CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Red Tory or Blue Tory?
Red Tory  71%  [ 12 ]
Blue Tory  29%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 17

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8876
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:47 pm
 


BigBlueMachine wrote:
The problem is that if Harper is kicked out, I don't think there's a notable progressive in the Conservative cascus


If that should happen, Rona Ambrose should be leader. She's pretty good-looking.

Coming back to the thread, for a short history of Red-Toryism, you could check out The Red Tory Tradition by Ron Dart (it may be hard to find though). It's a collection of essays on what a Red Tory is (or should be I should say)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10908
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:23 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
Quote:
Harper has dropped anything close to a neo-liberal policy, and the fiscal policy of the Conservatives in strikingly similar to the Liberals.


He's done some flip-flopping, but the basics are still there...near merger with the US, few limits on corporate power, and letting the market place run everything, including social policy.

Quote:
I've always thought that neo-liberalism simply referred to economic policy, nothing really to do with social issues.


Not really. The Chicago School where it comes from, and the Calgary school where it finds a home in Canada, have promoted using religion and over the top patriotism to bring supporters together. Think of Harper's puke-inspiring habit of say, "god bless Canada" at the end of speeches, or the adherence of so many Conservative MPs to religiously-based causes like the anti-abortion or anti-SSM crusaders.

Quote:
Besides, where is this radicalism in the party anyway? A few MPs? The Grits have their fair share of pro-life, anti-gay radicals as well.


Since conservatism is supposed to represent keeping a slow but steady course and not introducing any sudden changes, the entire doctrine of the Harperites could be considered radical actually.

Really their radicalism is the degree and speed with which they wish to integrate with the US and their willingness to allow religious doctrine to dictate policy.



Quote:
Think of Harper's puke-inspiring habit of say, "god bless Canada" at the end of speeches


Just think of your puke-inspiring rants.

Just cause your God is Rev_Blair doesn’t give you the right to dump on others.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for Mr Rev and his hate everything but what I believe BS.

Continue Sir Wise Ass.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 88
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:26 pm
 


What the Tories want is simply more reducation of tarrifs with the US. This, in addition to the commitment of lower tarrifs with countries around the globe, which the Liberals also support. Harper and the Liberals also have similar policies on health care, welfare, and pretty much all fiscal policy.

I have no reason not to believe you here.

How exactally are they intergrating with the US "at an alarming rate"? Also, where in their policy is religious policy being enforced? Same-sex civil unions is a very liberal approach itself. (Personally, I think that government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, as it is a very religious thing. If you want to marry outside of a church, let it be considered a civil union by the stae so that you can keep the tax benefits etc.)


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6681
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:50 pm
 


Harper is much for integrating security as well. Look at his record. He would have gone to Iraq, he would have joined star wars, he would have pushed for mandatory id cards for everybody. The Liberals have enough voices in their party saying otherwise that Martin (who is also prone to these things) has to listen to them. Harper does not have that other influence.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 437
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:57 pm
 


Blue Tory.Harper for PM!!


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 88
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:58 pm
 


Looking into the past, Iraq was a mistake yes. The US simply wanted Canadian support, and possibly some land for an installtion or something. A great deal for free protection don't you think?

Mandatory ID cards? I don't think that even Bush is pushing for this...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10908
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:02 pm
 


Tinfoil hats for everyone eh REV


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6681
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:12 pm
 


Quote:
Mandatory ID cards? I don't think that even Bush is pushing for this.


The Conservatives asked several questions about it and pushed quite hard for it when the Liberals were jamming through the anti-terrorist bill. It had some Liberal support too, and Coderre pushed for it after that. It became, over time, the landed immigrant card that is available now, but what was being called for originally amounted to an internal passport that everybody would have to carry.

It was one of those things that the US government was pushing others (mostly Mexico and Canada) to do.


Quote:
Looking into the past, Iraq was a mistake yes. The US simply wanted Canadian support, and possibly some land for an installtion or something. A great deal for free protection don't you think?


Iraq wasn't just a mistake, it was an illegal invasion based on lies. That's why hardly anybody joined Bush's coalition of the bullied and bribed. Harper, traitorous little prick that he is, was writing letters of apology to the US because we didn't take part.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10908
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:23 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
Quote:
Mandatory ID cards? I don't think that even Bush is pushing for this.


The Conservatives asked several questions about it and pushed quite hard for it when the Liberals were jamming through the anti-terrorist bill. It had some Liberal support too, and Coderre pushed for it after that. It became, over time, the landed immigrant card that is available now, but what was being called for originally amounted to an internal passport that everybody would have to carry.

It was one of those things that the US government was pushing others (mostly Mexico and Canada) to do.


Quote:
Looking into the past, Iraq was a mistake yes. The US simply wanted Canadian support, and possibly some land for an installtion or something. A great deal for free protection don't you think?


Iraq wasn't just a mistake, it was an illegal invasion based on lies. That's why hardly anybody joined Bush's coalition of the bullied and bribed. Harper, traitorous little prick that he is, was writing letters of apology to the US because we didn't take part.


illegal invasion>>>> ask the UN about that.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:10 am
 


Patrick_Ross wrote:
And what would you define as a "normal" colored person? :roll:

...Have fun grasping at straws.



Oh for fuck's sake, get off of your sanctimoniously offended soapbox.

Shouldn't you be writing for The Star? Sheesh........


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2336
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 8:15 pm
 


First off, that has nothing to do with you, so fuck off.

Secondly, I already apologized to PBJ, so fuck off.

In conclusion, fuck off.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 42
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:06 am
 


Alright, everyone take a chill pill.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.