28 Replies to “Gone Fishin’”

  1. Watch the rays, enjoy the books and come back fit and fighting as always. In a relaxed way of course.

    Happy holidays.

  2. LOL, as if a faggotty progressive like you would engage in a masculine activity such as fishing. Just be honest and admit that you’ve been sentenced to a week at the Honeydew Ranch (“Honey do this, honey do that”).

    “News to me…do I get to come?”

    See? Your beard knows what’s up.

  3. Real Conservative[heh…]:

    You sound worried. Relax, pal. I’m quite sure Red has no intention of doing any deep sea fishing: you and your bottom-feeding ilk have nothing to fear.

    What would be the point? You are no doubt as inedible as you are uneducable.

  4. Sir Francis,

    Many conservative supporters are highly educated and actually did well at school.

    Heck, I personally received a minor academic award in Grade 7.

    I still recall the glow of satisfaction.

  5. Tomm:

    Many conservative supporters are highly educated…

    So true. Look at me, for instance (granted, I’m just a conservative, not a “Conservative supporter”). 🙂

    In fact, I hold it to be axiomatic that the more conservative one is, the smarter…which is doubtless why so many CPCers are so dim: their basic liberalism just “dumbs” them way down, often even more disastrously so than the soi-disant “liberals” of the Liberal Party.

    Anyways, you could have supported your thesis convincingly by pointing out that Stephen Harper has a Masters degree–a fact he’s been trying to keep as quiet as possible, perhaps because he’s loath to seem more of an ivory-tower nerd than Trudeau was .

    Steve doesn’t appear to mind seeming more arrogant than PET was, but he clearly doesn’t want it known that he’s more educated than he was. I find that odd, but I guess I’m just not sitting in the peanut gallery Steve is playing to.

  6. Tomm:

    Is a “Conservative supporter” similar to an “athletic supporter” ? I mean … both retain “nasty bits” and “nuts” – so the question is apropos.

    Sir Francis makes the case clear, and I too am a conservative – but manifestly not a “Conservative supporter.” The CPC is a neo-liberal party. Perhaps the media will one day expose this reality.

    “Real Conservative”: All you are is a “real moron.”

  7. Gentlemen,

    I see the CPC as imminently conservative, in the sense I wish to support it.

    They are molding Canada into a nation where the individual becomes responsible for their own actions, and a nation where you can expect the government to be there, to ensure you have the freedoms and opportunities to be the best you can for your family and community.

    But as you know, the nanny-state isn’t going quietly.

    Aenas, you correctly point to some elements of the CPC that are not that “supportable”.

    Perhaps time will smooth out some of those angular edges, and aggressive attitudes.

  8. Tomm wrote:

    “They are molding Canada into a nation where the individual becomes responsible for their own actions, and a nation where you can expect the government to be there, to ensure you have the freedoms and opportunities to be the best you can for your family and community.”

    This is straight liberalism. Have you ever read any philosophy? What you call “conservatism” is classical liberalism, which is what they practice in the USA.

  9. They are molding Canada into a nation where the individual becomes responsible for their own actions, and a nation where you can expect the government to be there, to ensure you have the freedoms and opportunities to be the best you can for your family and community.

    *gag*

  10. Tomm wrote:

    “They are molding Canada into a nation where the individual becomes responsible for their own actions, and a nation where you can expect the government to be there, to ensure you have the freedoms and opportunities to be the best you can for your family and community.”

    * This is straight liberalism. Have you ever read any philosophy? What you call “conservatism” is classical liberalism, which is what they practice in the USA. Conservatism as “rugged individualism” is as far from conservatism as anyone with a brain understands it …

  11. Aenas,

    Please enlighten me. And then, if what I like is classical Liberalism, than please explain why the Liberal Party has turned into some sort of socialist model.

    Ti-Guy,

    Yeah I know, I hate it when I get all maudlin early in the afternoon. I do it for you.

  12. If you read anything from Hobbes to Locke to the Mills, to Cobden & Bright, from JS Mill to FA Hayek you would know that what you get all “wooden” for, is in fact, liberalism.

    The Liberals were all over Free Trade from William Lyon Mackenzie to Stephane Dion.

    It used to the Conservative Party that resisted the pull of the American economy and empire. That ended only in 1985. Ever hear of 1911?

    Last I checked, the Liberals are a Free-Trade party. I don’t see how they tried to repeal NAFTA during the 1993-2006 period. Did I miss something?

    Anyway … the LPC is only “Socialist” from a radically-liberal & right-wing (US Republican) perspective. Ask any Political Scientist or Economist outside of the USA and they will tell you that the Liberal Party is still a right-wing party.

    How is the LPC Socialist – from any rational perspective? Trade with the USA actually INCREASED under Pierre Trudeau. Look it up.

    Better yet, stop watching the US Media all the time. Have you ever read any SM Lipsett? Louis Hartz? Or anyone who has specialisation in the field of political and economic thought?

    No wonder this country is fucked-up. Everyone applies American context to everything. We have forgotten who we are …

  13. Aenas,

    I did some homework on “classicial” Liberalism (John Locke, JS Mill, Thomas Hobbes, Richard Cobden, John Bright, and JA Hayek, just as you suggested. I came back with the following:

    John Stuart Mill, was a reformer and he, John Locke, and Hayek would likely all support Harper’s CPC party if they were here today.

