| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| If John Tory really wants to bring in the LGBT vote, how should the Bay Street Studmuffin dress for this year's Gay Pride parade? |
| Leather |
|
39% |
[ 9 ] |
| Kilt |
|
17% |
[ 4 ] |
| Tuxedo top & bathing suit |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Dress? Do you mean literally? |
|
17% |
[ 4 ] |
| Dark business suit |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
 Whiggamore
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Total posts: 1339 Location: Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Age: 22 Gender: Male
|
 Posted: 06/ 02/ 05 11:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
It is too late now PC scum. I've been fooled. I'm convinced: this man speaks for all PC scum. Because of what this man has said so many have gone over to the dark side of politics, to conservatism and the FPO. Yes, because of this man's words liberal-lite might not see it through election night, what a fright.
* faints.
Honestly, principled conservatives didn't need a troll to convince them that John Tory isn't the real deal. Tory did that all on his own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
 |
GratianGasparri
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 02/ 05 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: How should John Tory attract the LGBT community? |
|
|
| A John Tory Tory wrote: | | John_Tory_is_a_Sex_Symbol wrote: | | Hmmm...so many choices! |
You are not a John Tory supporter at all. You are a troll, trying to make it seem as if you like him (in whatever ways) but in reality you are mocking the man and trying to get people on this site all riled up against him.
|
Pot, meet kettle. This is called same-species marriage in my opinion. You are both trolls.
_________________
Grand Inquisitor of the Shadowy Group[TM]
Author of "Me!" - Free Dominion''s 1,000,000th post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conservative_Monarchist
|
| Posted: 06/ 02/ 05 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: How should John Tory attract the LGBT community? |
|
|
| GratianGasparri wrote: | | A John Tory Tory wrote: | | John_Tory_is_a_Sex_Symbol wrote: | | Hmmm...so many choices! |
You are not a John Tory supporter at all. You are a troll, trying to make it seem as if you like him (in whatever ways) but in reality you are mocking the man and trying to get people on this site all riled up against him.
|
Pot, meet kettle. This is called same-species marriage in my opinion. You are both trolls. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young Reformer
Location: Mount Forest/Perth—Wellington/Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 03/ 05 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Little Big Man wrote: | | Young Reformer wrote: | | Most Freedom Party of Ontario members/voters may have also been Reform/Alliance members/voters but this Reform/Alliance member/voter never was a Freedom Party of Ontario member/voter. The two parties politically are so different, it is scary |
The similarities relate primarily to fiscal policy. The primary difference relates to Freedom Party's opposition to unbridled majority rule, which is what you appear to support. There are those who think that the majority will always do what is right. Such folks typically deride constitutional LIMITS on governmental power because they view those - quite rightly - as limits on what the majority can do: constitutional limits on governmental power are limits on majority rule.
There are others - and I am one - that believe the majority will often commit some of the most atrocious violations of natural rights (life, liberty and property), such that government's authority must be LIMITED. Freedom Party's constitution requires party policies to pass a smell test of sorts: if a policy would make the province less free - if it would be contrary to rights of life, liberty and property and make things more oppressive rather than less oppressive - it cannot be party policy. No such limits are supported by the sort of party you envision...which is why you can contemplate mergers of just about any party with just about any other party...mergers of parties having diametrically opposing philosophies (e.g., green and fp).
| Quote: | | but since there are like 5 Freedom Party Executive/Operatives on Free Dominion |
Actually, apart from Paul McKeever, I know of no members of the Fp executive that post to FD. That said, FD articles and threads are regularly read and shared by the Fp executive via e-mail.
| Quote: | | It is like this, the Freedom Party of Ontario has had its day in the sun |
Fp did not even decide to take elections seriously until 2002. Mid-way through 2002, it got a new leader (Paul McKeever). Since that time, it has been re-organizing to an incredible extent. An election happened in 2003: the first after, only months before, Fp decided the time was right to start running for seats in the legislature. Despite the extremely short time that existed between the time at which the decision to organize into an electoral party and the time of the 2003 election, FpO nonetheless doubled the number of candidates that ran for it, raised more money than ever before, avoided almost universally the "fringe" label formerly given to the party by the media, and were invited (unlike some other parties in Ontario) to appear on TVO, CTV news, etc.. More money, more coverage, more candidates. Hardly signs of a party that is abating. In fact, the party is growing and has been preparing for election 2007 for some time. You'll see...
| Quote: | | Reformers aren't Tories, we aren't Liberals, we are grassroot political activists who just want the best for Canada and what the LPC and CPC are offering isn't the best for Canada at all. In fact, it is the worst for Canada. |
With all due respect, you are advocates for a party whose policies can be ANYTHING that a majority of the members want it to be NO MATTER HOW COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, FASCIST, LIBERAL, ENVIRONMENTALIST, or CAPITALIST those policies might end up being. You seek a party with NO political orientation; no position on any political spectrum. A party entirely opposed to making decision on the basis of what is right or wrong, and that STRENUOUSLY advocates universal application of the principle of MAJORITY RULE, both within the party, and in government. Thus your statement that:
| Quote: | | if you take a look at the principles and policies at Bring Back Real Reform at www.bringbackrealreform.cjb.net , will see how different we are if you are still going by the old discredited political spectrum. |
The old political spectrum that you deride, while clearly a rough indicator, is nonetheless useful: it distingishes between collectivism and individualism, between communism and capitalism, between the subjective and the objective, between the malleable and the absolute. When you reject the "spectrum", you - in truth - reject philosophy. To you, thought, morality, and issues of right and wrong have no place in government, and all should be reduced to a numbers game.
You want precisely what Ayn Rand called "The New Fascism: Government by Consensus". And, though the reality of it escapes you, you want what Canada ALREADY HAS in the Liberal party: a party that governs according to the numbers...the votes...the polls, as it were. An entirely AMORAL party: it HAS to be amoral if the majority rule principle that you advocate is not to be bridled or limited by such pesky things as rights of life, liberty and property.
What you seek is the abolition of THOUGHT, and the rejection of MORALITY in decision making about the governance of the province or country...governance by VOTING BOOTH. And, even if your intentions are good - even if you think that moral government will result - you are woefully mistaken. The proof, unfortunately, is ALREADY in the pudding. If you want to see what unbridled majority rule would look like in practice: LOOK AT THE WAY ONTARIO AND CANADA ARE CURRENTLY GOVERNED by the Liberals. The manner of governance is identical. No right, no wrong, only a multitude of subjective opinions counted on a tally stick. Every opinion equally correct and equally uncorrect, no matter what logic and reality and morality say about it...take for example, this part of your post, above:
| Quote: | | You people can't see the good on the left as well as the good you do see on the right. |
| Quote: | | Are you so afraid of a United Alternative, where you have to Think Big, one you have already advocated for federally with the union of the Canadian Alliance into the Progressive Conservatives to make the Conservative Party of Canada? How shallow is that! |
I didn't advocate the merger. Frankly, I think it was the most harmful thing that could have happened to the future of conservativism in this country. Prior to Reform, the PCs were infected by a virulent parasite. Reform gave the right a new body, free of disease. The merger - brought about by Stronach and other Bay Street liberals - re-introduced the parasite to the host. Hopefully, the party's white blood cells are strong enough to fight off the red menace.
