# Serious Discussion on the Treatment of Liberals on These Forums



## Gimpy (20 Apr 2007)

Now I want to preface this whole post with the fact that I'm not trying to come off as whiny or immature but I feel that this is a very serious issue.

In the rules it clearly states that there are to be no personal attacks on any poster or public figure, yet in any thread that has some inkling of politics there are always shots taken against the Liberals or people who support the Liberals. An example would be in this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/59959/post-558010/topicseen.html#new with two quotes: 





			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'm absolutely appalled by the head-in-the-sand citizens who still favour the Liberal Party at this point... A complete bunch of morons....


 and 





			
				Boxkicker said:
			
		

> To me they seem to be more like sheep, or lemming just follow the leader.  It seems to me that Liberal voters are brain washed



I personally find it very aggrivating that people always jump on Liberals for supporting Dion or for being uninformed and those are just untrue. For starters the majority of people who vote Liberal are not card-carrying Liberal members and don't have the oppourtunity to vote for who they wanted to be leaders. (Its the same way with Conservatives). Secondly, the people who take shots at the uninformed Liberals are only basing their views off anecdotal evidence. I, myself, am a Liberal, but I'm not the biggest supporter of Dion. I voted for Ignatieff in the federal election and leadership election. I read The Toronto Star (Liberal) and the Toronto Sun (Conservative) to get both sides of the issues.

Now before you jump all over me, which will undoubtedly happen from some posters I just want to have an honest discussion about this without being labeled a "moron" or a "lemming" for supporting a politcal party. Because everyone here knows that if I pointed out things that the Conservatives did wrong I would be jumped all over and I realize that this is a predominatly conservative board and I have no problem with that but I don't like being discriminated against because of politcal affiliation.

I'm sorry if that comes off as whiny but its honestly how I feel and I just wanted to get it out in the open. I have my doubts as to if any other Liberals will come out and post, but one can hope.


----------



## MediTech (20 Apr 2007)

I may be out of line on this one but you probably would have benefitted from sending a PM to one of the moderators rather than just posting something that is going to start a flame war.  I think this thread should be locked because in posting it, Gimpy is asking for trouble.  Secondly, it's the internet Gimpy, if you don't like what is being said here you don't have to come here.  Nobody is forcing you to attend the forums.  If the moderators felt that the rules weren't being followed, I would have confidence in them to deal with it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Apr 2007)

Don't worry we are watching...

Army.Ca Staff

Mod Hat off:
Personally I think the Liberals deserve the disdain they are recieveing, yeah sure they started some equipment purchases but when you look at it in the grand scheme of thingsm, under whose watch was it where the CF was brought to our knees. Sorry Gimpy, but you are fighting an uphill battle.


----------



## Gimpy (20 Apr 2007)

Med.Tech said:
			
		

> I may be out of line on this one but you probably would have benefitted from sending a PM to one of the moderators rather than just posting something that is going to start a flame war.  I think this thread should be locked because in posting it, Gimpy is asking for trouble.  Secondly, it's the internet Gimpy, if you don't like what is being said here you don't have to come here.  Nobody is forcing you to attend the forums.  If the moderators felt that the rules weren't being followed, I would have confidence in them to deal with it.



I have, nor had any intention of starting a flame war and I feel that everyone should have the privilege of reading this site regardless of political affiliation and not feel attacked. This is supposed to be a clean, family-type website from what I've read and this site isn't as militant as some others. For example, if I stated I was a Muslim on Stormfront I would be subject to constant harassment but I wouldn't expect any less from them. But this site is supposed to be open to anyone interested in the Canadian Forces and to insult people based on political affiliation is not something that someone should expect coming to this site.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Mod Hat off:
> Personally I think the Liberals deserve the disdain they are recieveing, yeah sure they started some equipment purchases but when you look at it in the grand scheme of thingsm, under whose watch was it where the CF was brought to our knees. Sorry Gimpy, but you are fighting an uphill battle.



I totally understand the reasons for disdain and I openly accept that on a forums for the Canadian Forces that most of you would be offended by the choices that the Liberals made. But on the same token Mulroney made multiple promises to the forces that he as well could not keep.


----------



## muskrat89 (20 Apr 2007)

> But this site is supposed to be open to anyone interested in the Canadian Forces and to insult people based on political affiliation is not something that someone should expect coming to this site.



If you see something that violates the Conduct Guidelines, then use the "Report to Moderator" button. It's really just that simple, and applies to all topics on this site, not just the political ones....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Apr 2007)

...and if you would read other than that you quote, you will see former PM Mulroney takes a beating for his actions as did Mr. O'Conner when he was the Defence critic.

Both Conservatives......


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2007)

Despite my dislike of the Liberals, i have commented on this board that Bill Graham seems to being the best choice they ever made for Defense Minister. Actually I am glad they picked Dion for leader, with Iggy they actually stood a chance of getting back in. They deserve to be out of government, they earned it and need 5-10 years to clean house, in the meantime I hope they are able to serve Canada as useful loyal opposition to the government. Presently I have my doubts they could even fulfil this role with dignity.


----------



## Bane (20 Apr 2007)

Gimpy - You're going to have to accept that it's a board and that people are free to just type whatever, within the rules, and like MedTech said, some things you just have to put up with.  That said I agree with your dislike of non-critical pro conservative reactionary comments.  But it is a board and not a formal debate.

MedTech - Please....


> if you don't like what is being said here you don't have to come here


I didn't realize this was a place solely reserved for us to mutually stroke one another.  

I think gimpy is trying, in his own way, to elevate the level of political discourse on the site which I applaud. I wanted to start a thread on much the same topic some months ago but felt I was to new to the site to do so. So hats off and good luck with your uphill battle Gimp!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Apr 2007)

Gimpy and anyone else who this applies to....if you are here and support the CF I think that's great, I really don't care what party you support as we live in a democracy. However, when your party advocates military spending, argues about needed equipment purchases etc then as the advocate for that party on this site then you should expect a backlash. The military members here are passionate people and I guarantee you that if PM Harper and the Conservatives start gutting the CF, you will see a backlash from members here and CF supporters against them. To feel that there would not be is just being naive.


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2007)

Gimpy....I am a conservative. That given, I am not above chalking one up for the Liberals when the Conservatives screw up. 

If you listen to the rhetoric of the Liberals under Martin, Graham and now Dion, you can sense some sort of desperation. They have not fared well, mostly because of what "they" have done and said, not what the Conservatives have done. They are in transition mode right now and have picked a new leader from the B team, and he's not panning out. The people selected to opposition critics are not doing their job well, whether they are not up to speed, or that is just not their bailiwick, but it ain't working, and they are losing credibility.

