, 2006 07:58 PM

---

Very disturbing "blahg" post by Mr. McLelland. "...smash them once and for all"(?); ...boot them and ban them and delete their comments."(?) Gulp!!!!!

Because they are so absolutely convinced that they are on the side of angels, when the modern, sensitive, high minded and socially evolved "idigo children" of the Western leftist movement display primal, primitive hostility and intolerance, it's contrived as being tough virture. It's not banal regession into the unpleasant, "irrational", base aspects of the human condition that the targets of their passion so readily display. Rather, it's the untimate demonstration of their vigilance and ardency with a "break glass in case of emergency" function.

very disturbing.

Posted by: Mr. X at January 24, 2006 08:52 PM

---

And now for something really scary go check out the comments at "My Blahg", if these people truly believe what they are saying, they are truly in need of some professional help.

Posted by: Platty at January 24, 2006 09:22 PM

---

Great minds Angry, I chose a quote from the very same venomous drivel in a post today as well....pretty much the same conclusion as well...

Posted by: DazzlinDino at January 24, 2006 09:47 PM

---

"Historically, its been parties of the Leftist persuasion that best fits this description (Nazi Party, Communist party of China & USSR, Cuba, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.) The exception being Augusto Pinochet's Chile in years past."

What? The Nazis were Leftists? What alternate reality are we discussing now?

Angry: this post and the previous one reek of hypocrisy. Each criticizes the "Left" - whatever that is supposed to be, besides a very large brush with which to paint vast numbers of people who have widely disparate views - for making incendiary and insulting comments about Conservatives, but in the process make statements in a similar style.

This is then followed by a barrage of insulting and childish comments about how insulting and childish the "Left" is.

What kind of circle jerk is this, exactly?

Frankly, I expect better from you than this cheap facade. If the "Left" really are moonbats in your opinion, why are they even worth your time? The party you support won, but instead of being a gracious winner, you are ungraciously accusing the "Left" of not being gracious losers.

Can we please stop the silliness and return to debating the issues?

Posted by: Ade at January 24, 2006 10:03 PM

---

The left wont debate the issues, They'll lose everytime. They insult thier opponents, and when that no longer works they threaten violence.

Posted by: Curtis at January 24, 2006 10:24 PM

---

remember we won large in Quebec conservatively speaking, we're not that different really,
they want honesty the same as we do.
BTW mr mclelland has been banned from most of his favorite moonbat sites and conservative sites still allow him to spew in our faces.

Posted by: kelly at January 24, 2006 10:39 PM

---

Yeah, how did Ignatieff, Goodale, Stronach get back in? Now I know where all those student votes went - kidding, but one wonders aloud if another Edmonton Centre type voter list is floating around.

I do hope Mr. Harper cleans house, but he'll have to tread lightly, Liberals are thin skinned and squeak a lot.

cheers

Posted by: tomax at January 24, 2006 10:58 PM

---

Steve, expecting sense from Robert McClelland is like expecting fiscal restraint from Jack Layton. In theory one should be able to, but in fact it just isn't going to happen.

There's common sense, there's nonsense, and then there's Robert. ~:D

Posted by: The Phantom at January 24, 2006 11:25 PM

---

Maybe it's just me, but I think Ade's got a slight error here:

"What? The Nazis were Leftists? What alternate reality are we discussing now?"

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party):

"The National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party was a political party that was led to power in Germany by Adolf Hitler in 1933. The term Nazi is a short form of the German word Nationalsozialist shortened to the first two syllables, and spelled with -zi, because the ti syllable is pronounced [tsi] in German (National Socialist), reflecting the ideology of the NSDAP."

Just a PSA.

Posted by: Chappy at January 24, 2006 11:39 PM

---

Hey Chappy: North Korea's official name is "People's Democratic Republic of Korea". So it must be a democracy, right?

In all seriousness, you need a lesson in history. The Third Reich was an extreme right-wing totalitarian regime that was racist and nationalist, not socialist.

Posted by: Ade at January 24, 2006 11:59 PM

---

Ade is right, National Socialism is an extreme right-wing ideology, and in many ways is very different from socialism. Both extremes are equally as evil.

Posted by: Andrew at January 25, 2006 12:51 AM

---

Let's go straight to the bottom line, the night is foundering...
Harper and Duceppe are two intelligent, patient and visibly decent, honourable people.
Between the two of them, there are enough common problems and shared goals - and
the seats to work things out - to occupy them for next five years, more or less.
So much is possible now, please just let them do it - and help, if you can...

Posted by: Scooter at January 25, 2006 12:52 AM

---

Robert McClelland is an idiot if he believes everything he writes on his blog. He calls conservatives scary, but then he goes on ridiculous rants like quoted above, talking about "smashing" us and things like that... just proves that he's the scary one.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can stand to read his blog. I avoid it at all costs, for fear of either seriously reducing my own IQ, or getting so worked up over reading such garbage that I toss my computer out the window.

Posted by: Jason M at January 25, 2006 01:43 AM

---

OK, first of all, no matter how I add up the seats, Lib + NDP does not total more than 155. So any coalition of Lib+NDP would still require the votes of either the BQ or the Conservatives to pass any legislation. The only coalitions that could total more than 155 seats would be Liberal+Conservative (snowball's chance in hell), Liberal+BQ (possible but unlikely) or Conservative+BQ (possible but unlikely). The NDP are not power brokers in this parliament no matter how one adds it up.

Secondly, the left/right dichotomy is outdated, as illustrated by the arguments about the Nazis above. The only thing that left and right describe is economic philosophy. There is another axis on the graph: a social axis representing individual liberty versus authoritarianism. The Nazis were actually a centrist party economically; socially however they were extremely authoritarian.

The progressive conservative party started out as a libertarian faction: on the right economically and favoring individual liberty socially. They fell apart when they became statist and economically left of center.

There are no economically right-of-center parties in Canada. The Bloc and Liberals are slightly left of center. The NDP is WAY left of center. The Conservatives are centrist. As for social issues, even there it isn't cut and dried: the Liberals and NDP have many authoritarian/statist elements, but they also have some individualist elements that tend towards hedonism rather than libertarianism. The Conservatives have some policies that are libertarian-leaning (such as lowering consumption taxes), and some that are authoritarian/statist elements as well (such as the child-care credit; I know that most might disagree with me that this is statist/authoritarian, but a libertarian stance on this would be to cut taxes, then cut some more, then cut some more. Another example is SSM - not the position that there ought to be a free vote, but rather a position shared by all parties, that marriage is a matter to be decided by government at all).

If there were a political party in Canada that was far right on economic issues but far libertarian on social issues, it would do very well indeed in Canada.