The political re-alignment that happened federally in the early 90's is now happening in Ontario. Under Eves, blue tories could tell themselves that "well, maybe Eves is just pretending to be liberal so he can win power for the PCs...maybe he's as blue as Mr. Harris, in his heart of hearts". With John Tory, that self-deception cannot survive. Those who seek lower taxes, smaller government, a freer market etc.. - fisc. cons, as you have referred to them - now have only Fp to turn to, and that's where the growth is, on the right in Ontario.
| Quote: | | The equivalent for such a Unity Party of Ontario/Ontario Alliance would be for the small 'c' conservative provincial political parties like fis-con Freedom, so-con Family Coalition and enviro-con Green then perhaps after three years that United Alternative could unite with the Progressive Conservatives to make the Conservative Party of Ontario! |
BITE YOUR TONGUE!! Provincially, the Ontario PCs are a non-functional beater used for parts by the Liberal Party of Ontario. A rusty wreck out behind the barn. I say let it continue to rust and crumble until it is no more.
| Quote: | | It isn't just right but left too, like free votes, would the Freedom Party add a policy in their next platform that a Freedom Party MPP would vote as to what their constituents wanted over that of both the party and the member themself? Likely not! |
The way Freedom Party's constitution works, the party has to have a policy on something if the MPPs are to act on it. Where there is no Fp policy, there is no party line to tow. On matters where there is a policy, a person who wants the party nomination doesn't just use the nomination to distinguish himself from other independents: it actually means that the candidate is telling the public that he support's FP's policies and will do so in the legislature. A person who wants to go any way the wind blows owes it to his constituency NOT to join a political party but to remain "INDEPENDENT" of any party loyalty. Thus the word "independent".
| Quote: | | Or how about those referendums? When you were the UnParty, one of your co-founders Marc Emery gave us Ontario Reformers quite a look at Freedom in the newsletter Consent's article "No Referendums Please" at http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons03_1.htm right here. |
Two things:
1. Consent (now published not by FpO but by FpI, since FpO began converting itself from an educational organization to an electoral one) is a journal of opinions, not party policy. There's a lot of stuff published in consent that would never be party policy. Consent's purpose is to spark thought and debate, not to advocate party policy.
2. FpO is not against referendums. In fact, it proposes holding a referendum on a provision preventing borrowing by government.
The issue isn't whether the public should be consulted or the whether the majority should carry the day. The issue is whether EVERYTHING should be put to a vote, or only things that DO NOT VIOLATE individuals' inalienable rights of life, liberty and property.
| Paul Ellis wrote: | | Marc Emery wrote: | | Referendums only serve to further entrench the idea the MAJORITY RULE is the essence of a 'free' society, and nothing could be further from the truth. |
...all beliefs that attack the very essence of Reform... |
Right: Fp opposes UNBRIDLED majority rule - it advocates not majority rule but FREEDOM and the personal responsibility that goes with it. Fp favours LIMITED government, not UNLIMITED government.
| Quote: | | But then why, if Freedom is so pro-Reform, would they attack something so fundamental to Reform as referendums? |
Freedom Party supported most of the policies of the Reform Party. Freedom Party has never supported the idea that EVERYTHING should be put to a vote. And, frankly, I would disagree with your suggestion that the Reform Party was in favour of unbridled majority rule. Were Reform truly in favour of doing whatever Canadians wanted done, on a bill by bill basis, PARTY POLICIES would be a meaningless waste of time: what if the public disagreed with the party?
| Quote: | | Perhaps Freedom isn't grassroots-based, perhaps Freedom isn't bottom-up made and perhaps Freedom isn't Reform? |
Freedom Party is results-based. The constitution is drafted so that folks who want to hijack a party in a week and one half, and turn it into a greenie outfit, or the Christian Heritage Party, or the Muslim party, or the communist party, etc...cannot even hope to succeed. EDA presidents are elected by party members in their respective ridings, and that will happen only if the members trust the president to be true to the party's orientation. A person who wants to be on the Provincial Council has to (a) have been an EDA president, and (b) has to get elected by EDA presidents who have, by that time, had the opportunity to scrutinize him/her. A person who wants to be on the Provincial Executive has to be a Provincial Councillor and, as a provincial Councillor, will have demonstrated his/her committment to the party and its orientation by Chairing policy and other committees.
Those who want influence within the party must WORK SUCCESSFULLY and faithfully for the party. An EDA can be deregistered if it does not maintain a membership base of at least 30 members: this ensures that EDA officials do not try to protect their turf (i.e., to avoid competitors for offices like EDA president, etc.) by avoiding the sale of memberships (i.e., voting members). A region cannot have a Presidents Association until a simple majority of the EDAs in the region have sold at least 30 memberships: this protects active regions from regions having EDAs with only a handful of unproductive, insufficiently successful riding associations...it also gives successful regions the edge in determining which provincial councillors become members of the provincial executive...because, without a Presidents Association, there is no Provincial Councillor from that region.
Put another way: the party is run just like a business - produce or step aside.
| Quote: | | I look to see what Freedom thinks about Real Responsible Representation |
Just read the policies and the press releases. "Responsible" representation isn't just a matter of putting everything to a vote. When the majority want Jews to wear yellow stars of David on their clothes in public, RESPONSIBLE representation involves telling that majority to take a hike. |
Little Big Man,
Even in fiscal policies, the Reform and Freedom parties aren't alike. Reform is against all monopolies, private and public, while Freedom wants to give to the rich and take from the poor. I do believe a primary difference between us is our support of democratic majority rule and your opposition to unbridled majority rule because the people are usually right and the politician is usuaully wrong. We limit government by the voice of the people and the people in the end become the government so either accept Reform or don't as you, the Greens and the Family Coalition seem to want to do.
By the way, democratic majority rule gives us those natural rights (life, liberty and the right to own personal property) you love and allow the government's authority to become limited. The Constitution of the Freedom Party, like the Greens and Family Coalition, doesn't pass the required grassroot member's smell test because they aren't super majoritarian, make the state less free for the people and refuse to listen to the people. Instead of the natural rights of life, liberty and personal property being pushed forward through democratic majority rule like in Reform, the Small Three wish to push them down through undemocratic minority right just like the unelected, unaccountable yet appointed Supreme Court of Canada. And that just isn't on because I, and all other Reformers, would rather trust their neighbour than a judge to make a common sense decision anyday!
The reason one can contemplate a merger of just about any party with just about any other party is because with Reform all voices are held equally. And that is also why mergers of parties having diametrically opposing philosophies like Reform and the Tories, Liberals or NDP made no sense then and still make no sense today. So, now you know why the Greens can't merge with the Family Coalition and the Family Coalition can't merge the Freedom and none of you wackos will ever unite into one United Alternative for Ontarians, thus answering my question and allowing all Ontario Reformers who were on the Ontario PC/Harris CSR bandwagon to fully realize it is a No on the question of a United Right by any of you three provincial political parties.
So good luck with improving on those fringe 24-seat, 8,376 vote and 0.2% total numbers as the Family Coalition had a better fringe 51-seat, 34,623 vote and 0.8% total numbers (and remember, those guys are the evil so-cons only bunch you fis-con only bunch could never unite the right provincially with yet they are so much more successful than Freedom) or the even better fringe 102-seat, 126,651 vote and 2.8% total numbers (and again remember, those guys are the evil enviro-cons only bunch you fis-con only bunch could never unite the right provincially with yet they too are so much more successful than Freedom). Yeah, yeah, no other Freedom Party operatives on FD here, but I wonder, why aren't the other single-issue conservative parties like the Greens or Family Coalition coming on here to recruit liek you guys.
