Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation and pursuant to our Monday night jazz show, here are Lionel Hampton, Benny Goodman, et al performing the Stealin Apples scene from the 1948 musical A Song is Born (3:43).
Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.
Hardboiled: don’t fret. It is biologically and psychologically impossible to crack through the mindset of a hyper-partisan.
And really we should be thanking ET. He has made our lives easier. No longer do we the sheeple have to fret about who is or is not a conservative, what is or is not a conservative principle. ET reigns over us and has simplified conservativism for us all. If you support Harper uncritically, then and only then will The Great and Mighty ET deign you worthy of being a conservative. If criticize Harper, if you think fiscal prudence is important, if you don’t drink the kool-aid, if you think for yourself then, obviously, are a liberal. There can be no disputing it. ET has said it is so.
/sarc
Harper can and has accomplished much. He is clearly the better choice of a bunch of bad choices. I will vote for him. He will win and, in this contest in this context, I will be glad.
But I will never call unchecked record-breaking spending “conservative”. I will never call unchecked record-breaking spending on opinion polls either “conservative” or governing by principle. I will never call pork barrel politics “conservative”. I will never call corporate welfare “conservative”, especially after vowing not to do it. I will never call regional pork barrel development programs “conservative”. I will never call giving some provinces more seats in Parliament because they voted in more Conservatives either “conservative” or democratic (and Harper and Flaherty and Pollievre and Van Loan can take their hatred for voters in the “small province of the federation” and shove deep up their asses). I will never call support for the HRCs and section 13 “conservative”. I will never call appointing unaccountable senators and making them prominent cabinet ministers “conservative”. I will never call a restriction on my freedom to do with my money what I want, including help my local candidate as much as I want against vested liberal interests and their MSM cheerleaders, “conservative”. I will never call embracing and encouraging floor crossers “conservative”. I will never call covering up report after report “conservative”. I will never call the in-and-out scam “conservative”.
Obviously you so ET.
I don’t have to prove my conservative bona fides to the likes of you, ET, who live off the public dime. I earn my own living.
It is blind followers like you, ET, that allow former conservatives to get and hold power for its own sake. Shame.
Hardboiled:
You’ve spent months on here trying to foment “rebellion”.
How’s that working for you? Appears to me, you are an army of one.
And if it’s really only a case of you being slow on the uptake, let me help you out:
Harper is, has been, and probably always will be, up to his a** in alligators.
He’s trying to win a war. People here understand that.
With a little “seasoning ” you might also.
Besides, from the horse’s mouth: “Change will be incremental”.
Anyone who tells you different is a liar, a fool, or a Liberal.
Hardboiled: don’t fret. It is biologically and psychologically impossible to crack through the mindset of a hyper-partisan.
And really we should be thanking ET. He has made our lives easier. No longer do we the sheeple have to fret about who is or is not a conservative, what is or is not a conservative principle. ET reigns over us and has simplified conservativism for us all. If you support Harper uncritically, then and only then will The Great and Mighty ET deign you worthy of being a conservative. If criticize Harper, if you think fiscal prudence is important, if you don’t drink the kool-aid, if you think for yourself then, obviously, are a liberal. There can be no disputing it. ET has said it is so.
/sarc
Harper can and has accomplished much. He is clearly the better choice of a bunch of bad choices. I will vote for him. He will win and, in this contest in this context, I will be glad.
But I will never call unchecked record-breaking spending “conservative”. I will never call unchecked record-breaking spending on opinion polls either “conservative” or governing by principle. I will never call pork barrel politics “conservative”. I will never call corporate welfare “conservative”, especially after vowing not to do it. I will never call regional pork barrel development programs “conservative”. I will never call giving some provinces more seats in Parliament because they voted in more Conservatives either “conservative” or democratic (and Harper and Flaherty and Pollievre and Van Loan can take their hatred for voters in the “small province of the federation” and shove deep up their asses). I will never call support for the HRCs and section 13 “conservative”. I will never call appointing unaccountable senators and making them prominent cabinet ministers “conservative”. I will never call a restriction on my freedom to do with my money what I want, including help my local candidate as much as I want against vested liberal interests and their MSM cheerleaders, “conservative”. I will never call embracing and encouraging floor crossers “conservative”. I will never call covering up report after report “conservative”. I will never call the in-and-out scam “conservative”.
