Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DavidK wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
hamiltonguyo wrote:


Please, don't vote Hudak if you want an honest leader who does what he says. He can't even keep a promise for the whole campaign.


My fear of Elliott winning far outweighs my concerns with Hudak.
I may consider Klees, but Hudak over the other two seems to be the way I will be voting.


If Elliott wins, I'll be ripping up my membership and never voting PC as long as she's leader. I like Tim, and I like Frank and Randy too. But my main choices are Tim and Frank. I'm worried about Klees' sincerity too, because while I can get with his policies, he has been flip floppy in the past.

And btw, Christine started the ball rolling and broke the 11th commandment.


Doesn't matter who started it. Hudak made a promise knowing that at least one other candidate was likely to break it. It wasn't till polls showed that it was anyone's gain that he suddenly broke his promise.

For the record I will not rank Hudak and I am ranking Elliott 3rd. If she wins i'll be wait and see. But between this and his own "Liberal-lite" platter of meaningless drivel, I can't get behind Hudak anymore.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7528
Reputation: 301.2Reputation: 301.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DavidK wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
hamiltonguyo wrote:


Please, don't vote Hudak if you want an honest leader who does what he says. He can't even keep a promise for the whole campaign.


My fear of Elliott winning far outweighs my concerns with Hudak.
I may consider Klees, but Hudak over the other two seems to be the way I will be voting.


If Elliott wins, I'll be ripping up my membership and never voting PC as long as she's leader. I like Tim, and I like Frank and Randy too. But my main choices are Tim and Frank. I'm worried about Klees' sincerity too, because while I can get with his policies, he has been flip floppy in the past.

And btw, Christine started the ball rolling and broke the 11th commandment.


I don't care who broke what commandment,
I am yet to find a leader in the history of politics who has followed through on his or her entire platform that was laid out while they were seeking leadership after they became leader.

I am voting based on a body of work.
Hudak, Klees and Hillier have shown me over the course of their time in politics, and in Hillier's case the time prior that they are Conservatives and as such I would trust them to not vault the PC party to the center.

In Elliott's case I don't have that faith.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think polls like this should not be taken at face value.
This was a politically motivated poll to once again isolate and marginalize conservative thought in the broader public arena of political discussion.

It's funny seeing some posters buy into that crap, and now are wanting to run screaming from the HRC issue.

One thing, is that it was an online poll, which should automatically raise red flags.
This poll is misleading in suggesting that abolishing the HRCs would automatically lose votes, since it didn't compare HRCs with any other issues that voters care about, like the economy, like taxes.

John Tories faith-based funding of schools didn't cost him the election because it was "controversial"...he lost the election because it was a completely unconservative policy. He wanted that state to control private schools. People send there children to private schools for a reason (and private schools aren't for the rich, many families work very hard to earn money to send their children to them) because they see how bad public schools are. The base of the party melted away and refused to turn up to support for John Tory.

Now the HRCs are the opposite. Abolishing the HRCs would motivate conservative leaning voters to donate, to volunteer, to actually be excited about the party, and energize the base. Combine that with distinctly conservative policies to contrast with the inept Liberals that provides solutions to the problems Ontarians have, and you have a winning formula.

The HRCs are corrupt, and the party would do well to arm themselves with facts and examples of the corrupt behaviour, and point out how they suppress human rights, not encourage them.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
John Tories faith-based funding of schools didn't cost him the election because it was "controversial"...he lost the election because it was a completely unconservative policy. He wanted that state to control private schools. People send there children to private schools for a reason (and private schools aren't for the rich, many families work very hard to earn money to send their children to them) because they see how bad public schools are. The base of the party melted away and refused to turn up to support for John Tory.

I would say Tory lost the election because he was completely ineffective at countering the feeble attacks of McGuinty's Liberals and the media... and even worse at attacking the ridiculous policies, flip-flops and outright dishonesty of McGuinty's government.

Although I wasn't yet in Ontario during that election, I seem to recall that the proposal was to "fund the student" so that the burden for private schools wasn't as extreme... hardly a conservative policy but not a surprising position from someone who was determined to put the "Progressive" back in the Progressive Conservatives.

It seems to me that the membership abandoned Tory because his policies weren't remarkably different than McGuinty's policies and, in some cases, were worse. Let's hope the new leader brings substance to the table!!