Well, FP should have decided to take elections seriously, waiting until 2002 whn it has been a party in 1984 as the UnParty is a dreadful mistake. Paul McKeever is an intellegent politico, as are Giuseppe Gori and Frank de Jong, but without the political machine a United Alternative could have given you, nobody from the centre-right here at FD except the FP supporters will be voting FP in 2007, especially the single-issue enviro-cons and so-cons who dislike the single-issue fis-cons as you have witnessed and visa versa. If Jim Flaherty decided to pull the plug on this Unity Party thing by going Federal with Harper, I guess we should have all figured it out, and went back to organizing Reform provincially in Ontario for 2007. And Jim never thought about going Freedom no matter how many emails you and the other FP executive flooded his constituency office with after the defeat to Tory.
Yes, yes, your party (like the Greens and the Family Coalition) has less than doubled the number of candidates that ran for it, raised more money than ever before and were invited to appear on TVO, CTV or even CBC news but even as all three of your parties grow, which I am sure you will as John Tory keeps dropping the single-issue fiscal, social and environmental conservatives, any preparation for the Ontario 2007 Election will be a waste as it will allow the centre-right vote to be split amongst 4 parties, not including the Libertarian and Confederation of Regions, you'll eventually see! Meanwhile, as I am not officially a part of the Representative Party of Ontario team but am very supportive of their Reform-like principles and policies at http://www.representativeparty.on.ca , I do send my kudos to their interim party executive as they seem to want to build a United Alternative, that isn't right or left, but just plain home-style common-sense from down country, which is why we Reformers aren't Tories, we aren't Liberals, we are grassroot political activists who just want the best for Canada and what the LPC and CPC are offering isn't the best for Canada at all. In fact, it is the worst for Canada.
Even though you have a point that majority rules in the Reform Party of Ontario philosophy, I think we did quite well from 1987 to 2000 (even the Canadian Alliance extension of 2000-2003) by not getting taken over by Communists or Capitalists, Socialists or Fascists but then I guess we lost out in that Conservative or Liberal battle as the Tories did eventually take us over, likely because we were too open on the fiscal conservative front. I guess you are right in that I seek a party with no political orientation, no position on any political spectrum but you need to know that it still has one ideal to position itself upon principle: democratic-populism. By Democratic-Populism, which is what Reform really was all about, the party is entirely opposed to making decision by the views of the leadership only, and allows the people to create the basis of what is right or wrong through their grassroot-based principles and policies. I have to agree again that it does strenuously advocates a universal application of the principle of majority rule over minority right, both within the individual grassroot member, the collective grassroot party and in a non-partisan, all-party ruled government that watchdogs for the people.
Bring Back Real Reform at www.bringbackrealreform.cjb.net , when you take a look at the principles and policies there, proves we are different and have successfully proven the old discredited political spectrum wrong by the actions of BC Independent Reform MP Chuck Cadman. I will never figure out why you Freedom guys, the Family Coalition and the Green singel-issue fringe like that old political spectrum that takes you guys to the right, hard-core, on your single-issues. One can still see the communism and capitalism, collectivism and individualism, the subjective and the objective or the malleable and the absolute within the principles and policies of the Reform Party if they are present because though we reject the spectrum, we don't reject philosophy as ours would go back to democratic-populism. Again, we see it as the opposition to a party like the Liberals, who believe in undemocratic-elitism. But for those who need that old political spectrum, to tell them how to think, I guess you could say the Reform Party belongs in the principled centre and the Liberal Party belongs in the pragmatic centre.
I think you finally have it when you say that to me thought, morality and issues of right and wrong or especially right and left have no place in government, and instead, all should be reduced to a numbers game by the majority of people. That is almost the exact point to democratic-populism to which Reform conforms to, and is quite alike to the Liberals, except that their undemocratic-elitism replaces the people with the politicians. And that is exactly why, again, Reform is a principled centred party, principled by the people, and the Liberals are a pragamtic centred party, pragmatic by the politicians. But, what I don't understand is, why can't you Small Three provincial political parties accept this and move forward with a Reform-like United Alternative or is it because Reform isn't right vs. left-winged but right vs. wrong-minded?
No, Ayn Rand's "The New Fascism: Government by Consensus" does already exist in the Liberal Party, as a party that governs according to the polls, the numbers and the votes as it were, but through the politician not the people. The Liberals, who may be an entirely amoral party, refuse to listen to the people, as shown in the "Hold a referendum on same-sex marriage" thread at http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40352&sid=829f87753544d2250f23f85708b21952 here on FD while we Ontario Reformers would do nothing but hear from the people in one massive referendum, if it couldn't be decided by either removing marriage from the hands of government or allowing those of the same-sex or other sexual orientations such as bisexuality, bigamy and polygamy to use the non-religious civil union option. Still curious what the Small Three provincial political parties would do with SSM in Ontario as we have seen what the Big Three would do!
Again, watch what you say of the majority rule principle, as it may be bridled to the thoughts of the people, but it isn't amoral and it doesn't believe rights of life, liberty and property are pesky things. Speaking of which, when you talk of protecting the Natural Rights from the Small Three Provincial Political Parties standpoint in Ontario a few questions, I know the Green Party get hit for attacking property as single-issue enviro-cons and the Family Coalition Party gets hit for attacking liberty as single-issue so-cons but doesn't the Freedom Party get hit for attacking life as single-issue fis-cons so let's watch what we say about the protection of the Natural Rights which we Ontario Reformers believe is best kept by the people of the province.
I don't seek the abolition of thought, as that is the key to any principled decision of the people, some with or without prayer but the rejection of morality in decision making about the governance of the province or country is again out of the questions because all people have morals and can allow them to be seen within their decision they make responsibly. Another difference between Reform and the Liberals is they believe in the governance of the nation by voting booth during elections and polls only while we believe in the governance of the nation by voting booth during elections and referenda always. As unbridled majority rule isn't being practiced by the people, but by the politicians today, the people will never get to see the proof in the pudding until a Reform government. The manner of governance isn't identical as the people are still silenced and only those unaccountable politicians may speak for them. I do think and advocate that the people should decide via their logic and reality and morality what is right and wrong, left or right and just follow the common sense we know.
I do believe a political re-alignment is happening in Ontario as like that happened federally in the early 90's through Reform. But those who seek lower taxes, smaller government and a freer market will also want to work politically with those who believe in life, family and marriage who will in turn agree with a better environment where the water, air and land is cleaner, fresher and better for the next generation here in Ontario and for those of the Small Three who want a United Alternative that can Think Big to contend with the Big Three provincial political parties but doesn't box itself into this bogus right-left politics but rather true right-wrong politics. It is at least nice to see there will be no hope of the smaller 'c' conservative provincial political parties like fis-con Freedom, so-con Family Coalition and enviro-con Green of ever merging into a Unity Party of Ontario/Ontario Alliance then eventually uniting with the Progressive Conservatives, where you all originally came from, to make the Conservative Party of Ontario because at least those on the hard-right to right-centre in Ontario can start making their decisions now.
