Tuesday, January 24, 2006
I Ain't No Stinkin' Conservative!
This morning somebody referred to me as a Conservative. I tried to explain that, just because I voted for a Conservative candidate, and wanted the Conservatives to win the election; does not make me a Conservative.
Here are some Conservative beliefs that I don't ascribe to:
At the same time, if a majority of people in this country think that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, fine. I think there should be a free, wide-open debate on the subject, and then a vote. I'm not so presumptious as to tell everybody that I'm right, they're wrong, and its my way or the high way. Thats not how democracies work.
As for Harper (note Harper, not the Conservative Party of Canada) supporting the war at the time, it really doesn't bother me. The country was split on that about 50/50, and Harper was the only leader on the attack side, so what.
As great as Kyoto is, it's time has come. It's a brutally old agreement, and Canada's been shit at keeping up its part of the agreement. To me, the fact that Kyoto isn't reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, means that its time to look at other alternatives. And just to rub it in the faces of the lefty-enviro-freaks, I point you to the United States of America, they've been doing much better than us without Kyoto (gasp).
As for heathcare, it's broken. I think that most Canadians are too proud to admit it, but its broke as shit. The current system is forcing people in pain to live with it longer. It's illegal to seek out medical treatment in Canada that isn't provided by the government. And as if long lineups aren't bad enough, those lineups are full of people that could very very easily afford to pay for their own health care. Where is the justice in forcing two people to wait for the same free space, when one's willing and able to pay for a space elsewhere, leaving the free one for the other individual? The healthcare system in this country used to ensure that everybody was treated equally. Now the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and every other lefty out there just wants to make sure everybody suffers equally.
You see, somewhere along the line in this country, we missed the point. The point of EVERYTHING. You see, Healthcare for example, should be about health care, not politics. If theres a lineup of people at the hospital waiting to get treatment, the healthcare system should do something about it. What the healthcare system shouldn't be worrying about, is weather or not somebodies toes are being stepped on. That is not the job of the healthcare system, that job belongs to your dance instructor.
Thats how this country has lost its way. I don't know when or where it happened. When did we start focusing on the rear-view mirror, instead of looking at the wide-open, beautifully paved #1 Highway in front of us? When did we become so preoccupied with who we might have left behind, that we forgot where we were going?
The fact of the matter is, that the only real difference between the Conservative Party and the rest, in this election, were their views on the roll of government. Their platforms were all pretty much the same. They all had a childcare program, they all had a healthcare fix, they all had a cure for crime, and they all had a tax plan.
The core difference between the Conservatives and the liberal parties' platforms were what roll the government should play in implementing these platforms. The liberal answer for any question is: government program. Use the tax-payers dollars to provide them with a service.
The Conservatives' answer to the same question: instead of spending the tax-payers money on a program, lets give it back to them, and let them do what they want with it.
Just thinking about this makes me wanna run out and spend every dime I have on "beer and popcorn". The Liberal party is of the belief that government can provide everything that people need. They think that if people are given all of their basic needs by the government, the people will build a stronger economy. Of course what this theory misses out on, is that not all people need the same things, or want the same things. The government can not provide everything for everybody. Its not possible. It's NOT POSSIBLE. People are ambitious, creative, and greedy. If given something, we always want more. We innovate, create, and sometimes steal to do so, but its that freedom to improve ourselves and our lives that seperates people from the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
A right-wing view of government is different. Conservative governments believe that the role of the government should be limited. It's the idea that YOU know best what YOU need (sounds funny, eh)? And this is where another seperation between left- and right-mindedness comes up.
A lefty-freak will say, "What about those who CAN'T take care of themselves?". My response would be, that if I was taxed less by the government, I would be able to voluntarily contribute to help those who can't take care of themselves. And thats the rub.
The left-wing doesn't believe that people in general can take care of themselves. We're all going to "blow it on beer and popcorn". We citizens are just a bunch of dumb-fucks that do the grunt work, we're as good as clones, thank goodness the government is there to generously provide for us.
I am looking forward to this Conservative government focusing on giving Canadians the freedoms we once had in this great land. We don't need another 12 years of wasteful gun laws, over-paid government baby-sitters, squabling about what to call two homo's who live together.
Some say "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", I try to live by "You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone". So can't we all just get along (or does it cost a tooth and an eye)?