Posted by: Ed Minchau at January 25, 2006 02:13 AM

---

Hey Congrats to all Canadian Tories.

BTW, I wanted to know if you have put my blog in TLB Ecosystem cuz it seems I am not in the list however I have BT blogrolling code installed in my humble blog.

Could you have me on your list in Truthlaid bear please?

Thanks

Posted by: Winston at January 25, 2006 03:05 AM

---

You're quite right, Ed. I think "Conservative" is a misnomer, it should be the "Centrist Party of Canada" because there is no true right-of-center party in Canada, in any real sense. The CPC has some right-of-center members. But right-wing party in a American, Australian, or even British sense? No.

Posted by: Meg Q at January 25, 2006 03:12 AM

---

I don't know if anyone else heard it, but there were rumblings of a coalition for a while on election night. I didn't watch on election night, but my wife was wrapped up in it and said that when one commentator heard the idea of a coalition, all he said the west would separate if Martin/Layton pulled that stunt!

Posted by: the bear at January 25, 2006 04:12 AM

---

This Robert McClelland sounds a LOT like the anarchists and protesters that show up at every WTO meeting to be pepper sprayed by the police force who happen to show up. Or that gang of leftist thugs showing up in Quebec at the OAS meeting. His "My Blahg" is obviously the rantings of someone who wouldn't know democracy if it ran up and bit him on the ass.

What I will never understand is how the Left always feels they have the market cornered on democracy. IF they want something, it is a democratic wish, and then when they are out numbered, they say it is a denial of rights and a "hate" issue. Let me get this straight, we give in all the time, and we then can be seen as consensus makers, and you guys on the left never give up anything? THAT Is democracy?

The CPC did not get a majority of the votes in this country, and how Harper will govern will reflect that. That said, the Robert McClellands of this world scare me to the point where I don't think I want to give these guys more credit in a proportional vote/seat system.

The hard left/anarchists should scare your average way more than some born-again Christian in Cranbrook or Okotoks who is against SSM and abortion. You don't see Granny Miller of Okotoks tossing molotov cocktails at abortion clinics in this country, but every chance they get, young leftist punks are looking for a riot.

Thankfully, saner heads will prevail on both sides, even if the NDP refuses to believe that maybe they don't have all the answers.

Oh ya, one more thing, When any member of the left actually debates an argument on its own merits without name calling or changing the nature of the argument, call me because I have not seen it happen. In the arena of ideas, we have refined our thoughts and philosophy on the right because being a Conservative demands you think about what works, and what is logical, not going by emotional platitudes and to be seen as doing the right thing.

One more thing. Ontario doens't hate Conservatives, they are still suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. Also, as much as Alberta is misunderstood by people here in the east ( not by me but others who haven't been there ) I think Albertans must also beware that issues that are minor there are MAJOR here. That and wealth here is not pulled out of the ground but it is built, one piece at a time over and over again. It is a different atmosphere, mentality, and in time We are all Canadians and that should never be lost.

Posted by: Mark in Bowmanville at January 25, 2006 04:36 AM

---

one more thing, I couldn't registar there to make a comment without a lot of hassle. They make it an effort to put your thoughts in there so they can edit it? Interesting, a Blog on the Right has all sorts of left wing trolls coming in and they are never banned. ON the left? Well free speech is only free if you agree with them I guess.

Posted by: Mark in Bowmanville at January 25, 2006 04:49 AM

---

Ok, I don't want to leave a charge unanswered, but this is the last I'll mention of this to Andrew & Ade's (rather impolite) retort that I need to learn me some history re: Nazi == National Socialiasm == Leftism. This is relevant, because as conservatives we're often wrongly smeared as promoting "Nazi" policies.

In 1938, Time magazine featured Hitler as their "Man of the Year". It was fashionable in the U.S. at the time to extoll the virtues of Communism and how well the Russians were doing, etc. Thus, the article delighted in pointing out Hitler's anti-capitalist policies:

"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." (Time, January 2, 1938)

I read history -- quite avidly. Really interesting stuff!

Posted by: Chappy at January 25, 2006 08:08 AM

---

Mark--I agree with you re your discussion of those on the Left.
FYI--I am from Okotoks--there are hard working people there too--those who want to make a living and keep a roof over their head. Many work in the oil patch--and the oil doesn't just jump into the trucks or pipeline--a lot of hard work is done to get it out of the ground, a lot of risks are taken, a lot of injuries, a lot of men being away from home for weeks at a time.
There are farmers that have suffered greatly because of Liberal government mismanagement, there are hundreds of thousands of people who remember the NEP and the devastating effect it had on Calgary. The streets are not paved with gold--people work hard for what they earn. No different than here.
I am surprised that anyone from the East would suggest that people in the West are any different. Too many people buy into the rhetoric and not enough people take the time to find out for themselves what is actually true. We want healthcare that is timely, we want honest government, we want the right to live our lives as we see fit, we want the right to speak our mind, and we DON'T want Big Brother dictating to us. We earn every cent we have and want to keep more of it to benefit us and our families. Is that different from the East?
The difference is that what happens in the West, if it is bad, it is stated in the MSM that, well, it is because we deserve it. There are shootings etc. in Alberta but we deserve it because we are against gun control. The same type of incident in the East is used by the east to take away more rights of the law abiding citizen, and all Canadians suffer, we in the West just seem to understand the ramifications more.

Posted by: George at January 25, 2006 08:08 AM

---

Mark in Bowmanville:

"The hard left/anarchists should scare your average way more than some born-again Christian in Cranbrook or Okotoks who is against SSM and abortion. You don't see Granny Miller of Okotoks tossing molotov cocktails at abortion clinics in this country, but every chance they get, young leftist punks are looking for a riot."

Interesting little bit of sophistry you're attempting there, with the "hard left/anarchists" bit. How productive would it be for me to start talking about the "right wing/nazis"? Not very, exactly.

But you choose a particularly bad example with the abortion clinics. Granny Miller of Okotoks might not be tossing molotov cocktails, but James Kopp of the Lambs of Christ shot, and killed, doctors who performed abortion. The extreme right-wing is just as scary as the extreme left-wing, if not more scary - look at Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. Does he represent "right-wingers"? No more than "punks" who riot represent left-wingers.

Chappy - you say your motivation for this discussion on Nazis because conservatives are "often wrongly smeared as promoting 'Nazi' policies." And yet your defence against this smear is to smear socialists in the same manner. Is this really necessary?

Saying that conservatives are Nazis, or promote Nazi policies, is vile and reprehensible. The converse - to pin Nazism on left-wingers - is also true. I disagree with your claim that because the Nazis nationalized German business and agriculture they were socialists, but I hope we can agree there is no need to paint one another as Nazis just because we have opposing political views, as JaserPants attempted to do in his original post.