I personally don't believe Freedom Party supported most of the policies of the Reform Party, as they like the Greens and Family Coalition, have never supported the idea that anything or everything should be put to a democratic vote if the people want it too. But don't disagree with my suggestion that the Reform Party was in favour of unbridled majority rule because it was by the people, not the politicians, rather accept it and understand Reform did so when asked to by the people. This doesn't mean the party's constitution, principles or policies were meaningless as they were the direction the party was to go forward with but the last say was with the constitutent of the elected MP and that really is what counts in the end. Besides, the public never really disagreed with Reform's principles and policies but rather the jackass Tory-like comments some Reform MP, who was run around by Klein Progressive Conservatives, would make to keep their vote for the next election, which I agree was wrong.
I don't think the Freedom party is the only provincial political party of the Small Three which is a results-based, whose constitution is drafted so that other single-issue folks who want to hijack a party in a week and one half and turn it into a enviro-con or so-con only one cannot even hope to succeed. I guess the Green and Family Coalition parties might look at you guys the same way as they too try and run their parties just like a business, produce or step aside, but what of the results. I still think you need to allow a United Alternative to be grassroots-based, bottom-up made and built just like Reform in Ontario or else it won't sell. I think Reform's Real Responsible Representation, as it belongs to all people the MP represents in their constituency (including all ethnic/relgious peoples like Jews), so I can't see this proposed Yellow Stars of David Act passing in today's Ontario, especially as the Real people would be Responsible to tell their Representation that they disagree with such a violation of human rights and to Reform this proposed act by the politicians in government by asking for its immediate repeal when most possible.
Yours in Reform,
Paul
_________________
Representing Ontarians for a better Ontario - http://www.representativeparty.on.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Little Big Man
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 03/ 05 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Young Reformer wrote: | Little Big Man,
Even in fiscal policies, the Reform and Freedom parties aren't alike. Reform is against all monopolies, private and public, while Freedom wants to give to the rich and take from the poor. |
Oooh, you got me:
| Freedom Party of Ontario policy wrote: |
1. Freedom Party is in favour of taking from the poor, and giving to the rich.
2. Freedom Party is in favour of torturing little animals with a fork.
3. Freedom Party is in favour of poisoning lakes with leaded paint. |
No point in hiding it. Freedom Party is the EVIL party. Yup, ya got me dead to rights. 
Again: criticism, if it is to be useful to your dream of a new political party, ought to (a) have a basis in REALITY, and (b) be TRUTHFUL. Either you are entirely incompetent when it comes to reading, or you are just lying to people intentionally. For example:
| The Actual Freedom Party of Ontario policies wrote: |
Subsidies
34. Freedom Party is opposed to directly or indirectly businesses with government revenues. |
and
| The Actual Freedom Party of Canada Election Platform for 2008 wrote: |
CORPORATE WELFARE
Subsidies, Monopolies & Protectionism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies to Business
On April 16, 1998, the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation released a study of sixteen years of financial assistance authorized by Industry Canada to individuals, other levels of government and corporations. They found over 11 billion dollars of assistance had been authorized over 16 years through 32,969 separate grants, contributions, loans, interest contributions and loan guarantees. Over 18% of the $11 billion ($2.1 billion) was authorized through various forms of assistance to only five companies ($949 million to Quebec-based Pratt & Whitney alone). The government argues that such corporate welfare creates or maintains jobs, yet workers at recipient companies have been laid off. The government argues that these are just “investments” and that they will get the money back. Yet the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found that “a mere 8% of $2.6 billion lent out to recipients through the now-defunct Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP) [a predecessor to Technology Partnerships Canada] has been repaid”.
If a person in Canada does not want to invest in a company, the government should not tax the money out of her pocket and then hand it over to the private company that she didn’t want to finance. Government should not be financing private businesses with tax dollars or borrowed funds. Period.
By giving federal financing to some companies (who are perhaps better connected, politically) and not to others, the federal government creates an unfair playing field for business in Canada. Competition is undermined. Potentially weak companies get a shield that prevents stronger, but smaller or less politically-connected companies from taking the lead. If Canada is to attract new, strong companies, it must not play favourites.
Government ought never to succumb to threats and warnings, from private companies, that there may be lay-offs or closures if government assistance isn’t forked over: truly failing companies will always be succeeded by truly strong ones. So that those strong companies do business in Canada, the focus should be on reducing the penalties and unfairness associated with the choice of doing business in Canada, not on having Canadians ultimately pay the wages of employees in private companies (i.e., not on workfare).
The bottom line: a Freedom Party government will immediately discontinue the financing of private businesses of all sizes, and will close down the federal departments and agencies that exist only to facilitate government financing of private businesses.
Mercantilism
If a public or private consumer in another country wants to buy goods and services from a company based in Canada, that’s great. If the federal government and its departments or agencies help out with loans, grants, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, insurance etc., that is dead wrong, and not in the interest of Canada or Canadians.
By getting Canada and Canadians involved financially in such activities as mining and dam-building in other countries, Canada’s foreign policy can become undermined. For example, when mining efforts financed in part by Canada cause poisoning of fresh water sources, the inhabitants and governments of other countries have every right to blame Canada. When unwise dam building efforts threaten to bury old civilizations, induce earthquakes, or displace the citizens of another country against their will, Canadian funding of such dam-building efforts makes us blameworthy.
Moreover, by providing financing to bad credit risks in other countries, we are really just providing grants of Canadian taxpayer money to foreign entities and, ultimately, to the Canada-based companies who sell their goods or services to those entities. In other words, “export development” is largely just another way of doling out corporate welfare to Canada-based companies.
A Freedom Party government will immediately discontinue the financing of those who consume the goods or services of Canadian companies. It will, in turn, close down the departments and agencies that exist only to facilitate such mercantilism, starting with Export Development Canada.
Foreign Content Restrictions
Canadians ought not to be discouraged from the financial security and improved returns that are gained from the freedom to properly diversify their retirement investments (e.g., in their RRSPs). The purpose of a retirement plan is to allow Canadians to retire in comfort. The current practice of protecting Canadian-based companies from competition by imposing foreign content restrictions in retirement plans is contrary to the financial interests of those who are saving for their retirement: the content restrictions take earned security away from Canadians’ retirement years in order to give unearned security to Canadian-based companies now. The trade-off is a rip-off. A Freedom Party government will eliminate foreign content restrictions immediately and minimize the damage they are causing to the financial security of Canadians’ retirement years.
Government-imposed Monopolies
It is illegal to compete with a monopoly set up by government. In contrast, it is perfectly legal to compete with a company that has managed to eliminate its other competition with lower prices and sufficient product desirability (i.e., to compete with a “natural monopoly”). Whereas a business that has gained a natural monopoly must continue to satisfy customers sufficiently to maintain its monopoly in a financially rewarding way, a business that is granted a monopoly by government need not satisfy anyone to maintain its monopoly: law prohibits competition with monopolies set up by government.
