Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Paul Jackson Get It Right Again


Recommended Posts

Due to the wonder of the internet I have come to read and admire the writing of Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson. Like many conservative columnists for Sun Media, he does have a tendency to come across as a curmudgeon. However, his insight into the merits of conservatism vs. liberalism/leftism is unmistakeable.

In his most recent column, Martin made a mess, he makes a terrific point. Recent history should make it clear that leftist governments spend more time politicking and pork-barreling than they do displaying sound managerial ability. Then conservatives have to come in an clean up the mess.

And the cycle is a vicious one, since liberals demagogue issues to death, especially focusing on the apparent short term consequences of policy enactments. Its just too easy to tell people that the state of the economy, for example, is the direct result of the governmnet currently in power. Its too bad that voters tend to buy into this myth.

Take Bill Clinton, for example. He came into office after a very short recession was already over and the economy was already starting to boom as the result of the massive growth policies of Ronald Reagan. When he left office, the economy had shrunk for the entire last year of his presidency, a fact which they witheld during Al Gore's entire 2000 campaign. George W. Bush comes in an has to deal with the mess, but is starting to see his own growth policies help the slumping economy - which is still not in recession. And lets not get into the war on terrorsim and what Bill Clinton did about that for eight years.

Take Jean Chretien. Unquestionably, the economy and government finances have benefited from Free Trade and the GST, thanks to Brian Mulroney. The liberals come in, ride the crest of a charging American economy, gut health care and the military while their at it, and then brag about their prowess at fiscal management. I guess its easy when others do the dirty work for you.

Will people ever learn that Lefties only care about power and ideology? If conservative policies were enacted ALL THE TIME the streets would be overflowing with honey and happiness. Well, maybe not. But wouldn't things be running smoother?

Just another example: The two most prosperous provinces in this country, Ontario and Alberta, have adopted conservative policies for the last decade. But you never hear this mentioned as a potential reason for the state of the Canadian economy in general.

Liberals?Lefties mess things up. Conservatives come in and do what is right for their countries. We can only hope that these lessons will be learned sooner rather than later!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good man and good post.

Democrats opposed entering both World Wars.

Democrats and their peacenik allies tried to convince you that the Russians either a. could not be beaten since they were too tough, or b. loved their children and wanted nothing more than a group hug from the West.

Reagan won the Cold War with Thatcher's support.

JFK and LBJ commit US forces to Vietnam with no goals, no plan, and no intention to fight to win. They send over a conscript army, poorly trained, led and motivated. Good one. The Liberal press now uses Vietnam to damn any war.

Thatcher invades the Falklands and the Left liberal press and politicians howled that the UNO did not sanction it and that Galitieri and his fascists punks were too tough to beat. In 3 weeks the war is over, and Galitieri is sent to prison.

Liberal pundits predicted that Gulf War I would be a war that could not be won against the world's 4th largest army, in hostile terrain against Arab fanatics. 41 days it is over, and could have been over much sooner if the moderate ninnies running the war did not believe they needed to pulverise every rock before sending forth the troops. Of course the ninnies did not take Baghdad which was the whole point after all. Why ? The Liberal press moaned about the 'road of death' out of Kuwait. The poor Iraqi's were being slaughtered. The fact that it was not true had no bearing on reality. Result; 12 yrs of failed sanctions and then Gulf War II. Good one.

Clinton and the Dumbocruds ran out of Somalia, did not bother about Bin Laden except to bomb an aspirin factory while the Lewinsky process was at its height, and opposed military action after conducting opinion polls that is was too dangerous.

Gulf War II and the invasion of Afghanistan were both too dangerous, would cost too many lives, could not be won, would be bogged down in 'brutal winters', would destroy the country, and of course murder millions of babies. This was the liberal reaction to 9-11.

Now the liberals blame the West for extremist Islam. Calls resonate to understand the 'root causes' of 'why they hate us'. More hugs, kisses and chocolates are apparently necessary, not to mention the customary boot licking of idiotic thugs like Arafat to make the world a Garden of Eden.

