h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, we have a Liberal party. It's pretty much the only real contender for government, too, ever since Brian Mulroney, the penultimate Conservative Prime Minister caused the eventual alienation most Canadians from any affection for his party by selling our economy out to the US with the Canada-US free trade agreement. Now the right wing is divided and bickering , the socialist New Democrats remain the social conscience of the nation, and the Liberals just keep roaring up the middle and into power. Of course, in some of the Provincial Legislatures the Conservatives remain viable and in a number of cases form the government.

That sounds familiar. The "National Party" here (conservative_ ruled here for most of the '90s and pretty much screwed things up economicaly with dropping of tarrifs so the wealthy could buy cheaper BMWs (well that my theory for why they did it).

If conservativism is to let things be then why is it conservatives are the one that "restructure" 100s or 1,000s out of their jobs and then blame the unemployed for being unemployed.

Anyway, the National Party is not really a contender anymore and after the last election had to give up a 'front bench' seat in parliament to one of the smaller parties.

The way I've always understood "conservative" and "liberal" is that conservatives wish to conserve as much (theoretically the good bits) of the status quo as possible (through a hands-off approach) while liberals emphasise a liberal use of government intervention to improve society, even if it means upsetting the status quo.

I contend that the status quo benefits a very few. A status quo would be the minimum wage, a raising of which the conservatives always fight.

From my experience here and from observation. Conservatives are there to benefit business and those doing well and The Left wing is there to benefit the general population.

I always find it funny when a conservative group complains about a government action before being told that it was brought in by a previous conservative government. Over here it usually concerns immigration policies.

You only have to rember that Mrs Thatcher didnt conserve a great deal of anything.

Anyone remember this.

Thatcher,Thatcher
Milk snatcher.


Who sold off the trains, bus services, energy and water suppliers to great detremantal effect on the environment, safety and workers pay and conditions. The only sucess that I can think of right now was the sale and deregulation of the telecoms industry.

The conservative and Tory party view is that they will pass legislation to protect the interests of the rich and the poor....well we have the freedom to pull our selves up by our own boot straps. We can get on our bike as Norman Tebbit said (get run over in the polluted overcrowded roads) and find work in Britains many thriving factories.

I put the Conservative Party manifesto through a English to French translator on the net and then back through a French to English translator.

It came out as: "Let them eat cake".

"Most people probably aren't going to agree with every single one of the views of any one party if they think about it."

That's true! That's why I'm not a "ditto-head" (what Rush Limbaugh's supporters are called, because whatever he says, they say "ditto") Rush supports the Republican party no matter what his personal beliefs are. He's a Republican first, whatever else second. No way, jose.

"For record. I wouldn't call myself a "liberal" as my beliefs are very specific. Too specific to subscribe to a system but my politics are left of center."

You know, most people who conservatives would call "liberals" won't admit they are. You hear their positions, which are all decidedly left, and they can't seem to give any cohearant reason why not to call them a liberal, but they don't want to be called "liberal" anyway. Why don't they just stand up and say it? (see the first paragraph on My Space to see that I'm not guilty of trying to get people not to call me a conservative) Seems like most Lefties want everyone to be unsure of what they believe. "You can't know anything for shure" or "Nothing is true". And if you don't believe that, you're "narrow-minded." How wishy-washy! Whether I agree with them or not, I'd much rather listen to someone who is sure of themselves and their positions, over someone who is just, psycho like that.

Nerd42

Nerd42

To help people who need to label everything (including them selves) you can call me a liberal if you like. Just one word of warning do not get confused into delieveing that all liberals have the same opinions on all subjects. Except maybe that conservatives should chill out a bit, join the rest of us working for the future and take off those rose tinted spectacles they use for looking at the past.

Oh and one or two of you should work on making what you pst clearer. Is English your second language?