A huge price-control and industry-control bureaucracy is no substitute for competition in a free market. A government that wants to subsidize such things as expensive flight routes must not undermine the benefits of competition to do so: it should make a direct, clear and accountable payment to the subsidy recipient (see “Accountability: Ending Hide ’n Seek Subsidies”, on page 1). A Freedom Party government will eliminate Canada’s archaic government-imposed monopolies (e.g., prohibitions against competition from non-”Canadian” airlines on “Canadian routes”) to improve the quality, and lower the cost, of goods and services sold to Canadians." |
Um...hardly about government stealing for business.
| Quote: | | I do believe a primary difference between us is our support of democratic majority rule and your opposition to unbridled majority rule... |
Then we are in agreement.
| Quote: | | By the way, democratic majority rule gives us those natural rights (life, liberty and the right to own personal property) you love... |
I disagree. Those rights are natural, not the product of a system of rule. However, I don't intend to go into that with you: perhaps Jason K. or Ont. Cap. would like to take the time to explain where those rights come from...and why unbridled majority rule leaves those rights open to an abominable attack.
| Quote: | | The reason one can contemplate a merger of just about any party with just about any other party is because with Reform all voices are held equally. |
And all opinions, no matter how evil, have an equal impact on party policy. With your "super-Majoritarian" monstrosity, all that the neo-nazis and other anti-semites need do is have enough of their members by memberships and, voila, your "super-Majoritarian" party is the NSDAP. And, by the way, it is no coincidence that many skin-heads and hate-mongers support unbridled majority rule. No thanks. This world has had enough ovens and gas chambers and theft and hate. Wrong is wrong, no matter how many people are in favour of it.
| Quote: | | ...it is a No on the question of a United Right by any of you three provincial political parties. |
I cannot speak for ANY political party. But I can assure you that Freedom Party will never - ever - support the unbridled majority rule that you advocate. Fp opposes that AMORAL approach to politics. It takes the position that ADDITION is no replacement for MORALITY. The so-called "Unity" wet dream that you envision is not a party of "Principled Conservativism". It is a party COMPLETELY DEVOID OF PRINCIPLES....INTENTIONALLY devoid of principles....OPPOSED to principles.
| Quote: | | ...but I wonder, why aren't the other single-issue conservative parties like the Greens or Family Coalition coming on here to recruit liek you guys. |
Because they are relatively inactive, in truth. And, with respect to the greens: communists aren't interested in a "Principled Conservative" discussion board.
| Quote: | | ...If Jim Flaherty decided to pull the plug on this Unity Party thing by going Federal with Harper, I guess we should have all figured it out, and went back to organizing Reform provincially in Ontario for 2007. |
You're deluded. Clearly. "This unity party thing" is an idea that nobody but you has even heard of. To suggest that Mr. Flaherty was ever interested in such a thing is hilarious. Visit a doctor, will ya.
| Quote: | | Meanwhile, as I am not officially a part of the Representative Party of Ontario team but am very supportive of their Reform-like principles... |
Oh please. Your ARE the team.
| Quote: | | Even though you have a point that majority rules in the Reform Party of Ontario philosophy, I think we did quite well from 1987 to 2000 |
There was no provincial reform party, or "representative party" then, and there isn't now. You are delusional. The federal Alliance party's successes belong to itself, not to your Representative Party idea.
| Quote: | | I have to agree again that it does strenuously advocates a universal application of the principle of majority rule over minority right... |
And that's why it should be called the NSDAP, or the Communist Party. Read some philosophy man.
Why would a party that "strenuously advocates" majority rule even HAVE policies. THINK! The idea is preposterous.
| Quote: | | One can still see the communism and capitalism, collectivism and individualism, the subjective and the objective or the malleable and the absolute within the principles and policies of the Reform Party... |
Let me shorten that: "One can still see the communism, collectivism, subjective or the malleable within the principles and policies of the Representative Party of Ontario." That's what you mean, and say. And that, my friend, is why you are out of your tree if you expect any self-respecting conservative to join your oppressive cause.
| Quote: | | I think you finally have it when you say that to me thought, morality and issues of right and wrong or especially right and left have no place in government, and instead, all should be reduced to a numbers game by the majority of people. That is almost the exact point to democratic-populism to which Reform conforms to, and is quite alike to the Liberals, except that their undemocratic-elitism replaces the people with the politicians. |
WELL! Thanks for the glaring admission. Your proposed party believes that morality, and issues of right and wrong, have no place in government. Your proposed party differs from the LIBERALS only by the fact that it polls the public at large instead of just party members.
Write that down folks.
| Quote: | | ...we Ontario Reformers would do nothing but hear from the people in one massive referendum, if it couldn't be decided by either removing marriage from the hands of government or allowing those of the same-sex or other sexual orientations such as bisexuality, bigamy and polygamy to use the non-religious civil union option. |
Amoral. Evil. Dangerous to humanity. Just like the Liberals.
| Quote: | | Again, watch what you say of the majority rule principle, as it may be bridled to the thoughts of the people, but it isn't amoral and it doesn't believe rights of life, liberty and property are pesky things. |
Bullshit. You have NO RESPECT at all for life, liberty or property. You have nothing but SCORN for ideas, for reason, for philosophy, for morality, for good vs. evil. "Should we kill him?" asks the first Representative Party member. "If a majority of us vote to do so." responds the next. If I am wrong, tell me: WHAT LIMITS WOULD YOU PLACE ON MAJORITY RULE. If not, f-off with your nonsense about respecting LL&P.
| Quote: | | I do think and advocate that the people should decide via their logic and reality and morality what is right and wrong, left or right and just follow the common sense we know. |
WRONG. You think and advocate that THE MAJORITY should decide via their consensus what is right and wrong, left or right, and just follow the WHIM of that majority. You have nothing but scorn and disrespect for what INDIVIDUALS decide, and less respect still for OBJECTIVE MORALITY.
| Quote: | | I still think you need to allow a United Alternative to be grassroots-based, bottom-up made and built just like Reform in Ontario or else it won't sell. |
When people start buying what your selling, maybe people will put some stock into what you believe about what people are willing to buy. Freedom, Green, and FCP are all selling and growing. Why not try selling your party, if you think it is so obviously in demand? Why do you - but not the Greens, not FP, and not FCP - continually feel the need to try to hijack other relatively successful smaller parties and use the membership base, their membership lists, their money, their reputations, etc. to try to cobble together a majority rule monstrosity? Why do you need ANYONE else if your idea is so obviously great? Surely people will flock to the Representative Party en masse if you are correct. Wake me up when it happens.
| Quote: | | ...so I can't see this proposed Yellow Stars of David Act passing in today's Ontario |
See, unlike you, I'm not willing to leave such things to chance. I don't care whether we are talking about "today's Ontario" or 2050's Ontario. I oppose anti-semitism, racism, etc. as a matter of objective reality and absolute morality. Only a yahoo leaves it to the changing whims of popular opinion.
Ciao.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young Reformer
Location: Mount Forest/Perth—Wellington/Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 03/ 05 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Little Big Man wrote: | | Young Reformer wrote: | Little Big Man,
Even in fiscal policies, the Reform and Freedom parties aren't alike. Reform is against all monopolies, private and public, while Freedom wants to give to the rich and take from the poor. |
Oooh, you got me:
| Freedom Party of Ontario policy wrote: |
1. Freedom Party is in favour of taking from the poor, and giving to the rich.
2. Freedom Party is in favour of torturing little animals with a fork.
3. Freedom Party is in favour of poisoning lakes with leaded paint. |
No point in hiding it. Freedom Party is the EVIL party. Yup, ya got me dead to rights.