Obviously you so ET.
I don’t have to prove my conservative bona fides to the likes of you, ET, who live off the public dime. I earn my own living.
It is blind followers like you, ET, that allow former conservatives to get and hold power for its own sake. Shame.
ATACL – heh. You have a lot of ‘never’s, don’t you. Right there, that makes you not a conservative, because a conservative isn’t trapped within a ‘necessary’ ideology, but focuses on the pragmatic realities of the situation.
Your use of ‘unchecked’ (spending etc) is hyperbole.
I don’t know what ‘pork barrel politics’ means in this situation. Examples?
Sorry, but Harper has no authority to give to, or take seats from, the provinces. That’s under the rule of Elections Canada and constitutional formulae. Incredible that you could seriously state that a PM could increase/decrease provincial seats in the House. Whew.
No, Harper doesn’t support the HRCs. Have you read his comments on them? But he can’t do anything about them without a majority. Of course, you don’t understand that.
Tough – we have a Westminster parliamentary system which is based around appointments rather than elections. Until that changes – and a majority is required for such deep structural changes – your view is irrelevant. The fact is, even though Harper would like the Senate elected, it is appointed.
Whether you think that such people should be useless idiots as so many are, or, those who are useful..made use of..that’s another issue. Nothing to do with ‘Being Conservative’.
I have no idea what restrictions are placed on you about helping your local candidate. Nothing to do with ‘Being Conservative’. If you are talking about money, then, I’m all in favour of restricting the amounts people can donate to politicians. The Liberal Regime was based on enormous ‘donations’ from corporations, unions, and individuals…and was the cause of much of the corruption of our system.
I agree – floor crossers aren’t ‘conservative’. But, we have no rules against them. Surely you aren’t talking about Garth Turner and Belinda?
Covering up reports? No idea what you are talking about.
Again – what you are ignoring are the basic principles of Conservatvism; that focus on the middle class, individualism, lower taxes, decentralization of powers.
I’d suggest you not get into name-calling and ad hominem…That’s such a ‘Liberal’ characteristic. Ah well, and here you are, calling yourself a Conservative..and yet..moving immediately into the name-calling, the insults, the personal. There goes integrity..
I don’t live off any public dime and never have; I work for a living and have earned every cent I’ve made. But again, integrity is a Conservative trait, while name-calling is a Liberal trait. Cheers..
Are there any more conservatives: ET makes some very good points in rebuttal to your hatchet job of Sarah Palin.
It’s patently unfair to take talks/speeches she has given to Christians in their churches as representative of what–or how–she would share with a secular, political audience.
When I have spoken to church groups, the vocabulary I use is particular to that group. In other words, I talk about a personal relationship with God and what His plans for me/us might be, in language that the group to whom I’m speaking understands and relates to.
On the other hand, in another setting, I would avoid the mention of God or His plans (even if I was clear that God and His plans were part of the equation: That’s between God and me).
Look, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are assured in both the United States and Canada, and Sarah Palin should not be criticized for exercising both of these rights.
The YouTube clips from which you’ve highlighted some of her remarks are from before she became the VP candidate. She might say the same thing now or, again, she might not, knowing that they would be closely scrutinized.
If you take Sarah Palin’s comments in context and don’t filter them through lib-left default spectacles, they are not as shocking as you seem to think. It is a sad comment on our society today–which insists that it’s “open,” “tolerant,” and “diverse”–when a VP candidate, or any candidate to political office for that matter, is dissed for openly expressing their faith IN A CHURCH TO AN AUDIENCE OF CHRISTIANS.
