Cons with 18 point lead (2024)

quote:

Currently, 43 per cent of Canadian voters support Mr. Harper's Conservatives, up by five percentage points since a mid-March Ipsos Reid poll.

This gives the Tories a stunning 18-point lead over their chief rival, the Liberal party, which has fallen by three percentage points and now has the support of 25 per cent of voters.

The NDP, which has slipped by four percentage points, now has the support of 15 per cent of the electorate. National support for the Bloc Quebecois remains unchanged at nine per cent. Similarly, the Green party's support, at five per cent, has not wavered.

The Ipsos Reid telephone poll of 1,003 adult Canadians was conducted May 16-18. With a sample of this size, the margin of error is 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

. . . .

Notably, the shifting tide in public support is occurring in three key regional battlegrounds:

* Quebec: Voters in this province, traditionally a Liberal stronghold, are turning in droves to the Conservatives as the strongest federalist force. The Liberals now have the support of just 14 per cent of voters and their vote is bleeding away to Mr. Harper. The Tories now command the support of 33 per cent of Quebec voters -- trailing the Bloc Quebecois (at 38 per cent, unchanged) by a narrow five-point margin.

* Ontario: The Liberals are also losing ground in this vote-rich province, where the Conservatives (at 42 per cent) now lead the Liberals (at 38 per cent) while NDP support has dropped to 11 per cent.

* British Columbia: The Tories have opened up a wide gap, where they have the support of 48 per cent of B.C. voters, compared to 26 per cent for the NDP and 20 per cent for the Liberals.

http://tinyurl.com/rkv8x

The poll was commisioned by CanWest, whose pro-con leanings are becoming more and more obvious to even the most casual observer. They no longer even bother pretending, feeling safe to become more and more like FOX 'news' in broad daylight.

CanWest, National Post and others are doing everything in their power to assure conservative reign of power.

And I am afraid that far too many Canadians are dumb enough to fall for this crap. We let ourselves believe that people here were worldly, educated and not prone to such imbecilic influences. The truth is that they are just as infurioratingly dumb, short-sighted and selfish as those south of the border. As they say, hubris comes before the fall.

And so the late Mr. Goebbels is proven right once again: (paraphrising) 'repeat the lies frequently enough and long enough and the sheep will come to believe them as the truth'.

I am convinced that a US-style conservative coup is under way in Canada, with the takeover, de-fanging and conversion to a propaganda apparatus of the so called 'free-press' as stage #1, already safely completed, with the exception of equally corrupted CBC, who are instead desperately hanging on to their Liberal Party allegiances.

The rest of the horrific process is now inevietable.

We will suffer. Greatly. All of what Canada used to stand for will be destroyed, to be replaced by unappologetic worship of greed and raw power. It will take many, many decades to turn the tide and our international image, as well as the structure of our society will be obliterated in the meantime.

We will have to rebuild it somehow for the next generation, since it is not likely, the way things are going, that we will manage to do so in time for ourselves.

Dark times are really upon us.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

The next election is probably at least a whole year away and a vast amount can and will happen between now and then.

This whole trend is manufactured by a concerted effort of gigiantic corporations, super wealthy Canadian dynasties and the US neo-cons, taking advantage of peanut-brained masses of the far-too-comfortable-for-their-own-good, soon to be extinct, "middle class", who have adopted a mode of thought an Albertan redneck would be proud of.

The super-wealthy laboured for decades, and spared no expense, to instill the "Me, Me, Me, Mine, Me, Myself, Mine, Me" type of world-view in as many Canadians as possible, nurturing, sheltering and encouraging selfish greed in the moderately affluent, trying to create fantasies of vast fortunes and to plant the seeds of discontent with the "thieving government" and "welfare kings/queens" who "ride on the backs of hard working executives" etc and so on.

So now every white-collar goofus thinks he can be a gazillionaire, as long as he kisses the ass of the Asper family and/or the US based mega-corps, and as long as more "law and order" is instilled in the society via mass incarcerations and draconian punishments and as long as people adhere to a strict, wealth and greed centered, "moral" code. And that taxation and Canada's social programs are the only things that keep him away from achieving fabulous wealth. That and possibly some Taliban fighters. Thus he will be voting feverishly for removing all of these "obstacles" to his fame and glory, in the first case by reducing government to the size of a telephone booth and replacing it with a police-state apparatus and in the second for waging endless war in Afghanistan and other places (complete with purchase of gigiantic amounts of war supplies with whatever remains of the public purse).

