January 26, 2018

The Ontario PC Party needs to be conservative to survive

Eitan GilboordGuest Post

UPDATE: The Ontario PC Party executive has decided to conduct a leadership race before the general election. The party will announce the new leader on March 9. 


In the wake of Patrick Brown's resignation, Nipissing MPP Vic Fedeli has been named as the interim leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

He's announced that he's prepared to "step forward for any leadership position caucus or the Party asks."

The Ontario PC Party executive will now determine the extent of Fedeli's role. There are two choices that will dictate Fedeli's future: Conducting a leadership race before the general election, or after.

But no matter what happens, the Ontario PC Party must not run on the "Liberal-lite" platform of Patrick Brown.

In order to have any success in the next election, the PC Party must provide some sort of fiscally responsible policy, even if it's just joining federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer in opposing the Liberal carbon tax scheme.

Something as minor as opposition to a carbon tax could be enough to motivate the base and prevent the loss of any further ground to the Trillium Party, who have been steadily converting PC Party members.

Brown's "People's Guarantee" platform was gimmicky, and lacked conservative policies. Many "true blue" conservatives were growing disillusioned with Brown and the PC Party well before those sexual misconduct allegations were made public this week.

It was Brown's lack of support from the party base that stuck a nail in his political coffin. Conservative politicians like Donald Trump and Rob Ford were able to survive similar damaging allegations because their voters believed in their policy plan. Torontonians wanted to see an end to the "gravy train" at city hall, and blue-collar Americans wanted to see their jobs return from overseas. Those policies were enough to help Trump and Ford through their difficulties.

In contrast, Brown was counting on Ontarians being so fed up with the corrupt and dishonest Liberals that voters would just sweep him into office, regardless of his policies.

Now the Ontario PC Party is tainted. The only way to stop the bleeding is to motivate the base.

Whoever is leading the party come June must abandon Patrick Brown's weak platform and embrace a true conservative agenda.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-03-11 17:44:55 -0400
I get email;s almost on a daily basis from various PC politicians asking for money.

I answer every email with the same rhetoric.
!, Embrace The Rebel News because thgey are your only voice.
2. Put Doug Ford in the PC seat for Ontario.
3. Buy a new set of cajones for Andrew Scheer because he’s seemed to have lost his.
4. Embrace true PC values because no die hard PC supporter is going to vote for `closet Lieberals``

To date not one PC politician has answered one of my emails.

I`ll vote for Doug Ford. Andrew Scheer has yet to impress me. If he deos impress me I might consider voting for him.

//trudeaumustgo
commented 2018-02-03 20:52:59 -0500
Al Peterson commented 2018-02-03 16:15:20 0500
Andrew you are self deluded. That same article from Cornell University at the end totals 41 million killed in wars in the 20th century. The quote from the film maker also calls the 20 th century the most violent in history. Anyone who pays a lick of sense to the news will see this is true. No other century comes close.
-

I acknowledge(d) the number. My point was that it was almost entirely driven by WWI and II (the difference in figures arises from an order-of-magnitude uncertainty in Russian casualties in WWII). Death tolls in the second half of the 20th were a fraction of that of the first, and those of the 21st to date, a fraction of those in the second half of the 20th. The bloodiest war of the 21st century is probably the War on Terror, with circa a million casualties, largely at the hands of the US. The first 18 years of the 21st have a fraction of the deaths of the same point a century earlier.
-
“The inquisition is a BS “fact” that lefties always drag out. Here is amore realistic study”
-

Which is to say, it happened, which is what I claimed. I made no claims on numbers.
===
“Even a worst case scenario dosen’t come close and furthermore thse were not Christians. They were , like the Hitler example you gave, thugs using Christianlty to gain power.

