Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

This web site is in the fucking toilet

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

The Red part of my Tory is the part where Canadian Confederation has an opt out clause, signed by both the SCC and the Queen of Canada.

If I wasn't a Red Tory, I could not in good conscience make truck and trade with the Pequistes, as only within the terms of 1688,  1763, and 1982, is that lawfully viable.

Another guy who doesn't know what a red tory is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Red Tories can have a libertarian streak, just not as big of libertarian streak as the Blue Tories. No enemies on the right.

One has to be a Red Tory to be a Tory in Canada, a High Tory would have Canada shot for sedition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Red Tories can have a libertarian streak, just not as big of libertarian streak as the Blue Tories. No enemies on the right, that's how this Red Tory rolls.

Red Tories believe in a lot bigger government and a lot more redistribution of income than Libertarians. A LOT MORE, since Libertarians basically don't believe in any. They also support stronger social programs than Blue Tories, where Libertarians basically don't support any. They also support more corporate welfare than Blue Tories, where Libertarians believe in none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Another guy who doesn't know what a red tory is...

A Red Tory is an euphemism to describe a classically liberal conservative within the context of the British rule of law, to include intervention on behalf of the Crown by the Crown to stave off a revolution in the streets, were the Blue Tories permitted to chuck the poor and vulnerable overboard without a safety net to catch them.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Red Tories believe in a lot bigger government and a lot more redistribution of income than Libertarians. A LOT MORE, since Libertarians basically don't believe in any. They also support stronger social programs than Blue Tories, where Libertarians basically don't support any. They also support more corporate welfare than Blue Tories, where Libertarians believe in none.

Red Tories can be minarchists, as can Libertarians. It's the Anarchists who are the ones who don't believe in any government and no safety net whatsoever. 

I'm not a corporate welfare fan, though some Red Tories might be, I am not one of them.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Tory who just voted for the Liberals, in order to overthrow prohibition, can't get more Red Tory libertarian sympathizing  than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Red Tories can be minarchists, as can Libertarians. It's the Anarchists are the ones who don't believe in any government and no safety bet. I'm not a corporate welfare fan, though some Red Tories might be, I am not one of them.

All Tories are monarchists, or at least, conservatism supports the monarchy. Red Tories are less likely to do so than Blue tories. The point of being Red vs Blue is you're positions are closer to the Left, to Liberals, and less inclined to embrace traditions.

Ron Paul practically is an anarchist. He doesn't believe in much more government than the military and the police, and the police are only supposed to enforce a few laws against violence and fraud and little more. Aside from that it's every man for himself. No government laws or regulations on medicine or drugs, no checks on food safety, no anti-pollution laws, no laws on worker safety, no public education, no public health care - which as far a I know includes no public ambulances or paramedics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I am a Tory who just voted for the Liberals, in order to overthrow prohibition, can't get more Red Tory libertarian sympathizing  than that.

I probably would have voted for the Liberals last election, if I actually thought they were going to overthrow prohibition, but I didn't trust them to do it, so I didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

I probably would have voted for the Liberals last election, if I actually thought they were going to overthrow prohibition, but I didn't trust them to do it, so I didn't.

I figured that would be the only promise they could easily keep, so I trusted in them to be desperate to pass something at some point, since everything else was likely to be a train wreck.

There was also the Red Tory impulse to punish Harper for failing to fulfill the one promise I voted for him to keep.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Argus said:

All Tories are monarchists, or at least, conservatism supports the monarchy. Red Tories are less likely to do so than Blue tories. The point of being Red vs Blue is you're positions are closer to the Left, to Liberals, and less inclined to embrace traditions.

Ron Paul practically is an anarchist. He doesn't believe in much more government than the military and the police, and the police are only supposed to enforce a few laws against violence and fraud and little more. Aside from that it's every man for himself. No government laws or regulations on medicine or drugs, no checks on food safety, no anti-pollution laws, no laws on worker safety, no public education, no public health care - which as far a I know includes no public ambulances or paramedics.