Again: criticism, if it is to be useful to your dream of a new political party, ought to (a) have a basis in REALITY, and (b) be TRUTHFUL. Either you are entirely incompetent when it comes to reading, or you are just lying to people intentionally. For example:
| The Actual Freedom Party of Ontario policies wrote: |
Subsidies
34. Freedom Party is opposed to directly or indirectly businesses with government revenues. |
and
| The Actual Freedom Party of Canada Election Platform for 2008 wrote: |
CORPORATE WELFARE
Subsidies, Monopolies & Protectionism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidies to Business
On April 16, 1998, the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation released a study of sixteen years of financial assistance authorized by Industry Canada to individuals, other levels of government and corporations. They found over 11 billion dollars of assistance had been authorized over 16 years through 32,969 separate grants, contributions, loans, interest contributions and loan guarantees. Over 18% of the $11 billion ($2.1 billion) was authorized through various forms of assistance to only five companies ($949 million to Quebec-based Pratt & Whitney alone). The government argues that such corporate welfare creates or maintains jobs, yet workers at recipient companies have been laid off. The government argues that these are just “investments” and that they will get the money back. Yet the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found that “a mere 8% of $2.6 billion lent out to recipients through the now-defunct Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP) [a predecessor to Technology Partnerships Canada] has been repaid”.
If a person in Canada does not want to invest in a company, the government should not tax the money out of her pocket and then hand it over to the private company that she didn’t want to finance. Government should not be financing private businesses with tax dollars or borrowed funds. Period.
By giving federal financing to some companies (who are perhaps better connected, politically) and not to others, the federal government creates an unfair playing field for business in Canada. Competition is undermined. Potentially weak companies get a shield that prevents stronger, but smaller or less politically-connected companies from taking the lead. If Canada is to attract new, strong companies, it must not play favourites.
Government ought never to succumb to threats and warnings, from private companies, that there may be lay-offs or closures if government assistance isn’t forked over: truly failing companies will always be succeeded by truly strong ones. So that those strong companies do business in Canada, the focus should be on reducing the penalties and unfairness associated with the choice of doing business in Canada, not on having Canadians ultimately pay the wages of employees in private companies (i.e., not on workfare).
The bottom line: a Freedom Party government will immediately discontinue the financing of private businesses of all sizes, and will close down the federal departments and agencies that exist only to facilitate government financing of private businesses.
Mercantilism
If a public or private consumer in another country wants to buy goods and services from a company based in Canada, that’s great. If the federal government and its departments or agencies help out with loans, grants, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, insurance etc., that is dead wrong, and not in the interest of Canada or Canadians.
By getting Canada and Canadians involved financially in such activities as mining and dam-building in other countries, Canada’s foreign policy can become undermined. For example, when mining efforts financed in part by Canada cause poisoning of fresh water sources, the inhabitants and governments of other countries have every right to blame Canada. When unwise dam building efforts threaten to bury old civilizations, induce earthquakes, or displace the citizens of another country against their will, Canadian funding of such dam-building efforts makes us blameworthy.
Moreover, by providing financing to bad credit risks in other countries, we are really just providing grants of Canadian taxpayer money to foreign entities and, ultimately, to the Canada-based companies who sell their goods or services to those entities. In other words, “export development” is largely just another way of doling out corporate welfare to Canada-based companies.
A Freedom Party government will immediately discontinue the financing of those who consume the goods or services of Canadian companies. It will, in turn, close down the departments and agencies that exist only to facilitate such mercantilism, starting with Export Development Canada.
Foreign Content Restrictions
Canadians ought not to be discouraged from the financial security and improved returns that are gained from the freedom to properly diversify their retirement investments (e.g., in their RRSPs). The purpose of a retirement plan is to allow Canadians to retire in comfort. The current practice of protecting Canadian-based companies from competition by imposing foreign content restrictions in retirement plans is contrary to the financial interests of those who are saving for their retirement: the content restrictions take earned security away from Canadians’ retirement years in order to give unearned security to Canadian-based companies now. The trade-off is a rip-off. A Freedom Party government will eliminate foreign content restrictions immediately and minimize the damage they are causing to the financial security of Canadians’ retirement years.
Government-imposed Monopolies
It is illegal to compete with a monopoly set up by government. In contrast, it is perfectly legal to compete with a company that has managed to eliminate its other competition with lower prices and sufficient product desirability (i.e., to compete with a “natural monopoly”). Whereas a business that has gained a natural monopoly must continue to satisfy customers sufficiently to maintain its monopoly in a financially rewarding way, a business that is granted a monopoly by government need not satisfy anyone to maintain its monopoly: law prohibits competition with monopolies set up by government.
A huge price-control and industry-control bureaucracy is no substitute for competition in a free market. A government that wants to subsidize such things as expensive flight routes must not undermine the benefits of competition to do so: it should make a direct, clear and accountable payment to the subsidy recipient (see “Accountability: Ending Hide ’n Seek Subsidies”, on page 1). A Freedom Party government will eliminate Canada’s archaic government-imposed monopolies (e.g., prohibitions against competition from non-”Canadian” airlines on “Canadian routes”) to improve the quality, and lower the cost, of goods and services sold to Canadians." |
Um...hardly about government stealing for business.
| Quote: | | I do believe a primary difference between us is our support of democratic majority rule and your opposition to unbridled majority rule... |
Then we are in agreement.
| Quote: | | By the way, democratic majority rule gives us those natural rights (life, liberty and the right to own personal property) you love... |
I disagree. Those rights are natural, not the product of a system of rule. However, I don't intend to go into that with you: perhaps Jason K. or Ont. Cap. would like to take the time to explain where those rights come from...and why unbridled majority rule leaves those rights open to an abominable attack.
| Quote: | | The reason one can contemplate a merger of just about any party with just about any other party is because with Reform all voices are held equally. |
And all opinions, no matter how evil, have an equal impact on party policy. With your "super-Majoritarian" monstrosity, all that the neo-nazis and other anti-semites need do is have enough of their members by memberships and, voila, your "super-Majoritarian" party is the NSDAP. And, by the way, it is no coincidence that many skin-heads and hate-mongers support unbridled majority rule. No thanks. This world has had enough ovens and gas chambers and theft and hate. Wrong is wrong, no matter how many people are in favour of it.
| Quote: | | ...it is a No on the question of a United Right by any of you three provincial political parties. |
I cannot speak for ANY political party. But I can assure you that Freedom Party will never - ever - support the unbridled majority rule that you advocate. Fp opposes that AMORAL approach to politics. It takes the position that ADDITION is no replacement for MORALITY. The so-called "Unity" wet dream that you envision is not a party of "Principled Conservativism". It is a party COMPLETELY DEVOID OF PRINCIPLES....INTENTIONALLY devoid of principles....OPPOSED to principles.
| Quote: | | ...but I wonder, why aren't the other single-issue conservative parties like the Greens or Family Coalition coming on here to recruit liek you guys. |
Because they are relatively inactive, in truth. And, with respect to the greens: communists aren't interested in a "Principled Conservative" discussion board.
| Quote: | | ...If Jim Flaherty decided to pull the plug on this Unity Party thing by going Federal with Harper, I guess we should have all figured it out, and went back to organizing Reform provincially in Ontario for 2007. |
You're deluded. Clearly. "This unity party thing" is an idea that nobody but you has even heard of. To suggest that Mr. Flaherty was ever interested in such a thing is hilarious. Visit a doctor, will ya.
| Quote: | | Meanwhile, as I am not officially a part of the Representative Party of Ontario team but am very supportive of their Reform-like principles... |
Oh please. Your ARE the team.
| Quote: | | Even though you have a point that majority rules in the Reform Party of Ontario philosophy, I think we did quite well from 1987 to 2000 |
There was no provincial reform party, or "representative party" then, and there isn't now. You are delusional. The federal Alliance party's successes belong to itself, not to your Representative Party idea.
| Quote: | | I have to agree again that it does strenuously advocates a universal application of the principle of majority rule over minority right... |
And that's why it should be called the NSDAP, or the Communist Party. Read some philosophy man.
