ChuckerCanuck 2.0

Hey Joe Green. Reality calling:

Dion's pick creates rift among Liberals.

"OTTAWA -- Irate supporters of David Orchard are warning that Liberals will lose a coming byelection in Saskatchewan now that Leader Stephane Dion has chosen to appoint an NDP defector as the party's candidate.

And even though Dion's chosen candidate, Joan Beatty, is an aboriginal woman, some native leaders are suggesting it's racist to bypass the democratic nomination contest in the heavily aboriginal riding.

"There is an Indian Affairs mindset and this is it to the core, the old Indian agent mentality we all know too much about," Metis leader Jim Durocher says in an angry letter to Dion.

"The idea that 'we' know better than 'you' the people, what is good for you."

From Chuckers link:

"Campus-club presidents say membership has increased since Prime Minister Stephen Harper took office nearly two years ago. The Conservatives' ascent to power in Ottawa, they say, has had a multiplier effect on campus, enabling clubs to attract centre-leaning students who had not previously identified as conservatives."

Neoconservatism is the political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s. It influenced the Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and the George W. Bush presidential administrations, representing a re-alignment in American politics, and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side."[1] One accomplishment was "to make criticism from the Right acceptable in the intellectual, artistic, and journalistic circles where conservatives had long been regarded with suspicion"

Can't understand why you use neo-con as an epithet, Joe.

Bunch of Liberals coming to their senses and realising what a mess they had made of Government, the Judiciary, the Educational system and the Media just seems all good to me.
 

"today's rebel is a conservative"

Yeppers.
 

I've read several articles over the last year suggesting that "conservatism" is indeed the new wave sweeping through Quebec, particularly amongst younger voters.

Has always been my experience that, if you want to see screaming, ranting ideologues as their absolute worst, you look to the left...especially amongst Dippers.

I think "conservatives" are by far less ideological bent than the rest of the crowd, arguably almost to the point of being the actual antithesis of all things ideology.

Small government, fiscal prudence and freedom aren't ideological "isms". They're just plain common sense.

Harper is often decried by the usual suspects as an "ideologue".

No, he's an "economist".

You want to hear flagrantly ideological idealism and matching rhetoric, tune in to the likes of Dion or Layton for a while, where you'll nothing but until you wanna puke.
 

This is an absolute MUST READ!

He's talking about, IMHO, the single biggest threat to this country's future...if not all of western democracy.
 

thanks for the link springer - that is terrifically blog-worthy.
 

CC, you're welcome...but just be careful what you write, eh?

;-)
 

Are you getting that link around springer ?
 

gol asked,

"Can't understand why you use neo-con as an epithet, Joe."

Its the "neocon" ideology of Ayn Rand, and her atheistic horde that now runs the Excited States of Marka in Washington. They have triggered two unnecessary wars, one with the unilateral invasion of Iraq by the American Army to take over the oil fields for the Bush Family; and a second war that Israel stated with Lebanon, in which that country, on the advice of the real "axis of evil" - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfwitz and little Billy Krystol; brought about the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women and civilians.

This is the same ideology that allowed Ronald Ray Gun to gun down hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, women and children, including Catholic priests and nuns, in Central America. Today, there really is an evil empire in the world, but it is not based in Moscow; its based in Washington.

Its bad enough that these "neocon" criminals robbed the American treasury, and harmed millions of Americans, but they have been spreading their shit to many other countries, including Canada.

The core ideology of the "neocon" is precisely the same ideology that Adoph Hitler adopted for his party in the 1930s, that is to say, fascism. All "neocons" actually want centralized power over everything, and they want their dictatorship to be run by the rich. Communists are no better, its just that they want their dictatorship to be run by the poor.

History teaches us that you cannot do much to reason with fascists, the only thing possible is to either endure their barbarian behavior as Europeans did during World War II, or else you fight and destroy it "unconditionally", and hang the leaders.

Mark Steyn wants a "neocon" dictatorship. Scratch the surface of his articles, and you will discover another Ezra Lavant, huffing and puffing, lying and cheating, slandering and libelling everyone in sight.

What I saw in his article, was not a well reasoned criticism of the Human Rights Commissions, what I saw was a bully. Steyn decided to pick on a quasi-judicial tribunal, that by law can only respond to issues within its jurisidiction, and only in the context of the law. Steyn certainly must know that the Human Right's Tribunals that is so profusely attacks without just cause; the Commission is unable to either respond or attack his lies in the media.

That is why one should spit out the term "neocon" because it truely is evil, on a par with the Islamic fundamentalists, one worse for all its killings around the globe.
 

Joe Green is a little uninformed.
 

...a little???
 

I've had the opportunity to meet and work with some young Conservatives when volunteering in the last election.

Their enthusiasm and energy is infectious. These are kids wise beyond their years, yet still have that optimism and drive of youth. This is what gives me hope.
 

This post has been removed by the author.
 

Joe:

Now I like philosphy with a dose of action thriller as much as the next querist but I think you give poor Ayn a little too much credit. It appears the 50's scarred you for life. Neocons are as much of a Potemkin village as the Liberals regard for Canadians. A facade used to disguise their complete lack of policy, principles or integrity.
BTW, those atheistic hordes you seem to detest so much reside mainly in the Liberal Party and their running dog friends the Dippers. The rest of what you write is too silly for comment. The new year certainly has not started in a positive manner in regards to the immense self improvement you so desperately need. Faire mieux.
 

I have all the dirty bits of Atlas Shrugged dog-eared. The Bible too.
 

Carbon credits: "checkbook environmentalism"...

What a pathetic farce.
 

gol wrote:

"Now I like philosphy with a dose of action thriller as much as the next querist but I think you give poor Ayn a little too much credit."

Hardly. Rand is in the same league as Karl Marx. Both were minor philosophers that put forth propositions that gave licence for others to commit grave crimes against humanity. Stalin liberally used Marx for justification of his barbarian behavior, and we have seen precisely the same phenomina with Rand, where killers and criminals like Howard Hunt, CIA station chief in Guatamula, organized and executed hundreds of thousands of murders in that country, including Catholic priests and nuns, all for the benefit of the Dulles family and their companies that operated large plantations in that country.

Hunt, like Stalin, was a pyschopath. Both men were motivated by the writings of Marx and Rand respectively.

You also ascribe far too much credit to the "good intentions" of these two authors, Marx and Rand. I do not.

Both were students of human nature, and both knew full well that their "ideas" would actually spawn.

Ayn Rand was a spoiled "Jewish Princess" from Moscow, according to a number of her own relatives, and Marx was an anti-social egomaniac in his personal life. I submit that each consciously knew the consequences of what they were advocating other lesser lights do, not unlike a conspiracy to commit murder.

Now, lets address the entire question of "Liberals are actually neocons" as you put forth.

The core "neocon" ideology is essentially facist, it wants to "control" but from the sidelines and the shadows. It wants this not through a public democratic process in Parliament or Congress, but rather a secret private process centered in corporate board rooms. It was no different in the Third Reich.

You can observe this quite simply by looking at what the Carlyle Group has done with the privatization of American Intelligence activities (where former CIA operative Frank Carlucci now works), or by the Blackwater Group of Mercenaries that are hired out to governments to provide "security personnel" all trained by a former Navy Seal in covert warfare.

Abominations like the Carlyle Group, and the Blackwater Group are in the service of private (mostly American corporations). They are not forced to any real accountability, and they are hardly "civilian businessmen".

Corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel are hardly "innocent law abiding companies".

If you would bother to check out the linkages and the network of "directors" for these companies, a rather interesting picture starts to evolve. You might even begin to understand the connections between "intelligence" and "drug dealers", to say nothing of other groups of "organized crime families".

John Edwards is absolutely right to want to "take them on", but even he does not understand that what is actually needed is another Elliot Ness to bust these criminal organizations that have seized and corrupted many governments around the globe, and that its precisely the same corporations that are primarily responsible for the "anti-Americanism" that is now sweeping the planet.

Your point about the "neocons" actually being "Liberals" is almost a slight of hand. I can agree with you that this example on your part applies to "Liberals" like John Manley for example, but I would suggest that he is hardly close to the "core" of the Liberal Party of Canada. I would suggest rather that he could not reach the inner sanctum of the Party, was rejected as its leader for various good reasons, and now finds himself on the outside looking in. Manley is the kind of treacherous political operative that "spys" on an opposition party from "within", and in the context of a democratic country, its "sick" and reprehensible because it simply seeks to "corrupt" the legitimate aspirations of the other members of that party.

Let me make one last point. Most "neocons" (Tom Long, Rod Love, etc, etc) are not individuals that start and operate their own companies. Almost always, they work for others.

David Orchard is a Saskatchewan Farmer, and he does work for himself, and he is hardly a "neocon". But his personal philosophy is not Liberal as much as it is Progressive Conservative, and in line with the "National Policy" of Sir John A. MacDonald.

This past century has been the bloodiest in mankind's history. While the killers were men like Stalin and Hunt, it was Marx and Rand that gave them moral authority for these crimes against humanity.

Remember that Rand supported murderous pirates in her book, in the character of Dagnar, who particularly savoured political assassination of elected officials.

How does that make her any different from Bin Laudin???

Social Liberalism arose from the ashes of World War Two, where the entire civilized world recoiled from the excesses of war. Even hardened communists and capitalists saw the necessity to support joint values that were expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations, and to participate in the United Nations as Charter Founding Members as a means to deter future wars.

Social Liberalism holds that "all men are equal before the law", and that all men have the right to associate freely with each other, including trade unions, and religious organizations, provided always that such association is peaceful with others.

It holds that all children deserve an equal starting point unrelated to family wealth, and that education is a matter of "right".

It holds that all people are entitled to "dignity" (to use a Vatican term) and that medical care is not to be withheld to any human being that requires it because of any reason such as race, colour or creed, or the size of his wallet.

It inherently believes in the necessity of a "middle class" that is dominant, wealthy, and powerful.

Social Liberalism takes an activist stance against poverty, against ignorance and illiteracy, and against sickness and disease. It seeks to "lift" the lower portions of society to its own level, and its not ashamed to use public funds to achieve those ends.

But it also has more. Social Liberalism takes measures to deal with the other extreme, the excessively rich. It previously has heavily taxed the upper income groups by taxing away excess incomes.

To this day, Social Liberalism dominates the salary structures of CEO's in Japan where excess salaries are frowned upon by shareholders and the general population itself.

You cannot achieve the goals of building a strong middle class without regulation, often substantial regulation and taxation policy.

The "neocon" --- "neo-conservative" facists, are actually economic anarchists. They want NO LIMITS in ANY FORM that limits their actions and choices.

The facts are that anarchy have NEVER produced stable governments or stable societies. NOT EVEN ONCE in man's history has this worked.

Von Mises, for example, like Rand engages in circular arguements to somehow justify the same unworkable ideas that Milton Freedman generates in Chicago. But Von Mises, like Ayn Rand, like Milton Freedman, like Alan Greenspan, are all engaging in a fraud, and participate in deceiving the public. They do it for personal gain and like P.T Barnum, they wish to harvest a large catch from a gullible public.
The "Reagan Revolution" was a rebellion against the regulation and laws set in place after World War Two that helped build the prosperity of the Middle Class which is now disappating from North America and drifting to China.

The "end point" of social liberalism is a powerful and large "middle class". The "end point of neoconservative ideas is a "two class society".

I support the necessity for a large and powerful middle class because it alone can prevent wars.

You need look no further than the US for proof of this idea. Today, even a tattered and injured middle class is basically ending the Bush War in Iraq. They have the power and the means to accomplish this task through the ballot box.