Here are some Conservative beliefs that I don't ascribe to:
- I believe that women should have the right to choose
- I don't have a problem with same-sex marriage
- I don't think the Iraq war was necessary
- I think Kyoto is a really great idea
- I don't think that god, allah, or buddah have any place governing this country
- I believe that all people should have access to health-care, no matter what
At the same time, if a majority of people in this country think that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, fine. I think there should be a free, wide-open debate on the subject, and then a vote. I'm not so presumptious as to tell everybody that I'm right, they're wrong, and its my way or the high way. Thats not how democracies work.
As for Harper (note Harper, not the Conservative Party of Canada) supporting the war at the time, it really doesn't bother me. The country was split on that about 50/50, and Harper was the only leader on the attack side, so what.
As great as Kyoto is, it's time has come. It's a brutally old agreement, and Canada's been shit at keeping up its part of the agreement. To me, the fact that Kyoto isn't reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, means that its time to look at other alternatives. And just to rub it in the faces of the lefty-enviro-freaks, I point you to the United States of America, they've been doing much better than us without Kyoto (gasp).
As for heathcare, it's broken. I think that most Canadians are too proud to admit it, but its broke as shit. The current system is forcing people in pain to live with it longer. It's illegal to seek out medical treatment in Canada that isn't provided by the government. And as if long lineups aren't bad enough, those lineups are full of people that could very very easily afford to pay for their own health care. Where is the justice in forcing two people to wait for the same free space, when one's willing and able to pay for a space elsewhere, leaving the free one for the other individual? The healthcare system in this country used to ensure that everybody was treated equally. Now the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and every other lefty out there just wants to make sure everybody suffers equally.
You see, somewhere along the line in this country, we missed the point. The point of EVERYTHING. You see, Healthcare for example, should be about health care, not politics. If theres a lineup of people at the hospital waiting to get treatment, the healthcare system should do something about it. What the healthcare system shouldn't be worrying about, is weather or not somebodies toes are being stepped on. That is not the job of the healthcare system, that job belongs to your dance instructor.
Thats how this country has lost its way. I don't know when or where it happened. When did we start focusing on the rear-view mirror, instead of looking at the wide-open, beautifully paved #1 Highway in front of us? When did we become so preoccupied with who we might have left behind, that we forgot where we were going?
The fact of the matter is, that the only real difference between the Conservative Party and the rest, in this election, were their views on the roll of government. Their platforms were all pretty much the same. They all had a childcare program, they all had a healthcare fix, they all had a cure for crime, and they all had a tax plan.
The core difference between the Conservatives and the liberal parties' platforms were what roll the government should play in implementing these platforms. The liberal answer for any question is: government program. Use the tax-payers dollars to provide them with a service.
The Conservatives' answer to the same question: instead of spending the tax-payers money on a program, lets give it back to them, and let them do what they want with it.
Just thinking about this makes me wanna run out and spend every dime I have on "beer and popcorn". The Liberal party is of the belief that government can provide everything that people need. They think that if people are given all of their basic needs by the government, the people will build a stronger economy. Of course what this theory misses out on, is that not all people need the same things, or want the same things. The government can not provide everything for everybody. Its not possible. It's NOT POSSIBLE. People are ambitious, creative, and greedy. If given something, we always want more. We innovate, create, and sometimes steal to do so, but its that freedom to improve ourselves and our lives that seperates people from the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
A right-wing view of government is different. Conservative governments believe that the role of the government should be limited. It's the idea that YOU know best what YOU need (sounds funny, eh)? And this is where another seperation between left- and right-mindedness comes up.
A lefty-freak will say, "What about those who CAN'T take care of themselves?". My response would be, that if I was taxed less by the government, I would be able to voluntarily contribute to help those who can't take care of themselves. And thats the rub.
The left-wing doesn't believe that people in general can take care of themselves. We're all going to "blow it on beer and popcorn". We citizens are just a bunch of dumb-fucks that do the grunt work, we're as good as clones, thank goodness the government is there to generously provide for us.
I am looking forward to this Conservative government focusing on giving Canadians the freedoms we once had in this great land. We don't need another 12 years of wasteful gun laws, over-paid government baby-sitters, squabling about what to call two homo's who live together.
Some say "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", I try to live by "You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone". So can't we all just get along (or does it cost a tooth and an eye)?
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Several things:
-if you're a conservative voter, expect to be called a conservative, or a hypocrit
-what makes you think that the majority's opinion on gay marriage would be right? Was the majority of the Confederate states right about slavery?