The Liberals are patsies. Weak ninnies with their blind UNO ideology and power broking, pork barreling politics, covered up by nationalist sentiments 'dat da Canadian value', 'i hate American bastards, but will thankfully live off their military, drug manufacturers, and economy', and 'we are great' because we are number one in hockey, a sport played by 3 countries. Phooey.

These clowns are never right. But they own the media, they churn out churlish professors from Harvard with their snotty opinions and 'nuanced, clever analysis', and they fund social program spending to ensure voter compliance, abetted by a ceaseless array of propaganda.

Go against this orthodoxy and you are slandered, belittled, and condemned.

Orwell saw this coming a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More drivel from Jackson, who is completely out to lunch as well as being a paranoid, borderline insane drunk (so speaketh my sources in the CalSun newsroom). This is the same looney who claimed the anti-Iraq war protests were funded by saddam hussein (I took part in every local march and rally and still haven't got my cheque from Saddam).

Recent history should make it clear that leftist governments spend more time politicking and pork-barreling than they do displaying sound managerial ability. Then conservatives have to come in an clean up the mess.

:rolleyes: Uh huh. The very short recession you talked about, izzat the same one that started in 1981 under Ronald Reagan (let me guess: that was Carter's fault)?

George W. Bush comes in an has to deal with the mess, but is starting to see his own growth policies help the slumping economy - which is still not in recession

"In testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the “supply shock” consequences of the terror attack would reduce the growth rate of gross domestic product in the third and fourth quarters and “increase significantly the likelihood that the economy is in recession.”"

- October 2001

Will people ever learn that Lefties only care about power and ideology?

:lol:

Tax cuts for the wealthy, ":faith-based" education funding, a bloated military budget, the gutting of social and environmental programs, massive corporate welfare, a repressive criminal justice system: yeah, Republicans never make policy based on purely idealogical grounds.

The two most prosperous provinces in this country, Ontario and Alberta, have adopted conservative policies for the last decade.

A syphilitic chimp could run Alberta better than Klein's crew of miscreeants. It's called "oil".

But they own the media, they churn out churlish professors from Harvard with their snotty opinions and 'nuanced, clever analysis', and they fund social program spending to ensure voter compliance, abetted by a ceaseless array of propaganda.

Anyone who thinks Rupert Murdoch, Izzy Asper, Tubby Black et all are lefties is barking (mad) up the wrong tree.

You guys really haven't the foggiest idea, do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
More drivel from Jackson, who is completely out to lunch as well as being a paranoid, borderline insane drunk
If you can't argue against your opponents I guess you just go personal, right?
"In testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said the “supply shock” consequences of the terror attack would reduce the growth rate of gross domestic product in the third and fourth quarters and “increase significantly the likelihood that the economy is in recession.”"

- October 2001

This is your argument against Bush's economic policies? Pretty lame.
Tax cuts for the wealthy, ":faith-based" education funding, a bloated military budget, the gutting of social and environmental programs, massive corporate welfare, a repressive criminal justice system: yeah, Republicans never make policy based on purely idealogical grounds.
Of course they do. That was my point in the first place- they do what they say they will do, unlike liberals who only say what they have to in order to enact an ideology people don't actually believe in. And since when are tax cuts only for the rich? You have something against rich people? Of course not! How else would you fund your socialist schemes.
Anyone who thinks Rupert Murdoch, Izzy Asper, Tubby Black et all are lefties is barking (mad) up the wrong tree.
You just gotta love it when lefties point to a few exceptions to the rule and tell others they are the rule. Also, Izzy is a well know friend to the federal Liberal pary. And, in case you didn't notice, "Tubby" Black no longer controls media interests in Canada. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually got your facts straight?
You guys really haven't the foggiest idea, do you?
It must be nice to think like that. That way, you don't have to face the reality that conservatives back up their arguments with facts, reason, and logic, instead of misrepresentation, reaching, rhetoric, and straight out cluelessness. :lol:
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can't argue against your opponents I guess you just go personal, right?

Nope. It's called "considering the source." If someone posted something by, say, Ernst Zundel, would you react the same way. Jackson's a kook. End of story.

This is your argument against Bush's economic policies? Pretty lame.