And that does not even scratch the surface of things such as the (also manufactured) resurgence of religious woo-wooism, which too supports the aims of our soon to be de-facto rulers.

In order to turn the tide, we are faced with the same problem any rational thinking person was in the face of the Spanish Inquisition, or the rise of Nazism: we are far too few, and our voices have been pretty much successfully muzzled and efforts are made to paint us as downright 'traitorous' or as 'free loaders'. And we are terribly late to realise what is going on to effectively stop it.

The Internet is not a substitute for the mainsteam media and its power is at present a fraction of what an outfit such as CanWest has when it comes to shaping public opinion.

We are at a great disadvantage here and the greed-mongers know it.

Also because we are so very late in organising the defense, this battleground is pretty much lost and the only thing we can hope for is to regroup and retake it in some remote future after putting an enormous effort into this which would overcome billions of dollars of media control and tens of thousands of full-time workers the other side employs, the life-time appointment of greed-friendly supreme court judges, etc and so on.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

quote: The poll was commisioned by CanWest, whose pro-con leanings are becoming more and more obvious to even the most casual observer. They no longer even bother pretending, feeling safe to become more and more like FOX 'news' in broad daylight.

CanWest (in Calgary atleast) during the last election was so incredibly pro-conservative (even referring to conservatives + themselves as 'we' on several ocassions, like how many seats 'we' won in Ontario)... Including one of the primary news anchors saying (well before the election results) that "a Minority Gov't is likely, but we are hoping for a majority. ". All they need is team Harper jersey's and they're set.

It's not like these leanings are new... But now with a Cons gov't they are quite a bit more open about it.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: The people who produce this kind of propaganda are evil and fascistic.

From the above link: Contribute to CEI. Your support will help us continue our fight against global warming alarmism, and for affordable energy and economic freedom around the world.

Holy!!!

But he is definitely correct about the mindset of the cons. They are in many ways a breed apart, devoid of any real understanding of how the real world works, living in their pathetic little IT'S ALL ABOUT ME AND f*ck YOU bubbles. They are not only deeply ignorant, but they are proud of it. Unfortunately, their appeal to human greed and stupidity is seductive, and that's how they win so often.

It might be that people in my generation, old farts over 50, will be among the last to cherish the notion of Canadians huddling together against the cold, helping each other out, working together for common goals. Some have claimed that this is a myth, but until the last few decades I don't believe that it was. But it may well be in future.

I see three basic (simplified) worldviews at play:

The first is the Greenie worldview, where I include myself. It's based in some knowledge of how the real natural world works (physics, biology, ecology), and sees humans as only one part of the total picture. It's also useful to know something of anthropology, history, sociology, politics, and economics to round out this worldview. Cooperation, fairness, and living within the ability of the environment to sustain us are the basic goals.

The other is the proud-to-be-ignorant bubble-dwelling Rednecks, aka Conservatives (and Republicans), arrogant insecure selfish creatures who appeal to the baser human instincts of greed, envy, and fear. IgMax summed it up well.

Should the cons win, we can kiss the Canada we thought we knew goodbye for a long time, maybe forever.

quote:Originally posted by IgnoramusMaximus:

The poll was commisioned by CanWest, whose pro-con leanings are becoming more and more obvious to even the most casual observer. They no longer even bother pretending, feeling safe to become more and more like FOX 'news' in broad daylight.

CanWest, National Post and others are doing everything in their power to assure conservative reign of power.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

I agree! I live in Calgary and even professors of political science (unless their of blatant conservative persuasion) will not allow us to use the Calgary Herald or National Post as current affairs articles. It is very apparent that most media in Canada is now controlled by a small group of Conservative businessmen pushing their own agenda. We sure heard how wonderful the budget was despite the outcry from hundreds of NGOs and individuals who will be adversley affected by the government cuts to issues like Kyoto, Aboriginal people and the environment.

What patronizing crap!

With age and what I like to consider wisdom, I came to realize that there were important things going on around me and it just might be a good idea to start paying attention to and try to understand them.

Believe me, I've known a lot of normal average people who simply do not consider politics and world events worth the time and effort to follow and try to understand. This isn't being patronizing - it's the reality. These people are not stupid, just ignorant of many things, just as I was (and still am, though I'm working at not being.)