-Mac
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The other issue of how this is a liberal supported polling firm is while it's claimed to be "scientific"...the author of the poll goes on to make ideological judgements, indicating that people want a "moderate progressive party" to choose - then stating that it must be Christine Elliot.

There is already one of those parties, called the Liberal Party of Ontario. The party tried doing the "moderate progressive" thing with John Tory and Ernie Eves. Do Red Tories really need three strikes before getting the picture, that apologizing to Liberals for being members of the PC Party and appeasing Liberals keeps the party as an opposition.

Yes Liberals will spin abolishing HRCs into that PCs are against Human Rights. Is that any suprise? They will spin any conservative policy of REAL human rights, like individual freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, equality before the law, into being hateful, racist, sexist, homophobic.
I am not sure why we'd run away from a fight like that when its always so obvious what the opponent is going to throw.

The choice one has is to either stand up and defend your beliefs, or you appease Liberals.
RuralandRight





Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 618
Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5
votes: 5
Location: Rural Canada

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This Cartoonist might just have a good point.


The name of the OHRC is so Orwellian ... like the Ministy of Truth and the Ministry of Love

How can we ever safely reform something as sacred sounding like the ministry of love, truth, or human rights commissions?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
It is now time for a serious question. Would you not rather go down in an honest fight, where you knew you were on the side of right, and you had told the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather that lie your way into power? Long term, would that not mean that people would trust you more, and that you would have impeccable credibility on a wide range of issues?

What you are talking about, that has led us into our current situation, where leaders get no respect from, and show none for the electorate. Where question period is about sound bites instead of answers, and responsible government is a secondary concern. People talk about raising the level of public discourse, but very few seem to be serious about it.

What is dishonest about Hudak (or anyone) saying they want to reform the HRCs to replace the current irrational system with one based on jurisprudence? Yes, the Liberals could attempt to spin that into abolishing the HRCs but it's a defensible position.

-Mac
I am saying Hudak should stick to his principles. He is right, and that is worth fighting for. If he backs down, just so he can win an election, then he carse more about power than doing what is right.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
I am saying Hudak should stick to his principles. He is right, and that is worth fighting for. If he backs down, just so he can win an election, then he carse more about power than doing what is right.

It sure sounds like we're agreeing. The only difference is semantics. Whether you call it reforming the HRCs or abolishing the current model, we both agree the status quo isn't acceptable. I don't think the HRC issue will resonate with voters... but Tory didn't think his "fund the child" initiative would cause problems either...

-Mac
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
chrisreid wrote:
John Tories faith-based funding of schools didn't cost him the election because it was "controversial"...he lost the election because it was a completely unconservative policy. He wanted that state to control private schools. People send there children to private schools for a reason (and private schools aren't for the rich, many families work very hard to earn money to send their children to them) because they see how bad public schools are. The base of the party melted away and refused to turn up to support for John Tory.

I would say Tory lost the election because he was completely ineffective at countering the feeble attacks of McGuinty's Liberals and the media... and even worse at attacking the ridiculous policies, flip-flops and outright dishonesty of McGuinty's government.
to the table!!

-Mac


I don't know what Tory really could have done to counter the attacks. The real world involves simple concepts and ten second sound bites. If you want to give a 10 page explanation to why something is a good idea, and the opposition can counter with a simple phrase, you are lost. Look at the Carbon tax.

The error was not fighting off being attacked with a big stick, it was giving the stick to McGuinty in the first place.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
I am saying Hudak should stick to his principles. He is right, and that is worth fighting for. If he backs down, just so he can win an election, then he carse more about power than doing what is right.

It sure sounds like we're agreeing. The only difference is semantics. Whether you call it reforming the HRCs or abolishing the current model, we both agree the status quo isn't acceptable. I don't think the HRC issue will resonate with voters... but Tory didn't think his "fund the child" initiative would cause problems either...

-Mac
You have to make it resonate with voters, drag them kicking and screaming if you have too. Call me old fashioned, but I just don't see how anyone can lead from the rear.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
You have to make it resonate with voters, drag them kicking and screaming if you have too. Call me old fashioned, but I just don't see how anyone can lead from the rear.

You're old fashioned. That doesn't mean you're wrong. It is not possible to lead from the rear.

That being said, Ontario includes the largest socialist enclave in Canada (Toronto) and HRC abolition doesn't resonate with them... although Ezra and others have achieved more to denormalize the HRCs than I thought was possible.