Are you being open and tolerant, are there any more conservatives?
maz2
Garth TUrner was first coservative then independent then green party … then liberal
taht is interesting
may be Garth Turner can be good PM candidate
because he has experince being with every body
and see EMPTHINESS in all
with is lack of correct leadership
ask him for pM or VP for PM is good choice he has experince though
and I talked to him once he is kind man and feel responsible too for some conscern I had
I know and noticed conservative hate him becase of DION
the lack of his emptiness for him keep moving ane changing is to
listen to may idea he would be fine
other than that I have not idea too much about him as I heard from you I donot know him well
Oh oh! More trouble on the Lib campaign! Air Farce One (da plane,da plane!) has been diverted to Mtl on way to London due to mechanical problems.Fife just said on MDL,that “it ran out of carbon credits!”
Two hilarious ads here http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/09/ford-ka.html
That’s right Sammy,da plane she got trouble!
Apparently they’ll have to have a sleep-over in Montreal. Hope they brought a toothbrush and a change of drawers!
Wonder if the Media traveling with them have upped their life insurance?
Ref your post about about professions Hardboiled.
Those of us over here on the right like to go on at length about the elitist left and rightly so. Your post on professions is so utterly elitist that I am surprised you are not on the Dion plane and stuck in Montreal at the moment.
I can think of plenty of “professions” by your definition that have unionized employees. Have you EVER done a days work with your hands? And typing does not count.
ET, do you have even the first clue what it means to be a conservative? You seem to be picking and choosing and otherwise making things up as you go. You also seem to be either not following politics very closely or have decided that because we’re in an election that no attacks on Harper are allowed.
“Your use of ‘unchecked’ (spending etc) is hyperbole.” 18% spending increases under Harper. Record breaking spending. $198 million in a few weeks leading up to the election. Flip flopping on specific spending promises (now I won’t pay corporate welfare to Ford! What? there’s an election coming? How much do you want Ford?). If there are two defining core conservative principles when it comes to finances it is cut spending and cut taxes. He’s got a c+/B from me for tax cuts but his outspending of Liberals gets an F-!
“I don’t know what ‘pork barrel politics’ means in this situation. Examples?” The subway no one but realtors and socialists want to nowhere – er, not nowhere, but right through Flaherty’s riding, hmmm. Bev Oda, before launching the Conservative’s own sponsorship program, canvasses Conservative MPs for their pet projects. Two name two easy and obvious ones off the top of my head.
“Sorry, but Harper has no authority to give to, or take seats from, the provinces. That’s under the rule of Elections Canada and constitutional formulae. Incredible that you could seriously state that a PM could increase/decrease provincial seats in the House. Whew.” You don’t read the news much I’m guessing. Or the Constitution. Harper rebalanced the seating in the House by giving Alberta and BC rep-by-pop but called Ontario the small man of the federation for saying we want a little of that democracy too. McSquinty may be a liar and a taxer, but he was right on this one.
“No, Harper doesn’t support the HRCs. Have you read his comments on them?” Yes – he said he didn’t see any need to do anything. Weaselly politician and not standing up to principles.
“The fact is, even though Harper would like the Senate elected, it is appointed. ” You really don’t get the whole “promise” and “principle” thing do you. He promised not to appoint anyone to the senate who was not elected. That’s a conservative principle. On his first day in office he appointed someone who not only didn’t run but refused to run when ridings opened up. Not only unprecedented but he remains unaccountable because he doesn’t have to answer to the House. Politically expedient to flip flop on a crucial Reform platform issue and appoint your buddy to a lifelong job with tons of perks, but not very conservative in anyone’s book.
“I agree – floor crossers aren’t ‘conservative’. But, we have no rules against them. Surely you aren’t talking about Garth Turner and Belinda?” What the hell do they have to do with this discussion? True conservatives decried their anti-democratic floor crossing and then went silent when Emerson and Wajid came over. Harper was just sly enough not to say anything beforehand. We should have taken that as a hint that he was more politician than principled conservative ideologue.
“I’d suggest you not get into name-calling and ad hominem…” So not only do you appoint yourself as the one who gets to decide who is a conservative and who not, you get to decide that while you can insult anyone as you see fit, no one else is allowed to criticize you. That’s censorship, sir, and it is definitely not a conservative value. It seems you are the liberal here.