The Liberals have no, absolutely none, love for the military. Look at their record. They will paint them black in a heartbeat, if it means getting votes. 

Why should anyone on these boards hesitate to criticize "any" political party when they insist on coming out with statements that ludicrous, incorrect, damaging, and just plain backward. Don't ever think for one minute any of the opposition parties do not know the correct information. They know, but they still spout garbage, because that is their political stance in that instance.


----------



## Cardstonkid (20 Apr 2007)

One of the problems on Forums like this one is that sometimes we write things we would not say if we were talking to someone in person. For example, we might think a Liberal supporter is an idiot, but we might not use that choice of words if we were talk with them face to face. 

I know I have said things like that on this forum and it is something I regret. I wrote things that I would not have said if I were able to see how the words I used hurt the people I was talking to. Political discussions can become very passionate and when we can't see a face we can be rude. I am a pretty courteous guy in person, yet I have been out of line on the internet so your post is a good reminder to be civil. 

So in that vein, 

I think the Liberals have been very bad for Canada, they deserve a long term stay in the penalty box. However, Liberal supporters are not necessarily idiots. So there, no personal attacks, just the facts. (according to me)


----------



## MediTech (20 Apr 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> Gimpy - You're going to have to accept that it's a board and that people are free to just type whatever, within the rules, and like MedTech said, some things you just have to put up with.  That said I agree with your dislike of non-critical pro conservative reactionary comments.  But it is a board and not a formal debate.
> 
> MedTech - Please....I didn't realize this was a place solely reserved for us to mutually stroke one another.
> 
> I think gimpy is trying, in his own way, to elevate the level of political discourse on the site which I applaud. I wanted to start a thread on much the same topic some months ago but felt I was to new to the site to do so. So hats off and good luck with your uphill battle Gimp!





			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> If you see something that violates the Conduct Guidelines, then use the "Report to Moderator" button. It's really just that simple, and applies to all topics on this site, not just the political ones....



Bane, if everybody is following the forum rules and Gimpy has a problem with what's going on then it's not the forums problem.  I don't understand why anybody would come here if they didn't like it here.  Obviously Gimpy has a problem with the forum rules because everybody is following them.  Maybe he would be better suited at rabble.ca


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Apr 2007)

IMO Gimpy raises a viable concern that needs to be addressed whether or not we agree with his political beliefs or not....


----------



## observor 69 (20 Apr 2007)

How about we rename the thread "Serious discussion on the treatment of alternate viewpoints?"

Many times I see a presentation of an alternate opinion quickly labelled socialist, NDP, Liberal, cut and run etc etc. I am sure you know where I am coming from.

A common sign I have noted of many members who are more tolerant of opposing views is they have posted a lot of times. In other words they have learned over time to hear out various views and then respond with a reasoned rebuttal.

To me that is one of the more valuable skills a forum like this can develop in it's contributors. It's also a sign of personal maturity.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Apr 2007)

Med.Tech.......PM inbound

army.ca staff


----------



## CougarKing (20 Apr 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> The Liberals have no, absolutely none, love for the military. Look at their record. They will paint them black in a heartbeat, if it means getting votes.



GAP,

While this statement can probably be said about Canadian Liberals, I am just curious about your opinion about American Liberals/the US Democrats. Just because one is a liberal does not necessarily mean they hate the military; Senator Kerry was a US Navy veteran on a PBR/Patrol Boat in Vietnam, although a certain group of fellow veterans conducted a smear campaign against him in the 2004 US Presidential election, claiming he didn't actually see action.
   Then you have Senator James  Webb, who is not only a renowed novelist and former Secretary of the Navy, but he served an US Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War; in fact, he was said to be so respected by the Corps that his novel Fields of Fire is said to be recommended as required reading prior for any Marine Officer candidate who goes through OCS/TBS. 
   Then you have Congressman Murtha- a Marine Corps officer and a retired Colonel at that! Just because he and Webb oppose the War in Iraq does not necessarily mean he hates the military. They just want to ensure that the govt. is steering their nation and military that protects that nation toward what they see as the best course of action, which does not repeat what they see as the "mistakes of Vietnam", while still continuining the War on Terror. 
Then you have Generals Shalikashvilli and Wesley Clarke- the former appeared at the last Democratic National Convention in 2004 and Wesley Clarke tried running in the Democratic Primaries back in 2004, though he only carried the State of Oklahoma.   
   My only point is that just because one is a liberal does not necessarily mean they hate the military; on the other hand, to assume that all Conservatives love the military is also a generalization. It is a logical fallacy called "post hoc ergo procter hoc"- or to assume that a result is always true just because of the preceding premise. 

Let me take this generalization that US/Canadian liberals "hate" the military and cross-examine it a little. Two of the most distinguished US Presidents were LIBERALS. One is US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whom some of you may even blame for the Depression, but then again it was his "Socialist"  New Deal programs which helped all these Americans who were hard on the luck find a way to get back on their feet; one should even be thankful for FDR's New Deal programs, since they prevented the United States from collapsing into a Communist Revolution and all these welfare/socialist programs gave these new poor the impression that the govt. was doing something. How can one say that FDR hated the military? He may have gutted the Army to the point that the US Army was as large as that of Portugal by the time of Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland, but look at what he did with the Navy, especially since he was a former Secretary of the Navy himself. While all the world's navies were restricted by the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, the United States continued in its development of aircraft carriers from the giant USS _Saratoga_ and _Lexington_ in the early 1930s to the _Yorktown_ class. By the time of the expiration of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1939, his administration knew that the United States would be involved in a war- whether in Europe or the Pacific- and embarked in a massive shipbuilding campaign that gradually built the giant armada of carriers, battleships, cruisers, escort carriers and Liberty ships which helped the US and Allied Navies defeat the Japanese in the Pacific as well as Hitler's U-boat threat. By his death in 1945, the US Navy had exceeded the British Royal Navy as the world's powerful Navy and had been an instrument in the victories in the Island-hopping wars of the Pacific as well as helping deliver the Allied armies to the fight to Fotress Europe. NOW DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE AVERAGE "MILITARY-HATING" DEMOCRAT TO YOU? 

 Would someone who hates the military have the started the massive shipbuilding campaign that he did and LED the US throughout most of World War II ? I think not. Would someone who hates the military take his wife and his dog Fala on a cruise aboard a US Navy cruiser during the 1930s (which alternated between the USS Houston and Augusta). Would someone who hates the military have used the US Navy in "Neutrality Patrols" for Allied Convoys for Lend-Lease equipment through the Atlantic BEFORE PEARL HARBOR, when the US was still neutral? (And please I don't have any patience for conspiracy theories that FDR intentionally ordered the US Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor to provoke Japan into attacking them). 