-Mac
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leadership isn't about refusing to action without taking an opinion poll. Leadership isn't testing your idea before a focus group to make sure it's palpable. Mike Harris, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill all had ideas, and they fought for them, they didn't wait around for public opinion to be on their side.

I'm honestly suprised that people act shocked and scared of Liberals, and trying to avoid doing anything that would upset the Liberal establishment. Honestly their attacks are always the same, accusing conservatives of being "Extreme", "racist", "divisive" or "rednecks" (or hypocritical also saying conservatives are a part of the elite).

Really I would think that people running elections campaigns would expect this? Do they plan elections without ever thinking the other side is going to attack them?

Instead of navel gazing and saying "oh no the liberals would attack us for that", we gotta all be cheering on conservative policies, and be cheering on the candidate that has the most conviction and actually believes in those values, not someone just making policies to get elected leader, and then turn into a mushy middle of the road statist.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can I get, an Amen?
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
Leadership isn't about refusing to action without taking an opinion poll. Leadership isn't testing your idea before a focus group to make sure it's palpable. Mike Harris, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill all had ideas, and they fought for them, they didn't wait around for public opinion to be on their side.


Those individuals were special leaders (with the exception on Harris) in special times. They were not put into power because of their ideas, they were put into power because the voters were fed up with the alternatives.

Churchill was put into power by Hitler and Chambermaid.
Reagan by the vastly unpopular Carter.
Harris by the Bob Rae and the recession.
Thatcher by similar forces.

The last three where kept in power because of a dramatic worldwide upturn during their terms. Churchill lost his first postwar election.

Now, if you can find a Churchill in the CPC or a Hitler to run the Liberals, then I think you are in business. If not, don't make things worse by giving the Liberals a chew toy for the next election.

We had no compromise conservatism under Reform. What did it get us ? Preston Manning fought for no compromise conservatism - how many elections did he win ? Day didn't compromise and ended up being the butt of jokes.


chrisreid wrote:

Instead of navel gazing and saying "oh no the liberals would attack us for that", we gotta all be cheering on conservative policies,


Where you the adviser to John Tory who suggested funding private schools ???
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:

Those individuals were special leaders (with the exception on Harris) in special times. They were not put into power because of their ideas, they were put into power because the voters were fed up with the alternatives.

Churchill was put into power by Hitler and Chambermaid.
Reagan by the vastly unpopular Carter.
Harris by the Bob Rae and the recession.
Thatcher by similar forces.

The last three where kept in power because of a dramatic worldwide upturn during their terms. Churchill lost his first postwar election.

Now, if you can find a Churchill in the CPC or a Hitler to run the Liberals, then I think you are in business. If not, don't make things worse by giving the Liberals a chew toy for the next election.


Oh I see, so conservative policies only won out of sure luck. So until that point, what? Propose liberal policies to try to win favour of the left-wing MSM?
Mike Harris wasn't magically popular in 1995 fiscalconservative. He was in third place in the polls. The race was between the NDP and the Liberals. The Liberals having 50% in the polls. Mike Harris won because of a consistent platform, that was conservative, that was created by the grassroots within the party. This meant that the grassroots could be the cheer leaders.

As for the other leaders, I'd read up on history. If Winston Churchill left deciding WWII to opinion polls, he would have ended up trying to sign another peace agreement. WWII was not publicly popular, especially after just finishing a war some 20 something years earlier. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher faced HUGE protests by left-wing activists, and a biased media. They didn't compromise. They won because they advocated conservative policies that spoke to the optimism of their countries.

fiscalconservative wrote:

We had no compromise conservatism under Reform. What did it get us ? Preston Manning fought for no compromise conservatism - how many elections did he win ? Day didn't compromise and ended up being the butt of jokes.

I'd remind you that Reform was always gaining seats. The Reform Party scared the Liberals into balancing the budget, reducing the size of government and cutting taxes. The only reason Reform didn't grow faster was the splitting of the right of center vote.

fiscalconservative wrote:

Where you the adviser to John Tory who suggested funding private schools ???

Fiscalconservative, um no. Funding private schools was not a CONSERVATIVE policy. It effectively socialised private schools. Why would I be in favour of something that makes government larger? The base of the party didn't like funding private schools for two reasons - 1) the policy was dictated from on high by John Tory and his "brilliant" inner circle of advisors, that thought they were smarter than the grassroots, and 2) it was an unconservative policy.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Poll: Scrapping Human Rights Tribunal = Faith Based Funding

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB