In last night’s Reader Tips SDA regular ‘nv53’ had a very interesting analysis of the Alfred Apps editorial published yesterday in the National Post.
As the President of the Liberal Party of Canada, he sure has a lot to promise to a whole lot of different groups! But are the majority of Canadians buying the Liberal message anymore? Here’s what Charles Adler had to say.
I read this column in the Nat post the other day. It displayed the typical leftist ability to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time and completely lack logic. I am one of those people who are not particularly happy with Harper, but the alternative is truly frightening.
Adler suggests that what the Liberal Party of Canada needs before a resurrection is a coup. When I heard that line, I thought, what the Liberal Party of Canada needs before a resurrection is a definitive death — which echoed, as it turns out, Adler’s last line: “[By resurrection] I’m talking about some smarter people taking it over or burning it down.”
Precisely.
The scam is over, simple. Never in my 55 years have I seen a liberal tell the truth, I have watched politics closely since 12, these people who follow this doctrine are pathological liars, as long as dull people believed their lies, and the tax dollars kept rolling, immigrants were told to vote liberal or they would return to their hellholes, well everything was jolly in liberal land. Evolution has sunk the lying liberal, nothing more. People can only be fooled for so long, the lying liberals and their enablers in the media are having their asses handed to them “monetarily”, business trumps feelings and social BS policies every time. Don’t burn the liberal party down though Adler, the smoke would be so toxic and thick good conservatives would choke to death leaving “angry jackasses” like Pat Martin to govern!
He’s trying to undercut the ideology of the NDP. He’s trying to define the Liberal party as the ‘real’ party of the left..rather than the NDP.
Notice his reference to Quebec, which is where the Liberals will probably try to move in, hoping that the NDP won’t be any more successful than the Bloc in getting more and more and more from the ROC.
And of course, he ignores who’s going to fund all these new ‘rights’. He ignores that Quebec’s ‘rights’ to daycare, low university tuition and so on ..are not funded by Quebec wealth production. But by the taxpayers of the ROC. So, in the rest of Canada – if you want to insert all these new ‘rights’…who is going to pay for them?
Why should an individual…and the Liberal Party acording to this speech is ‘all about individual strength’..be deprived of the results of his hard productive work..so that others who don’t produce as much, can have these ‘rights’. That’s not about individual power; that’s pure top down centralist socialism.
The Liberal party is obviously desperate for an ideology. They’ve been focused only on power for so long they never bothered with ideology. Now, out of power, they also have no ideology..and so are trying to be more socialist than the NDP. Heh.
If you ever were wondering why the Liberals died almost completely in the last election after slowly fading away over the last several years wonder no more.
Apps speaks of power being placed in the hands of individuals but of course the state would control that power as Liberals like to do. Despite the evidence of every country or province that practices socialism dies because of it Apps wants to further implement that here and uses Quebec as his example of great social programs and wishes FDR had implemented them in the US. The fact that they only exist in Quebec because we in the ROC pay for them through equalization payments, some $8.3 billion this year, seems to have missed him as the fact that Roosevelt was one of the main causes of the Great Depression.
Apps and his Liberals want to continue their disastrous policies of rewarding the takers in society not the makers and growing the bureaucracy that maintains it.
I commented on the NP article noting that none of the usual leftist posters appeared, not one. I was hoping to hear their defence of Apps but I guess even these guys couldn’t respond to this idiotic speech by their Liberal leader.
Giving power to “People suffering from mental health issues.”
Right, but isn’t that already a Liberal problem?
The weakness of the LPC is that since WW2…it has had no doctrine other than simply to be the government…no principles or doctrine.
Their defining trait was lining their pockets and maintaining control of the trough.
Other than a takiya of leftism to achieve their goal…power….while they were in reality the party of Bay Street and Power Corp……while keeping the image of being for “the little guy”.
Inevitably this will polarize Canadian pollitics to responsible government versus “angry jackasses” like Pat Martin.
By making the STATE bigger we make you more free, get it?
Brian Lilley was also talking about this last night on Byline both in his opening monologue and with some old blue Liberal, who claimed Apps was the far left of the Lib caucus, effectively an outright socialist. Based on what I heard there, I don’t think that Apps cares if the Liberals survive, but that’s just my opinion.
My question would be “How were reconcilling this philosophy while you were stuffing brown bags full of taxpayer’s money?”
As another poster said I have been watching these bald faced liars for overe 50 years. Trudeau fooled me at 15 but never again after that.
I think the problem is people have figured out what the LPC is all about. Once the jig is up there’s not much you can do to put that back in the bottle.
Entitlement, entitlement, entitlement, that’s the LPC mantra.
The left never gives rights to people. They take away rights from some people and give special priveleges to other people. Then they claim the playing field is level and that things are fair now.
They make sure them and their families are never effected by these rules they bring in. Rules are for the little people.
Dismantle Trudeaupia!
Is Alf Apps going to run for the leadership of the LPC? Gawd, I hope so!
“Positive Rights” is simply another phrase in the neo-Marxist lexicon to make Government interference in individual rights appear acceptable.
It’s not about one’s fundamental right to access “food, water, or shelter”. It’s about handing over those fundamental rights to government bureaucrats so that they can determine what you should eat or drink, and where or how you should live. And how those essential commodities should be apportioned out by the arbitrary authority of ideologically-motivated unelected bureaucrats.
ricardo:
Aren’t basic rights ‘food, clothing and shelter,’ water falling under the category of food?