Do you think conservatives have the same opinions on all subjects? Just because you're on one side or the other doesn't mean that you're on that side on every single issue. It just means you are generally 51% of the time in that category. Whatever you believe, you should just say it loudly rather than this wishy-washy not wanting to allign yourself with anyone.

right wing fanatics rule go rush go lmmfbo

"Whatever you believe, you should just say it loudly rather than this wishy-washy not
wanting to allign yourself with anyone."


<quietly) What if you really believe they're all a little out to lunch and if you are convinced that the world is made up of infinite shades of grey rather than simply blacks and whites?

rush limbaugh for president lmbo

Thatcher also came to an agreement with the unions, solving the labour crisis. Most of what she did was damaging though. I'm just glad that now its been tried, it probably won't be tried again if that stuff ever gets brought back into the public domain.

Its somewhat misleading to say things like leaving things alone is a conservative concept. "laissez faire" with regard to the economy is generally, although there are plenty who would be regarded as left-wingers who support free trade and/or government non-interference. Anarchists for example.

One interesting thing I have seen is the dual-axis measure of political position. It adds a vertical scale which represents collectivisation versus individualism.

Still I think adopting all of the politics of a particular party or position on the scale, or labelling someone as doing that just because they generally support a particular party or position is very foolish.

Don't be too quick to slag off liberals Nerd, remember that Democracy was originally a left-wing concept. Capitalism would've been a radical theory at its conception. Ad Hominem attacks like "they're so wishy washy" don't do anything for your arguement either.

Nerd42 "How wishy-washy! Whether I agree with them or not, I'd much rather listen to someone who is sure of themselves and their positions, over someone who is just, psycho like that."

hmmm It didn't take long for a conservative to start rant, did it?

Nerd42 "Do you think conservatives have the same opinions on all subjects?"

You accuse "liberals" of the same (such as the previous post I quoted) so stop whining like a conservative.

Bouncy "although there are plenty who would be regarded as left-wingers who support free trade and/or government non-interference. Anarchists for example."

I would support it too, if free trade actually meant free trade. My country has been burnt by it and Canadians will tell you that theirs has been too.

Bouncy "Ad Hominem attacks like "they're so wishy washy" don't do anything for your arguement either."

I have a theory that ties with my origional observation. Those of us that are left of center must think for our seves and and make our own stance on issues. This confuses the hell out of the hive minded conservatives who get their opinions handed to them.

ditto

I've been considering the "wishy-washy" question for most of the day. I'm reminded of the people who suggest that they have more respect for Atheists than for Agnostics, because at least the Atheists have made a decision. I find this reason for the bestowal of respect absolutely laughable. Flat-earthers have also made a decision, unlike those wishy-washy believers in the "oblate spheroid", whatever that is. Holocaust deniers have made a decision as well: there's no question for them of how many million died. All those Jedis have made a decision, the new age druids, the alien abductees. As I quietly stated in an earlier post, the world is shades of grey: making a decision on extremely limited evidence and then pretending that the decision should be a guide for all people is nothing other than imposing ones personal faith. I respect Agnostics because they see the limitations of evidence. I would rather converse with an Agnostic because they are openly ackowledging the possibility of learning, unlike those who have already pretended to have decided an issue. Everyone should be agnostic (or wishy-washy) in pretty much everything. Maybe.

just for the record my rush limbaugh outburts were intended as sarcasm...an attempt to lighten the tone

>> Whether I agree with them or not, I'd much rather listen to someone who is sure of themselves and their positions, over someone who is just, psycho like that. <<

Well put.
It is obvious that your sense of order demands clear and logical thought and action. You believe that things must be defined. That communication ought to be concise and precise. You believe that discussion can achieve concensus. I get the impression you are a clean living optimist and a small 'c' conservative. And I admire you for it.

Some here really have discriminated against you and I'm glad to see you standing your ground. Because whether I agree with you or not, I'd much rather listen to someone who is sure of themselv.. Oh wait, you said that.


~jwf~