Then you have US President John F. Kennedy- a Navy Veteran himself whose PT boat was sliced in two by a Japanese Destroyer in World War II. He's Democrat and a Catholic. Now, will someone who is a Democrat have STOOD UP against the Soviet Union and faced down Krushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Would a man who hates the militay have used the US Navy in the blockade of Cuba as he did to show his decisiveness?? Or continued funding for General Le May's pet B-52 bombers? It's ironic that today Democrats are often not differentiated from Communists when one of the most distinguished US Democrats helped prevent Communism from spreading!  

Now many of you are probably going to say that the US Democrats then are different from the US Democrats now because there was a supposed change/reversal in their ideology starting with the 1960s. I don't think so. Many of these US Democrats believe in universalized Health care, welfare for the poor, nation-building missions such as those in "Haiti, Bosnia, etc", yadda, yadda, yaddda. FDR's New Deal demonstrates he is pretty much "socialist" by the way some of you define the term, and so was LBJ by his own futile attempt to make a universalized health care system in his time; and both were either before or during that supposed ideology change of the 1960s. The Democrats of today, such as Kerry and Obama recently, have stated (at least have given lip service), that the US should form a universal health care system. I say the core beliefs of the two parties remain essentially the same, though the proliferation of Civil Rights have changed the demographics of both parties.

But of course, most average pro-military Americans will probably forget FDR, JFK, LBJ simply because most of them were either too young to remember them or hadn't been born by then. All that will come to recent memory is Reagan's own pro-military administration, which saw him revitalize the military with programs such as a "600 ship Navy" to help counter the "Soviet Bear"; many of the US officer corps and higher NCOs of the US military today were still either young lieutenants or newly enlisted privates/airmen/seamen during the Reagan administration. The fact that Reagan helped rebuild the US military especially after the humiliations of Vietnam and the Carter administration/the failed Iran hostage rescue mission forever endeared THEM to the Republicans from Bush (Senior) to "Dubya" Bush. 

My only point in regurgitating all this history is to emphasize that NOT ALL LIBERALS HATE THE MILITARY and that is an UNFAIR MISCONCEPTION to assume that they all do, solely because our own Liberals have gutted the CF in all those years they were in power. Our Liberals are closer in ideology to their Democrats, and (surprise, surprise), their Conservatives/Republicans are closer in ideology to our own current Conservative party (Harper's "Blue Tories", as opposed to the older "Red Tories" who were very progressive and actually were pro-welfare, and wanted closer ties to the British Empire/Commonwealth.) I say it's only a matter of time before we have a Liberal Party that does not repeat the mistakes of their predecessors who see the military (as well as dependents and veterans) as more of a target than a constituency in its own right, who should not be ignored.


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2007)

I was talking about the present Liberal party in Canada... (Not the democrats) and those leaders mentioned....it could be extended to previous leaders, but the principle remains the same.


----------



## Pikache (20 Apr 2007)

Gimpy,
I draw the line at personal attacks against a member of the board = warning and general group comments =  ok.

If you don't like the others bashing the Libs, then provide a solid argument based upon concrete evidence and debate your points. Whining about the Liberal bashing isn't going to win you points, nor will the mods step in to stop the Libs bashing.

If I call you stupid dumb schmuck Liberal, then that's a problem. But if I call Liberals in general idiots, well, that's just the political discussion that happens not just on this boards


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Apr 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> IMO Gimpy raises a viable concern that needs to be addressed whether or not we agree with his political beliefs or not....



I agree, there are certain subjects (like political party platforms) that have never received an objective analysis here because they get pulled off track by unnecessary rhetoric.  As soon as someone posts (or shows themselves capable of) nothing more than insults and invective, it poisons the thread and effectively shouts down those who would discuss the subject rationally, and more often than not a dogpile ensues which effectively kills the thread.


----------



## medaid (20 Apr 2007)

Bane, 

    Please don't use my screen name when you quote things... I didn't and never will say things like that. The person you want to accredit those things to is Med*.Tech. It's got nothing to do with me. Cheerios!


    +1 Michael. I think at times we are quick to judge (guilty) and pounce on things a little too quickly. A serious attempt at a neutral discussion on this topic is something that is needed. *


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Apr 2007)

I have to say that, I too would prefer if we all spent a little more time arguing the substance (or lack of) about a particular policy, rather than engage in ad hominum type attacks.  It is pretty easy to say (for instance) "the Liberals suck".  It is a bit more difficult to say (but much more useful) "I disagree with the Liberal Party's policy on A, because of X, Y and Z".

Go visit rabble.ca  if you want to see thousands of threads of useless blind partisan attacks that pretty much go nowhere.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Apr 2007)

Sadly it is a little late for this topic. I think most politcal moderates have been chased off from the site already. This site is for far right Conservative members of the Army. As I've been told others simply do not belong.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Apr 2007)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> As I've been told others simply do not belong.



Bullshit......


----------



## medaid (20 Apr 2007)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Sadly it is a little late for this topic. I think most politcal moderates have been chased off from the site already. This site is for far right Conservative members of the Army. As I've been told others simply do not belong.



hubba?!  : wow... if that's the case wth am I doing here then? I'm definetly NOT right wing Conservative. WHO TOLD YOU THAT?!


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Apr 2007)

Ok heres my 2 Cents (inflamatory as usual) to maltreate Liberals or Liberal supporters (and by this I mean personal attacks) is indeed wrong, we have a constitution to protect these rights. Heres the other side of the coin for all those who support the Military and are card carrying Liberals (yes they are out there) and perhaps in a place to influence thier partys policy on defence. Read a book "Who Killed the Canadian Military" by Jack Granatstien, he takes pot shots at leaders from both conservative and liberal parties ie
Diefenbaker killed the military 
Mike Pearson killed the military
Hellyer went too far and killed the Canadian military
Pierre Trudeau viewed soldiers as unintelligent thugs...Trudeau killed the Canadian Military
Mulroney killed the Canadian Forces
Jean Chrétien finished off the Canadian Forces
"Canadians, for the most part, are ill informed on national interests, defence needs, and the new world order"
of course you'll notice his strongest points if you read the book point more towards the Hellyer/Trudeau boondoggle of unification (A liberal effort) but it is only fair to point out that he did take shots at both major parties. So the personal attacks wrong the personal opinions, well thats all they are, everybodies got one


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2007)

...and who knows, in 10 years we_ could_ all be here bashing the "dark decade" that the Conservatives unleashed upon us....