No that was replying to your "see no evil" assertion that the U.S. isn't in a recession. It is. Bush's economic policies (such as runaway defecit spending) indict themselves.

Of course they do. That was my point in the first place- they do what they say they will do, unlike liberals who only say what they have to in order to enact an ideology people don't actually believe in. And since when are tax cuts only for the rich? You have something against rich people? Of course not! How else would you fund your socialist schemes.

1. No your point was that "liberals" make policy soley based on ideology. I say it works both ways and that, in fact, that conservatives continmue to advocate solutions that have categorically failed to acheive the desired results demonstrates an slavish devotion to ideology bordering on religious dogma.

2. Bush's tax cuts were primarily for the rich. Actualy, most tax cuts do benefit the wealthy.

3. yes I have something against a class of people that has (largey through none of there own doing) amassed an obscene amount of wealth, yet continuously fight tooth and claw any attempt to make them pay their fair share.

You just gotta love it when lefties point to a few exceptions to the rule and tell others they are the rule.

Name me one media mogul with "left wing" politics.

That way, you don't have to face the reality that conservatives back up their arguments with facts, reason, and logic, instead of misrepresentation, reaching, rhetoric, and straight out cluelessness

Ah, the Great Myth of the Reasonable Right rears it's ugly head. If you buy that, I've got siome primo swampland in Florida with your name on it...

Believe me, I've argued with conservatives before. Most wouldn't know facts reason or logic if it fell on 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Admin
More drivel from Jackson, who is completely out to lunch as well as being a paranoid, borderline insane drunk (so speaketh my sources in the CalSun newsroom).

BlackDog, what you just wrote is libel and it's against the forum rules.

Try to avoid personal attacks whether they are against someone in this forum or not.

Oh, and you'll need to explain this to me

A syphilitic chimp could run Alberta better than Klein's crew of miscreeants. It's called "oil".

You've failed to explain your ignorance fully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Left Liberalism is a philosophy of control.

They apologise for success ie. being a Western Orthodox based culture is now in the world of PC unworthy.

They try to accomodate Naziism, Communism and Militant Islamism.

They try to appease.

They appeal to equality.

They look for 'root causes' for the most obvious crimes.

They tell us that terrorism can be managed and there is no need for pre-emptive strikes or a war.

They pile on taxes and debt and declare it moral leaving it to future generations to pay off.

They cherish socialised medicine.

They preach ideology that exalts sameness and slanders people who oppose and fight for freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No that was replying to your "see no evil" assertion that the U.S. isn't in a recession. It is. Bush's economic policies (such as runaway defecit spending) indict themselves.
Do you even know what a recession is? The fact is that the American economy is not in one ie) it is not experiencing negative growth. In fact, it has been growing for most of Bush's presidency. Again, I think it would help your arguments if you actually knew the facts.
1. No your point was that "liberals" make policy soley based on ideology. I say it works both ways and that, in fact, that conservatives continmue to advocate solutions that have categorically failed to acheive the desired results demonstrates an slavish devotion to ideology bordering on religious dogma.

2. Bush's tax cuts were primarily for the rich. Actualy, most tax cuts do benefit the wealthy.

3. yes I have something against a class of people that has (largey through none of there own doing) amassed an obscene amount of wealth, yet continuously fight tooth and claw any attempt to make them pay their fair share.

No, my point was that they do whatever it takes to gain power in order to enact their ideology, which they are never up front about in the first place. Don't you understand the "nuance" of my point? Again, try to get it right.
Name me one media mogul with "left wing" politics.
I'll name you a number of sources in this country that are left or lean that way: CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Global Television, etc. Yes, Global TV, despite the supposedly conservative Asper control of it now. Most of what people see and read in this country comes from somewhere on the left.

A mogul doesn't have to run a media outlet, or have a high profile, in order for it to expouse a certain political bias. Can you name me the mogul of the New York Times? Nevertheless, he's cleary a liberal.

Actually, this is a generally accepted fact even within the media in this country. . The National Post was seen as the only alternative to the prevailing norm of Canadian media. Now that Black doesn't run it any longer, even that is no longer as clear a fact as it once was.