Your example of comparing muslims to Jews is again one of the flawed tactics of the left…. […]." The Old Testament and Quran are derived from the same original source. Borth are similarly cruel in intent and often, phrasing. Yes, the Torah does indeed advocate for killing of unbelievers. The difference is in how it’s used. You use the “it’s not really the religion, it was a tool for power” explanation to explain the blood shed at the hands of Christians – could the same argument not be made for Muslims? Most do not believe in violence, incidentally, even if there are extremist factions.
-
Your moral absolute cannot be derived from your presuppositions as an evolutionist. If there is not creator and if life is a chance occurrence and if life is simply about survival of the fittest then it is A-OK to do what ever you can to survive: kill, cheat, lie, steal ,rape. There is no morality to be derived from chance. Here again, atheists can see the problem of their position so they ride on the Religionists coat tails a but try to devise an independent source for what can only come from a creator God.
-
Evolutionarily speaking, we are a social creature. Killing friendlies is decidedly unhelpful, as is robbing etc. You don’t see other social creatures killing within in-groups, only hostile outsiders. There’s nothing about us that says fighting and pillaging is necessary, especially when resources are plentiful as they are today.
-
-
“Your problem of the religious right is only exacerbated by the atheist left. Trudeau is working over time to force his morality on us. Every law made is an attempt to force someone’s morality on someone else. Tax laws, highway laws, sex laws, smoking laws, the list is endless. All are attempt by someone to say this is wrong, you shall not do it or you must do it.”
-
Taxes aren’t a moral issue, and as for smoking and highway laws, you’ll notice that smoking and irresponsible driving have societal costs beyond the individual partaking. Again, I point to my ethos, which enables freedom as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of others.
There should be no “sex laws”. However, educating society on how to do it safely, is important for the same reason as safe driving laws are.
-
Your attempt to see democracy before the Reformation is a joke. The only democracy prior was among the Greeks and it was very elitist. Hardly one person one vote. Since the secularization of the west this concept has devolved into the Antifa and university screeds against freedom speech we see today. The left does not have an adequate foundation to build morality on so it is built on a quaking bog of feeling and manufactured office taking and victim hood.
-
-
We still don’t have one-person-one-vote. It’s one of the fundamental reasons for electoral reform – first-past-the-post only counts the votes the winner took, and only those necessary to win, discarding all else. How do you explain “majority governments” where the winner gets less than 40% of the vote, as both Trudeau and Harper did? Stateside, it’s even worse – Trump wouldn’t be president if it were OPOV, and of course they have gerrymandering, specifically designed to disenfranchise politically inconvenient demographics – the electoral college itself has its roots in letting slaves count as electors without letting them actually vote. Universal suffrage is a product of the secular era.
commented 2018-02-03 16:15:20 -0500
Andrew you are self deluded. That same article from Cornell University at the end totals 41 million killed in wars in the 20th century. The quote from the film maker also calls the 20 th century the most violent in history. Anyone who pays a lick of sense to the news will see this is true. No other century comes close.

The inquisition is a BS “fact” that lefties always drag out. Here is amore realistic study:

“But according to Professor Agostino Borromeo, a historian of Catholicism at the Sapienza University in Rome and curator of the 783-page volume released yesterday, only 1% of the 125,000 people tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain were executed.

Source; The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/16/artsandhumanities.internationaleducationnews

Even a worst case scenario dosen’t come close and furthermore thse were not Christians. They were , like the Hitler example you gave, thugs using Christianlty to gain power.

Your example of comparing muslims to Jews is again one of the flawed tactics of the left. The Muslims should be compared to the Nazis (they were allies in the war) because they both wanted (and they still so) to kill the Jews off. So naturally right thinking people do not want a religion whose major tenet is to kill and enslave non-believers in the country. Jews have not such teaching.

Your moral absolute cannot be derived from your presuppositions as an evolutionist. If there is not creator and if life is a chance occurrence and if life is simply about survival of the fittest then it is A-OK to do what ever you can to survive: kill, cheat, lie, steal ,rape. There is no morality to be derived from chance. Here again, atheists can see the problem of their position so they ride on the Religionists coat tails a but try to devise an independent source for what can only come from a creator God.

Your problem of the religious right is only exacerbated by the atheist left. Trudeau is working over time to force his morality on us. Every law made is an attempt to force someone’s morality on someone else. Tax laws, highway laws, sex laws, smoking laws, the list is endless. All are attempt by someone to say this is wrong, you shall not do it or you must do it.

Your attempt to see democracy before the Reformation is a joke. The only democracy prior was among the Greeks and it was very elitist. Hardly one person -one vote. Since the secularization of the west this concept has devolved into the Antifa and university screeds against freedom speech we see today. The left does not have an adequate foundation to build morality on so it is built on a quaking bog of feeling and manufactured office taking and victim hood.