I think anyone with a realistic ounce of truthfulness knows the reason MOST here bash the Liberals is, well because they have been wearing the crown more than the other party lately.

Everyone bitches about the next rank up.........until they themselves become one.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (21 Apr 2007)

theres no telling how much I b@$%$#^ about officer cadets, now I are one (poor grammer on purpose)


----------



## medaid (21 Apr 2007)

muahahaha you and I both ArtyNewbie! Used to make fun of em all the time! When I becamse one I swore I'd never repeat the same mistakes that those...um...people did before me! Where did that get me?! 4 different hats to wear! FOUR!!!! UGH!!! and STILL an OCdt  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2007)

Hey Nemo888, which party at both levels is this " far right Conservative"  knockin' here?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60186/post-558241.html#msg558241


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (21 Apr 2007)

Many of us have "here" on this forum have served through the Liberal years in power, most of, but not all have retired. Many of us on overseas deployments, the Balkans comes to mind, seen and experienced the funding cuts first hand. Having to Cannibalize equipment and vehicles to make other equipment and vehicles servicebale, because there wasn't enough spare parts at home to send over. Troop shortages, Pay freezes, shortage of basic necessities like uniforms, boots, our best friend became a sowing kit and a bag of buttons to keep our uniforms mended. No money to train, budget cut after budget cut , year after year and the list goes on and on. Just like the CDS said it was the "decade of darkness" for the CF, rings so true.

Of any government in power since 1968 to the present, starting with Pierre Trudeau, the Liberal party did the most damage.

If the Conservatives had done the damage, I would be harping on them.

I don't care what party you support, but please do some research before you open up a can of worms like this.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to come off as whiny or immature but I feel that this is a very serious issue.



Whinge, whinge, whinge!

At 19, you might have voted in one federal election.

Politics is more than a text book in school or university for that matter.

Don't like what you hear on here? Go elsewhere if it eats at you, if not SUCK it UP! Offended perhaps  :  no one cares, the Liberals have always been against Defence, and if you want a strong Defence Force, you will get that from the current governemt. The Liberals in Canada were inbread and incestous, and the country needed a break. 

Between the ages of 18 and 35 I voted in every federal election in Canada. Since 1997 to present, I have voted in every Australian federal, state and local election. Its law, if not you get fined, and since I earned my citizenship here, I love exercising my vote, more so than I did in Canada. I have voted in two Canadian federal elections while over here. I do not anymore. 

When you get a few federal elections under you belt and understand what really goes on in the real world (aside from textbooks and the INet), maybe then I will listen to you, and speaking of listening, maybe you should do that on here.

Regards from a hot tropical day on the Coral Sea,

Wes


----------



## TCBF (21 Apr 2007)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Sadly it is a little late for this topic. I think most politcal moderates have been chased off from the site already. This site is for far right Conservative members of the Army. As I've been told others simply do not belong.



- You clearly do not remember "MADMAX" - a fine soldier, slightly to the right of Attila The Hun - being chased off this site in three days flat.

- The Left is actually humoured here.  They FEEL picked on because they run (and censor) every OTHER Canadian website on the internet, with the possible exception of www.canadiangunnutz.com

- The Left is not happy unless they can stifle ALL opposing thought.  That's why Human Rights Commission Kangaroo Courts were created - to outspend the truth.


----------



## Mike Rochefort (21 Apr 2007)

Interesting debate.
Who cares.?
You can do nothing about the past however you can all do something about the shape of the future.
If all you’re concentrated your efforts went towards changing the way things are I am sure you would make a difference.


----------



## Gimpy (21 Apr 2007)

Wesley (Finally Home Down Under) said:
			
		

> Whinge, whinge, whinge!
> 
> At 19, you might have voted in one federal election.
> 
> ...



Now this is the post that I was expecting coming into this. You call the Liberals of Canada inbred and incestuous, well now doesn't that seem like a bit of a personal attack? I certainly don't fool around with my relatives and for that matter if we are going by the stereotype wouldn't conservatives be more likely to do that? But that's not the main purpose of this site. You say I should listen and that you won't listen to me because I'm 19 and have only one federal elections under my belt, so do you suggest that I stop posting here for another 5 years? That's absurd and I don't think many other people feel that way. This is the internet, where age should play no factor in discussions but more so the intelligence of the debate. Just for the record as well, by merely voting in an election in doesn't give you any more experience than I might have, we've both voted so thats a moot point.


----------



## time expired (21 Apr 2007)

GIMPY
        If you can´t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.This site is mainly populated by military,
ex military and people who have some connection or interest in the military and people who post
liberal or other left-wing babble generally get stomped on.There are plenty of historical reasons for
this, which I am sure others can fill you in on. But my suggestion to you is find your self another site
that is little more PC,although IMO this site is PC enough,as you will never be happy here.
                           Regards


----------



## Gimpy (21 Apr 2007)

time expired said:
			
		

> GIMPY
> If you can´t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.This site is mainly populated by military,
> ex military and people who have some connection or interest in the military and people who post
> liberal or other left-wing babble generally get stomped on.There are plenty of historical reasons for
> ...



OK, I want to make this clear. I've never said anywhere in my posts that I wanted to leave or that I disliked it here. This site is very informative and I really like this site, but my main concern is that on topics of politics or anywhere where the words Liberals or NDP comes up there are always little backhanded comments that are ill-informed and add nothing to the topic. You can find plenty of historical reasons for conservative dislike as well but that doesn't mean that I am going to make remarks about previous conservatives in every post.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2007)

As long time readers of Army.ca know, I often take Occam's razor into battle against various "left wing" posters in the Canadian Politics thread, and certainly delight in slicing up the poorly thought out arguments of the Left. On the other hand, I will certainly take the time to engage in serious debate with any Liberal, NDP or even Communist Party member who takes the time to make well thought out arguments, based on facts, historical observations etc. I have even offered up a thread on the Euston Manifesto in Canadian Politics for this purpose, with very few takers.

The problem is poorly thought out arguments are ALL that various left wing parties and their supporters seem to come up with, hence the drubbing they get here where people make careers on literally life and death analysis of information. When the rubber hits the road, you cannot ignore contrary evidence or facts which do not fit pre existing patterns of belief, wheras many politicians from left wing parties seem to believe in six impossible things before breakfast (just read the constant flip flopping on various issues). 