-how does Canada's shitty record on following Kyoto detract from the Kyoto protocol at all? Are you actually buying into Stephen F. Harper's plan, rather than what 160 nations met on and agreed to ratify? And since when is 1997 brutally old? If anything, we're worse off now, and need higher targets than we did in 1997
-platforms are all pretty much the same? Did Helen Keller write this post?!
-stop painting the Liberal party like a communist party. They give your Conservative-friendly corporate tax cuts (from which I've seen direct benefits), and they've reduced personal income tax.
-you honestly think that if you were taxed less, you'd voluntarily contribute to help those who can't take care of themselves? Why don't we just double your salary, you'll be the next Mother Theresa!
In this entire article, you haven't seen past the "woe is me, I'm a western Canadian in Liberal Canada" ideology. It's easy to take a shit on a 12 year stretch of any government's reign in the history of our civilization. Funny how Stephen Harper kept stopping himself there, it's a good thing he didn't slip and say 13.
All Stephen Harper had to do was say "Hey, the Liberal party thinks parents can't raise their children" and you swallowed that shit whole, and continue to spew it out.
The "you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" attitude just doesn't survive in Canada. It's not how the natives have survived Canadian winters for hundreds of years, and it's not how our market survives today. That sort of thought should be reserved for the likes of the Michigan Militia, or the Minute Men.
Wasn't there a Libertarian Party candidate in your area? If not, what's stopping you?
-if you're a conservative voter, expect to be called a conservative, or a hypocrit
-what makes you think that the majority's opinion on gay marriage would be right? Was the majority of the Confederate states right about slavery?
-how does Canada's shitty record on following Kyoto detract from the Kyoto protocol at all? Are you actually buying into Stephen F. Harper's plan, rather than what 160 nations met on and agreed to ratify? And since when is 1997 brutally old? If anything, we're worse off now, and need higher targets than we did in 1997
-platforms are all pretty much the same? Did Helen Keller write this post?!
-stop painting the Liberal party like a communist party. They give your Conservative-friendly corporate tax cuts (from which I've seen direct benefits), and they've reduced personal income tax.
-you honestly think that if you were taxed less, you'd voluntarily contribute to help those who can't take care of themselves? Why don't we just double your salary, you'll be the next Mother Theresa!
In this entire article, you haven't seen past the "woe is me, I'm a western Canadian in Liberal Canada" ideology. It's easy to take a shit on a 12 year stretch of any government's reign in the history of our civilization. Funny how Stephen Harper kept stopping himself there, it's a good thing he didn't slip and say 13.
All Stephen Harper had to do was say "Hey, the Liberal party thinks parents can't raise their children" and you swallowed that shit whole, and continue to spew it out.
The "you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" attitude just doesn't survive in Canada. It's not how the natives have survived Canadian winters for hundreds of years, and it's not how our market survives today. That sort of thought should be reserved for the likes of the Michigan Militia, or the Minute Men.
Wasn't there a Libertarian Party candidate in your area? If not, what's stopping you?
-First of all, I do expect to be called a Conservative, which is why I wrote the post. To clarify that I'm not. And I don't see how voting for the Party that nearest represents my views makes me a hypocrite. Should I not vote at all? I have far too much respect for democracy to not vote, THAT would be hypocritical of me.
-Comparing the gay marriage debate, and slavery? Seriously? Not only is that brutally offensive to any black person on the PLANET, it's also terribly inaccurate. I don't recall ever hearing about hundreds of thousands of homosexuals being rounded up, taken into captivity, and treated worse than animals for several GENERATIONS. At least I don't have two cabana boys tied up in my closet (ya, its a cheap shot). Homosexuals have every right of a straight person in Canada. A gay man, can marry a gay woman, and they can call it a marriage. Two gays can hook up together, and call it a civil union, which has all the same rights as a marriage, but its just not good enough. The debate is over words, not any friggin' rights. It lacks slightly in nobility, where the slavery "debate" does not. I do believe that gays should have all the same rights as straight people. I also think Oranges and Apples should have the same rights, but does that mean that I have to start calling them all Oranges? Not to mention the ridiculous legal quagmire this could put us in with common-law relationships. If you have a roommate for more than 6 months, does that person automatically become your common-law spouse? The government wouldn't be able to base the decision on sex, so I don't see any way around it.
The other interesting history about slavery in the US, is that, contrary to popular belief, it didn't start with a bunch of angry white men going to Africa, stealing peoples babies, and using them as labour. It started with "indebted servants" from Europe, who were basically voluntary slaves, except that they were only indebted to their master for 7 years. This was the sacrifice they had to make to come to the new world, and make a better lives for themselves. The problem arose when these "servants" became free. They had watched their Masters get rich on the fruits of their labour, and they were pissed because they couldn't bring their own "servants" over. So they resorted to slavery instead. It was then a shitty court ruling that outraged the North. And contrary to popular belief, slavery wasn't really the issue of the civil war. The northern states were pissed that the rich plantation owners in the south were imposing their slavery laws across all the states, against the will of most of the people in the north. It was the lack of individual state-liberty, in regards to slavery laws, that caused the civil war. And as usual, when the side of Liberty won, things turned out not-so-terrible for everybody involved (minus the generations of slavery, and the god awful violent war that turned a country upside down, for the better). So to answer your question, NO I don't think the majority of people in the confederate states were right about slavery. I do think the majority of Americans were right however, as was proven when the North won the civil war, and the laws that the United States has enacted (or repealled) since then has tried to ensure that no federal government, or state government can forcefully impose their will on the people of any state. And the Liberal government is trying to forcefully impose their definition of marriage on the people of Canada, wrongfully.
-As for Kyoto, I think its quite possible that 160 nations agreed upon a watered-down shit proposal, that exempted the worlds biggest pollutors for economic reasons, and put the entire onus on technologically developed nations, and will prove to be crippling to thrid world nations. I think that setting "higher targets" would be pretty similar to Paul Martin re-banning hand-guns. If a person doesn't do their job at work, they get fired, and somebody who WILL do the job is hired. You don't give the lazy-bastard a promotion, and hope that'll motivate him.
-Helen Keller may not have had a direct roll in writing that post, but she was an inspirational contributor (considering we're talking about totalitarian government opression... and that the only reason you mention her is because of her physical handicap, rather than her absolute strength of character :).
-The Liberal Party in general is not communist. In the last several years, I don't think they've been too far off from Communism though. At least the NDP keeps it real. Those Corporate tax-cuts you speak of are the Liberal Party selling their soul for corporate votes (and lining their own pockets in the process, they're not the most up-front bunch, you know). And it worked. The personal income-tax cut was a good thing, but definetly far too small.
-I KNOW FOR A FACT that if I was taxed less I'd contribute more to those who can't help themselves! Do you truly believe that the Liberal Party is more generous, compassionate and caring than the average Canadian? As for Mother Theresa, well she's a saint. Those were miracles that she pulled off, not your every day good-deed. Some give the credit to God working through her. Personally, I think she took it upon herself to make the world a better place for people, without putting the responsibility of doing so on an outside agency, like a church, or a government, or a charity. She sucked it up and did it herself. She's the (wo)man.
Provincial autonomy is not a Western-based ideal. It's more Quebec based than anything, but I agree with it. This is also why the Conservative Party picked up seats in Quebec.
If you think that the Conservatives winning this election are going to stop me for one damn second from bitching about shitty government policy, think again. I don't think that Stephen Harper is going to cure every one of this countries ills. I'm also pretty sure that the Conservative's will pass legislation that will piss me off. And I'll btich and scream when they do, even though I voted for them. Thats what accountability is about. If you don't hold your government responsible for it's fuck-ups, you can't really expect to have good government.
They say that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So it follows that all governments will become corrupt over time. The only way to temper this trend is by throwing the corrupt bastards out on their asses, and replacing them with not-so-corrupt-bastards. It's the institution thats corrupt, not the individuals that make it up.
No, there was no Libertarian candidate in my riding. And I did think about running as a Libertarian at one point. The only problem with that, is that to run for a party, you have to be a party member. And you can only be a member of one party in this country, so I'd have to basically commit myself to the Libertarian party for life. I have a tough enough time commiting to a birthday party as it is.
Post a Comment
-Comparing the gay marriage debate, and slavery? Seriously? Not only is that brutally offensive to any black person on the PLANET, it's also terribly inaccurate. I don't recall ever hearing about hundreds of thousands of homosexuals being rounded up, taken into captivity, and treated worse than animals for several GENERATIONS. At least I don't have two cabana boys tied up in my closet (ya, its a cheap shot). Homosexuals have every right of a straight person in Canada. A gay man, can marry a gay woman, and they can call it a marriage. Two gays can hook up together, and call it a civil union, which has all the same rights as a marriage, but its just not good enough. The debate is over words, not any friggin' rights. It lacks slightly in nobility, where the slavery "debate" does not. I do believe that gays should have all the same rights as straight people. I also think Oranges and Apples should have the same rights, but does that mean that I have to start calling them all Oranges? Not to mention the ridiculous legal quagmire this could put us in with common-law relationships. If you have a roommate for more than 6 months, does that person automatically become your common-law spouse? The government wouldn't be able to base the decision on sex, so I don't see any way around it.
