I'd heard he was pissed off at the Manning Centre Conference 2009 in Ottawa. But wow! This is almost as exciting as watching Hendrix set his guitar on fire and play it with his teeth!
If he doesn't like the incoherence of the Conservative Party now, he should have spoken up about it more forcefully a long time ago and begun naming and shaming a lot earlier. He's been entirely indifferent to the masses of cretins who support the Conservatives who are irremediably stupid or irredeemably dishonest. And I'm thinking about MP's and Conservative "thinkers" here, not online nobodies.
He also should have been clear that the social conservatives have to find themselves another party. Leaving aside their criminal hypocrisy and commandment-breaking dishonesty, you simply cannot legislate personal morality. Anyone who thinks so doesn't deserve liberal democracy and should be disenfranchised or deported, quite frankly.
Coyne did not say it outright but the implication is clear - this is not the "Conservative party" at all, except perhaps in name. It is the Reform Party who are using trickery and subterfuge to get Canadians to vote for them.
I wonder how many of the doddering old nursing home inhabitants Pierre Poilievre ships to the advanced polls every election to help him win think they are voting for a Bill Davis or even Brian Mulroney PC (or the guy that looks like their grandson) rather than the Preston Manning wingnuts?
I agree with Coyne. The Conservatives shouldn't chase the centre, they should move further right and convince a majority of Canadians to follow them. Good luck with that.
Ti-GuyHe also should have been clear that the social conservatives have to find themselves another party. Leaving aside their criminal hypocrisy and commandment-breaking dishonesty, you simply cannot legislate personal morality. Anyone who thinks so doesn't deserve liberal democracy and should be disenfranchised or deported, quite frankly.
Yup. Agreed. Completely.
Beyond that, Ti-Guy, the interesting complaint you have is that anyone who supports Conservative concepts is a member of the "masses of cretins". Yet, at the same time, you applaud the fact that THAT conservative, and others, speak out against the compromised principals which have raised questions in the party supporters.
The point being - you don't WANT Conservative thinkers. Because those in the Conservative party who challenge the party, who raise the good questions, simply erode your world-vision that anyone who doesn't see things from a liberal persective is, by definition, a "cretin" or a zealot.
On the other hand, I come to this sight, and others, because I happen to think that while I don't agree with them quite often, people like BCL, R/T and James Curran, happen to speak to their cause in an intellectually honest fashion, and raise good and valid points, even when they attack the party I support.
So who's the "cretin"? The person who criticizes the "other party" out of hand, regardless of their point - or the person who sees the warts in their own party from time to time and the value of criticism coming from the "other party"?
You don't need to respond, TG, the question is actually rhetorical, as the answer is self-evident.
(Disregarding most of what Rob wrote, because it's rather muddled)...
Rob: I don't believe these current "Conservatives" are anything but radicals. All of them; the socons and the free market fundamentalists.
Radicals, by definition, support extreme change. In a diverse, democratic society, it is incumbent upon those who are proposing major changes to first indicate that they have assessed the problem adequately and then to argue the case for their proposed solutions.
I see none of this coming from "Conservatives." The cretins can't analyse the issues properly and the non-cretins don't argue their own proposals persuasively.
I have that gut feeling that if Iggy becomes the PM (especially with a majority) he will be more conservative economically than Stephen Harper. Ignatieff won't have the social conservative baggage to carry.
What Coyne said before the clip : "I fear I am here under false pretenses. I was introduced as being a real conservative, somebody who sees things in pure, free-market terms, sort of the good old-fashioned religion.
I’m actually not a conservative — either in name, or in any other way. If forced to describe myself, I’d say I’m a socialist, because by any usual or sensible definition, I would be.
I favour public pensions, public health care, public education, public unemployment insurance. I favour a whole battery of things involving the state function. In fact, I’ve had tangles with some of my conservative friends over things like user fees for health care, or the necessity of carbon taxes to combat global warming."
I drink his tears. They sustain me.