That being said, the Conservative Party of Canada can and will get a rough ride from the very same posters (including me) when they start making bad decisions. I have already posted against the recent budget because of the bloated spending, worry about the way they are flapping in the wind on so called Climate Change and will comment negatively on them if deemed nessesary.


----------



## mysteriousmind (21 Apr 2007)

Interesting debate, loving every line of it.

One thing Gimpy. 

I fyou dont like reading about stomping. then Dont...simple as this. I like to read about politics, it is a good way to keep inform.

I will not defend the libs. for the scandals they had at the end of their reign. Would it have been the CP I would not have defend it. Wheter its the libs or the CP, I will go with the party the is doing the best job. So far, CP is doing what he is telling. to my opinion at this moment thats is what is important. 

Personnal attacks or other kind of attacks are not fun. I fyou disagree with them, you can always repports to the mod, THEY will determine if it ok or not and THEY will take action.


----------



## Roy Harding (21 Apr 2007)

Gimpy:

I agree with you - intelligent debate is a wonderful thing.  Personal attacks are not.

However - consider that this IS the Internet, albeit a very special little corner of it.  I do believe that you'll find a significant percentage of the posters here are well considered, logical, and passionate people.  There are, of course, many "less mature" folk who frequent these forums.  I too have been disappointed to watch various interesting discussions spiral down into flame-wars when these "less mature" folk decide to chime in.  I think the DS here do a wonderful job of controlling this tendency.

For what it's worth - the only other site I frequent which has a similar "mature atmosphere" is a woodworking forum (not a subject likely to attract 12 year old superninja wannabe's) and even THERE the discussion occasionally spirals into a "my tool is better than your tool because I said so" flame-fest.

It's the internet - take out of it what is worth taking - ignore the rest (more easily said than done, I know - but practice makes it easier in time).


Roy


----------



## Journeyman (21 Apr 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> *There are, of course, many "less mature" folk who frequent these forums. *



Hello, I can hear you, you know.  

 ;D


----------



## stealthylizard (21 Apr 2007)

Usually when this forum talks about Liberals, it is about the Liberal PARTY, not the people that vote for the party.  Many will vote for the Liberal Party for various reasons, and I think most (hopefully) realize that.  Military is not one of the key election issues for a lot of the voting public, until they are polled, asking about if the military should be better funded.  Rarely is it ever part of a party's election platform that is fed to the public.  Speaking for myself, this last election for me, was a one issue vote.  All parties, unfortunately, eventually become alike, but I wanted to give the Conservative Party a chance to prove me wrong, especially on the military side of things.  I don't agree on everything Mr. Harper has done, but I would be willing to give him one majority mandate to try and fix the military as best as he can.  If and when he fails, I will slag him as I do all other politicians that have failed in that regard.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Now this is the post that I was expecting coming into this. You call the Liberals of Canada inbred and incestuous, well now doesn't that seem like a bit of a personal attack? I certainly don't fool around with my relatives and for that matter if we are going by the stereotype wouldn't conservatives be more likely to do that? But that's not the main purpose of this site. You say I should listen and that you won't listen to me because I'm 19 and have only one federal elections under my belt, so do you suggest that I stop posting here for another 5 years? That's absurd and I don't think many other people feel that way. This is the internet, where age should play no factor in discussions but more so the intelligence of the debate. Just for the record as well, by merely voting in an election in doesn't give you any more experience than I might have, we've both voted so thats a moot point.



Whatever makes you feel good Gimpy, at 19, you got the world by the short hairs, and at 47 I know phuck all. 

Maybe when you grow up you can be a politician, perhaps a Liberal PM one day.

IMHO, having the same government for years and years is incestous and inbread, regardless of whatever party they are.


Wes


----------



## medaid (21 Apr 2007)

+1 Wesley.

The Canadian Government, if you looked at it closely, always had a history of swinging back and forth from one end of the political spectrum to the other. We all know what anything in excess is bad. In this case, the excess was the Liberal government. Now that the political spectrum has swung to the otherside with the Conservative party, we are beginning to see a balance between the two parties' ideals and political agendas. For example, when the Liberals were in power, there was barely any military funding, now the Conservatives are in, we are getting more. You know what I call that? BALANCE. and that is how a democratic government is supposed to work.


----------



## Roy Harding (21 Apr 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hello, I can hear you, you know.
> 
> ;D



I forgot to add that there are also many smart asses here, despite their "mature" years.


Roy


----------



## Mike Baker (21 Apr 2007)

What about me? I am an immature smart ***   (Kidding of course)

edit: woops sorry for the not changing the rear end to ***  :-[


----------



## NL_engineer (21 Apr 2007)

Gimpy, 
You may think the Liberals are given a bad name on this form; but look at the number of times we poke fun at/criticize the hell out of the NDP and Taliban Jack.

None of the NDP supporters (if there are any left on here) have started a thread about it.


----------



## RangerRay (22 Apr 2007)

My read:

Personal attacks on individual posters - not ok

Attacks on collectives (Liberal/Tory/NDP supporters in general) - ok

Mods, am I wrong here?

Editted for clarity.


----------



## Steenburg (22 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> OK, I want to make this clear. I've never said anywhere in my posts that I wanted to leave or that I disliked it here. This site is very informative and I really like this site, but my main concern is that on topics of politics or anywhere where the words Liberals or NDP comes up there are always little backhanded comments that are ill-informed and add nothing to the topic. You can find plenty of historical reasons for conservative dislike as well but that doesn't mean that I am going to make remarks about previous conservatives in every post.



Gimpy In what way are we misinformed concerning the N.D.P. and their military policies???


----------



## stealthylizard (22 Apr 2007)

When a member of the NDP refers to our military as "acting like terrorists", in my opinion, leaves the party open for any remarks tossed their way.  Very seldom will I insult the voters of the various parties, but the politicians, that are part of said party, deserve every bit of criticism.  I have no problems with them discussing the appropriateness of select missions, and they have every right to debate them, but for them to insult the men and women serving in a hot conflict overseas, is just (how do I put this delicately?) wrong.  Sorry if that upsets you, I will try to keep my partisan comments in check, unless there is no other way to address their actions.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (22 Apr 2007)

not really a partisan comment if you are (of course you are) the victim of such a verbal attack, I wasn't real fond of the NDP comment about our military acting like terrorists, that implies that me and all the other men and women of the CF are no better than those that would bomb a school bus for political or terror gain. Not me, not any mbr of my Canadian Forces, your comment is bang on when I feel personally wronged by a political party or thier members I won't stand by and take it.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Apr 2007)

Wesley (Finally Home Down Under) said:
			
		

> the Liberals have always been against Defence, and if you want a strong Defence Force, you will get that from the current governemt.