However, rather than:
a) assume that the public will turn on the Tories
b) assume that all is lost because the all-powerful right-wing cabal that runs the world will ensure Harper permanent victory and everyone (except us) is an idiot

...why don't we (just hypothetically) assume that people are rational beings and try and understand what it is they might like Harper?

1) He's keeping his promises. Liberals didn't do that. People may actually find a politician who honours elections promises somewhat refreshing.

2) He's beating the Bloc in Quebec. For English Canadians who want to keep the country together this is pretty appealing. Trudeau won most of his elections on the issue of being able to best the separatists.

3) He's cutting taxes for the working class. Yeah, yeah, he's also cutting them for businesses but between the cut to the regressive GST and the slew of tax credits the working class will have a smaller tax burden.

4) He's not cutting anything that people care about. The chattering classes are apoplectic about undermining Kyoto. A handful of childcare advocates are upset about the cuts to the so-called childcare program that never created any actual childcare. Wannabe Liberal MP Phil Fontaine wants his Kelowna money. But the Tories can safely ignore these people and most people don't care about their issues.

I'm being somewhat glib but, I think, accurate. Harper is appealing to working class / middle class Canadians and offering them a government that helps them live their lives. Mostly by cutting their taxes.

A smart socialist party would fight them on their own turf and cultivate an appeal to those same people based on the notion that government can help more when it's not all shrunk to hell.

A dumb one will say that all working class people are idiots for reading the Sun.

quote:Originally posted by Kenehan:
...why don't we (just hypothetically) assume that people are rational beings and try and understand what it is they might like Harper?

Ok. Let's try.

quote:
1) He's keeping his promises. Liberals didn't do that. People may actually find a politician who honours elections promises somewhat refreshing.

No! No! No! He promised accountability and instead created one of the most opaque governments to date. He promised transparency and then barred the media from the Parliment Hill. He promised ethical government and senate reform and then we had Emerson and appointed un-elected Fortier to senate.

Don't you see? Even you have been influenced by the incessant media propaganda trumpeting the "Harper keeps his promises" bullsh*t.

quote:
2) He's beating the Bloc in Quebec. For English Canadians who want to keep the country together this is pretty appealing. Trudeau won most of his elections on the issue of being able to best the separatists.

How so? He is promising to Bloc voters all the same things Bloc is promising. I.e. to send them on their merry way to separation, by giving Quebec all the powers it always wanted, while underwriting any of the possible downsides of its "autonomy" by putting down the rest of Canada (less Alberta of course) as collateral. What sort of "keeping the country together" is this?!

quote:
3) He's cutting taxes for the working class. Yeah, yeah, he's also cutting them for businesses but between the cut to the regressive GST and the slew of tax credits the working class will have a smaller tax burden.

Translation: he is cutting taxes for the business class and creating an accounting three-card-monte for the working class. The jury is still out if there is any gain for them whatsover after all complicated maonouvers are tallied up. Not so for the wealthy, an obvious and significant cut.

quote:
4) He's not cutting anything that people care about.

Overtly you mean. In the meantime he's already managed to commit Canada to the Afghanistan quagmire for two more years, to intrusive NORAD changes, and labours daily to create "Canada supports the USA's foreign aggressions no matter what" message to anyone who listens. That counts as cutting a lot of our international standing in my book.

quote:
The chattering classes are apoplectic about undermining Kyoto.

You mean people do not give a sh*t about global warming anymore due to overwhelming propaganda directed at them? Either that or Harper is cutting Kyoto against their will. One way or another something Canadian got nixed.

quote:
A handful of childcare advocates are upset about the cuts to the so-called childcare program that never created any actual childcare.

Hard to create something with barely promised money that has not been yet delivered before it was cut.

quote:
But the Tories can safely ignore these people and most people don't care about their issues.

And that supports everything I said earlier. Either the people were brainwashed, or they do care but the media chooses to report otherwise. One way or another, something got waxed.

quote:
I'm being somewhat glib but, I think, accurate. Harper is appealing to working class / middle class Canadians and offering them a government that helps them live their lives. Mostly by cutting their taxes.

No, it does so by telling them, via coordinated media message, that he is "helping" them. And the lie repeated enough, through enough channels, takes hold.

quote:
A smart socialist party would fight them on their own turf and cultivate an appeal to those same people based on the notion that government can help more when it's not all shrunk to hell.