In the book, Termites in the Shape of Men, the author talks about exactly this. Leftists like the edifice that Christianity built, they just do not like that foundation. So they are eating away at the foundation but expecting the building to keep standing. Anyone can see that it is not. Except the self-deluded.
commented 2018-02-03 14:53:19 -0500
“And yet you continue to focus on how wrong conservatives are and how right the left is. A bit inconsistent to say the least. Don’t those positions require absolutes in order to hold them”

No, I don’t think so. The only moral absolute I have presented is the “unreasonable infringement” model – do what you want as long as its impacts don’t infringe upon others. This is a logical derivation, not divine proclamation. Just for the sake of argument, this is also the MO of libertarians, arguably the most right-wing of ideologies. My problem lies with the Religious Right, who attempt to use legislation to infringe upon others via mandatory morality .

“The best nations to live in are those that came out of the Reformation and those who have held to a judo-christian world view”

Most of the world’s greatest are derived from democratic values, which predate monotheism. Human rights were hit and miss until separation of church and state, and those best nations only became that way after complete secularization. Even today the Evangelicals advocate against some pretty fundamental self-determinations such as sexual or reproductive choice, a position that directly and negatively impacts the targeted individuals.

“Except for the those officially atheistic countries ( Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, communist China, communist Cambodia and others of the socialist persuasion) who feel they are the sole possessors of humanely sanctioned righteousness”

Cherry picking. How many died in the Inquisition? That would never happen today, due to secularization. Are the examples you mention, actually driven by atheism, or were they brutal dictatorships that just happened to be nominally atheist? Hitler’s hate for Jews is not unlike the Rebel-Right’s hate for Muslims – and that’s a far bigger issue than religion… Hitler actually tried to use the Church as a mechanism of centralizing power, and German communism only came about after WWII, and even then only in the East. Also, how does that explain Japan, Singapore, South Korea, all nations far removed from judeo-Christian norms, all developed nations with high qualities of life. Even China’s well down that path. You’re trying to pretend fascism, communism, and secularism are interchangeable, and they are not – Fascism uses communism (at least nominally, none has ever actually achieved communism) and secularism to achieve its goals, but secularism is not an inevitable precursor to fascism.

“15 million deaths between 1955 and 2000 not including major wars such as Korea, Vietnam and French wars in India-china and Algeria. “A documentary film, Aftermath: The Remnants of War, produced in 2002 and based on the book by Donovan Webster, referred to the 20th century as “the most violent in all of human history” but used the low death toll of only “more than 100 million” for the 20th century, less than half the actual total.”
"
So, 100 (200m?) deaths in the 20th century, only 15m of which happened post-1955. Less than 1m since the turn of the 21st – and those that have happened, mostly motivated by religion. That in fact supports my claims – that modern times are actually exceptionally peaceful.

“You are doing a fine job of showing the reality of the three pillars of leftiedom:”

Interesting claim. It seems to me that you’re arguing against a strawman, rather than anything I’ve said. I disagree with all three – leftism is quite adaptable and has built upon the past; it’s conservatism that tends to look backwards and gloss over its flaws. And, as I’ve said, my social views tend towards the libertarian, which is quite right wing – I dispute your projection of me being a leftist and thus, that your argument is inapplicable to me.
commented 2018-02-02 14:29:11 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented
I’m a bit skeptical that any sort of absolute morality even exists.
______________________________________________________________________________
And yet you continue to focus on how wrong conservatives are and how right the left is. A bit inconsistent to say the least. Don’t those positions require absolutes in order to hold them?

Rather than relying on divine decree, social behaviour now can be very simply based on a few simple, evident objective rules. Don’t do stuff that hurts other people.
________________________________________________________________________________
And how has that been working out for the last 10,000 years of recorded history? The best nations to live in are those that came out of the Reformation and those who have held to a judo-christian world view. They hold to the view that human life is created by god and therefore of high intrinsic worth. Atheists try to ride on the judo-christin’s coat tails but the realities without that world view life is not valued- hence abortion that out strips live births in many count tries and being killed for team jersey or your wallet. The heart of the problem is the problem of the human heart. Only the Holy Spirit can effect the needed change.

Our modern, secular era, is the most peaceful the world has ever known, and even those wars that remain, are mostly motivated by conflicting groups, each of whom feels they are the sole possessors of divinely sanctioned righteousness.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Except for the those officially atheistic countries ( Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, communist China, communist Cambodia and others of the socialist persuasion) who feel they are the sole possessors of humanely sanctioned righteousness. Not to mention the Hutus and Tutsis. They who have killed 100’s of millions in the 20th century alone. Religions don’t hold a candle to the New Socialist man. Ah, socialism,always only one more execution away from utopia.

