Welcome to the Conservative Party
RUEZ @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:10 am
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a good NDP-er, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He responded by asking her how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA . She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Conservative Party”.
ridenrain @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:33 am
My favorite was good old Ho-Che-Harcourt, who was the most considerate and compassionate bleeding heart in the world when he was mayor. He retired and his house got robbed.. Then he started talking about turning one of the Northern Vancouver Islands into a prison camp.
maple_leaf1 @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:24 pm
I don't think that is what the Conservative Party is but I think it's funny. 
Tricks @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:52 pm
SMACKDOWN!
stratos @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:47 pm
Loved it. Couldn't think of a better way to explain how the cons view money and taxes vs libs and taxes here in the US. 
themasta @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:51 pm
Ohhh, snap
blue_tory @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:00 pm
Thats gotta hurt.
Im keeping copy of that one.
grainfedprairieboy @ Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:14 pm
I've always told people to imagine a gauge that measures Who Is Responsible with government on the extreme left and the individual on the extreme right. Then measure any question imaginable.
I consider the Conservative Party to be the centre.
Patrick_Ross @ Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:27 pm
I think parties today defy classification along the spectrum.
For example, on social issues, the Conservative party could be judged to be right-of-center (really, only barely, but plenty of people get off on distorting this). On political issues, the Conservative party should be judged to be left-of-center (considerably). On fiscal issues, the party is moderately right-of-center.
Where as the Liberal party is socially nebulous, politically extremely right-of-center, and fiscally significantly left-of-center.
This adds up to one party that has values, principles, goals and an idea of how they will achieve them, and another party that does anything it can to achieve power and hold on to it.
Personally, I know which I trust more.
hurley_108 @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:36 am
See, the problem here is that argument by analogy, which is what this is, always hots a flaw somewhere, as no analogy is perfect.
The thing about wealth distribution is that it's not about Jane giving directly to Audrey so that they're equal. Also, it isn't always the case that hard work means success and wealth and vice-versa.
Whose hard work put the oil sands under Alberta? Whose laziness overfished the cod off of Newfoundland?
Wealth redistribution is about all the provinces paying into a central pot from which Alberta, which is doing quite well on its own based on pure luck, receives less than it paid in because it needs less, and Newfoundland receives more than it paid in because it needs more in order to keep services going which include health care and education and roads as well as welfare.
hwacker @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:43 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
See, the problem here is that argument by analogy, which is what this is, always hots a flaw somewhere, as no analogy is perfect.
The thing about wealth distribution is that it's not about Jane giving directly to Audrey so that they're equal. Also, it isn't always the case that hard work means success and wealth and vice-versa.
Whose hard work put the oil sands under Alberta? Whose laziness overfished the cod off of Newfoundland?
Wealth redistribution is about all the provinces paying into a central pot from which Alberta, which is doing quite well on its own based on pure luck, receives less than it paid in because it needs less, and Newfoundland receives more than it paid in because it needs more in order to keep services going which include health care and education and roads as well as welfare.
The thing about wealth distribution is that it's not about Jane giving directly to Audrey so that they're equal. Also, it isn't always the case that hard work means success and wealth and vice-versa.
Whose hard work put the oil sands under Alberta? Whose laziness overfished the cod off of Newfoundland?
Wealth redistribution is about all the provinces paying into a central pot from which Alberta, which is doing quite well on its own based on pure luck, receives less than it paid in because it needs less, and Newfoundland receives more than it paid in because it needs more in order to keep services going which include health care and education and roads as well as welfare.
Jack is that you ?
Bodah @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:49 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
See, the problem here is that argument by analogy, which is what this is, always hots a flaw somewhere, as no analogy is perfect.
The thing about wealth distribution is that it's not about Jane giving directly to Audrey so that they're equal. Also, it isn't always the case that hard work means success and wealth and vice-versa.
Whose hard work put the oil sands under Alberta? Whose laziness overfished the cod off of Newfoundland?
Wealth redistribution is about all the provinces paying into a central pot from which Alberta, which is doing quite well on its own based on pure luck, receives less than it paid in because it needs less, and Newfoundland receives more than it paid in because it needs more in order to keep services going which include health care and education and roads as well as welfare.
The thing about wealth distribution is that it's not about Jane giving directly to Audrey so that they're equal. Also, it isn't always the case that hard work means success and wealth and vice-versa.
Whose hard work put the oil sands under Alberta? Whose laziness overfished the cod off of Newfoundland?
Wealth redistribution is about all the provinces paying into a central pot from which Alberta, which is doing quite well on its own based on pure luck, receives less than it paid in because it needs less, and Newfoundland receives more than it paid in because it needs more in order to keep services going which include health care and education and roads as well as welfare.
communism
com·mu·nism
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.
Schleihauf @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:58 pm
I used to be a communist, well not really a communist but a follower of Che then I actually read into the subject and figured out how much communism really sucked.
ridenrain @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:19 pm
Schleihauf Schleihauf:
I used to be a communist, well not really a communist but a follower of Che then I actually read into the subject and figured out how much communism really sucked.
THAT is a great story.
Thanks for telling us about that.
hurley_108 @ Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:11 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Jack is that you ?
Thanks for the compliment!
Bodah Bodah:
communism
com·mu·nism
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.
com·mu·nism
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.
Great argument, that, posting a definition of something highly inflammatory that doesn't even fit. I never said that the federal goverment should seize ownership of everyone's property or even just the oil sands. I'm just saying that it was pure luck that endowed Alberta with the wealth that its got and that the revenue it generates should be shared, via taxes and transfer payments, among the other provinces as well, so that they might still be able to function while they get their economies back into shape.