You mean by purchasing a few billion worth of radio spectrum, cable and satellite systems and staring a number of our own TV networks, followed by getting the Hollywood to license us piles of mindless crap so that we can fill the time between our propaganda messages in order to attract the mindless, way-too-comfortable-on-their-way-to-slaughter class? Because that is the only way your advice can be executed with any degree of equivalence to what the other side is doing.

You can complain that this view of Canadians is "condescending". It might be so, but the cons have no scruples whatsover putting this notion to practical use.

Face it, when it comes to media we are hopelessly outgunned and out-financed. Only those already prone to seeking information on their own, e.i. those who are not already victims will come to the Internet sites and chatrooms. The rest is way too happy with TV alone.

quote:
A dumb one will say that all working class people are idiots for reading the Sun.

Yea and smart one will say that they have nothing else to read given that there are no mass circulation papers promoting our agenda. None. And we cannot afford to start even one, even a relatively small one.

In the meantime, here in Winnipeg, the Sun does not even pretend to be a paper that is funded by the readers, it is being given away in many places. Clearly those who fund it understood its propaganda power and are willing to finance it at a short-term loss to attain far greater long-term gain. And this strategy is paying off.

We cannot do so.

In light of the above, you can see how one can start seeing things in dim light.

My personal opinion at this point is that a major economic catastrophe must occur for the public to wake up. Given the way these "conservative" societies and their economies operate, such a catastrophe is in my view not a matter of if but when.

But there is a lot of steam in our economy, power accumulated over a very long time, plenty of world's resources still left to loot or to be gained in warfare and so it might take decades for this house of cards to fall. Then it will take some considerable time for the crisis and its eventual resolution, time most likely decades long and that is why I hold no hope of the national conscience recovering soon enough for many of us to see it happen.

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: IgnoramusMaximus ]

I think the second thing we need to do is understand what they're doing that people like. You can argue all they like that they're breaking promises but my buddy at work is waiting till July to buy a car because "Stephen Harper's going to save me big bucks!" He's connecting with ordinary people instead of telling them they're idiots for reading the Sun.

I think the third thing we need to do is figure out what we, as progressives, can offer working people. How can we use government to make their lives better? Not - how can we use government to make life better for NGOs?

I think the fourth thing we need to do is figure out how we spread the word. We have a lot of challenges here but it's not hopeless. Tommy Douglas formed a government and every single media outlet was against him.

quote:Originally posted by TCD:
I think the second thing we need to do is understand what they're doing that people like. You can argue all they like that they're breaking promises but my buddy at work is waiting till July to buy a car because "Stephen Harper's going to save me big bucks!" He's connecting with ordinary people instead of telling them they're idiots for reading the Sun.

I think the third thing we need to do is figure out what we, as progressives, can offer working people. How can we use government to make their lives better? Not - how can we use government to make life better for NGOs?

That buddy of yours? He just about a lost cause.

quote:
I think the fourth thing we need to do is figure out how we spread the word. We have a lot of challenges here but it's not hopeless. Tommy Douglas formed a government and every single media outlet was against him.

Yes but people were different back then. Their world-view was different. Tommy Douglas would have never made a dent today, and you know it.

WHY OF COURSE WE ARE GOOD SIR, HAVEN'T YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!

But seriously:

quote: No! No! No! He promised accountability and instead created one of the most opaque governments to date. He promised transparency and then barred the media from the Parliment Hill. He promised ethical government and senate reform and then we had Emerson and appointed un-elected Fortier to senate.

Don't you see? Even you have been influenced by the incessant media propaganda trumpeting the "Harper keeps his promises" bullsh*t.

Uhh, yeah the thing is that this stuff is just gravy really. You and me have already made our minds up, we aren't voting Conservative anytime soon. So obviously this would bother us, and any other non-Conservative voters. They are a new government, once people get sick of them, all their misteps will help to bury them. The thing is though that people arne't sick of them yet! Most people don't care unless it directly effects them! Heck, how do you think Jean Chretien kept getting re-elected? If you were paying attention he ran one of the most centralized, secretive and anti-democratic reigeme's in a long while, it didn't hurt his popularity! In fact most of the time he was more popular between elections, even in the face of things like the hotel scandal people were going on about, his "shawinigan handshake" and books like Jeffrey Simpson's "The Friendly Dictatorship" which lambasted Chretien's 'friendly' yet 'dictatorial' reigeme. Trudeau was similarly autocratic in that sense, he still ended up being PM for sixteen years. The point is that, while it would be nice for them to be open and honest, they aren't going to be because it's not politically intellgent to do so. Martin got on the "open and honest" bandwagon, and at the dumbest time too deep into the Liberals mandate, people got tired of them breaking promises and not keeping them and saw that the Liberals were strongly corrupt too.