ReplyDeleteIf he doesn't like the incoherence of the Conservative Party now, he should have spoken up about it more forcefully a long time ago and begun naming and shaming a lot earlier. He's been entirely indifferent to the masses of cretins who support the Conservatives who are irremediably stupid or irredeemably dishonest. And I'm thinking about MP's and Conservative "thinkers" here, not online nobodies.
He also should have been clear that the social conservatives have to find themselves another party. Leaving aside their criminal hypocrisy and commandment-breaking dishonesty, you simply cannot legislate personal morality. Anyone who thinks so doesn't deserve liberal democracy and should be disenfranchised or deported, quite frankly.
LOL, Ti-guy wins the thread...
ReplyDeleteCoyne did not say it outright but the implication is clear - this is not the "Conservative party" at all, except perhaps in name. It is the Reform Party who are using trickery and subterfuge to get Canadians to vote for them.
I wonder how many of the doddering old nursing home inhabitants Pierre Poilievre ships to the advanced polls every election to help him win think they are voting for a Bill Davis or even Brian Mulroney PC (or the guy that looks like their grandson) rather than the Preston Manning wingnuts?
Most I'd expect...
Lies. Its all they know.
And Coyne is right but too late to the dance.
I agree with Coyne. The Conservatives shouldn't chase the centre, they should move further right and convince a majority of Canadians to follow them. Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteTi-GuyHe also should have been clear that the social conservatives have to find themselves another party. Leaving aside their criminal hypocrisy and commandment-breaking dishonesty, you simply cannot legislate personal morality. Anyone who thinks so doesn't deserve liberal democracy and should be disenfranchised or deported, quite frankly.
ReplyDeleteYup. Agreed. Completely.
Beyond that, Ti-Guy, the interesting complaint you have is that anyone who supports Conservative concepts is a member of the "masses of cretins". Yet, at the same time, you applaud the fact that THAT conservative, and others, speak out against the compromised principals which have raised questions in the party supporters.
The point being - you don't WANT Conservative thinkers. Because those in the Conservative party who challenge the party, who raise the good questions, simply erode your world-vision that anyone who doesn't see things from a liberal persective is, by definition, a "cretin" or a zealot.
On the other hand, I come to this sight, and others, because I happen to think that while I don't agree with them quite often, people like BCL, R/T and James Curran, happen to speak to their cause in an intellectually honest fashion, and raise good and valid points, even when they attack the party I support.
So who's the "cretin"? The person who criticizes the "other party" out of hand, regardless of their point - or the person who sees the warts in their own party from time to time and the value of criticism coming from the "other party"?
You don't need to respond, TG, the question is actually rhetorical, as the answer is self-evident.
(Disregarding most of what Rob wrote, because it's rather muddled)...
ReplyDeleteRob: I don't believe these current "Conservatives" are anything but radicals. All of them; the socons and the free market fundamentalists.
Radicals, by definition, support extreme change. In a diverse, democratic society, it is incumbent upon those who are proposing major changes to first indicate that they have assessed the problem adequately and then to argue the case for their proposed solutions.
I see none of this coming from "Conservatives." The cretins can't analyse the issues properly and the non-cretins don't argue their own proposals persuasively.
I have that gut feeling that if Iggy becomes the PM (especially with a majority) he will be more conservative economically than Stephen Harper. Ignatieff won't have the social conservative baggage to carry.
ReplyDeleteWhat Coyne said before the clip :
ReplyDelete"I fear I am here under false pretenses. I was introduced as being a real conservative, somebody who sees things in pure, free-market terms, sort of the good old-fashioned religion.
I’m actually not a conservative — either in name, or in any other way. If forced to describe myself, I’d say I’m a socialist, because by any usual or sensible definition, I would be.
I favour public pensions, public health care, public education, public unemployment insurance. I favour a whole battery of things involving the state function. In fact, I’ve had tangles with some of my conservative friends over things like user fees for health care, or the necessity of carbon taxes to combat global warming."