After all, there are few who would disagree that a hallmark of the Nazis is the demonization and vilification of one's political opponents.

Posted by: Ade at January 25, 2006 08:50 AM

---

I really don't understand when people write off Alberta and its wealth by saying it has been "pumped out of the ground". I think the point that is missed in Alberta is what they have done with that wealth. Ontario has been an economic center for years and years but the question is, what have we done with it?

Don't resent Alberta for its oil, if you are to resent anything, resent what they have DONE with their wealth.

Posted by: Awake Canadian at January 25, 2006 08:53 AM

---

Wow - I find it unbelievable that the left are always insisting that they are the tolerant and open minded ones - yet we see diatribes like this!

Perhaps we should be asking them to define "tolerant" and "open minded"?

Posted by: Alberta Girl at January 25, 2006 09:25 AM

---

The Liberal leadership campaign starts now. Go Belinda Go!

Posted by: takefive at January 25, 2006 09:39 AM

---

This is great stuff...we can only hope the moonbats take over the left side of the blogoshere...once the Dippers and the Libranos start to cater to them we are golden. That's what is happening in the US and it is damaging the Dimocrats.

Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at January 25, 2006 10:30 AM

---

Ade:
re: NAZI=Socialists/Leftists extremists wolves dressed in right-wing sheeps clothing
I believe Chappy has his history correct
& YOU need to do your homework.
Why not admit your mistake( or biased ) and move forward? Chappy is just stating his opinion backed with the facts (you can check yourself)

Posted by: banjotom at January 25, 2006 10:37 AM

---

Wow!
The Conservatives won and you guys still can't stop whining!
Boo Hoo!
Its up to other parties to make the Conservative government work?
Just like the Conservatives spent all their time helping the minority Liberal government prior to them?

Waaa! Waaa!
Why don’t you guys pull up your socks and stop crying! But wait that doesn’t involve blaming everyone else!
One more time!
Waaa! Waaa!

Posted by: Nick the Dick at January 25, 2006 10:48 AM

---

Mark in Bowmanville said:...
one more thing, I couldn't register there to make a comment without a lot of hassle. They make it an effort to put your thoughts in there so they can edit it? Interesting, a Blog on the Right has all sorts of left wing trolls coming in and they are never banned. ON the left? Well free speech is only free if you agree with them I guess.

True! I have posted polite comment to add to debate on some Liberal blogsites and have returned to find my comment deleted and some words about wishing spammers would desist.

I have never spammed because it only generates contempt.

Guess the mention of lists of 200 plus Liberal frauds and scams posted on various sites is just too difficult a fact for Liberal bloggers to contemplate. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 25, 2006 11:11 AM

---

Ade;

You've missed an important distinction. When those on the left compare conservatives to nazi's it's pure projection in order to shut down legitimate debate.

When conservatives compare leftists to nazi's it's pure accuracy in order to place the debate being put fourth by said leftist into the proper context.

Hope that helps.

Richard

Posted by: Richard Evans at January 25, 2006 11:16 AM

---

Too bad - still too many people are wearing their underwear on their heads when they exercise their democratic franchise.

Posted by: pEoplezpAtriot at January 25, 2006 11:23 AM

---

Just checking in...thanks Chappy et al for backing up the "Nazism = Socialism" theme.

Which of course surprises and infuriates the radical Left, for reasons that Richard Evans directly points out above.

JasperPants

Posted by: JasperPants at January 25, 2006 11:45 AM

---

Re: the nazis: Left or right?

In terms of economic policy, the Nazis were, in fact, more to the "left" (i.e. in favour of public ownership) than many of the social-democratic parties currently in existance are. The Italian facists were similarly socialist.

However, unlike modern socialists, the facist parties were ruthlessly authoritarian/collectivist. For this reason, the Nazis actually bore a close resemblance to their alleged arch-enemies, Stalinist communists.

Modern right-wing parties do exhibit some authoritarian tendancies, but are almost universally capitalist. Pinochet might be the best example of the authoritarian/capitalist model.

Libertarians, in contrast, share a social outlook, to some extent, with modern social democrats, but are radically pro-free enterprise. Thus, they are the polar opposite of the Stalinists.

To sum up: politics is better described as an X/Y axis rather than a left-right spectrum, and this accounts for the difference between authoritarian socialists (e.g. Nazis), social democrats (NDP), and Conservatives (Republicans).

Posted by: GM at January 25, 2006 11:45 AM

---

Interesting how a thread criticizing the "Left" for "name calling" has turned into one in which the "Right" engages in historical revisionism regarding the Nazis.

What's next, holocaust denial?

I agree with those of you who have thoughtfully advocated a more complex political spectrum than left/right. And I agree there are some socialist elements in the Nazi ideology, though anyone with a reasonable understanding of history will recognize the right-wing elements in the Nazi ideology as well.

However, that a comment such as "thanks Chappy et al for backing up the 'Nazism = Socialism' theme" appears in a discussion criticizing the "Left" for saying mean things about Conservatives is hideously ironic.

This discussion now stands as conclusive evidence that there are total nutbars all over the political spectrum. I'm not sure that's what Angry had in mind. ;)

Posted by: Ade at January 25, 2006 12:22 PM

---

Hi there!

I'm having a blast reading through all this self-impressed back slapping among all you folks on the right. It's very well deserved, and it's been too long since you've had anything to crow about.

Having said that, please don't get carried away. remember, the left still rules Canada, as it has for the past 40 years and will continue to do for the next 40. Those of you who dream of a happy right-wing haven in Canada should perhaps stop wasting your efforts and consider moving to the States. Now, please don't take my saying this to mean "get out of MY country you ignorant so and so's", because that's not what I mean. I just think that if you're trying to remake Canada into a right wing paradise, you're wasting your time because it's never gonna happen. Never ever.

The same way that the US will never ever become a left wing paradise.

Enjoy the new government for however long it lasts. With a little luck, it will prove to be an honest and diligent government that runs things in an impartial manner with integrity, and will govern for many years. But never forget, Canada belongs to the progressives on the left. We ran things yesterday, we run things today, and we'll be running em tomorrow too.

Cheers,
Dave

Posted by: dave at January 25, 2006 12:26 PM

---

Never is a long time.

The left liberal communists have no right to expect to rule Canada in the future, simply because Canadians gave them the opportunity to do so in the past.

Changing Canada back into a capitalist-democracy will take time, remember it took the socialists, 30 years to bring us this far in the wrong direction. Just as communism has been defeated and rejected by the world, socialism will be as well.

Posted by: Curtis at January 25, 2006 12:37 PM

---

The liberals left many behind who were their core support in the more rual areas of Ontario, but other provinces too.

How?