“Positive Rights” is a big red flag.
Positive rights are rights given to you by the government… “Freedom to_____”
I prefer negative rights, things that government can’t do to you…. “Freedom from______”
Good lord talk about clueless.
“And because we believe in the primacy of the individual…”
Is he being serious? The LPC has NEVER held such belief. They’re all about more government, more bureaucracy, and more power. More power, not in the sense this delusional fellow means, but power for the LPC.
Nice analysis by Adler, as usual.
“The Charter was adopted only when it was made clear that the courts’ interpretation of its guarantees were to be “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
This is nothing more than a “weasel clause” to be exploited by whatever unscrupulous government happens to be in power.
Apps yaks on about “empowering” yet describes a Country that is fractured into “victim” groups,each of which can be “empowered” at the whim of the government of the day.
Canada did quite nicely under the old BNA Act,and every “improvement” since has taken more of our freedom and power away,just as the communist Trudeau intended.
Apps article made my blood boil,another damned socialist desperately trying to convince people that the Liberal way is the only way.
Go to Hell,Alfred.
set you free: “Aren’t basic rights ‘food, clothing and shelter,’ water falling under the category of food?”
Yes, but advocates tend to treat water as a separate issue because there are many areas of the Third World where potable water is simply not available. We who live in developed Nations tend to take potable water for granted.
I understand the principle behind “water rights” and empathize with it fully, but the “positive rights” advocates are essentially arguing the same old argument that confused “equality of opportunity” with “equality of outcome”. In other words, I agree that everyone should have access to water and access should never be obstructed by anyone (otherwise they will die of dehydration!), but that doesn’t mean that you can force someone to give you their water, or the government is obligated to give you water without paying for it, or unless there is tax base to support water infrastructure, etc.
Stupid LIberals have had their own heads up their own @sses for so long that they can only see their own sh!t …. and are incapable of understanding that it DOES stink.
ricardo:
I understand the argument.
Just wondering where clothing fit in. I was taught the necessities of life are food, clothing and shelter. Always assumed water fell under the category of food.
Cheers 🙂
set you free,
Clothing definitely fits in. Plus I believe in the right not to be exposed to exhibitionists and perverts who decide to go naked in public and do the “Tony Weiner” thing: “look at my weiner everybody!” (e.g. Gay priders, and “Naked Bike Ride” enthusiasts.
😉
Apps: “The Liberal Party of Canada’s core assumptions in politics are about power. We believe that the inexorable progress of mankind, the constant expansion of freedom, demands the ever more democratic disbursal of power. That the primary ongoing role of the state should be to transfer power from the powerful to the less powerful. And because we believe in the primacy of the individual, we think of that power being placed in the hands of individuals to the maximum extent possible.”
I read that paragreaph to my 21yo who is going to university.
Her answer? “That’s creepy…people who talk about power in that way are usually the bad guys”
Wow! I had better say all of the above before some troll chimes in here.Bartinsky, ET and sasquatch say it so well.
Are we witnessing the death of the LPC?
I saw the Brian Lilley interview with the old blue Liberal communications director and he sounded sick to his stomach at what is going on.
The is the end result of Trudeau and Chretien years that started with Pearson. St. Laurent at least wanted to pay for new social programs.
What a sad ending for the LPC. Can you imagine the official opposition or possible government with the likes of Jack the John, Libby David and Pat Martin?
So Alfred Apps is saying that the Liberals are Communpitalists and their ideology is Capunism.
Gotcha.
BTW, BO said much the same thing about the American Constitution. This appears to be the new meme, similar to Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Irritable Climate Syndrom/Climate Jihad.
“Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,” Mr. Obama continued. “It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” – Barak Obama
SYF
And I always thought that ‘human rights’ were those things that humans were born with, and that cannot be taken away(like free thought). The rest is re-distribution, not rights, as the government cannot guarantee any of this for anyone, for if an individual sells his allocated water for a crack rock, are they still entitled to more water?
The government doesn’t grant ‘rights’ to anyone, they can only take them. Anything that the government grants is a ‘perk’, not a Right.JMO
But, feel free to redefine the language to make the Leftist argument.
Two quotes come to mind when I read about this fool, Alfred Apps.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good. Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of finer clay than the rest of mankind?” – Frederic Bastiat in The Law
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” – Thomas Jefferson
Couple of mistakes.
Individual rights don’t come from the US president but from the creator.
The Canadian Bill of Rights was by the Dief in the 1950s.
How you can believe in the primacy of the individual but take from some “rich & powerful” to give to some presumably “poor& powerless” through the power of the state is oxymoronic.
The Liberal Party has not and will not have any rebirth (ala PC vs Reform) until this wanker and his cronies have been expelled from the party. Or the rank and file Liberals need to form a party for themselves
Couple of mistakes.
Individual rights don’t come from the US president but from the creator.
The Canadian Bill of Rights was by the Dief in the 1950s.
How you can believe in the primacy of the individual but take from some “rich & powerful” to give to some presumably “poor& powerless” through the power of the state is oxymoronic.
The Liberal Party has not and will not have any rebirth (ala PC vs Reform) until this wanker and his cronies have been expelled from the party. Or the rank and file Liberals need to form a party for themselves
“The Liberal Party has not and will not have any rebirth (ala PC vs Reform) until this wanker and his cronies have been expelled from the party. Or the rank and file Liberals need to form a party for themselves”
Yup. In the meantime, all this noise from the likes of Apps and others is just deckchair-rearrangement on the Titanic.