“I don’t live off any public dime and never have; I work for a living and have earned every cent I’ve made.” In that case I do sincerely apologize. I had thought you were a professor at a university but I must be mistaken so I do apologize because that would indeed have been an insult.
And I don’t get where you invent this idea that decentralization is a conservative principle. It is not and never has been. I gave you the Bush example of some perfectly good conservative actions that had a centralizing effect. Decentralization is, if anything, a generally useful tool for fiscal restraint – minimize all governments and let’s start by taking things away from the federal government – but it is a means to an end – smaller government, less spending – and not a simplistic end on its own. No better proof of that than that socialists like the Liberals and PQ in Quebec want decentralization.
ET, go read a bit. Start with canon. You know the original, uncut junk. These are the books like The Conservative Mind, The Road to Serfdom, The Unheavenly City and Crisis of a House Divided. Then move on to some more recent stuff a little bit less academic: The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, by George Nash (updated version); The Portable Conservative Reader, edited by Russell Kirk an excellent collection.A Conflict of Visions; and of course Strauss/Cropsey’s History of Political Philosophy.
Then come back and try to argue Harper is a conservative.
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
Alas, scratching England from my hoped-to-visit-before-I’m-dead list. Moving Alaska into its place.
Batb:
I did not mean to offend any believer. If by simply quoting Palin’s own words, I’ve somehow offended or left the impression that I think faith is something that should be kept out of politics then I take it back fully.
I just think, as many other solid conservative writers have thought and said, that we made a shrewd political move with Palin but not a wise move. I think she is impressive at first, but dig just a bit and there are major problems ahead and we won’t have the liberals or the MSM to blame.
Specifically, two examples out of those quotations which can be derided as being out of context. First, she stood up in front of $40M and claimed to be a fiscal conservative because she said no to Washington’s “bridge to nowhere”. She didn’t. She said yes. There were actually two bridges and she flip flopped on one, but not without taking the federal money. She’s said she doesn’t take earmarks and she’s taken hundreds of millions.
Second, and this does touch on faith, I actually find it a little offensive when someone says stuff like God wants this pipeline built. God doesn’t give a crap about your pet project, even if it is good for the US economy. That kind of reduction of God to a political player reduces Him and undermines Him frankly.
I fear she has all of the talking points down and down well, but that she’s really a bit of a lightweight with hardly any relevant experience or knowledge of the job. McCain did not do us any favours.
any conservatives here..(are you really hardboiled under another name? You two sound very similar).
1) Subway to nowhere? Where’s that?
2) Again, Harper cannot give Alberta and BC more or less seats. No politician can do that. It’s strictly under the control of Elections Canada.
There is a formula for alloting seats. I suggest you check out the formula at Elections Canada. It’s done by the census (every ten years).
3) Whew- you read Harper’s comments against the HRC – and conclude that he didn’t see any need for change? I don’t think you read them; he was strongly opposed. BUT – he cannot do anything with a minority.
4)Tough – he needed someone from Quebec who had industrial policy skills. Fortier was that person. He’s now running for a seat.
5)No, I defined your views as Liberal. If you consider that name-calling – I can’t do anything about that! You are the one engaged in ad hominem.
Yes – I am a professor. You denigrate professors – ie, you actually state that calling someone a professor is ‘an insult’. Wow. And define us as ‘living off the public dime’. That’s ad hominem.
I earned my salary.
Do you define a heart surgeon as ‘living off the public dime’? He’s paid by the govt.
Do you define a pediatrician as ‘living off the public dime’? He’s paid by the govt.
What about the biologist in the lab? What about the fireman on the job – also ‘living off the public dime’? The policeman?
None of them do any work? They all ‘live off the public dime’? That’s quite the sanctimonious sneer on your part.
I disagree. Decentralization is a conservative principle. Because Bush made centralist decisions does not mean that centralism is conservative.