Well, looking at the last three days of campaigning and ads, the Liberals came across to me as anti-family. Their support for same sex marriage and promotiion of abortion rights and formal day care over parents choice alienates them them fomfr many traditional Christians, both Catholic and Protestant. IF you look at rural Canada, the Catholic vote has traditionally been Liberal, but they are turning off these people in their positions.

My guess is there a whole lot more of these voters than there are gay voters to offset the loss.

Posted by: Denis at January 25, 2006 12:51 PM

---

General note to everyone:

Is it just me or does everyone think that everytime someone refers to the right as nazis and the left as commies, the person doing the referring is reduced to the rank of moron?

Seriously, I wish you righties would stop calling us commies and choose something more interesting (clown molesters) or at least more accurate (Rulers of Canada works fine, thanks).

When I hear someone call me communist, believe it or not, I am not hurt, nor cut to the bone. My honest to god reaction is "moron". And then I proceed to speak s-l-o-w-ly for their benefit.

As for you Curtis:
1) there are maybe 20 real communists in Canada. Give the outdated stale rhetoric a rest. It makes people dismiss everything else you say.

2) the left expects to rule Canada for one simple reason. Real conservatives are a very, very small minority in Canada. Even the majority of the CPC would admit that they are fiscally conservative, socially moderate. just the way us string-pulling lefties like it.

3) canada is capitalist and it is a democracy. Saying it isn't doesn't change reality.

4) Communism hasn't been defeated. Conservatives and liberals all over the world are bending over backwards to suck up to and appease the Communist Chinese, ignoring their repressive anti-democratic behaviour and their predatory business practises, all for a handful of dirty blood-stained money. the next time you claim to have defeated communism, you might want to, ummmm, defeat communism.

5) socialism may well be defeated, but that's nothing to look forward to.

Posted by: dave at January 25, 2006 01:11 PM

---

Ade: You struck a nerve in this thread because you initially denied the Nazi Party of Germany was a socialist political party, which it clearly was.

In retrospect, I should not have included the Nazi comparison, because it distracts some from my point.

So, if you scroll back to read my original post, I was making a simple observation.

And my obervation was that generally, its political organizations from the Leftist persuasion that have killed and enslaved millions of people. These are historical facts, not "name calling" or the beliefs of a few "nutbars that exist all over the political spectrum."

JasperPants

Posted by: JasperPants at January 25, 2006 03:48 PM

---

Sorry, Dave, the Chinese have actually evolved, from Communism through Maoism through Dengism, into fascists. If you don't think so, just try comparing the tenets of fascism to the situation in China - from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1.
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Another example of the lack of truth in political labeling. Or perhaps they just don't realize it, since the situation came about organically.

Posted by: Meg Q at January 25, 2006 03:51 PM

---

Hi Meg

You made a good point. China has become a fascist state, but it's foundation is still in communism, and it continues to self-identify as communist. Truth is, any communist state eventually devolves into fascism, if it lasts that long.

Either way, fascism, communism, in-between-ism, the point I was trying to make is that communism still exists (in one form or another) and every single democracy in the world checks it's conscience at the door when it comes to doing business with China. Conservatives, liberals, whatever. Nobody has any kind of principles. I consider the fact that Canada actively courts Chinese business a disgrace. And I wonder what would happen if the US took a real stand against communo-fascism by implementing on China the same embargoes that they implemented on Cuba.

None of us have clean hands. We all LOVE communism, and we're all happy to bend over and bite the pillow for China as long as the Wal-Mart has everyday low prices.

Posted by: dave at January 25, 2006 04:16 PM

---

Dave:

1) True. Marxist-Lenin or Maoist believers are few and far between, but their are many many people who still believe in a state planed economy. They only bicker over details, like how much state control & ownership there should be. Ideal answer: none.

2) True Conservatives are indeed a rare bunch... But since we don't believe in abortion or birth control we'll catch up in a matter of years... LOL ... ;) Most Canadians live their lives in a conservative manner. If you don't believe me, ask any investment adviser or bank loan officer. For some reason, a lot of Canadians disconnect their personal outlook from their vote and vote for liberals whose values they don't really share...

3) Canadian Capitalism and democracy are both under near daily attack from the freedom crushing national governing apparatus.

4) Remember that party at the Berlin Wall? I think CNN did a story about it. Communism is deader than disco. China is a special case, because of its massive population, we don't want to disrupt the chinese society the way the Soviet society fell apart with the fall of the Soviet system. However Communism in china is on the defensive, to be generous, China is almost a socialist country, it sure isn't a purely communist society anymore. There will be a day in the near future, when China will be free, it wont happen by revolt or revolution, but by evolution. That's the "party line" anyway, I am not sure I entirely buy it.

5) The defeat of socialism is something to look forward too. An American politician once got into trouble for saying "religion is the crutch of the weak mind" ... Socialism is the crutch of the weak willed. The sooner people realize that they can live without direct government supervision, the better off everyone will be.

Posted by: Curtis at January 25, 2006 06:05 PM

---

Nazi... National Socialists... The Nazi's put themselves on the left of the spectrum. Iam not sure why Adolf became a poster child of the way way wacco skin-head right...

The seating arrangement of the french pre-revolutionary court is kinda odd way to judge modern political leadership. I think political movements should be ranked by how much freedom they permit. from totalitarian Nazi's, Stalinist communists, all the way to Libertarians, and anarchists.

Posted by: Curtis at January 25, 2006 06:13 PM

---

What Curtis said, both posts.

Posted by: JasperPants at January 25, 2006 10:01 PM

---

"Truth is, any communist state eventually devolves into fascism, if it lasts that long."

Quite true. You are saying that the "devolution" from Communism to Fascism is inevitable. Ever ask yourself why? Its the only logical conclusion from Communist premises. The only problem I have with your statement is the implication that Communism is something radically and essentially different from Fascism and that Fascism is the fall from something less Evil; Communism.

Curtis' marvelous points illustrate that the only benchmark to categorize political systems is individual liberty.

"Iam not sure why Adolf became a poster child of the way way wacco skin-head right..."

Consider this Curtis, Spanish Communists during WW2 were staunchly behind Hitler. Then came Operation Barbarossa and they switched overnight. Stalin found the Nazis congenial enough to form a non-agression pact years earlier. Opposites my ass. A cursory glance at the way they ran their governments is enough to put the lie to that bullshit.

Friends, I'm going out on a limb right now and you can accuse me of being over the top, or extreme or whatever. But there is one similarity between the soviet Communists part and the Liberal Party of Canada; like the Soviets, the lIberals seek to blur the distinction between Party and State. Hence the insistence that they are the "natural" governing party, and Martin's constant hints that the Liberals are the only ones embodying Canadian values, and (snicker) that they are the only ones that can protect us from Quebec separatism.