15 million deaths between 1955 and 2000 not including major wars such as Korea, Vietnam and French wars in India-china and Algeria. “A documentary film, Aftermath: The Remnants of War, produced in 2002 and based on the book by Donovan Webster, referred to the 20th century as “the most violent in all of human history” but used the low death toll of only “more than 100 million” for the 20th century, less than half the actual total.”

Source: https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/20060800_cdsp_occ_leitenberg.pdf

Andrew, you really need to do some investigating before you post such obvious nonsense. You really are delusional if you believe it. You are doing a fine job of showing the reality of the three pillars of leftiedom:
1. they refuse to learn from their mistakes.
2. the refuse to learn from other people’s mistakes i.e. history ( apparently you don’t even read it.)
3. they refuse to exercise discernment.
commented 2018-02-01 12:13:18 -0500
Al Peterson commented 2018-01-29 23:11:09 -0500
“Andrew.
Perhaps on some issues but not on those of morality. The presupposition your keep raising is “if they want to win”. Yes, if that is the only objective then they should just pack up and join one of the other left wing parties. But the point of winning should be to challenge society’s conventional thinking and call people to a higher existence. Then winning is not only an election win but a mind and heart change. That is the ultimate win. Then the election will take care of itself. "

I would argue otherwise. Government is a mechanism to deliver services, not morality. Trying to subvert government to deliver moral messages is a direct contradiction there. Government should educate the youth, heal the sick, build the infrastructure to support society, and leave morality to the individual to pursue at their own leisure, beyond the minimum enforcement needed to keep damaging behaviour on behalf of one person, from damaging another.

“Al Peterson commented 2018-01-29 23:29:11 -0500
Religon is another loaded term and carries too much baggage for some. I will call it the spiritual. The spiritual is the foundation of philosophy. If we build on human emotion and subjectivity we can never s come to any moral absolutes. They feel absolute but why are anchored to the iceberg. The drift of society shows this. As do cultural differences. What is self-evident to one person is not at all self evident to others. "

I’m a bit skeptical that any sort of absolute morality even exists. The animal kingdom has existed for billions of years without it. As a social species, tribalism is an instinctual, evolutionary necessity. not a moral absolute.

Rather than relying on divine decree, social behaviour now can be very simply based on a few simple, evident objective rules. Don’t do stuff that hurts other people. Obvious to even the slowest of hairless ground-apes. That doesn’t need a “creator” to be self-evident, and no further rules are actually needed that aren’t derivatives of that fundamental concept. Religion holds no added benefit, beyond reintroducing tribalism.

Our modern, secular era, is the most peaceful the world has ever known, and even those wars that remain, are mostly motivated by conflicting groups, each of whom feels they are the sole possessors of divinely sanctioned righteousness.
commented 2018-01-30 14:50:41 -0500
Al Peterson,

You acknowledge that if conservatives just want to win elections – then they should join one of the liberal parties. You are basically admitting that Canadians are liberal (vast majority) and vote as such and so the liberal party are almost guaranteed to win. That conservatism is almost useless this country beyond a small minority.
commented 2018-01-29 23:29:11 -0500
Andrew Stephenson
I am agnostic and the religious arguments hold little interest to me, beyond the philosophical implications.
________________________________________________________________________________
Religon is another loaded term and carries too much baggage for some. I will call it the spiritual. The spiritual is the foundation of philosophy. If we build on human emotion and subjectivity we can never s come to any moral absolutes. They feel absolute but why are anchored to the iceberg. The drift of society shows this. As do cultural differences. What is self-evident to one person is not at all self evident to others.

I’ve just been reading the book, Empire of the Summer Moon about the Comanches. All the native American tribes thought it was self evident that it was fair game to rape, torture and mutilate women and children from enemy tribes. They were shocked that the Whites saw it otherwise. Yes, the whites did similarly barbarous things in response but they had an underlying guilt about doing so. The natives had none.

The Rape of Nanking is another example. The Japanese army had no compunction about doing similar things to the Chinese civilians; men, women and old people. It was self-evident that they were beneath contempt. Humans left to their own devices are never far from the Lord of the Flies.

We need an objectivity which only the Creator can give. Western society has paid into a moral account for several millennia in the Christian era. Now we have quit paying it in but we are drawing it down. Over time there will be nothing left and we will be as chaotic and violent as any people in any time in history.