The 2008 US elections are going to be a watershed year that marks the end of the "neocon" experiment that began with Barry Goldwater, and his "extremism" arguements. We see that his political ideas have come full circle, where "extremism" begets "extremism".

For Goldwater, Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, what has actually taken place follows the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

Social Liberalism is the means to a large and powerful middle class. Its the means to world peace, just as the Allied Powers forsaw in their planning for the end of World War II. And social Liberalism is what prevented a hot war from breaking out during the Cold War.

It was "social liberalism" that built and maintained the bridge between Europe and North America all during the Cold War years, and its the recent "neocon" influences that have irreparably damaged that vital alliance in NATO.

It was "social liberalism" that Mike Pearson used to generate and support "military peacekeeping" in the aftermath of the Anglo-French invasion of Suez, which both Canada and the US opposed, and ultimately prevailed over the French and the British.

Finally, read up your history of Europe, and see if you can see why "two class systems" always produce endless cycles of war. Its only with the rise of the European middle classes, that we have seen the end of the vicious cycle of European wars, that are always started by the "rich" who finance secret schemes and secret armies.

If you ever needed any proof of the proposition, look no further than Bin Laudin himself, for proof that too much money in too few hands, is a formula for the making of more Bin Laudins.

You also need to ask yourself about the middle class in India as a force for peace, and then contrast that to the non-existance of a middle class in Communist China, and the inherent dangers of a rearmed China with modern weapons and missile systems capable of attacking and defeating America and Russia at the same time.

Not that actual defence issues ever interested the "neocons".

Real Peace does not interest "neocons". And since Peace, Order and Good Government is the bedrock of the Canadian Constitution, that is why I insist that "neocons" have no place in Canadian political life, and that we should run them out of the country by the most direct routes possible.

I will grant "conservatives" and "tories" a legitimate political existance, but "neocons" and "fascists" have no place in our country. Neither do terrorists.

They are "moral equivalents".
 

Joe Green, the character's name was Ragnar...not DAGNAR...he was the philosopher pirate. He could grab my booty any day of the week. Shiver me timbers, matey...
 

The quantity of your words belie the paucity of your ideas. And you seem kind of stuck on labels. Erroneous ones at that. But we can play that game also. Isn't Rod Love that famous Liberals manager? Belinda? Is not the only Canadian on the Carlyle Groups board everyone's favourite Liberal, Frank McKenna? Did Reagan's tax cuts not have something to do with the last 25 years of great economic progress for a " large and powerful middle class"?

An even more astounding statement from anyone who purports to have read a book-

' that is why I insist that "neocons" have no place in Canadian political life, and that we should run them out of the country by the most direct routes possible."

So political opinion is a deportation offence in your world? Seems like you personify what you abhor. As your word outport increases you get smaller and smaller. You're either a fool , a liar or a Prog. Do recognize the commonality.
 

Dagnar? Without a doubt the ugliest son of a bitch I've ever seen in my life!

Ooops, sorry, I used to sing a Zappa covers band, thought I heard my cue there. Don't mind me, carry on.
 

Chucker :

Re :

'Today's rebel is a conservative.'

Brilliant , indeed .

I've also felt that way for years,
and no doubt, we are not alone ...

Might make a great bumper-sticker,
if not for the fact that a fringe lefty (or not so fringe) might scratch up one's car...

Now , THERE'S , the difference , between the political spectrums...

A sanctimonious , lack of class ...


Machiavellian / Midnight Tory
 

Bruce Feldthusen, vice-president of university relations at the University of Ottawa, called the Conservative ad campaign an attempt to "demonize" academia.

The campus club there should run with that endorsement on their next poster.
 

Yeah , I was wondurin' if anyone else noticed that ...

It made me chuckle ...

The're so devilishly , predictable...


(Might make a cool attack ad ... for ANY Party , that has the profound insight , to check out Chucker's blog first...) .


Machiavellian Tory
 

My 'slogan(s)' , that is ...