Let me be clear, I wont go so far as to say they are the same or that Canada is the same, they were at the mercy of voters after all. But if you observe the maniacal DESPARATION dislpayed by the Librals to cling to power...wouldnt they be happier in North Korea?

Posted by: noblerogue at January 26, 2006 01:00 AM

---

wouldn't they be happier in North Korea?

Until dinner time.

-I think you'll find over the past 12 years, that the liberals have merged a lot of the operations of the liberal party into the federal government. I think they've been unable to raise funds for quite a while, and have shifted a lot of costs, onto the taxpayer.

There was a story on the CBC a few days ago talking about the future of the liberal party. They where showing a grave yard, and talking about nearly 1/4 of liberal party members reside here... Just that nobody has bothered to delete them from the party membership list... If your membership is in such poor health, its unlikely they're donating too much for the party.

Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 01:54 AM

---

Dave, not enough time to elaborate, just to say that I (and many other small-c conservatives) would agree with you to some extent on "pocketbook" issues. Low Prices are not the Be-all end-all, in every transaction - as anyone who's ever worked with a contractor knows!

Posted by: Meg Q at January 26, 2006 02:18 AM

---

Dave, Dave, China uses the label communist only as a label. China is in fact capitalistic now following it's Hong Kong lead.

Producing fairly decent goods in efficient factories and selling them at competitive prices worldwide is capitalism Dave.

Ruling idealism with an iron fist touches upon facism but only the iron fist part has any communist flavour to it.

Dave, in all your applause for the Liberal Party of Canada, you never mention the theft of $billions of dollars of our public monies.

What *ism does that fall into? over 219 seperate rip-offs documented in our Canadian Media. Dave, shall we chuckle and wink and call that creative Liberal financing?

The NDP in their most expensive colour brochre claims Liberal scams amount to losses of [10], ten $billions of our public funds. That is a low minimum to avoid any possible lawsuits from the Liberal Party.

The NDP can not afford to risk a huge financial penalty for defamation of the Liberal Party. There is no talk of any lawsuit.

Thefts of $billions of Canadian doallars call for many prominent Liberals to face big penalties and jail time.

When the criminals are removed from the party then Liberals can ask Canadians to trust them once again in the next election.

In the mean time Harper will see that iron-clad Whistle Blower protection law is in place and individual ministry accounting & Audit are in effect and properly applied.

Then no matter who holds power, the scamming of public monies will be far more difficult to get away with. TG
http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 26, 2006 04:25 AM

---

TonyGuitar:

You're on drugs. I haven't applauded the Liberal party or government in any of my posts here. If you want to stand on a soapbox and state the obvious, by all means, but leave me out of it. I'm as pissed as anyone else is about those corrupt monkeys.

Next time you want to respond to what I said, do me a favour and let me know what you've decided my position is.

Curtis:

Dave:

1) True. Marxist-Lenin or Maoist believers are few and far between, but their are many many people who still believe in a state planed economy. They only bicker over details, like how much state control & ownership there should be. Ideal answer: none.

--no state control. now there's a brilliant idea. no regulations, standards, safety requirements. I don't believe in a State-Planned economy, but I do believe government has a role in steering the economy. When governments abandon oversight, you get situations like the blackouts in california and gas price gouging. I trust big business far less than I trust government.

2) True Conservatives are indeed a rare bunch... But since we don't believe in abortion or birth control we'll catch up in a matter of years... LOL ... ;) Most Canadians live their lives in a conservative manner. If you don't believe me, ask any investment adviser or bank loan officer. For some reason, a lot of Canadians disconnect their personal outlook from their vote and vote for liberals whose values they don't really share...

-dude, seriously. you wish. Canadians may live in a fiscally conservative manner (and even this is open to debate, check out the level of debt the average canadian carries), but that's about it. We're a country of liberals (except in Alberta, which is a province of texans in parkas).
That's not changing anytime soon.

3) Canadian Capitalism and democracy are both under near daily attack from the freedom crushing national governing apparatus.

-yeah...my democracy is under attack. ummm...we just had our second election in 2 years and the bad guys lost. maybe you could elaborate on which of my freedoms have been crushed, because last I checked, they were all intact.

4) Remember that party at the Berlin Wall? I think CNN did a story about it. Communism is deader than disco. China is a special case, because of its massive population, we don't want to disrupt the chinese society the way the Soviet society fell apart with the fall of the Soviet system. However Communism in china is on the defensive, to be generous, China is almost a socialist country, it sure isn't a purely communist society anymore. There will be a day in the near future, when China will be free, it wont happen by revolt or revolution, but by evolution. That's the "party line" anyway, I am not sure I entirely buy it.

-As long as pussies and capitalists continue to look only after their own interests, China will never be free. The means to spread freedom in China exists, but your beloved capitalism and its utter lack of morality will continue to keep the Chinese under an oppressive boot.

5) The defeat of socialism is something to look forward too. An American politician once got into trouble for saying "religion is the crutch of the weak mind" ... Socialism is the crutch of the weak willed. The sooner people realize that they can live without direct government supervision, the better off everyone will be.

-And the sooner corporations and businesses start to behave ethically, the less we'll need socialist governments. But as long as Wal-Mart, Nike, Exxon, Enron and their ilk continue to exist, we'll always need some kind of oversight.

Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 10:33 AM

---

dave, here's a question:

At what point does government oversight become overt control?

Serious commentators agree that government plays an important role in regulatory matter's, enforcing contracts and ensuring security.

You wrote:

"And the sooner corporations and businesses start to behave ethically, the less we'll need socialist governments. But as long as Wal-Mart, Nike, Exxon, Enron and their ilk continue to exist, we'll always need some kind of oversight"

Well, who decides when firms are behaving ethically? With well-funded interests on both of most ethical issues, it can be difficult to see the objective truth.

Personally, I think government has a role to play, but should not "steer the economy" as you say. This is a 1970's policy notion trumpeted by Galbraith.

I prefer to take my economic instruction from the likes of Adam Smith who famously wrote:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Incentives matter. Socialism kills the goose that lays the golden eggs.

JasperPants

Posted by: JasperPants at January 26, 2006 11:11 AM

---

Dave:

1) What I meant by state control, was exactly that control. Crown corporations that compete with private enterprise, (CBC springs to mind here) that don't have a valid reason to exist.

2) Consumer debt is a concern, and in the long term, may make Canadians far poorer than they should be. But lets be fair here, and blame liberal governments for it.

- billions of dollars in surpluses should be returned to taxpayers - the government should run a tight ship and balance the budget, but when they suck 9 billion dollars out of the economy, people get hurt by that.