Wes,

Apparently you haven't read Med Tech's earlier comment: 

by Med Tech


> Ok heres my 2 Cents (inflamatory as usual) to maltreate Liberals or Liberal supporters (and by this I mean personal attacks) is indeed wrong, we have a constitution to protect these rights. Heres the other side of the coin for all those who support the Military and are card carrying Liberals (yes they are out there) and perhaps in a place to influence thier partys policy on defence. Read a book "Who Killed the Canadian Military" by Jack Granatstien, he takes pot shots at leaders from both conservative and liberal parties ie
> Diefenbaker killed the military
> Mike Pearson killed the military
> Hellyer went too far and killed the Canadian military
> ...



by Wes


> Offended perhaps  :  no one cares,



Having more experience is not a license to treat someone without tact or decency (in this case, a non-military setting, in a public forum) , unless you know them quite well; one can't judge someone's character simply by their posts. 

by Wes


> IMHO, having the same government for years and years is incestous and inbread, regardless of whatever party they are.



True. 

Have a good holiday at the Coral Sea.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Apr 2007)

CougarShark said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> Apparently you haven't read Med Tech's earlier comment:
> 
> ...



Firstly, I live on the Coral Sea.

I read it ya, but I have my opinion, just like you. Some agree, some don't, that makes it interesting at the best of times.

I just am totally turned off and had a serious gutful at whinging people with political attitudes and agendas like Gimpy, life experience or not, he would have got a taste of my opinion!

Gimpy should just get over it.

So, don't 'come the raw prawn' with me mate! Google that for the definition if you want to.

As far as I am concerned politically wise, you both need a 'whaaaambulance'. So don't go waving the politically correct flag at me! You will get nowhere fast.

If I feel like venting I will, and with manners, maybe abrupt at times, but I would not be the first or last in that matter.

I have become familiar with your posts too, and they are always bent to the left, and thats fine, its a free country. 

In my years living in Canada I had seen the Liberals do lots of silly things aside from Defence matters, the gun registry for example, over 200 million pissed away. Alan Rock personally cost me thousands of dollars as he did to other law abiding gun owners. There is more to criticising the Libs than just these two things. No party is perfect, all politicians lie and kiss babies, not much changes.

I had also seen the PC's do some silly things, but nothing like what the Libs had done.


Cheers, and have a nice spring day


Wes


----------



## Journeyman (22 Apr 2007)

When the Party Leader's battlecry is "It's not Fair!" it's inevitable that the Party supporters will take up that mantra.


I've been trying to _avoid_ responding for three days (because this is a "serious discussion," unlike all those _military_ topics), but as mentioned in some blog, with Dion in charge, "the punchlines write themselves."  ;D


----------



## GAP (22 Apr 2007)

I think this thread, initiated by a politically passionate 19 year old with zero life experience, has run it's course......

Post again when you are thirty and have changed from a Liberal to NDP, Green, or...gasp....Conservative...


----------



## Bench211 (22 Apr 2007)

Blame the Liberals for the state of the military? IMO there were many factors which caused the huge cut backs in the military.
End of the Cold War 1991. Somalia Inquiry in the mid 90's. As we all know the publicity didn't help our cause. I think the media hype was overblown but ...Its hard to convince the public to spend money on the military.
The Conservative left the Liberals with huge budget deficit in 93. Economy slowed down. Companies downsizing etc.
We end up with pay freezes and I think the biggest mistake was how the FRP was implemented. I'm not positive but it seemed that recruiting 
was halted completely. I don't know how the FRP strategy was hatched but surely the higher ups in the military must of had some say in it.
As our economy prospered the DND budget was greatly increased. We started getting some decent pay raises and more importantly better equipment.
 I have seen spending on items that really didn't make sense. Upgrading computers, which worked fine. Some new equipment purchases which had more problems than the old equipment. I think because the US is our neighbour and we work with them on many missions we are envious of there vast military might. With the US population of nearly 300 million compared to our 33 million, Canada can't sustain a huge military.
Yes the Liberals had the 100 million dollar Ad Scam, gun registry and made other questionable decisions.
What did the Liberals leave the Conservatives, a huge budget surplus. My taxes have not been lowered in the passed two budgets, big surprise. 
I think the majority of members maybe 65% in the CF don't bother to vote. Through 29 years I voted about five times. 
In 2004 and 2006 it was very important for me to vote. I'm not fully confident with the Conservatives policies or people, what can I say. 
Presently the Conservatives look good for the military, we basically have a blank cheque, but remember how the budget surplus was created.
Thanks


----------



## GAP (22 Apr 2007)

Bench211 said:
			
		

> Its hard to convince the public to spend money on the military. *Agreed, especially when you tell that same public you no longer need them*
> 
> The Conservative* and Trudeau Liberals* left the Liberals with huge budget deficit in 93. Economy slowed down. Companies downsizing etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2007)

Bench211 said:
			
		

> Blame the Liberals for the state of the military? IMO there were many factors which caused the huge cut backs in the military.



You started out well enough....





> End of the Cold War 1991. Somalia Inquiry in the mid 90's. As we all know the publicity didn't help our cause.



I joined just before the Somalia Inquiry started.....Those were shitty times



> I think the media hype was overblown but ...Its hard to convince the public to spend money on the military.



The Liberal governmen had no problems with that, it didnt want to spend money on the military.  The Liberals saw the military as the perfect sopt to cut the budget as the general population, more concerned with health care would not put up much of a fuss over it.



> The Conservative left the Liberals with huge budget deficit in 93. Economy slowed down. Companies downsizing etc.



Hahaha.....If you think the conservative did alot of damage, go and look at what Trudeau and his Liberals did.....



> I'm not positive but it seemed that recruiting was halted completely.



Obviously not, thats when i joined...although my choices at the CFRC were rather limited, leading me to take an 11 year detour through the army before moving on to the AF



> I don't know how the FRP strategy was hatched but surely the higher ups in the military must of had some say in it.



I would suspect that, while the military has *A* say in it, treasury board had *MOST* of the say in it



> As our economy prospered the DND budget was greatly increased. We started getting some decent pay raises and more importantly better equipment.



Realy ? Could have fooled me !! I still remember rolling right along in my 1965 M113 APC, we are still flying 40 yeard old helicopters, we ended up buying USED submarines....



> With the US population of nearly 300 million compared to our 33 million, Canada can't sustain a huge military.