Now relating back to the Conservatives, all that really needs to be said is this: They have a few photo-ops and flog to death the specific issues that they are keeping their word on, while trying to bury the Liberals. It's a clear and obvious strategy, and so long as the Liberals are in dissarray, and the Conservatives can say "we said we'd table an accountability act, and we're doing it, we said we'd cut the GST and we're doing it, blah blah blah blah", they'll look appealing to Mr and Mrs non-committed voter. Essentially unlike the Liberals they have their act together right now, and unlike the NDP they can argue they can form a strong government. People like these things. And thus such people will vote for, or support them. It's just that simple. Unfortunatley.

quote: My personal opinion at this point is that a major economic catastrophe must occur for the public to wake up.

I think the environmental catastophe will beat the economic one, but all in due time hey?

Just a comment for you IgnoramusMaximus... Your posts make for great reads and I've been bringing up info from your posts into other discussions... this quote in particular:

quote:Don't you see? Even you have been influenced by the incessant media propaganda trumpeting

Hope you don't mind if I quote that one

One thing that Harper and the cons do very well is appeal to the 'dont really care' Canadians that blindly follow the media. Harper tends to get these votes as he is able to relate to them (albeit duping them, but he's doing it in a manner that makes them listen to what he has to say and ignore what he doesn't). This is a great weapon for both the Cons and Republicans... And theres lessons to be learned by us with the Democrats inability to make inroads with Republican voters. All Democrats have done is critisize Bush and his supporters (and those that voted for him) and provided little alternative. The sad truth is people would prefer to hear and believe Harpers lies then to listen to the harsh reality that we are idiots. Is there a better way of conveying that message?

Edit correction... Heh, I had "learn from the Democrats ability to make inroads" when it was supposed to be "Democrats inability to make inroads"

Good typo me

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

In the mind of the voter,a confident PM Harper is allaying the Liberal "scary conservative" fearmongering by fairly benign policies.

He is showing himself to be a leader with a spine rather than a ditherer or a petty criminal with an eye on his own future such as previous PMs.

That he may well be leading the country over a cliff has not dawned on a country not used to the novelty of strong government.

Actually, the Strategic Counsel had the Cons with a 24-point lead just a few days before the election. Just like IPSOS-Reid, they were proven wrong on election night.

quote:Originally posted by Maxx:
If by "strong government" you mean top-down one-man dictatorship lead by a control freak, you are right.

Yes,I am right. The novelty part is that it is not a bottom up one man circle-jerk led by a ditherer who couldn't find his a$$ with either hand.

quote:Actually, the Strategic Counsel had the Cons with a 24-point lead just a few days before the election. Just like IPSOS-Reid, they were proven wrong on election night.

Well, all I can say to that is lets have an election. I'm sure Jack and Olivia will do wonders with Stornoway.

[ 24 May 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:
Those blatantly simplistic anti-government votes that you appealed for with lines from your commercials like, "It seems like you get to Ottawa and no one can touch you," will see you. Being Prime Minister. In the Canadian capital. In Ottawa. And you'll become the new reason why their paychecks don't go as far as they like, that that clerk in line treated them brusquely. They'll be reminded of your GST cut, which at first seemed welcome relief, but after a while became an unbearable burden at 5%. Mothers who see their child tax benefit rolled back and their taxes going up in the wake of your new child care cheques will continue to blame government and when they realize that they were putting their faith in a bill of goods will they blame themselves? No. They'll blame you. And Frank McKenna, or Stephane Dion, who can out bookish you, or Ralph Goodale, or Michael Ignatief, or maybe even David Orchard will be able to wipe that 7% (5%/2*3) of the electorate out from under your feet. Even if these people simply don't show up it will be enough to cost you the next election.