-The standard of living in Canada has not improved (much) in 15 years. People expect to do better year over year, thus use debt as a crutch to live the lifestyle they feel they deserve.

3) lets see... Human rights tribunals that attack people for printing bibles, enforce gay rights, and generally restrict freedom of speech. - now don't get me wrong, Iam not a supporter of hatred or bigotry - but the solution to these problems is more speech not less. To me, this is the prime example of how the lib-left intends to maintain control of the country - if they cant win a debate - they shut the debate down.

4) Perhaps. I don't much care for the current policy towards china either. I certainly don't think we should be giving them foreign aid. (not when there are truly horrific events in Africa - where the money could do a lot more good)

5) True. Government regulation will always be required. Enron ran afoul of these laws, and there are executives spending a big chunk of their lives in prison because of that. (Just as a side thought - how much time would Enron executives be in jail, if they where in Canada instead of the united states? a year on weekends? maybe?)

Walmart in the long run is irrelevant. As china allows it currency to float to fair market value, the cost of Chinese goods will skyrocket. 80% of Walmart's sales are Chinese goods, if these goods suddenly jump by 400% or 500% walmarts sales will nosedive, and force the company into bankruptcy.

Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 11:27 AM

---

JasperPants:

At what point does government oversight become overt control?

-when it goes beyond setting standards and regulations, and starts telling companies which cartoon mascot to choose.

Well, who decides when firms are behaving ethically? With well-funded interests on both of most ethical issues, it can be difficult to see the objective truth.

-oh come on. It's not difficult. Do you use child labour? do you provide a living wage? Do you operate a sweatshop? would you want your family to be treated like your lowest paid employees? Do you manipulate markets in order to inflate the price of your products? Do your employees make enough money to buy medecine? Do you suppress or manipulate research that's critical of your products? These are a few questions that can be asked to determine ethical behaviour. I know that big business desperately wants to convince us that the bottom line is the bottom line, but it isn't. And it's easy to tell good from evil.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

-but if their interests lie in screwing their customer, what then?

Incentives matter. Socialism kills the goose that lays the golden egg.

-Wrong, socialism provides a minimum standard of living for all people. Socialism makes sure that you don't have to check your bank balance before getting that rash checked out. Socialism means that if you lose your job, you can still feed your family.

Curtis:
1) What I meant by state control, was exactly that control. Crown corporations that compete with private enterprise, (CBC springs to mind here) that don't have a valid reason to exist.

--CBC exists to provide programming that is valuable, regardless of the profit potential. Ever notice how many documentaries there are on Global or CTV?

2) Consumer debt is a concern, and in the long term, may make Canadians far poorer than they should be. But lets be fair here, and blame liberal governments for it.

--Paul Martin made me run up my credit card. Paul Martin made me buy that big-screen tv on a payment plan. Paul Martin made me buy a car that's way more than I need or can comfortably afford. Call Visa and see how that excuse flies when you can't pay your bill. Sounds like someone's looking for a nanny state so that he can say "it's not my fault"

- billions of dollars in surpluses should be returned to taxpayers - the government should run a tight ship and balance the budget, but when they suck 9 billion dollars out of the economy, people get hurt by that.

-yes indeed the surplus is a disgrace, but not for your reasons. It's a disgrace because our infrastructure is crumbling, and our health care needs an infusion. If everyone would stop getting a hard-on over the surplus and realize that it's money that's needed and not being put to use, we'd be better off.

-The standard of living in Canada has not improved (much) in 15 years. People expect to do better year over year, thus use debt as a crutch to live the lifestyle they feel they deserve.

-So how is it that the governemnt's fault that people refuse to live within their means? I feel I deserve a mansion and a diamond encrusted TV remote. If I go bankrupt trying to get what I think I deserve, that's the government's fault?

3) lets see... Human rights tribunals that attack people for printing bibles, enforce gay rights, and generally restrict freedom of speech. - now don't get me wrong, Iam not a supporter of hatred or bigotry - but the solution to these problems is more speech not less. To me, this is the prime example of how the lib-left intends to maintain control of the country - if they cant win a debate - they shut the debate down.

-who got attacked for printing a bible? gay rights? Try civil rights that you and I already have. And restricting free speech? When? Where?
I love it when you conservatives say stuff like " I'm not bigoted, but I'm fed up with all the homos trying to get what I got". today it's gay marriage, 40 years ago it was blacks being allowed to take a piss and sit on a bus. We know how history has judged those who stood against blacks in the 60s ...do you wanna be that guy in 40 years?

4) Perhaps. I don't much care for the current policy towards china either. I certainly don't think we should be giving them foreign aid. (not when there are truly horrific events in Africa - where the money could do a lot more good)

-Go further. We shouldn't be doing business with them at all, until they start treating their own people properly.

5) True. Government regulation will always be required. Enron ran afoul of these laws, and there are executives spending a big chunk of their lives in prison because of that. (Just as a side thought - how much time would Enron executives be in jail, if they where in Canada instead of the united states? a year on weekends? maybe?)

Thanks for agreeing with me. As for your side thought, I dunno...there's never been a scandal of that magnitude here. too much government control preventing Enrons from happening.

Walmart in the long run is irrelevant. As china allows it currency to float to fair market value, the cost of Chinese goods will skyrocket. 80% of Walmart's sales are Chinese goods, if these goods suddenly jump by 400% or 500% walmarts sales will nosedive, and force the company into bankruptcy.

-you're forgetting the cheap labour. i think that's more important than the devalued yuan (it is the yuan, right?)

Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 11:56 AM

---

Dave, I will agree with you that socialism is a crutch of the weak willed and in Canada it is a crutch of the lazy.

Dependancy socialism is a big part of Liberalism in Canada. If social program cheques keep coming in monthly then Canadians do not read beyond the front page of the paper and do not bother to take an interest in politics.

Even in an interesting election like this, more than 40% did not bother to vote.

Thousands of Canadians have died to guard the freedoms we enjoy, yet almost half the voters in Canada can not be bothered to vote.

Is that the laziness of socialism or just the awful job our teachers are doing or both?

Drugs? Very few persons of Scots decent use drugs. They cost money. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 26, 2006 12:05 PM

---

TonyGuitar

Dave, I will agree with you that socialism is a crutch of the weak willed and in Canada it is a crutch of the lazy.

--Holy cow Tony, I NEVER said that either...jeez.

Dependancy socialism is a big part of Liberalism in Canada. If social program cheques keep coming in monthly then Canadians do not read beyond the front page of the paper and do not bother to take an interest in politics.

-I have a similar point of view, but I extend it to all Canadians: As long as the cable works and the Tim Hortons is open, Canadians don't give a sh*t about politics.

Even in an interesting election like this, more than 40% did not bother to vote.