No, socialists like the Liberals and PQ in Quebec do NOT want decentralization. They aren’t interested in Canada. They want nationalism in Quebec, but in the actual ‘nation’ of Quebec – they are very top-down and centralist in governance. The Quebec government is top-down authoritarian and heavily bureaucratic in Quebec.
I’ve probably read more than you – including Hayek’s work. I’d suggest you read Karl Popper: The Open Society and Its Enemies. Now, that describes the difference between good and bad governance.
I disagree with you about the nature of Conservativism and also disagree with you about Harper. Not much point in further discussion.
Again – what you are ignoring are the basic principles of Conservatvism; that focus on the middle class…. Posted by: ET at September 16, 2008 8:19 PM
I understand conservatism to treat all citizens equally, with equal representation before the law, and equality of opportunity a necessity. I don’t like the idea preferring anyone over another by the government.
“You’ve spent months on here trying to foment “rebellion”.
I just ensure the bullsh*t meter here isn’t turned off. The Cons have disappointed enough to get called on it. And people who believe in the party and general ideology, they have a responsibility to say their piece. Otherwise, you belong to a party trying to attain and retain power, devoid of principle. And ignoring their orgy of spending won’t make it go away.
And yeah, ACH/ATACH is probably a paid troll from the Libranos.
“Subway to nowhere? Where’s that?” When I said Flaherty’s riding, what did you think I meant? Please keep up. You don’t even have to pay for a newspaper anymore to get the news you know.
“Again, Harper cannot give Alberta and BC more or less seats. No politician can do that. It’s strictly under the control of Elections Canada.
There is a formula for alloting seats. I suggest you check out the formula at Elections Canada. It’s done by the census (every ten years).” Again, keep up ET. Bill C-22 was introduced in November of 2007 by the Conservatives to reallocate seats in the Parliament. No Constitutional amendment necessary, dear professor.
“you read Harper’s comments against the HRC – and conclude that he didn’t see any need for change? I don’t think you read them; he was strongly opposed”. Please provide some proof ET. Please please keep up with current events if you are going to talk about them. As for no desire to change, ask any of the many many very disappointed bloggers and fellow commenters here. Or ask the PMO which issued this letter to inquirors: “the federal government respects the Commission’s independence and does not interfere in its normal course of operations”. Sounds like they are OK with not doing anything to me. And how did they vote on Keith Martin’s bill afterall? Liberals supporting the killing of section 13 you would have thought would have presented a prime opportunity if he really opposed it. Just link to the quotation where he says he opposes the HRCs, ET. I’m waiting.
“Tough – he needed someone from Quebec who had industrial policy skills. Fortier was that person. He’s now running for a seat.” And with that you’ve proven my single point: What you describe is the very definition of political expediency governing over principle.
“Do you define a heart surgeon as ‘living off the public dime’? He’s paid by the govt.
Do you define a pediatrician as ‘living off the public dime’? He’s paid by the govt.
What about the biologist in the lab? What about the fireman on the job – also ‘living off the public dime’? The policeman?
None of them do any work? They all ‘live off the public dime’? That’s quite the sanctimonious sneer on your part.” Actually it’s quite a demonstration of stupidity on your part. What happens if any of them don’t perform at a top level? They get canned. They are accountable. What if you don’t? Nothing. No accountability. Cash for life. You say you “earn” your money. Prove it.
“Decentralization is a conservative principle. Because Bush made centralist decisions does not mean that centralism is conservative.” Can you read? I didn’t say centralism is conservative. I said it is a means to an end. If more centralism is required to serve a conservative principle, like security, than it is good. And generally it is more useful for a fiscal conservative to decentralize as means to eliminate government. But it is a tool to an end. Not the end on its own.
“No, socialists like the Liberals and PQ in Quebec do NOT want decentralization. They aren’t interested in Canada.” Tell that to Premier Charest. I suspect he’d be insulted by what you say. And that’s just the Quebec example. Pretty much every NL Premier has been a decentralist, as have many other liberal premiers. Toronto’s goofball socialist mayor wants powers very decentralized.