 

I'm pro-Monarchy, and more so than most Tories, that is true, but that doesn't preclude me from being a Red Tory as you suggest.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist, he's a minarchist, clearly you don't know the difference. He is for states rights, and less federal overreach, he isn't against government altogether. Strawman.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I probably would have voted for the Liberals last election, if I actually thought they were going to overthrow prohibition, but I didn't trust them to do it, so I didn't.

A conservative, let alone a Libertarian, would not have considered voting for the one guy who proudly announced he was going to have big budget deficits. Even the NDP promised to balance the budget. Not him. He also ran on a class warfare campaign theme of stealing money from the 'rich' and giving it to the middle class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

There was also the Red Tory impulse to punish Harper for failing to fulfill the one promise I voted for him to keep.

Which was what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Argus said:

A conservative, let alone a Libertarian, would not have considered voting for the one guy who proudly announced he was going to have big budget deficits. Even the NDP promised to balance the budget. Not him. He also ran on a class warfare campaign theme of stealing money from the 'rich' and giving it to the middle class.

Yeah, but ending prohibition is more important than any of that nonsense, as a libertarian, you should see that. If you didn't believe the Liberals was going to deliver on the pot legalization, and they were just run up the deficits, like I did, then that is adequate explanation for not voting Liberal.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, democracy is simply a peaceful transfer of power, it's not actually intended to be nor is it good for solving complex problems, so if you get even one legislative thing out an election, that's a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Reform of the Canadian Firearms Act.

Well, you must be pretty goddam happy with the Liberals then. They seem to be getting ready to ban handguns.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, you must be pretty godam happy with the Liberals then. They seem to be getting ready to ban handguns.

Movement on the pot legalization front is more important, than giving Harper another chance to pull the football away on the gun tip, Lucy-style.
/shrugs

If I had trusted the Liberals to deliver on the pot legalization, then I wouldn't have voted like Charlie Brown in 2015.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Movement on the nanny state prohibition front is more important, than giving Harper another chance to pull the football away on the gun tip.
/shrugs

Potheads. <sigh>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, you must be pretty goddam happy with the Liberals then. They seem to be getting ready to ban handguns.

Harper was worse, he caved into his nanny prohibitionist base and added minimum sentences to very minor firearms regulatory infractions.

This was overthrown by the Liberal judges.

I don't think the Liberals will actually ban guns per se, if they could, without the judiciary overthrowing it, they would have done it by now.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Potheads. <sigh>

If you prefer being Charlie Brown to Harper's Lucy, that's on you, I made the wrong call last election and voted Green, but I for one am willing to admit the error of my ways.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If you prefer being Charlie Brown to Harper's Lucy, that's on you, I made the wrong call last election and went Charlie Brown, but I for one am willing to admit the error of my ways.

There's more important things to worry about than fucking pot. Especially since potheads had no trouble getting all the weed they wanted anyway, and the cops showed no interest in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to the hysteria of Canadian Eskimo Communists on this board, I do not actually favour a second amendment for Canada.

As the second amendment is for the purposes of overthrowing a Crown.   

A Red Tory yes, but a Tory none the less.

I simply defend and uphold the story of my people, the 1689 Bill of Rights militia in the allowance of the law.  

North German Protestants ftw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Argus said:

There's more important things to worry about than fucking pot. Especially since potheads had no trouble getting all the weed they wanted anyway, and the cops showed no interest in them.

Not really, none of three major parties was going to deliver on what I wanted anyway, aside from the Liberals legalizing marijuana, but I was too skeptical that they wouldn't follow through to vote that way.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Contrary to the hysteria of Canadian Eskimo Communists on this board, I do not actually favour a second amendment for Canada.

As the second amendment is for the purposes of overthrowing a Crown.   

A Red Tory yes, but a Tory none the less.

I simply defend and uphold the story of my people, the 1689 Bill of Rights militia in the allowance of the law.  

North German Protestants ftw.

Yeah, well that's a load of crap. If you're a Libertarian then you're against the government seizing people's private property. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...