Some of us work hard and put away 'firewood', knowing that winter periodically returns. We don't have a need to 'huddle with others' nor do we wish to rely on you for our own warmth.

BTW, I'm an 'old fart', well over fifty. I've never earned much money, but by doing the right things consistently, over time, I've put enough away to fund my own retirement - no company pension, union pension or reliance on gov't.

Sure, I'm going to accept my CPP - after all, I was required by law to pay into it for forty years, even though I could've invested the money more profitably on my own.

The vast majority of people will 'huddle together' in retirement, relying on CPP and OAP. Why will they be impoverished? Not because they haven't earned enough, but because they've CHOSEN not to SAVE enough. I am proudly, a conservative.

quote:Originally posted by Infocus:
BTW, I'm an 'old fart', well over fifty. I've never earned much money, but by doing the right things consistently, over time, I've put enough away to fund my own retirement - no company pension, union pension or reliance on gov't.

Your Profile says you were born in 1979. Could you please identify which portions of your posts are true, if any, so that I can respond rationally?

Well. Something 'Disgusted' and I can agree upon. Let us both put our 'world view' before our fellow citizens (no need for it to be 'noisy' or 'loud', though. If it makes sense to people, volume is not necessary) in the most convincing way and they will make the appropriate decision.

But let's not be like:

JRAS, who said: "even professors of political science (unless their of blatant conservative persuasion) will not allow us to use the Calgary Herald or National Post as current affairs articles."

Why, pray tell, would the wise professors 'not allow' views other than those to which they subscribe? Is this rigourous academic inquiry? Is this public discourse? Or is it simply drinking one's own bathwater? Why would they fear exposing their students to alternative points of view, unless they are unable to adequately defend their own?

If it matters to you, the 'birthdate' is in error. I was born in 1950 - you do the math.

BTW. I've walked both sides of the road. Worked in logging, pulp mills, tire services and several other jobs that were all union shops. I've also been 'self-employed' for many years, so I don't approach issues from a single world view - ie: without the benefit of your union background.

quote:They never learn.

Then:

quote:Yes but people were different back then. Their world-view was different.

quote:Originally posted by Infocus:
Why will they be impoverished? Not because they haven't earned enough, but because they've CHOSEN not to SAVE enough.

In some ways, I think we are alike. I too have a thorough and intimate acquaintance with hard work and "putting away firewood" (and I mean that both literally and figuratively), and with winter and all that it entails. I pay my way, rarely visit a doctor or otherwise utilize government-supported services, and have provided for my own retirement years. I have put much intense long-term effort into gaining marketable knowledge and skills, and have managed to do well enough for my needs and desires with only seasonal and contract work. I consider myself pretty self-reliant and individualistic and do not accept others, or government, telling me how to live my life.

Hooray for me. And hooray for you.

Unfortunately, however, there are a lot of people in this world who will never be in the same situation as you or me. We aren't where we are now just because of our indomitable personalities and puritan work ethic. Admit it - we've been lucky. We've had the smarts, the good health, and the just plain good fortune to be able to pull it off. Try telling some struggling single parent they should save more, when they barely have enough to pay the rent and buy food as it is. Try telling some confused young person mired in a crime-and-drug-addled urban netherworld that if he'd just get off his duff he too could be a success and a paragon of individualistic virtue. Try convincing someone who's suffered a debilitating illness or injury and had to sell everything they own to pay for medicines and other non-government-provided medical needs, that all they need to do is just get out and get working and all will be well.

I'm convinced there is a disconnect with reality in the true "conservative" worldview, a lack of empathy for the experiences and misfortunes of other people, an inability to see the many shades of grey between the black and white ends of the reality spectrum.

Getting back to the huddling metaphor, I meant to imply empathy for other people less fortunate than we are, who may need a helping hand. We can argue over what form that help should take, but I sincerely hope we can agree that providing help to those who need it is a basic requirement in any decent modern society.

Otherwise, we had better damn well hope and pray neither one of us has that accident or illness that sidelines us and sucks away all our hard-earned savings and self-esteem.

quote:Originally posted by Stockholm:
I have news for you, different people have different views on the issues and different political preferences. This isn't about "good" vs. "evil". I happen to support the NDP and i don't support the Conservatives, that doesn't mean that the other side is some kind of evil fascist conspiracy. they are simply people who have a different opinion on some public policy issues than I do. People who support the Conservatives aren't necessarily stupid, nor have they been "duped". They just disagree with me and its up to me to come with arguments to win them over.