“I’ve probably read more than you”. How pompous and just like an ivory tower academic. Well, let me take you up on that arrogance. I’m always looking to educate myself. Being so well read, can you please provide me with a single source by any prominent conservative writer in Canada, the US or the UK (or anywhere) who says that decentralization is a conservative principle.
Bottom single big point, someone who breaks records spending like Harper for pork barrel projects, regional development agencies, corporate welfare, polling, etc… cannot legitimately lay claim to being a “conservative”. More conservative than the others… maybe… but by a hair.
No, actually, there’s nobody here now, everyone left dozens of
comments ago when the discussion here became a pissing match.
Are there any Conservatives Here:
(What a pompous moniker)
When Stephen Harper led the National Citizens Coalition he wrote recognized papers and speeches against the Human Rights Act, as it stood and it still stands. Look them up.
Of course he will dismantle the unelected leftist thought enablers, otherwise called the HRC’s. It’s only natural that he do so.
The problem with you is that you are not part of the populist Conservative Party.
Rather, you seem part of a fringe breakaway party that numbers in the hundreds, more likely just one. You.
Or else you’re a Liberal..
Latest results from electoral-vote.com:
In Wisconsin, where Obama regularly had 10-13 point leads, his lead is now down to 4 pts.
In Washington (state, not DC), where Obama had 10-16 pt leads, it’s now down to 2.
Virginia is too close to call; the lead has swung back and forth in recent polls, with the difference never exceeding 4 pts, so they’re all within the polling margin of error.
Pennsylvania, the state Joe Biden was supposed to deliver, regularly gave Obama 5-8 pt leads. Since the two VP picks were announced, that lead has dwindled, and McCain and Obama were tied in the latest poll.
Ohio see-sawed back and forth between the two, but since Palin was announced, McCain has won the last four polls, albeit by small margins.
New Mexico was Democrat by small margins, but since Palin was announced, it’s now Republican, again by a small margin.
Nevada has swung from a 5 pt Dem lead in August to a 3 pt Rep lead post-Palin.
Minnesota, where Obama had leads of 18 pts in July, is now tied.
Michigan, where Obama had leads of 5-9 pts, is now tied.
Indiana, where McCain had held leads of 8-10 pts, is now Obama by 2 pts, but hasn’t been polled since August.
Florida, which had been close to tied for months, is now favouring McCain by 5-8 pts.
Colorado is too close to call; neither has been able to pull out much of lead since the conventions. They have split the last four polls, all by 2 pts or less.
Interesting to see what happens over the next two weeks as the fallout from Wall Street ripples through the economy.
ACH:
Do try to keep up. Here is clause 4 of Bill C-22:
a) The “electoral divisor” for the first readjustment to the number of seats in the House after the coming into force of the bill is calculated by dividing the total population of the provinces, using the most recent decennial census, by the number of members in the House of Commons assigned to all provinces in the first readjustment that followed the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation).
b) The “electoral divisor” for subsequent seat readjustments will be derived by dividing the total population of the provinces, using the most recent decennial census, by the number of members of the House of Commons thirty years prior to this most recent decennial census.
You do note that both sections state that the most recent decennial be used? And the bill has not yet passed. In fact, it hasn’t even gone to committee yet. For someone who thinks he’s quite a know-it-all, you don’t seem to know very much.
In particular, you don’t seem to recognize that in a minority government, with an obstructionist and unelected Senate, Harper just can’t do what he wants. If he wanted to do something like end all the HRC’s, or even amend the rules that govern them, any person with a functional IQ would know that the Canadian left would immediately gang up on him, calling him “Hitler” like Mike Valpey and some aggrieved artists, and probably force an election over the issue. As Bismarck said “Politics is the art of the possible”. Harper’s goal in the first term was to calm Canadians down, erase his “scary” image, and show that he didn’t have a “hidden agenda”. Picking needless fights with the Opposition, even if they would have turtled, would have ruined his chances in this election. That you can’t see that tells me you don’t understand much about minority government.