Everyone knows Canada will not have a military with 3 million people in it.  If you look at "per capita" spending, Canada is not doing its part and getting away cheap.



> Yes the Liberals had the 100 million dollar Ad Scam, gun registry and made other questionable decisions.



Questionable ? Are you serious ?



> What did the Liberals leave the Conservatives, a huge budget surplus.



A crumbling infrastructure where everything was passed down to the provinces.  They also left a huge hole in the CF pension fund as they used it to clear the previous deficit. An ongoing imballance in the tranfer payment system.  They left the conservatives with a CF that was rusting out on all fronts.........I could go on all day !!



> My taxes have not been lowered in the passed two budgets, big surprise.



We all have our priorities, glad you have yours.



> I think the majority of members maybe 65% in the CF don't bother to vote.



Source ? How about comparing that with the general population ?  Get some facts to back you up...."i think" just doesnt cut it here



> but remember how the budget surplus was created.



It was created over the backs of working Candians and at the expense of the infrastructure this country took decades to build.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2007)

*Traditionally* - over, say, the past 100 years - the Liberals were *NOT* any more anti-military than the Conservatives.

The change, and it was a huge, sea state change, came in 1968.  Pierre Elliot Trudeau was anti-military.  He despised the military and the people in it.  This feeling was fundamental to his personality and his world view.  It had nothing to do with his decision to shirk World War II, a decision which I think he came to regret – it was something he ‘learned’ over the years and it was a reflection of his upbringing (Québec in the ‘30s and ‘40s) and education.

Despite massive, near total opposition by his cabinet and the PCO he decided, largely on the advice of his foreign policy _guru_ Ivan Head , to cut our NATO force in half and move it out of harm’s way, down South, to Lahr, well away from the main, indeed only Soviet axis on the North German Plain.   It is reported that he wanted, indeed proposed to withdraw completely from NATO but even a cabinet full of spineless lackeys would not stand for that.  It is my opinion that he really wanted unilateral disarmament.  Because he was an economic illiterate he almost got that effect – his mismanagement of the economy was so complete that even admirals and general agreed that defence budgets had to be constrained to save the country from a depression.

The source of the sense that Liberals are anti-military is Trudeau.  And he, and *his Liberals* – amongst whom we must number *Jean Chrétien* and *Stephane Dion*, were and still are anti-military.  There is a pro-military (or, at least, less anti-military) wing of the Liberal Party of Canada led, probably and partially, by Michael Ignatieff and Keith Martin but to long as the _Trudeauites_ remain so will adherence to his acts of policy madness.


----------



## Flip (22 Apr 2007)

To whom do we refer when we use the term "liberal"?

It would be a shame if we meant literally - The Liberal Party and supporters.
I know for a fact there are a few honest and not so loopy liberals of this type.
And remember, next to the Taliban we are all wildly liberal.

My "persons of interest" list includes the likes of Taliban Jack, people who write for
or subscribe to the Toronto Star, Nancy Pelosi and of course Stephan Dion.
Eric Margolis sticks out as a very bright liberal, I guess that's why I get so mad at him.

I look forward to a reasoned logical argument from the relative left.
I have not yet read one. I keep looking.............

Really, I think we all concede the need to fair and even handed.
We generally do respect the right to differing opinions on this board.
I think we all agree that abuse isn't what we are here for. (to give or receive)

But personally, I feel the liberal perspective in our current situation offers us little
and is indeed dangerous.  The conspiracy theories, the anti Americanism,
the noble or self righteous ignorance of the people in that camp scares the hell out of me.

Defeatism in the media and the refusal to mention anything positive about our military
, is a blight on our national psyche.  

The baby boomers sense of entitlement ( and I am one )
and the belief that everything will be fine if we are just - nice - ,is so misguided.

That's why liberals take it on the chin.

It's nothing at all like the way some of "us" would be treated on some
"liberal" boards.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Apr 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *Traditionally* - over, say, the past 100 years - the Liberals were *NOT* any more anti-military than the Conservatives.
> 
> The source of the sense that Liberals are anti-military is Trudeau.  And he, and *his Liberals* – amongst whom we must number *Jean Chrétien* and *Stephane Dion*, were and still are anti-military.  There is a pro-military (or, at least, less anti-military) wing of the Liberal Party of Canada led, probably and partially, by Michael Ignatieff and Keith Martin but to long as the _Trudeauites_ remain so will adherence to his acts of policy madness.



+1 Campbell. I agree. The Liberals should use this time as the "Loyal Opposition" to clean house.


----------



## RangerRay (22 Apr 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Eric Margolis sticks out as a very bright liberal, I guess that's why I get so mad at him.



Actually, I read somewhere that Eric Margolis is a paleo-conservative.  I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it explains his anti-Israeli positions.  Before I read that, I thought he was a flaming Marxist!

Having listened to him "debate" with someone on the radio once, he is definitely an arrogant pompous ***!

EDIT: for spelling


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 Apr 2007)

This pretty much sums my disdain of the "Left" specifically in regards to military matters as it applies to both the current Liberal and NDP parties:



> Betrayed
> By Amir Taheri
> The New York Post | April 11, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## Bench211 (22 Apr 2007)

If I double posted I apologize
 A passage from the same author, Amir Taheri:


> WHEN THE ENEMY OF YOUR ENEMY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND
> by Amir Taheri
> Asharq Alawsat
> April 20, 2007
> ...


----------



## McG (22 Apr 2007)

We've had this debate in the past in regards to other parties & specific politicians. It prompted this:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> My read:
> 
> Personal attacks on individual posters - not ok
> 
> ...


You are wrong.  Ad hominem against individuals or organizations is equally frowned on.  Attacks for the sake of attacks do nothing for conversation (regardless if the target is an individual or a group).  Finally, an individual or an organizations could choose to cause legal troubles for a perception of liable.


----------



## Osotogari (25 Apr 2007)

If you're talking about different viewpoints, fine.  Make a point and be prepared to defend it, there's a lot of different perspectives even on a military board.

However, if we're talking about the Liberal Party of Canada that's a different matter.  As an Albertan old enough to remember the National Energy Program, that's about all I need to know about that party.  To put it plainly, one of my biggest motivations to visit Montreal would be to piss on the sign at the airport.  [Keep in mind, though, I only voted for Ralph Klein once (his second mandate) so I'm not a do or die conservative by any means.]   

As well, I think the sentiment around setting up the Charter was admirable but the fallout as it affects our justice system with the criminal's rights trumping all other concerns then there's something seriously wrong.