Why would a party that "strenuously advocates" majority rule even HAVE policies. THINK! The idea is preposterous.
| Quote: | | One can still see the communism and capitalism, collectivism and individualism, the subjective and the objective or the malleable and the absolute within the principles and policies of the Reform Party... |
Let me shorten that: "One can still see the communism, collectivism, subjective or the malleable within the principles and policies of the Representative Party of Ontario." That's what you mean, and say. And that, my friend, is why you are out of your tree if you expect any self-respecting conservative to join your oppressive cause.
| Quote: | | I think you finally have it when you say that to me thought, morality and issues of right and wrong or especially right and left have no place in government, and instead, all should be reduced to a numbers game by the majority of people. That is almost the exact point to democratic-populism to which Reform conforms to, and is quite alike to the Liberals, except that their undemocratic-elitism replaces the people with the politicians. |
WELL! Thanks for the glaring admission. Your proposed party believes that morality, and issues of right and wrong, have no place in government. Your proposed party differs from the LIBERALS only by the fact that it polls the public at large instead of just party members.
Write that down folks.
| Quote: | | ...we Ontario Reformers would do nothing but hear from the people in one massive referendum, if it couldn't be decided by either removing marriage from the hands of government or allowing those of the same-sex or other sexual orientations such as bisexuality, bigamy and polygamy to use the non-religious civil union option. |
Amoral. Evil. Dangerous to humanity. Just like the Liberals.
| Quote: | | Again, watch what you say of the majority rule principle, as it may be bridled to the thoughts of the people, but it isn't amoral and it doesn't believe rights of life, liberty and property are pesky things. |
Bullshit. You have NO RESPECT at all for life, liberty or property. You have nothing but SCORN for ideas, for reason, for philosophy, for morality, for good vs. evil. "Should we kill him?" asks the first Representative Party member. "If a majority of us vote to do so." responds the next. If I am wrong, tell me: WHAT LIMITS WOULD YOU PLACE ON MAJORITY RULE. If not, f-off with your nonsense about respecting LL&P.
| Quote: | | I do think and advocate that the people should decide via their logic and reality and morality what is right and wrong, left or right and just follow the common sense we know. |
WRONG. You think and advocate that THE MAJORITY should decide via their consensus what is right and wrong, left or right, and just follow the WHIM of that majority. You have nothing but scorn and disrespect for what INDIVIDUALS decide, and less respect still for OBJECTIVE MORALITY.
| Quote: | | I still think you need to allow a United Alternative to be grassroots-based, bottom-up made and built just like Reform in Ontario or else it won't sell. |
When people start buying what your selling, maybe people will put some stock into what you believe about what people are willing to buy. Freedom, Green, and FCP are all selling and growing. Why not try selling your party, if you think it is so obviously in demand? Why do you - but not the Greens, not FP, and not FCP - continually feel the need to try to hijack other relatively successful smaller parties and use the membership base, their membership lists, their money, their reputations, etc. to try to cobble together a majority rule monstrosity? Why do you need ANYONE else if your idea is so obviously great? Surely people will flock to the Representative Party en masse if you are correct. Wake me up when it happens.
| Quote: | | ...so I can't see this proposed Yellow Stars of David Act passing in today's Ontario |
See, unlike you, I'm not willing to leave such things to chance. I don't care whether we are talking about "today's Ontario" or 2050's Ontario. I oppose anti-semitism, racism, etc. as a matter of objective reality and absolute morality. Only a yahoo leaves it to the changing whims of popular opinion.
Ciao. |
Little Big Man,
Look, you are the guy leading, or helping to lead, a fiscally conservative only party provincially in Ontario and hoping to lead on federally. We have that in the open, so fine, it isn't environmentally conservative like the Green Party and it isn't socially conservative like the Family Coalition Party therefore it isn't the Conservative Party of Ontario. Perhaps if you could merge all of those other parties you could have been the combined Blue Tory Party in Ontario but you didn't and you aren't. Until you accept that a Conservative Party is one that is fiscally, socially and environmentally conservative, you are the one lost, especially on where conservatives are at right now.
As far as the policies of your party, they can be made up, watered down or even purged at the whim of your leader and/or executive so why on earth would any fiscal conservative join that when they can already get that from the Ontario PC Party? If your party was opposed to directly or indirectly businesses with government revenues then why are you going to privatize those same government revenues directly or indirectly businesses, perhaps one's who back your party, or what is your party's plan to privatize Ontario as the 2008 Federal Plan can't be in effect as you personally back Harper and the CPC or do you?
Sorry, but democratic majority rule gives us, supports and protects those natural rights (life, liberty and the right to own personal property) while each one of those Small Three provincial political parties attacks at least one of them (FPO vs. Life, FCP vs. Liberty and GPO vs. the right to own personal property) and as these would be supported in an Ontario Constitution under a Reform Government (I suspect the Representatives would agree) I think it would be the first Ontario party to actually support the L,L and PP principle openly through proposed legislation in Ontario.
I think under our Super-Majoritarian system, like the old Reform one, things would run just fine. If they could work from 1987 to 2003, I can't see why they won't for 2007. Besides, all of those extremists already have fringe parties to support, as long as our light remains dim until election time, there is no reason why they should fly into Reform. Also, I don't think hate-mongers support democratic majority rule, they may like the idea of unbridled politics, but hate the idea of a majority disagreeing with them. Also, I know a few inside your group and the others in the other two parties unofficially pushed for the "Unity Party wet dream" as you amorally call it, so before you trash an idea the Tavern Society/Jim Flaherty bunch came up with perhaps we should remember where it came from. I was just repeating what I heard, interesting news during the leadership race, thought it might have expanded out. Obviously, it didn't. I do agree though that a Unity Party, where fiscal, social and environmental conservatism would rule the policy books, would be a party of "Principled Conservativism" and would be a party "completely...intentionally ... devoid of ... opposed to principles". I mean, how much more principled conservative could you get than that kind of party?
Nice to know you are the only active party of the bunch, especially when they seem to get a better voter turnout on election day since the mid-late 80s when you all broke out the gate. Reform should have ran provincially in Ontario around the same time - big mistake they didn't, eh! Again, whether officially or unofficially, I will be part of the team to bring a Reform Party of Ontario/Ontario Alliance/Representative Party of Ontario to each and every voter in this province but believe me when I tell you that a Reformer federally is just the same as one provincially so be sure to know we are as alive seperated between 2000 and 2003 as we were united from 1987 to 1999. I guess you misread what I wrote previously as I am saying the successes of Reform don't change with a name, each one is the same, just a different era. I think what you aren't happy to see is the original grassroot Reformers reforming into new grassroot parties using the old principles/policies/platform with a group of three in Ottawa already working to find those October 27th exposure drafts for policy and constitutional amendments for the 2004 Canadian Alliance convention so we can add them to the federal entity.