    But that is sort of moot since they would likely also support Dion’s Party since given the political distance between their times, both the LPC and the CPC would seem to be quite similar in their record and policies.

    Further labels are horribly mis-leading at this time since there has been a radical shift in thinking about all the major areas in the economy, social justice and international relations.

    In addition, I think a better way to look at differentiating the two present parties would be to compare them to Thatcher’s Britain.

    The LPC may properly be represented by Harold Wilson/James Callaghan, and Harper’s Conservative’s by Thatcher.

    Thatcher reduced the role of the state in the economy as an investor, and a regulator. She worked to reduce the power of unions, reduced the bags of nanny state appendage that had built up over time and sought to increase Britain’s roles as an international leader.

    I think this is a more useful comparison.

  14. Tomm:

    And did you know that Thatcher was widely seen as a “liberal” within the CP? Economically, she wasn’t much of a Tory. In fact, she used her power to crush Tories at every turn. She called them “wets” because they did not subscribe to economic orthodoxy.

    Lady Thatcher was a product of her time and she had her day. There are very few people in Britain today who want someone like her back , as she was so divisive (but a good War Leader …).

    Your simplistic paradigm is quite erroneous as well, as the LPC equivalent in the UK is in fact, the Demoractic Party (formerly the Liberal-Democrats), who are a right-centre party that advocates reform, free-trade and individualism.

    New Labour is a centrist variant of British liberalism, and is only similar to the Old Labour Party in that allows the Unions to have a say, but different yet in that it does let them have THE say in matters regarding the manifesto.

    You are missing the point (perhaps misunderstanding it …) – which is that there is a great difference between the neo-liberalism you espouse, and toryism.

    I am a conservative and you are not – precisely because I am sceptical of all ideologies, capitalism included.

  15. Tomm wrote:

    “But that is sort of moot since they would likely also support Dion’s Party since given the political distance between their times, both the LPC and the CPC would seem to be quite similar in their record and policies.”

    But you accused the LPC of being crypto-socialist!

    So, now you admit that they are not.

    Make-up your mind.

    Until 1986, there was a clear difference between the PC and LPC record and policies. Mulroney destroyed that distinction. I was there, I know.

  16. Tomm:

    Life is not a choice between black & white; grey is the predominant reality of political life.

    Bi-polar models are for people too uneducated & unenlightened to understand much more than their short-term desires.

    What you want today, is not what you need tomorrow. We must move beyond the command of our appetites.

    Blind abstractions (ideology) are used a means to avoid thinking.

    Ideology and Philosophy are two clear and distinct things. One orders a system of beliefs (that cannot be proven), and the other questions such systems through the prism of reason.

    I prefer to think for myself. Which is why I left formal party politics.

  17. Aenas,

    Interesting comments.

    Firstly, I think you may have misinterpreted my thoughts on what John Stuart Mill may have supported. The stark differences during his day, that he espoused, have become part of our social fabric. Therefore my views that he would have supported the policies of the LPC and the CPC, is I think just a true statement.

    I personally see the LPC’s policy directions of the last several years to be moving them into a socialist/nanny state camp. But that is not what I was referring to in my statement.

    In regards to Thatcher’s policies being more closely aligned with Harper’s; I think is just something that seems obvious. We can disagree on how attractive it is to the average Canadian. I guess we will find out in subsequent elections.

    Your third comment about things being shades of grey is absolutely accurate. Moral certitude is not very often an option, even when people think it is. Eg. Abortion vs. non-abortion.

    With governments and their leaders required to make pragmatic decisions, I prefer Harper’s ear rather than Dion’s.

    I think Harper is listening to a greater balance of the people with good advice for Canada’s future. I also think Harper’s vision of Canada is more closely aligned with what I see our next 10 years to require.

    However we need to draw distinction between “shades of grey” and “nuanced” policies. They aren’t the same thing, although they are often incorrectly equated.

    I am enjoying this dialogue.

  18. Aeneas,

    Perhaps your right. I certainly do not know the man. I can’t see it hurting Canada though.

    Although I am awfully surprised at the venom being spit at him by partisan LPC supporters.

    He has clearly had a bullseye put on his chest.

    The criticism of LPC members by the CPC has been tongue in cheek, teasing, and ridiculing. “didn’t get it done” “is not a leader” “tax on everything”

    The stuff coming back at Harper has been just plain mean spirited. e.g. “Soldiers with guns in the streets” “kitten eater” etc. And it’s just escalated from there.

  19. Tomm:

    It all goes back to that self-loathing speech he gave about Canada being a “second-rate European-style Welfare State.”

    I’ll never forgive him for that one. Or for wanting us to join the US Empire in Iraq …

  20. Unfortunately, those “Conservatives” that haven’t chosen to conveniently sweep those remarks under the rug for the sake of political expediency, happen to agree with them, feeling as they do that we are in fact a second-rate welfare state and that we should have hitched our wagon to Bush’s crusade as the obedient American satrapy they feverishly wish we were.

  21. Don’t live in the past.

    Please remember that your dislike of the remarks are colored by your partisan preference at that time.

    In regards to Iraq, we were fortunate not to have been embroiled in that mess. I’m sure we would have extracted ourselves by now (like Spain or Australia), but it would have soured our thinking on our role in other places. We were fortunate Chretien was the PM.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s