3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the [b]end of the age?”

“4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

9 “Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. 12 BECAUSE LAWLESSNESS IS INCREASED, MOST PEOPLE’S LOVE WILL GROW COLD. 13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."

Jesus of Nazareth
Matthew 24:3-14

That this is happening is self evident.
commented 2018-01-29 23:11:09 -0500
Andrew.
Perhaps on some issues but not on those of morality. The presupposition your keep raising is “if they want to win”. Yes, if that is the only objective then they should just pack up and join one of the other left wing parties. But the point of winning should be to challenge society’s conventional thinking and call people to a higher existence. Then winning is not only an election win but a mind and heart change. That is the ultimate win. Then the election will take care of itself.
commented 2018-01-29 21:06:57 -0500
Al Peterson commented 2018-01-29 12:01:07 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON
A conservative, if he wants to win, HAS to follow the crowd to some extent. And, they should, change is inevitable.
________________________________________________________________________________

Andrew, if a conservative’s goal is simply to get elected they have become a liberal who would sell their souls and their country out for that prize. They are no longer conservatives.

“Change is inevitable” Here again we have one of those leftist weasel-words. So much packed into so little. Change – what do you refer to? If society drifts towards slavery again, we should not oppose it? A conservative should be opposed to it no matter what. Same with abortion in 99.9% of the cases. How about when we inevitably change toward allowing pedophilia to be included among the QWERTY self-ID? "

The “weasel words” reflect reality, whether or not you agree. Yes, we should oppose slavery – this is an act that clearly represses individual freedoms. Same true with pedophilia (there’s a very clear distinction there, in that it’s not between two consenting adults). Coersion, whether individual or via overreach of government, should be opposed. Abortion’s an individual choice, as is say non-traditional marriage.

“The problem is that our son city has no moral foundation. We only have emotions. WE think that our emotions are a solid point for anchorage. But we true conservatives have long ago discovered that we this is really just being anchored to an iceberg. "

I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption to make. This is often meant to decry secularization, but most “moral” principles have a pretty self-evident basis that does not require divine backing. Do what you want, as long as it doesn’t unreasonably infringe upon others. So, things like theft and murder are wrong (incidentally, this acknowledges free speech, but also that that free speech should be exercised with care in ways that are not harmful to others) but if you want to live in a polyamorous marriage with a dozen pansexual transgenders then that’s your own prerogative since it impacts nobody beyond the participants.

“Anyone with a lick k of sense can see this and I suspect they do see it. But leftists do not want the truth they want what they want regardless of the outcome. They are desperately seeking comforting lies. Those here on the Rebel are at various point on that continuum. My prayer is that all will come to desire truth above all else. Even getting the lollipop of an election win. "

These supposed “comforting lies” are not demonstrably, empirically untrue. Some of the claims being made are highly subjective, but subjective is not objective. I suppose this depends on one’s spiritual worldview. I am agnostic and the religious arguments hold little interest to me, beyond the philosophical implications.
commented 2018-01-29 16:34:24 -0500
Keith Barnes,

Did you have a problem with Gavin McInnes using that adjective all the time too?
commented 2018-01-29 16:32:39 -0500
Al Peterson,

Cool – you are fine with your brand of Conservative never winning an election again, where as more reasonable Conservatives would be fine with another center right like Harper.

Good luck with your cause.
commented 2018-01-29 16:26:57 -0500
AL PETERSON commented 2018-01-29 16:20:50 -0500

Cannot dispute that. I think that Crokett is in fact a Liberal MP.
commented 2018-01-29 16:20:50 -0500
Keith, those who have no foundation on which to build a coherent argument nor the ability to express it clearly resort to vulgarity and name calling as a substitute for them.
commented 2018-01-29 16:18:57 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT,Your constant use of the adjective that describes the act of reproduction, clearly displays your mental state. I was not aware that IQ levels could be measured in minus numbers. You sound depressed, what happened? Did You spend your welfare check already.

‘Fucking’ is an old Anglo Saxon adjective, it is not swearing.
commented 2018-01-29 16:18:43 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-01-29 12:41:29 -0500
Al Peterson,

So you are fine with conservatives never winning an election again as long as they maintain the stance of what you deem to be a true conservative? Because that is exactly what would happen if they started campaigning against gay marriage and other social issues that most Canadians support. Center right conservatives can win ala Harper.

