[Public_Domain]

A socialist is just a liberal twenty years early

And a communist is fifty years early

[herbie]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I don't see where in Canadian law where it says that a MP has to be of a certain party. In your country, like mine, we elect the person. If they do something we don't like (like crossing the floor) then we vote them out.

Not seeing the problem here aside from butthurt feelings.

Individual MP and MLAs(provincial)don't, there's Independents around both elected as, withdrew or booted from a party.
THey have the opportunity to "unite the right" and turn it into a pile of shit like the Federal Conservatives and the BC Liberal party. Mess of runny shit full of worms with a solid and popular King Turd as leader.

[DrCaleb]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Trying to have your cake and eat it too with the whole "I'm a socialist" and "I'm a conservative" thing, don't you think?

"Red Tory". Look it up.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Don't like it when reality intrudes, eh?

Apples and oranges. Little shocked this one came from you, too be honest.

There is no comparability between parties merging PREVOTE, and a person crossing the floor POST VOTE.

One maintains the voters choice, one disregards it.

Brian Jean was not elected on a platform to dissolve the Wild Rose Party. No different than the Leader Danielle Smith leaving a sinking ship for a different party.

[BRAH]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Only one sucker punch thrown during the whole weekend.

I though Brian Jean showing just how two faced a politician could be definitely counts as that. Agreeing to talk to Kenny about merging the parties, after the names he called Danielle Smith for crossing the floor?

Whatever it takes to defeat the NDP do it, even if that means exposing my love for Rachel and leave Danielle alone she's good looking and doesn't have to answer for anything.

[DrCaleb]

I'm a modern guy. I won't judge.

[BRAH]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm a modern guy. I won't judge.

Rachel has long sexy legs.... Then of course there's Shannon P.......

[DrCaleb]

BRAH BRAH:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm a modern guy. I won't judge.

Rachel has long sexy legs.... Then of course there's Shannon P.......

She is a pretty lady, same with Danielle Smith. But Ms. Phillips might be a little younger than I like.

[Public_Domain]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Trying to have your cake and eat it too with the whole "I'm a socialist" and "I'm a conservative" thing, don't you think?

"Red Tory". Look it up.

Yeah... I think my definition of "socialist" may be a bit sharper than yours... Even if I excuse the whole "social democracy" gambit as "socialism", I just don't see that in Red Toryism; it's basically just liberals with guns and a sprinkling of love for the Queen and military mixed in; Conservatives with an interest in public education.

[DrCaleb]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Trying to have your cake and eat it too with the whole "I'm a socialist" and "I'm a conservative" thing, don't you think?

"Red Tory". Look it up.

Yeah... I think my definition of "socialist" may be a bit sharper than yours... Even if I excuse the whole "social democracy" gambit as "socialism", I just don't see that in Red Toryism; it's basically just liberals with guns and a sprinkling of love for the Queen and military mixed in; Conservatives with an interest in public education.

Whether it's you or Fiddly, attempts to pigeon hole people so they fit in your molds and thereby make it convenient to deal with their views will always fail.

Red Toryism has always been about fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. I like balanced budgets, but see the inherent need in taxation. I like social programs, but want them efficient and effective. I despise government waste, but also feel it's not a business so that model fails as well. Government needs to serve the people, business needs to serve the economy. They aren't mutually exclusive.

You use the Marx/Engles definitions of Socialism; I'm more of a Keir Hardy/Tommy Douglas socialist. Or specifically, a "Joe Clark" Conservative, but Preston Manning had some good ideas too. I'd have liked Paul Martin more if he wasn't such a dick.

Trying to imply other aspects of me because you think you know which political mold I fill will always fail.

[peck420]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Red Toryism has always been about fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. I like balanced budgets, but see the inherent need in taxation. I like social programs, but want them efficient and effective. I despise government waste, but also feel it's not a business so that model fails as well. Government needs to serve the people, business needs to serve the economy. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Fiscally lead, socially follow.

That would be quite the sight to see...maybe one day.

[Public_Domain]

Where does the definition of "liberal" fail to comply with all that though? No one wants "government waste", no one wants the government to be "inefficient", even if they hate government; it's kind of an odd platform point. The liberals seem plenty in love with business + social programs, so where do they fail as far as Red Tories are concerned?

I'm implying things because the idea of Red Tories is incredibly vague. It's one of those moderate self-backpatting things where the ideas involved could be damn near anything economically or socially because of the whole "best of both worlds" ideological melting pot, so my apologies that I don't exactly what you support by only going with what you title yourself. It's a vague title.

I also just don't know how many folks who consider themselves "fiscally conservative" support increased taxation and social programs. Just as I don't know socialists who have a place for the monarchy in their hearts.

If I seem abrasive here, it's because I think socialism needs to be decoupled from this "mixed economy" psuedo-socioeconomic ideology commonly seen in left-wing Canadian nationalists (ie. me 8 years ago). People already confuse it too much to imply it's simply "the government doing stuff" + taxes.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Red Toryism has always been about fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. I like balanced budgets, but see the inherent need in taxation. I like social programs, but want them efficient and effective. I despise government waste, but also feel it's not a business so that model fails as well. Government needs to serve the people, business needs to serve the economy. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Fiscally lead, socially follow.

That would be quite the sight to see...maybe one day.

You just described Alberta politics, up to Jim Prentice.

Fiscally lead + Socially lead is the goal, but I suspect if there is a Kenny era it will be Fiscally Average and Socially regressive.

[DrCaleb]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Where does the definition of "liberal" fail to comply with all that though? No one wants "government waste", no one wants the government to be "inefficient", even if they hate government; it's kind of an odd platform point. The liberals seem plenty in love with business + social programs, so where do they fail as far as Red Tories are concerned?

I'm implying things because the idea of Red Tories is incredibly vague. It's one of those moderate self-backpatting things where the ideas involved could be damn near anything economically or socially because of the whole "best of both worlds" ideological melting pot, so my apologies that I don't exactly what you support by only going with what you title yourself. It's a vague title.

There you go, trying to pigeon hole again! Stop it!

There are many among us here who like our social programs, but don't want them to cost a dime more than they need to. "Red Tory". There are those here who like police, military, roads, firemen . . .all the perks of social responsibility and also despise things like the Sponsorship or HRDC scandals. "Red Tory".

The problem you are encountering trying to define 'Red Tory' on your scale is because it occupies not a spot on a graph, but an area sort of between the Right Center Conservative, the Left Liberal and the upper Authoritarian/lower Libertarian on the political scale. There is no homogeneous 'Red Tory' to define.

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

I also just don't know how many folks who consider themselves "fiscally conservative" support increased taxation and social programs. Just as I don't know socialists who have a place for the monarchy in their hearts.

I didn't say increased taxation, I said I see the need. As minimal as it needs to be to accomplish the greater good.

And Socialists hate the Monarchy because it sets a good moral example that they find hard to emulate.

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

If I seem abrasive here, it's because I think socialism needs to be decoupled from this "mixed economy" psuedo-socioeconomic ideology commonly seen in left-wing Canadian nationalists (ie. me 8 years ago). People already confuse it too much to imply it's simply "the government doing stuff" + taxes.

If you want to live in a free society, then you have to take the political system and economic system pretty much as you find them. If you want to create your own perfect society from the ground up, feel free to start a colony in an uninhabited part of the world, or Mars or something.

[Public_Domain]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

There you go, trying to pigeon hole again! Stop it!

There are many among us here who like our social programs, but don't want them to cost a dime more than they need to. "Red Tory". There are those here who like police, military, roads, firemen . . .all the perks of social responsibility and also despise things like the Sponsorship or HRDC scandals. "Red Tory".

The problem you are encountering trying to define 'Red Tory' on your scale is because it occupies not a spot on a graph, but an area sort of between the Right Center Conservative, the Left Liberal and the upper Authoritarian/lower Libertarian on the political scale. There is no homogeneous 'Red Tory' to define.

I just want a clear understanding, that's all dude.

Suggesting that liberals or whatever's difference here is some perverse compulsion to overspend and waste money is just not a clear ideology in my mind. As if liberals are actually fans of Liberal scandals like the Sponsership. That's like suggesting I'm glad the sparrows were wiped out in China, or that gays were prosecuted in Cuba. It's a lack of nuance on the subject; liberals aren't campaigning on causing scandal and wasting money, no one is, that's not part of anyone's ideology, no matter how cynical I am! And as you point to only scandal as the difference between liberals and Red Tories, I again stress I don't believe that's a true difference in ideology. No ideology desires government waste. There's no Manifesto written where "let's fuck the country up and waste everyone's money" is their ideological crux. It's as much a goal of the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP as it is the "Red Tories". Scandal and failure is a human condition, and it can't simply be escaped with a vague non-ideology.

If the ideology is supposed to just be "liberal-conservative without scandal"; it could just be shortened to "liberal-conservative", which, again, I think is well within the territory of simple modern day liberals. If that's pigeon holing... Well, yeah, I guess. It's politics man, and I like things clear. It's a silly tactic to refuse to show your cards in a game when everyone is expected to.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I didn't say increased taxation, I said I see the need. As minimal as it needs to be to accomplish the greater good.

And Socialists hate the Monarchy because it sets a good moral example that they find hard to emulate.

We hate the monarchy because it's divine and unaccountable governance that we're just sorta supposed to revere, kinda like a CEO today.

A good moral example? Is that what the British Empire has set, as it plundered the world for spices and forced opium on the Chinese? A good moral example? For who?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If you want to live in a free society, then you have to take the political system and economic system pretty much as you find them. If you want to create your own perfect society from the ground up, feel free to start a colony in an uninhabited part of the world, or Mars or something.

This is hardly a response. As if people haven't had and fought for political beliefs outside their current society's situation for millennia. As if society isn't constantly changing, with the most divergent pointed moments of history being at the hand of radical thought. Come on.

EDIT: Listen man, I like you, you're one of my favourite posters here and we've very rarely argued, like maybe twice in the last decade, so please don't take all this personally. I feel NDP-Liberal types need to face arguments from The Left now and then. Can't let you feel too cozy.