-I think that speaks to the candidates more than anything else. I'll bet a majority of the 40% you cite would vote if there was a candidate that they wholeheartedly support.

Thousands of Canadians have died to guard the freedoms we enjoy, yet almost half the voters in Canada can not be bothered to vote.

-yeah, but that's the great thing about democracy. Vote, don't vote, it's up to the individual.

Is that the laziness of socialism or just the awful job our teachers are doing or both?

-why is it only lazy socialists or bad teachers (code for socialists) that are to blame? Did it ever occur to you that the reason people didn't vote was because they weren't satisfied with the choices they were presented with? No, it probably didn't. Everything is the fault of socialism.

Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 12:22 PM

---

Dave, you are a real gas to debate with. I laughed out loud on your last point.

* Did it ever occur to you that the reason people didn't vote was because they weren't satisfied with the choices they were presented with? *

It is not socialism that is to be blamed for low voter turnout. It is apathy and being blissfully unaware of what can be so easily lost.

People don't vote because their personal world is quite comfortable, they think it will remain so, no matter who gets in and many Canadians are both LAZY and APATHTIC which equates to pampered and uninformed.

If Paul and the Martinites had been re-elected this time, the further entrenchment of power through bonuses to a vast numbers of key position controllers could lead to a way of life similar to India's where greasing palms with $50 incentives is required for everything you want to do.

It does matter powerfully when we make choices at the polling booth. Apathetic non- voters are not aware of that, else they would vote just to preserve their comfort zone.

The Liberals had all bases covered with over a year of drip-drip propaganda from radio and television whispering..*fear Harper...fear Harper* and it almost worked.

That alone accounts for a miraculous return of 104 seats where had Canadians been informed, the return would have been a more logical 40 to 60 seats.

Electronic mind control. It actually works, just ask Paulie. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 26, 2006 01:14 PM

---

* Did it ever occur to you that the reason people didn't vote was because they weren't satisfied with the choices they were presented with? *

If they where satisfied with the choices. Wouldnt they show up and choose?

I think poeple should be fined if they dont vote (8 hours pay, at minimium wage) and a 'none of the above' line added to the ballot.

If none of the above wins the election, all candidates get dumped, and there is a by election in 30 days.

Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 01:33 PM

---

Oh, one more important point. Print media in Canada did report a liberal scam here, a fraud there and an inquiry called Gomery.

At no time was a summary list of 219 plus Liberal government scams and frauds listed in the mass media so that Canadians could have a concept of the string of scams since 1993.

Scanning major papers from cities coast to coast via Canada-com and others has so far never produced a detailed list of Liberal party misuse of our money, yet those lists do exist on many websites.

The MSM is fully aware but the majority of Canadian voters are not. Canada's MSM. Keeping Canadians in the dark where it matters most! TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 26, 2006 01:36 PM

---

dave, your comment on the glorious righteousness of Socialism is replete with wrong-headed thinking that pervades so much of today's modern Left.

One example you give: The so-called "living wage".

The fact that such a term exists suggests that those that use it believe everyone is owed a job.

People are paid according to what they produce, and the Socialist tendency to separate these two key elements is key to understanding why Socialism must be resisted and discredited everywhere - including in this blog.

JasperPants

P.S. A really smart guy once said Socialism's success is the equal sharing of miseries. Lots of examples around the world to choose from that confirm his observation.

Posted by: JasperPants at January 26, 2006 01:44 PM

---

TonyGuitar

Dave, you are a real gas to debate with. I laughed out loud on your last point.

- I can't be that much of a gas, because you keep having to invent my points...

* Did it ever occur to you that the reason people didn't vote was because they weren't satisfied with the choices they were presented with? *

It is not socialism that is to be blamed for low voter turnout. It is apathy and being blissfully unaware of what can be so easily lost.

-I'll stick with the fact that the choices presented are not always the best. Apathy does have something to do with it, but so does an underwhelming slate of candidates, and a feeling that if your riding leans heavily one way, your vote won't make a difference.

People don't vote because their personal world is quite comfortable, they think it will remain so, no matter who gets in and many Canadians are both LAZY and APATHTIC which equates to pampered and uninformed.

-yeah, probably. and also for the reasons I mentioned.

If Paul and the Martinites had been re-elected this time, the further entrenchment of power through bonuses to a vast numbers of key position controllers could lead to a way of life similar to India's where greasing palms with $50 incentives is required for everything you want to do.

-The same could be said for any party that holds power for a long time in any country. Look at the (republican) lobbying scandal in the states.

It does matter powerfully when we make choices at the polling booth. Apathetic non- voters are not aware of that, else they would vote just to preserve their comfort zone.

The Liberals had all bases covered with over a year of drip-drip propaganda from radio and television whispering..*fear Harper...fear Harper* and it almost worked.

That alone accounts for a miraculous return of 104 seats where had Canadians been informed, the return would have been a more logical 40 to 60 seats.

- So the only reason anyone votes for the Liberals is ignorance? Ummm...OK.

Electronic mind control. It actually works, just ask Paulie. TG

-No it didn't. Paulie lost.

curtis: I agree with your 'none of the above' option. terrific idea. The rest, not so much.

Posted by: at January 26, 2006 01:44 PM

---

-Yes it did. Paulie almost won when he should have been sent to jail. Now that is a miracle!!

Thank's for the fun Dave. Thanks for helping me think things through a bit. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 26, 2006 01:56 PM

---

Jasper

dave, your comment on the glorious righteousness of Socialism is replete with wrong-headed thinking that pervades so much of today's modern Left.

-thank god we have conservatives to tell us the truth. lol.

One example you give: The so-called "living wage".

The fact that such a term exists suggests that those that use it believe everyone is owed a job.

-I don't believe anyone is owed a job, but I think that a civilized society takes care of its less fortunate. Conservatives always use the worst case scenarios when talking about social assistance. It's always the lazy, shiftless, bums. It's never the mom who's trying to get out of an abusive relationship, the guy who got laid off and whose UI has run out before he can find another job. It's never the dude who's on the dole so he can go to school full time. Why is that?

People are paid according to what they produce, and the Socialist tendency to separate these two key elements is key to understanding why Socialism must be resisted and discredited everywhere - including in this blog.

-Socialism is not about any plots to ruin capitalism. Socialists just believe that there are things that people are entitled to, no matter what their circumstance. In the mind of this particular socialist, those things are: education, health care, food, clothing and shelter. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't agree with that very limited list of entitlements, well you're not much of a Canadian in my book.

JasperPants

P.S. A really smart guy once said Socialism's success is the equal sharing of miseries. Lots of examples around the world to choose from that confirm his observation.

-sure....just like there are plenty of examples of capitalism's success being in the dumping of miseries onto those who bitch the least.

Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 02:07 PM

---

thanks to you as well TG...
political discourse is so much more civilized on Canadian sites...

And Paul didn't nearly win the election. I had a better chance of getting into Jessica Alba's pants than he did of winning the election. And that's with those funny white bumps on my doodle too!

Posted by: dave at January 26, 2006 02:11 PM

---

Ya, they scared me this election. I was watching the Flames beat the Oilers, when someone in the bar turned on another set, and showed the liberals ahead 42 - 20 seats... I had to run to my (hotel) room, and watch the election instead.

Big Paulie came a lot closer to winning than he should have. With 100+ seats he still has much more power than he deserves. The liberals should have been "Kim Campbelled" for their corruption, arrogance, and 3 stooges re-election campaign.

Still he managed 31% of the popular vote. I am wondering if elections Canada should look Thru some of the urban seats, and see if there is a lot of duplicate votes. Like the Edmonton center hub-bub.

Posted by: Curtis at January 26, 2006 03:07 PM

---

dave, you wrote: "Socialism is not about any plots to ruin capitalism"

Or really? Take a look at the definition of Socialism in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

And thanks for the back-handed insult to my patriotism - I guess Curtis (from earlier in this thread) was onto something when he said:

"The left wont debate the issues, They'll lose everytime. They insult thier opponents, and when that no longer works they threaten violence."

To you, Canada is a great country because of its government programs, not because of its people.

Problems are solved by more government spending, more government intervention and less personal economic freedom.

The saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a warning to all Canadians about people who think like you, dave.

JasperPants

Posted by: at January 26, 2006 03:21 PM

---

Jasper

dave, you wrote: "Socialism is not about any plots to ruin capitalism"

Or really? Take a look at the definition of Socialism in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

from the same page: Social Democracy is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with only some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make it more equitable and humane.

That's MY version of socialism. See there's lots of different kinds.

And thanks for the back-handed insult to my patriotism - I guess Curtis (from earlier in this thread) was onto something when he said:

"The left wont debate the issues, They'll lose everytime. They insult thier opponents, and when that no longer works they threaten violence."

-I never meant to insult your patriotism. I should have said that if you don't believe every person is entitled to food, a roof, clothing, a basic education, and medical attention, then you're not much of a human being. that's simply what I believe. 5 things, that everyone should be able to agree upon. Tell me, who would you say doesn't deserve any or all of those things? And please don't say child molesters, murderers, etc. I mean average people. Who doesn't deserve a meal? Or the opportunity to learn to read? Our country has prospered and advanced based on these principles. that's one of the reasons we remain one of the best countries in the world to live in.

To you, Canada is a great country because of its government programs, not because of its people.

-thanks for reading my mind Kreskin. Tell me, who was it that created those government programs? did they invent themselves? Or did people invent them? And if people invented them, was it America's people or some other countries or was it Canada's? So if you follow me, Canada is great partly because of social programs that help ALL canadians, and those programs were created by canada's people. Therefore, one reason Canada is great because of it's people that helped build our great social programs.

Problems are solved by more government spending, more government intervention and less personal economic freedom.

-Some problems are solved by the first 2 you mentioned (you don't think 5 billion bucks and stronger oversight would help fix our health care
problems?)

The saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is a warning to all Canadians about people who think like you, dave.

-Because I, and people like me...we're the real threats. With all our money and weapons, and our brainwashed masses...

Listen, one last time: I think Canadians should have access to food, clothes, a roof, a school and a doctor. And I don't think a person's economic means should get in the way of that access. That's the extent of my socialism. If that makes me the next Hitler, or great Satan, or the Destroyer of All That's Good and Right, I can live with that. It sure beats not giving a sh*t about my fellow human beings.

JasperPants

Posted by: Dave at January 26, 2006 03:57 PM

---

Overheard in Edmonton back room:

Hey, Jake, What*s this if you stuff, you have to stuff big, all about?

Well Clem. Ya hafta have a wide margin of votes between our guy and the Conservative guy because if it's a squeaker, Elections Canada will sure as hell take a look, and ya sure as hell don't want that now, do ye Clem.

*Oh hell no!

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 26, 2006 06:50 PM

---

Oh, for the love of...What kind of amoral, propangandist do you have to be exactly to cut and paste someone's comments from another blog's comment section on your own and suggest they have any broader implication other than the one intended?

I was talking about trolls, Janke. Particularly, the ones who'd staked out non-Conservative blogs for months on end and abused the tendency of liberal/lefty blogs not to ban or censor, while they went through endless iterations of their illiberal opinions and baffling illogic no matter how many times or how ably they at been refuted. You know exactly who I was talking about.

I guess there won't be any truce in the blogosphere either. Funny thing -- I never boot the "trolls" on my blog. I mean, how can we find a way to get along and get things done if we're not even talking to each other?

Well, that is indeed good to know. I'm sure you'll be looking forward to me squatting here for several months, defending my political perspective and opinions with the same rationalisations regardless of anything said by anyone, all the while speculating on your physical appearance, on your sexual proclivities, on your familial relations, on what kind of "equipment" you have installed in your living room that permits you to move around and exactly what you are doing right now in front of your computer while you read this.

I'm suprised you didn't quote me when I called you "fat and ugly" that one time. That would have really nailed it.

Posted by: Ti-Guy at January 26, 2006 09:33 PM

---

Hey Ti-Guy. I forgive you being a little testy. It's understandable, but look at the bright side. 104 seats. That's a miracle and it's a testament to the brilliant people who plan and carry out the near impossible in the Liberal Party.

Not to get you all steamed up or anything, but I humbly suggest there may be a few crooked operators in the Liberal party so an honourable defeat at this time is actually better for Liberals than a limping win.

A Liberal win could lead to a final wipe-out of the Liberal party while a time-out will allow a house cleaning of the bad guys and a chance to rebuild confidence in the minds of Canadian voters.

I hope Harper gets iron clad Whistle-Blower protection law [Bill C-11] and individual Ministry accounting firmly in place before the next election though.

I'm not able to trust all politicos and maderins of any leaning, Red, Blue or Green, but I do trust good legislated law to severy limit the opportunities for siphoning off our public revenues. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at January 26, 2006 11:12 PM

---

Your blog is your private property. Just as you're free to exclude people from events in your home, you're free to exclude posts and posters who are a disruption to the community you wish to build.

Good luck with your blog.

Posted by: Curtis at January 27, 2006 10:30 AM

---

My my, there is a lot of paranoia out there. The rantings of each side of the spectrum lends me to a great chuckle as I watch name calling. Keep it up, no one is going to take any of you seriously.

Posted by: Brian at January 29, 2006 09:06 PM

---