Don’t get me wrong though, I respect that you are willing to go down with the outdated, out of touch and archaic Conservative ship.
________________________________________________________________________________
No, James, that is putting words in my mouth which is what you seem to do best at.
I will hold to my moral foundation and try to convince people of their errors.

The evidence of that is all around us- like the muslim born misery in every land they have gone to in sufficient numbers. and like the 100,000 unborn lives savagely ripped apart because they are unseen. I could go on.

What is the point of winning an election if I end up indistinguishable from the other evil political entities by selling my integrity? You definitely display the liberal/socialist mindset of doing anything and compromising anything to attain power.

The righteous are called to speak the truth regardless of the outcome. In the end the outcome is assured:

27 “You shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you; and you shall call to them, but they will not answer you. 28 You shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the Lord their God or accept correction; TRUTH HAS PERISHED AND HAS BEEN CUT OFF FROM THEIR MOUTH.

29 ‘Cut off your hair and cast it away,
And take up a lamentation on the bare heights;
For the Lord has rejected and forsaken
The generation of His wrath.’
30 For the sons of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight,” declares the Lord, “they have set their detestable things in the house which is called by My name, to defile it. 31 They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, TO BURN THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS IN THE FIRE, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.
commented 2018-01-29 16:17:33 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT,Your constant use of the adjective that describes the act of reproduction, clearly displays your mental state. I was not aware that IQ levels could be measured in minus numbers. You sound depressed, what happened? Did You spend your welfare check already.

‘Fucking’ is an old Anglo Saxon adjective, it is not swearing
commented 2018-01-29 16:16:26 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT,Your constant use of the adjective that describes the act of reproduction, clearly displays your mental state. I was not aware that IQ levels could be measured in minus numbers. You sound depressed, what happened? Did You spend your welfare check already.

‘Fucking’ is an old Anglo Saxon adjective, it is not swearing
commented 2018-01-29 14:51:50 -0500
Doug Ford is running for PC leader.

Thank you God.
commented 2018-01-29 12:41:29 -0500
Al Peterson,

So you are fine with conservatives never winning an election again as long as they maintain the stance of what you deem to be a true conservative? Because that is exactly what would happen if they started campaigning against gay marriage and other social issues that most Canadians support. Center right conservatives can win ala Harper.

Don’t get me wrong though, I respect that you are willing to go down with the outdated, out of touch and archaic Conservative ship.
commented 2018-01-29 12:01:07 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON
A conservative, if he wants to win, HAS to follow the crowd to some extent. And, they should, change is inevitable.
________________________________________________________________________________

Andrew, if a conservative’s goal is simply to get elected they have become a liberal who would sell their souls and their country out for that prize. They are no longer conservatives.

“Change is inevitable” Here again we have one of those leftist weasel-words. So much packed into so little. Change – what do you refer to? If society drifts towards slavery again, we should not oppose it? A conservative should be opposed to it no matter what. Same with abortion in 99.9% of the cases. How about when we inevitably change toward allowing pedophilia to be included among the QWERTY self-ID?

Because change is inevitable does that mean that we should allow anything to happen that comes along? No, even leftists (especially leftists) want to regulate everything to prevent change from happening that doesn’t suit them.

The problem is that our son city has no moral foundation. We only have emotions. WE think that our emotions are a solid point for anchorage. But we true conservatives have long ago discovered that we this is really just being anchored to an iceberg.

It feels big and substantial and unmoving. The reality is it is slowly drifting and dragging us along to wherever the surrounding current wish. Eventually it will melt and leave us at some point from which we cannot return.

Anyone with a lick k of sense can see this and I suspect they do see it. But leftists do not want the truth they want what they want regardless of the outcome. They are desperately seeking comforting lies. Those here on the Rebel are at various point on that continuum. My prayer is that all will come to desire truth above all else. Even getting the lollipop of an election win.

I, for one ,will not bow the knee to Baal.