The other interesting history about slavery in the US, is that, contrary to popular belief, it didn't start with a bunch of angry white men going to Africa, stealing peoples babies, and using them as labour. It started with "indebted servants" from Europe, who were basically voluntary slaves, except that they were only indebted to their master for 7 years. This was the sacrifice they had to make to come to the new world, and make a better lives for themselves. The problem arose when these "servants" became free. They had watched their Masters get rich on the fruits of their labour, and they were pissed because they couldn't bring their own "servants" over. So they resorted to slavery instead. It was then a shitty court ruling that outraged the North. And contrary to popular belief, slavery wasn't really the issue of the civil war. The northern states were pissed that the rich plantation owners in the south were imposing their slavery laws across all the states, against the will of most of the people in the north. It was the lack of individual state-liberty, in regards to slavery laws, that caused the civil war. And as usual, when the side of Liberty won, things turned out not-so-terrible for everybody involved (minus the generations of slavery, and the god awful violent war that turned a country upside down, for the better). So to answer your question, NO I don't think the majority of people in the confederate states were right about slavery. I do think the majority of Americans were right however, as was proven when the North won the civil war, and the laws that the United States has enacted (or repealled) since then has tried to ensure that no federal government, or state government can forcefully impose their will on the people of any state. And the Liberal government is trying to forcefully impose their definition of marriage on the people of Canada, wrongfully.
-As for Kyoto, I think its quite possible that 160 nations agreed upon a watered-down shit proposal, that exempted the worlds biggest pollutors for economic reasons, and put the entire onus on technologically developed nations, and will prove to be crippling to thrid world nations. I think that setting "higher targets" would be pretty similar to Paul Martin re-banning hand-guns. If a person doesn't do their job at work, they get fired, and somebody who WILL do the job is hired. You don't give the lazy-bastard a promotion, and hope that'll motivate him.
-Helen Keller may not have had a direct roll in writing that post, but she was an inspirational contributor (considering we're talking about totalitarian government opression... and that the only reason you mention her is because of her physical handicap, rather than her absolute strength of character :).
-The Liberal Party in general is not communist. In the last several years, I don't think they've been too far off from Communism though. At least the NDP keeps it real. Those Corporate tax-cuts you speak of are the Liberal Party selling their soul for corporate votes (and lining their own pockets in the process, they're not the most up-front bunch, you know). And it worked. The personal income-tax cut was a good thing, but definetly far too small.
-I KNOW FOR A FACT that if I was taxed less I'd contribute more to those who can't help themselves! Do you truly believe that the Liberal Party is more generous, compassionate and caring than the average Canadian? As for Mother Theresa, well she's a saint. Those were miracles that she pulled off, not your every day good-deed. Some give the credit to God working through her. Personally, I think she took it upon herself to make the world a better place for people, without putting the responsibility of doing so on an outside agency, like a church, or a government, or a charity. She sucked it up and did it herself. She's the (wo)man.
Provincial autonomy is not a Western-based ideal. It's more Quebec based than anything, but I agree with it. This is also why the Conservative Party picked up seats in Quebec.
If you think that the Conservatives winning this election are going to stop me for one damn second from bitching about shitty government policy, think again. I don't think that Stephen Harper is going to cure every one of this countries ills. I'm also pretty sure that the Conservative's will pass legislation that will piss me off. And I'll btich and scream when they do, even though I voted for them. Thats what accountability is about. If you don't hold your government responsible for it's fuck-ups, you can't really expect to have good government.
They say that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So it follows that all governments will become corrupt over time. The only way to temper this trend is by throwing the corrupt bastards out on their asses, and replacing them with not-so-corrupt-bastards. It's the institution thats corrupt, not the individuals that make it up.
No, there was no Libertarian candidate in my riding. And I did think about running as a Libertarian at one point. The only problem with that, is that to run for a party, you have to be a party member. And you can only be a member of one party in this country, so I'd have to basically commit myself to the Libertarian party for life. I have a tough enough time commiting to a birthday party as it is.
Links to this post:
<< Home