Since the 1980s, the Libs have become the party of corruption, waste, [gun registry, anyone?] and Orwellian political correctness.  Their lack of fortitude when dealing with terrorism and justice issues with their reluctance to classify the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations, as well as looking the other way when dealing with the activities of certain members of the Sikh community shows that hanging onto power is all-important with them.  

Personally, given the actions of that party over the last few decades, anyone wearing the uniform of the CF or those who claim to support those who do and yet still maintain allegiance to the Liberal Party of Canada will have to do some soul-searching because I don't think one can do both as the military ethos is an anathema to being a Liberal


----------



## MG34 (25 Apr 2007)

I am intotal agreement with the statem,ents that Lieberal supports are sheep, or have their heads stuck in the sand or up their you know what. Years of liberal mismanagement have left this country in shambles,and teh Cf in worse shape. Frankly any lieberal who comes onto this forum deserves what they get, and it sure as hell won't be sympathy.


----------



## Gimpy (25 Apr 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I am intotal agreement with the statem,ents that Lieberal supports are sheep, or have their heads stuck in the sand or up their you know what. Years of liberal mismanagement have left this country in shambles,and teh Cf in worse shape. Frankly any lieberal who comes onto this forum deserves what they get, and it sure as hell won't be sympathy.



That's very clever how you called them Lieberals, it sort of invalidates your entire argument when you resort to petty name calling. I'd really like to see some evidence of how this country is in shambles, I didn't realize being in the top 10 in HDI and plenty other world categories constitutes shambles. Like I've said before this forum doesn't excludes people who aren't conservative and they don't deserve to be insulted either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Apr 2007)

Gimby 
I see on almost every leftwing site where Harper is called "Pee Wee", Neo-Harper, anyone not presenting the correct opinion is called a neo-con at the nicest and far worst if you persit in your deviant opinion. The Liberals earned the label "lieberal" with their consistent inability to be truthful. Now I will be the first to admit that given enough time, the CPC will become very similar, hence the reason democracy has organized revolutions periodical. Without the pain of a humiliating defeat the Liberals will not be able to rebuild and clean house. I would like to see for the time being a CPC majority facing a strong, well thought out opposition that keeps the government honest. Currently the Liberals have failed to be an effective government and now they are failing at their new task and their duty to Canada.


----------



## Gimpy (25 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Gimby
> I see on almost every leftwing site where Harper is called "Pee Wee", Neo-Harper, anyone not presenting the correct opinion is called a neo-con at the nicest and far worst if you persit in your deviant opinion. The Liberals earned the label "lieberal" with their consistent inability to be truthful. Now I will be the first to admit that given enough time, the CPC will become very similar, hence the reason democracy has organized revolutions periodical. Without the pain of a humiliating defeat the Liberals will not be able to rebuild and clean house. I would like to see for the time being a CPC majority facing a strong, well thought out opposition that keeps the government honest. Currently the Liberals have failed to be an effective government and now they are failing at their new task and their duty to Canada.



I agree with the fact that right now the Liberals are ineffective and not as good as they could be, I've never stated otherwise and I've never shown my support for Dion because I really don't care for him that much at all. (I voted for Ignatieff in the leadership race). But I want to wait until the next election, when they will probably lose unless something monumental happens, to get some better MP's hopefully and maybe then their will be better opposition which can stimulate the government even further.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Apr 2007)

Gimpy:

While I have some sympathy with your desire to be treated respectfully, consider this:

I don't go to Liberal sites, attempting to convert them to my point of view.  I would be foolhardy, achieve nothing, and I would expect to be treated fairly roughly.  For that matter, I rarely engage in political discussion at ALL (virtually or in "the real world"), unless it is in regard to a specific issue which needs to be discussed and resolved (usually local issues).  I _usually_ limit my involvement in national level politics to correspondence with MPs and Ministers.  

It's simply not worth attempting to change an individual's political mindset.  In fact, I find the practice of attempting to change an individual's politics similar to religious proselytizing - a practice I will not tolerate being subjected to.  Any religious missionary showing up at my door is politely, but firmly turned away - as is any Liberal, NDPer, Communist, Green Partier, amongst others.

I think Colin P has it right - the CPC will eventually become "the establishment", get too comfortable, and will be turfed in an "organized revolution" some time in the future.  By the time that I happens - I will probably be as disgusted with them as I currently am with the Liberals.

It remains, however, that I am a small "c" conservative in thought and belief - you will not change that through strident whining on an internet forum populated, generally, by people of similar mindset to mine.

Roy


----------



## GAP (25 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I agree with the fact that right now the Liberals are ineffective and not as good as they could be, I've never stated otherwise and I've never shown my support for Dion because I really don't care for him that much at all. (I voted for Ignatieff in the leadership race). But I want to wait until the next election, when they will probably lose unless something monumental happens, to get some better MP's hopefully and maybe then their will be better opposition which can stimulate the government even further.



You probably won't find many here that will disagree with your statements in your last post. Most here recognize what the liberals have done, are doing, and where they are probably going for the next few years....the Liberals problem has been that they have not been doing it with any grace whatsoever.....they are just imploding, and it's ugly.


----------



## Gimpy (25 Apr 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Gimpy:
> 
> While I have some sympathy with your desire to be treated respectfully, consider this:
> 
> ...



I haven't posted anywhere here that I want to change anyone to a Liberal or anything of the sort. I'd just like to see some of the backhanded insults stop or whenever there is a political topic it most always diverges into "LOL Liberals are stupid" and so on.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> I haven't posted anywhere here that I want to change anyone to a Liberal or anything of the sort. I'd just like to see some of the backhanded insults stop or whenever there is a political topic it most always diverges into "LOL Liberals are stupid" and so on.



Stop defending yourself, Gimpy.  I didn't attack you.  As I said earlier - I agree that the mud-slinging is not conducive to an intelligent discourse.  I ALSO think that you are being treated more decently here, than I would be on _most_ "left-slanted" internet discussion forums.

Roy


----------



## Journeyman (25 Apr 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> > I am intotal agreement with the statem,ents that Lieberal supports are sheep, or have their heads stuck in the sand or up their you know what. Years of liberal mismanagement have left this country in shambles,and teh Cf in worse shape. Frankly any lieberal who comes onto this forum deserves what they get, and it sure as hell won't be sympathy.
> 
> 
> *That's very clever how you called them Lieberals,*



Wow, that's the only typo you found? ;D

Mind you, he actually misspelled it 2 of 3 times used; did he misspell it _correctly_ one time...or was it intentional to throw you off track? Is this just another cunning plan within the vast neo-Con conspiracy?   :-\


----------