Speaking only for myself, majority rule over minority right is the way every government should run, as minority rights are always protected by the majority rule. You seem to advocate minority right over majority rule, where the minority elite can run the top-down system of the status-quo over and against the majority grassroots, which is fine as all other parties politically advocate the same philosophy. It is neither communist or capitalist, just right over wrong. It doesn't mean a party that believes in democratic majority rule wouldn't have democratic member-made policy, it means a party that believes in democratic majority rule would have democratic member-made policy as long as it passed the checks and balances of super-majoritarian voting and its Canadian-based double majority which makes sure your type of "end time" scenerios never happen.
Reading what you have to say about the principles and policies of the Representative Party of Ontario in your shortened version, which seem to be the same as the Reform Party of Canada except provincialized, shows me and any other Ontario Reformer that you must never have been a Reformer or supporter of Reform yourself because any Reformer would object to their party being called "communism, collectivism, subjective or the malleable" but then I guess it is your job to try and smear away. I think any small c conservative or small l liberal, who cares for the grassroot citizen first will look past your loony far-right spin and go back to Reform, which still seems to make enough common sense for those trying to restart it.
I have a feeling you never quite knew what Reform was, I think you thought it was the far-right movement the main stream media made it sound like it was or perhaps the fact it was a out and out Tory killer. I think you finally have it, again, when you say that to me thought, morality and issues of right and wrong or especially right and left have no place in government, and instead, all should be reduced to a numbers game by the majority of people. That is almost the exact point to democratic-populism to which Reform conforms to, and is quite alike to the Liberals, except that their undemocratic-elitism replaces the people with the politicians.
Party principles or policies may be made by the membership but a Reform MP/MPP would listen to all constituents in their constituency when they go to vote, not just party members or politicians. What you missed is that it is all people who are heard, not just your select group as your party advocate or the politicians and backroom as the Liberals advocate, but again, all people as Reform advocates as all people make up the population. I mean, under your plan, a couple of people could run the country from a backroom and appoint people without a non-partisan, all-party committee overwatching all the while ruling with an iron fist ... oh yeah I forgot that is the idea to your great status-quo rule ... but don't the Liberal, Tories, same old stories do a good job doing that already?
Freedom Party member #1 sez to Freedom Party member #2: "Our minority believes the majority should cut the Life out of Life, Liberty or the right to Private Property, what say you?" Freedom Party member #2 sez to Freedom Party member #1: "I am for that, fur shure!" Freedom Party member #1 sez to Freedom Party member #2: "Okay, passed, purge the Life out of our Natural Rights principle in the Constitution - but remember we are still Conservatives even though we aren't Social Conservatives and we aren't Environmental Conservatives and we simply hate Democratic Reformers and their communist "Majority Rules" policy!"
By calling Ontario Reformers "Amoral. Evil. Dangerous to humanity. Just like the Liberals." and equating us to the party we worked almost 20 years to take out, you as a FPO representative have definitely wronged all of us, and I can just see what your future attack on the Conservative Party of Canada or its leader Stephen Harper will look like in 2008, if you want to trash the chosen party of the West. Good luck, buddy!
Yours in Reform,
Paul
_________________
Representing Ontarians for a better Ontario - http://www.representativeparty.on.ca |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Little Big Man
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 03/ 05 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, Little Big Man doesn't "represent" any political party. LBM just openly advocates one. Presumably, the same goes for you and the Representative Party, so it's just two FDers talking here.
Secondly, I've already spent far too much time debating this nonsense with you. I think we've established:
(a) You want a "Super-Majoritarian" party that places no limits on majority rule, and that takes the view that morality has no role in governance;
(b) You are free to try and start one;
(c) For some reason, you are both surprised and indignant about the fact that FP, FCP, and the Greens seem not to be interested in getting into a single "Super-Majoritarian" party, so that your party idea can have members, money, and a profile, without having to do any legwork or profile-building.
I can only assume that you have made some sort of formal offer to each of the parties you want to subsume. If not: why are you wasting time talking to a white mouse on an internet bulletin board? Were I you, I would think it a much better idea to spend my time actually writing to those parties. That said, I would never waste my timedoing such a thing, because I cannot see any party that has spent 20+ years of necessary legwork suddenly turning that effort over into something completely alien to all three of those parties, and to people who clearly don't believe in the values of any of those three parties. What you propose is philosophically anti-thetical to all three parties: why involve them? Do your own thing. In fact, if all you care about is "Super Majoritarianism", why not call upon the Communist Party, CoR, and the Libertarians, and give FP, FCP, and the Greens a reprieve from the time vampire thingy.
Discussing this with you was fun enough, for the sole reason that it allows me to challenge you on the dangers of Majority Rule. But I've said all I intend to say about majority rule, and I never was interested in the side issue of this "Unity Party" or "Reform Party of Ontario" or "Representative Party of Ontario" (it would help everybody if you picked one). I'll leave any further debate about this still-born idea of yours to other people.
Best of luck though.
LBM
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GratianGasparri
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 21/ 05 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bump
_________________
Grand Inquisitor of the Shadowy Group[TM]
Author of "Me!" - Free Dominion''s 1,000,000th post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Felix Culpa
Joined: 15 Apr 2005 Total posts: 8012 Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 06/ 22/ 05 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bump |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GratianGasparri
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 07 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bump
_________________
Grand Inquisitor of the Shadowy Group[TM]
Author of "Me!" - Free Dominion''s 1,000,000th post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
littleharbour
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 07 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You mean the "gay" clown vote is failing to materialize as the crucial factor in this election? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Droid1963 Joined: 25 Nov 2002 Total posts: 1644 Location: Calgary, Alberta Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 07 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Assless chaps and a leather captain's hat.
_________________
The above is MY OPINION, and DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE OWNERSHIP OF FREE DOMINION.
Proud
If the Canadian flag offends you, or if you don't like being a part of Canada, then you should consider another Canadian freedom: the right to leave" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fabulous Fred
Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 07 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John_Tory_is_a_Sex_Symbol wrote: | | rightsideup wrote: | | I know it's cool to be a conservative and all that...but to be one, you have to have the values of one...and well if you don't have those...you can't be one. |
Hello? The Bay Street Studmuffin won the leadership race for OPC on an inclusive platform. This means LGBT values are now an active part of the OPC. Get with the century folks! |
Wake up and smell the coffee!
John Tory couldn't get elected as dog catcher now!
Tory is anything except a conservative, perhaps once the lame excuse party, also known as the O.P.C.'s kicks him out on his duff perhaps he can joing his spiritual twins in the N.D.P.!! 
_________________
Truth Is Treason In The Empire Of Lies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GratianGasparri
Gender: Unknown
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 07 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fabulous Fred wrote: | | John Tory couldn't get elected as dog catcher now! |
Although politically he's good at rolling over and playing dead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| T.G. Joined: 08 Dec 2006 Total posts: 2929 Location: Ontario Gender: Male
|
| Posted: 10/ 01/ 07 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fabulous Fred wrote: | | Tory is anything except a conservative, perhaps once the lame excuse party, also known as the O.P.C.'s kicks him out on his duff perhaps he can joing his spiritual twins in the N.D.P.!! |
Hey, what a great idea! He can challenge Howard Hampton for the NDP leadership! Definitely, the fit would be better over there and then Tory can frolic with the homosexual lobby all he likes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sponsor
|
Use PayPal to make regular monthly $20 donations to the free speech cause - quit any time! Or make a one time donation!
|
|
|
| How should John Tory attract the LGBT community? |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Page 4 of 4
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
