Hey Wilde just remember lefties = morons ........... nothing else to be said or gained by arguing with them.
For those of you who think the NDP should govern federally.
- Thread starter Jethro Bodine
- Start date
Thanks for that ....... yeah maybe I went off the deep end for a bit.
Perpetual bad mood after I got my tax bill.
Well no more political talk for me.
Time to go screw some more spinners with the pennies I have left.
Equating communists and socialists is another piece of brainless, beer parlour populism. No one can believe that and no one does.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but to look at it from the point of view of political philosophy:
from Wikipedia:
This has never happened, and likely never will. No jurisdiction has ever been "communist" in the way Marx meant it. The USSR and Maoist China are best described as "socialist". They called themselves "communist" because the political parties that led these countries called themselves that, as per Lenin's interpretation of communism, use a vanguard party to lead the revolution, and lead they did. Problem is, as Orwell illustrated in "1984", the party actually never lets go, it grows larger and takes over.
from Wikipedia:
My understanding is true communism arrives when the government fades away, and the people are free to use all resources communally because they own them all in common. Marx said this would happen through the natural evolution of society and statelessness would be the end-point.
This has never happened, and likely never will. No jurisdiction has ever been "communist" in the way Marx meant it. The USSR and Maoist China are best described as "socialist". They called themselves "communist" because the political parties that led these countries called themselves that, as per Lenin's interpretation of communism, use a vanguard party to lead the revolution, and lead they did. Problem is, as Orwell illustrated in "1984", the party actually never lets go, it grows larger and takes over.
To answer the OP's question finally:
As of today, I am guaranteed to vote for the NDP federally. The fact that bill S7 was passed by the Conservatives with the support of the Liberals federally has left me no choice. I am sure the people discussing here doesn't require me to explain as they are fairly intelligent.
As of today, I am guaranteed to vote for the NDP federally. The fact that bill S7 was passed by the Conservatives with the support of the Liberals federally has left me no choice. I am sure the people discussing here doesn't require me to explain as they are fairly intelligent.
Correct spelling is "fascist" (as long as we are correcting typos
) but I would essentially agree with your point, in 2013.When the Germans elected a new president in 1933, the ministers expected the economic policy to be implemented would be socialism that leads to communism, because this was THE popular way to go at the time. But that requires nationalizing all the companies in order to be able to control them, and Germany couldn't afford it. So they went to their new leader and asked him how this could possibly be pulled off. With chilling insight and clarity he said, "We don't need to own the companies to control them. We will control the people who control the companies".
I would assert ALL governments EVERYWHERE are fascist-in-evolution; Western civilization just gives the illusion of democratic control by changing governing parties every now and then, but the bureaucracy really runs the place and only grows steadily larger. Modern governments are adept at exerting greater and greater control over any legal entity, whether an individual or a private business.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves" - William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain, 1783 - 1804. You'll never hear a contemporary leader anywhere endorse those words.
Don't vote: You are wasting your time and will be voting for a fascist anyways.
How much of this is actually about trade relations between the U.S. and not combating terrorism. Of course the NDP never voted for it, they stand to scoop up votes from those who oppose the bill if it's passed (as you mention yourself), and stand to scoop up votes if the conservative government is unable to prevent tightening of borders due to Canada not protecting themselves from the american fear machine, and then some major incident happening. Americans have had this legislation for decades, and alot of their public opinion blames canada for being sane and keeping our civil liberties intact.
The Liberals would have voted the same way if they were in the NDP's shoes, as would the conservatives, and every other party.
lol, guilty as chargedCorrect spelling is "fascist" (as long as we are correcting typos
i think there will be alot of people not voting becasue there is no one to vote for...
cunt clark wont get my vote , nor will ndp dix head.... conservatives have been soooo quiet and i kinda like cummings.....he's old school , hates the indian act etc.
yep.... he gets my vote
cunt clark wont get my vote , nor will ndp dix head.... conservatives have been soooo quiet and i kinda like cummings.....he's old school , hates the indian act etc.
yep.... he gets my vote
Apparently this is the thread for stupid commentary.
Anyway, thought I'd add these links for those who prefer to rely on something other than an editorial from 'Sun News' to decide who they want to vote for.
http://www.makeyourmarkubc.ca/party-platforms/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...tforms-on-32-election-issues/article11569057/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/13/bc-vote-compass-twitter-promo.html
Anyway, thought I'd add these links for those who prefer to rely on something other than an editorial from 'Sun News' to decide who they want to vote for.
http://www.makeyourmarkubc.ca/party-platforms/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...tforms-on-32-election-issues/article11569057/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/13/bc-vote-compass-twitter-promo.html
Thanks MB, I found this one particular useful.
While the Liberals gave much more details with numbers in many of the issues, the NDP just gave mostly generic BS statements.
Under "Balanced Budget", the Liberals have this: Keeping public debt down is the key to making B.C. the economic engine of Canada, a place that countries around the world want to invest in and do business with. We can’t afford to go back to years of reckless NDP spending if we are to avoid passing on mountains of debt to our children.
The NDP countered with this: No policies in platform documents.
No kidding, the NDP couldn't balance a cheque book, never mind a budget.
To be fair they never actually "countered" with that, its just a comparison of their published platform documents.
I mean they never published documents on balancing the budget because it never actually occured to them... but I'd rather have no response than the green's plan to return to balanced budgets by driving away corporations and the wealthy while reducing taxes for everyone who stays.
Thanks MB for the links. While I've been through the policy documents for the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP, I had never before really went through the green's platform policies, or gone through any policies point by point with comparisons like the globe and mail article is laid out.
Based entirely on these platforms, In my opinion it looks like the conservatives have one of the top two responses for the majority of the topics, and only a few absolutely terrible responses. The Liberals have quite a few decent responses as well, but more terrible ones than the Conservatives. The NDP and the Greens have a whole lot of terrible responses, but the scope of the horrors they are promoting are vastly different. I used to think the green party was generally harmless, and about as risky economically as the NDP... otherwise, how could they get so many votes? Man was I wrong.
Judging by these policies I believe the current government should put in place a system where by if the Green Party is ever elected into power by the majority, the entire population of the province should be catapulted into the ocean and the province should begin anew. :wave:
The Liberals haven't floated a balanced budget since taking over. Is there a reason why you are not demanding a balanced budget from them? The only reason they are declaring surpluses for four years after this election year (funny how they go from "tough times, recession etc" to "surplus!" once the election is on...) is because they are basically having a fire sale, with BC owned assets as the cheap sell off. That's hardly sustainable, and it certainly isn't anywhere near a good business plan.
At the same time Clark was touting austerity measures, her close friends were awarded massive pay increases for no apparent reason (their workload stayed the same or decreased). Call me crazy, but I don't want that kind of person in power... we need less government, not more (and before you go after the NDP, the right wingers... Liberals/Social Credit/Conservative are traditionally the ones that increase the dead wood in gov't). It's time to take some matches to the whole thing and start fresh.
margaret thatcher, who was the subject of another thread here recently, had this to say about socialism:
'...and socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. they always run out of other people's money. it's quite a characteristic of them.'
yep... :nod:
'...and socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. they always run out of other people's money. it's quite a characteristic of them.'
yep... :nod:
lol... there's a reason why people danced in the streets when she died. She was an evil, conniving piece of work who worked tirelessly to undermine the average British worker. You know, the person who was by and large funding her extravagant life style while in power.
Conservative/right wingers are always laying the financial blame on the lefties, ignoring the fact that they are just as bad, if not worse, than the lefties.
Now, if there ever was a financially conservative but socially left leaning government in power, they would rule for a thousand years. (provided the economy wasn't effed up by world events). By conservative, I mean careful... not what the current conservative party (oops, sorry...Liberals) are... rash spenders without a proper plan other than selling off the province for short term "surplus". I'm tired of being lied to by them... it's time for somebody new.
Conservative/right wingers are always laying the financial blame on the lefties, ignoring the fact that they are just as bad, if not worse, than the lefties.
Now, if there ever was a financially conservative but socially left leaning government in power, they would rule for a thousand years. (provided the economy wasn't effed up by world events). By conservative, I mean careful... not what the current conservative party (oops, sorry...Liberals) are... rash spenders without a proper plan other than selling off the province for short term "surplus". I'm tired of being lied to by them... it's time for somebody new.
Yep, I'd vote for that. Although, its pretty hard to find someone able to spend money socially, yet save money conservatively, and not just be lying.
You've essentially described the short definition of political libertarianism: fiscal conservative, social liberal. In his book "Anarchy, the State and Utopia", Nozick argued this was the only just form of government.
But socialists (of all parties) will always take an active view of social liberalism, they will want to engage in expensive projects, without limits, to help people...and corporations too. The taxpayer gets the bill.
I am less sanguine than you CJ. I think all governments evolve into totalitarianism eventually, even a true libertarian government will be under pressure year-after-year to expand, and after no more than a few hundred years a dystopia such as Orwell and Huxley (and many others) described is inevitable. Look at the evolution of Rome, from republic to despotic empire to, thankfully, decay.
Can you support this statement? Elected politicians (everywhere, in every age, of all political stripes) always ensure themselves of the best standard of living at all times, but it's a stretch to say her lifestyle was extravagant. She was hardly Louis XIV.