Exactly. We should never assume by default that people are voting for our opponents because they're evil and/or stupid. We have to convince these people. Do you think the right wing won people over by calling them stupid? No, they found out what people's needs were, and found a way to speak to those needs. Tommy Douglas did the same thing in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. What are the needs of those who vote for our opponents, and how can we speak to them?

Hey, now we're making progress! There is apparently much we can agree on, or at least a perspective we can understand and value. While I'd agree with your statement, I think it's also important that we evaluate why someone in in their situation. If it is due to circ*mstances that are not only not of their making, but such that they have not been able, despite their best efforts to overcome, then I feel duty or morally bound to assist them in meeting their challenges.

If OTOH, they have been 'grasshoppers' (remember the parable?)who have been unable to resist temptation, engaged in bad habits/behaviors or determined that tomorrow will take care of itself, then I'm less inclined to use the resources that either my own family or the truly needy should enjoy. Too much of what we deem to be 'assisting the needy' is in fact enabling the unwilling in continuing an unhealthy, non-contributing lifestyle. Judgemental? Yes. Unfair. I don't think so.

[I]"We aren't where we are now just because of our indomitable personalities and puritan work ethic."

I would again, disagree. I'm from a large and by any measurement, poor family. My father had a grade 9 education and my mother never worked outside the home. IOW, I'm like many of those who continue to be 'poor and underpriviledged'. Opportunities for education and training are there for anyone who TRULY wants to better themselves, though we can certainly find ready excuses for those who will not - and I am not including those who for example, have health or physical disabilities, including intellectual issues.

Success isn't just doing the right thing, it's doing the right things, consistently over time.

"Admit it - we've been lucky. We've had the smarts, the good health, and the just plain good fortune to be able to pull it off.

Sorry, I don't believe in luck. Part of the reason I'm successful is that I don't buy lottery tickets, while too many poor and struggling people do - figuring, "what's $2 bucks? It won't make my life any better, but winning the lottery will." Poverty is sometimes an attitude towards life.

Try telling some struggling single parent they should save more, when they barely have enough to pay the rent and buy food as it is. Try telling some confused young person mired in a crime-and-drug-addled urban netherworld that if he'd just get off his duff he too could be a success and a paragon of individualistic virtue.

Spare me the righteous lecture, please. Life is about the decisions we make. I didn't convince the young, single parent to choose his/her partner, but I'm to be responsible for his/her decision? I didn't force the young druggie to stick a needle in his/her arm or teach them the art of B&E's, but I'm to carry some measure of guilt for their bad choices? We are all born with free will and bad decisions in the past does not mean that life is certain to carry on in the same way.

A hand up? Always. A hand out? Self-defeating, enabling and continuous. We need the wisdom to see the difference.

Try convincing someone who's suffered a debilitating illness or injury and had to sell everything they own to pay for medicines and other non-government-provided medical needs, that all they need to do is just get out and get working and all will be well.

Been there. Botched laser surgery ended a twenty five year career overnight. The difference? As a self-employed small business person, I recognized that disability insurance was a must and I had paid the premiums since 1984. $18/mth, not such a big deal. It was there when I needed it. See what I mean about making choices and taking responsibility?

How often to you hear of an apartment fire when people have 'lost everything' and have no insurance? I'm convinced that in many if not most cases people gamble, figuring the chance of a fire is remote and hey, I could sure use that $200 for something better. Choices, my friend.

"I'm convinced there is a disconnect with reality in the true "conservative" worldview, a lack of empathy for the experiences and misfortunes of other people, an inability to see the many shades of grey between the black and white ends of the reality spectrum."

But now you're painting me with a black or white brush, too. I have lots of empathy for those who deserve it and I express that empathy through the service clubs I belong to, the charities I support and the church to which I belong. I've also 'adopted' a couple of people with diaabilities, helping them to stick handle their way through the bureaucracies to get the assistance the both need and deserve.

Canada is a rich country, but resources are not unlimited. We ned to be realistic in determining who not only needs, but will benefit from our assistance and discourage those who are looking only for the means to maintain the condition to which they have grown comfortable.

Any common ground here, or am I simply a cruel, unfeeling neo-con?

BTW, what exactly are you 'Disgusted' about?