I'm not sure why people on the left keep arguing this fact. You would think they would actually chersh diversity, instead of belittling it when a bit of it occurs in the media.

Ah, the Great Myth of the Reasonable Right rears it's ugly head. If you buy that, I've got siome primo swampland in Florida with your name on it...

Believe me, I've argued with conservatives before. Most wouldn't know facts reason or logic if it fell on 'em.

Again, unfortunately, you are not arguing with facts and reason. You may have some swampland in Florida, but what does that have to do with the arguments we are making here. What, afraid to stick with the arguments?

You have argued with conservatives before? Well, the arguing you have done here hasn't been very impressive, so I don't know who it is that you've been arguing with. Maybe your imagination? Because, clearly, as I have already pointed out twice, you do tend to get personal and offer justifications that are not born out by the facts. Thinking Conrad Black still owns media here, thinking the US is in a recession, thinking rich people are greedy and don't already pay their fair share of taxes... and the list keeps on going.

You were even scolded by the moderator for your antics. What does that say about your ability to argue with conservatives?

Try to get your act together before you try engaging in a political discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"A syphilitic chimp could run Alberta better than Klein's crew of miscreeants. It's called "oil". "

You've failed to explain your ignorance fully.

I'll keep it short and simple so you can understand.

Alberta is teh richest province becaus eof oil and gas revenues. Basically, anyone with access to that kind of revenue would be able to run the province as well (and probably better) than Klein. It has precious little to do with fiscal savvy and plenty more to do with sitting on billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue. Indeed, the real question is why aren't we doing better out here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you keep it short because you don't have much to say.

First, you fail to acknowledge the very real possibility that governments can squander the wealth that their jurisdictions produce.

This topic has sidetracked somewhat from my original point, which was that so many give the federal liberals credit for the economy when the most prosperous provinces are run by conservatives.

According to your logic, no governments should ever get credit for any economies.

And is it just a coincidence that Ontario and Alberta have been run by conservatives for the last decade and that they have been the engine for the Canadian economy?

Hasn't history proven that when you have low taxes and a pro-business jurisdiction economies grow and societies flourish?

Just take a look at Canada. The provinces that are the most socialist in nature end up taking billions from the ones that aren't.

BC used to be one of the have provinces until Glen Clark and co. turned it into a have-not.

It must be nice for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to espouse statist government when they take so much from the ones that aren't.

Can you actually give me examples of countries or jurisdictions that prosper more under leftist regimes than under conservative ones? Even when they gain some measure of success do they do it by co-opting conservative ideas and making them their own, like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and Jean Chretien.

I've got some news for you. Capitalism and freedom actually work. Why begrudge it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll keep it short and simple so you can understand.

Alberta is teh richest province becaus eof oil and gas revenues. Basically, anyone with access to that kind of revenue would be able to run the province as well (and probably better) than Klein. It has precious little to do with fiscal savvy and plenty more to do with sitting on billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue. Indeed, the real question is why aren't we doing better out here?

So explain why Saskatchewan with some of Canada's largest oil and gas reserves is floundering. It wouldn't have anything to do with the rampant nationalization of the provinces energy industry by the provincial government (ever heard of Saskoil?).

Alberta has bent a little too far to accommodate the energy industry in recent times in my opinion, but it was due to the Manning government's positive attitute towards business, and a willingness to look south for investment in the absence of Canadian investors that Alberta is 'King Oil'. Canadian Energy Policy since that time has consisted of repeated efforts by the federal liberals to usurp Alberta's burgeoning oil wealth through statist intervention in a constitutionally allocated area of provincial jurisdiction( St. Laurent's Trans Canada Pipeline, Trudeau's National oil policy of 1973 following the oil spike of the Yom Kippur war, Trudeau's viscious National Energy Program of 1980, Kyoto of today).

I agree with the last statement though, why aren't we doing better out here. If Alberta is full of rich oil men, I certainly don't know any. Klein is fallling over himself to appease big business while selling out Alberta's resource wealth, and in conjunction, the provinces potential to diversify and ensure long-term proseperity. The latter half of the Klein revolution in my estimation has been a colossal failure.

By the way, I'm not a socialist. Just a disgruntled conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...