“The world hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.”
Jesus of Nazareth
John 7:7
commented 2018-01-29 11:47:05 -0500
Not sure why James Crockett’s post was ascribed to me from 11:43:06.
commented 2018-01-29 11:45:38 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT
Can a conservative be for gay marriage, but pro-life?
________________________________________________________________________________
Only if they are not really conservative. Conservative is not the same as conservative. Progressive Conservative is all progressive (Actually regressive . But you know how lefties like to play with definitions and misapply words) but no conservative.
commented 2018-01-29 11:45:34 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT
Can a conservative be for gay marriage, but pro-life?
________________________________________________________________________________
Only if they are not really conservative. Conservative is not the same as conservative. Progressive Conservative is all progressive (Actually regressive . But you know how lefties like to play with definitions and misapply words) but no conservative.
commented 2018-01-29 11:43:06 -0500
Is someone only a conservative if they are hard core conservative across the board on ALL social issues? Can a conservative be for gay marriage, but pro-life?
commented 2018-01-29 10:27:25 -0500
Al Peterson:
“A conserative by definition does not follow the crowd. As soon as they do they are no longer conservative. They are part of the Lost Herd who drift with the wind.

I would far rather be part of this group whose soul and truth is not for sale:

1 Kings 19:18
Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.” "

A conservative, if he wants to win, HAS to follow the crowd to some extent. And, they should, change is inevitable. Would they have any relevance were they still arguing a 1960s platform that completely ignores the technological and social changese since then? Thus, they MUST change, albeit slower – and we see this, in that the Conservatives generally run maybe a decade or two behind the Liberals.

With populists (Trump, or Ford) they’ll say whatever gets the crowd cheering loudest. By definition, that’s following the crowd. Trump isn’t a traditional conservative by any measure, which is one reason he’s so upsetting to the establishment party.
commented 2018-01-29 00:20:11 -0500
Al Peterson,

Wrong – center left and center right are very real political terms/views and have been for many decades both in Canada and America. Just like far left and far right are very real political terms/views.

There were conservatives that said Harper wasn’t conservative enough – they said he was center right, so it goes both ways. It all depends where you are on the right or left scale.

Some conservatives here on The Rebel were fine with Kevin O’Leary as Conservative leader, because balancing a checkbook as you say is the most important thing to some conservatives and they feel that liberals don’t know how to balance a checkbook.

Is someone only a conservative if they are hard core conservative across the board on ALL social issues? Can a conservative be for gay marriage, but pro-life?
commented 2018-01-28 23:35:37 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 2018-01-27 13:39:13 -0500
Why not have one? Successful conservative parties have long been centre-right, not hard right, and changing political attitudes demand the parties change with it to stay relevant. In reality the system needs several parties, since staying in power too long leads to laziness, complacency, and more often than not, open corruption.

Not supporting a specific policy, particularly policies no longer particularly relevant, doesn’t make them non-conservative. And, isn’t the core point of a political party to serve its citizens overall, meaning that if society’s core beliefs drift leftward, that the parties serving them should as well?
_______________________________________________________________________________

A conserative by definition does not follow the crowd. As soon as they do they are no longer conservative. They are part of the Lost Herd who drift with the wind.

I would far rather be part of this group whose soul and truth is not for sale:

1 Kings 19:18
Yet I will leave 7,000 in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal and every mouth that has not kissed him.”
commented 2018-01-28 23:28:21 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-01-27 14:29:22 -0500
Al Peterson,

You don’t live in America. You live in Canada. Trump wouldn’t have a chance here if he was Canadian. Kellie Leitch learned that the hard way.

It’s amazing that you conservative morons look to Donald Trump as having anything to do with how things are in CANADA. Trump winning in America – means fuck all to a similar candidate winning in CANADA.

Do you know where you are? Do you understand the country you live in? Are you aware that Canadians HATE Trump?

You are fucking clueless.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I beg to differ since on ME bing clueless since YOU completely missed the context of what I said. You read it as defence of Trump which it want. (But that old TDS really plays hobby with ones reading comprehension.) What the context was as directly stated- was your rather poor ability to play God. Your ability to predict the future.

So who’s got he problem? Not me.
commented 2018-01-28 23:23:53 -0500
James, Centre left is misnomer to suck in gullible people. The correct term for centre left is LEFT.
No, O’Leary is not a conservative. He is leftist that can balance a cheque book.

And yet the left railed against aHarper as Far Right the whole of his terms in office. All the hyphenated Right terms are phony constructs to further divide the weak non-thinkers in the movement. It sounds so reasonable. I remain a conservative while not actually being conservative. The law of the exclude middle: Something cannot with be and not be at the a same time and in the same sense, That’s what h ypenated conservatism is.

Funny one never hears of hyphenated leftists. They are just left.