Conservative movement in Quebec is rising

[Habsfan]

I think a lot of people have some major misconceptions about the tea party. It is not a single group (nobody is a "member of the tea party"), nor is it about social conservatism

 

So you're saying that Tea Partiers are for Gay Marriages and are pro-abortion???

[Cyrus]

So you're saying that Tea Partiers are for Gay Marriages and are pro-abortion???

 

I'm sure a rather large percentage of them are! There is a big "libertarian" wing to that movement... this is why it is causing so much trouble for the Republicans, they don't know which way to run I would say the heyday of the social conservatives / religious right in the US has ended, or at least that power is in decline. Libertarian can go either way for abortion but for gay marriage there is only one way, that gays have a right to be just as unhappy as everyone else

 

This being Canada, I'd expect or at least like to see any Quebec "conservative" party be more on the lines of the Wildrose Alliance than say some American whatever. Take a look at the Wildrose policybook: http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/party/policy-resolutions/

 

2.1 The Party is founded on and will be guided in its policy formation by the following principles:

 

2.2 Provincially, to reflect, strengthen and efficiently serve the common-sense values of Albertans:

2.2.1 civic responsibility;

2.2.2 the lowest possible taxation;

2.2.3 a strong and enterprising work ethic;

2.2.4 stable families and a growing population;

2.2.5 self-directed communities;

2.2.6 prudent provision for Alberta’s future;

2.2.7 sensible assistance for the sick and disabled;

2.2.8 respect for the rule of law;

2.2.9 respect for traditional fundamental freedoms; and

2.2.10 secure ownership of and benefit from private property.

 

2.3 Federally, to encourage and support earned prosperity among all provinces, equal treatment of all provinces by the federal

government, and the full exercise of Alberta's constitutional rights and responsibilities.

 

2.4 We believe in the inherent value and dignity of each individual citizen;

2.4.1 that all citizens are equal before the law and entitled to fundamental justice;

2.4.2 that all citizens have certain fundamental and immutable rights and freedoms, including:

2.4.2.1 the right to life, safety, liberty, and privacy;

2.4.2.2 the freedoms of speech and expression and the freedom to advocate, without fear of intimidation or suppression,

public policies which reflect their deeply held values;

2.4.2.3 freedom of religious belief and practice;

2.4.2.4 freedom of peaceful assembly and choice of association;

2.4.2.5 freedom of mobility; and

2.4.2.6 freedom to own, enjoy, and exchange private property in a free market.

 

There isn't anything in there anyone can call crazy or even a bad idea, but maybe I am biased Danielle Smith is hot though, that nobody can disagree with

[ToxiK]

La droite sociale/religieuse est un cancer dont je suis très heureux que le Québec soit épargné. Si cette idéologie fait surface, il faut la combattre le plus rapidement possible.

 

En ce qui concerne les nouveaux mouvements de droites qui se pointent au Québec, je crois distinguer deux souches plus ou moins différentes : le groupe Liberté-Québec et celui Legault/Facal. Évidemment, aucun de ces groupes n'a de programme politique, et le groupe de François Legault n'est pour l'instant qu'une idée. Mais si je me fie à ce que j'ai lu et entendu (les livres de Joseph Facal entre autres), le groupe Legault-Facal semble être plus pragmatique que Liberté-Québec. Ils ne veulent pas jeter le bébé avec l'eau du bain, ils préfèrent le scalpel à la hache quand vient le temps des coupures. Le groupe Liberté-Québec semble plus idéologique: on coupe (aveuglément) simplement parce qu'il faut couper. Toute dépense gouvernementale est (par définition) mauvaise. J'ai cru entendre pas mal de mépris quand j'ai entendu M. Duhaime prononcer le mot "fonctionnaire". De plus, le nom "Liberté-Québec" me semble prétentieux. Les autres partis sont contre la liberté? Je ne voudrais pas voter pour un parti qui a le mot "liberté" dans son nom pas plus que je voudrais voter pour un parti qui aurait le mot "solidaire" rattaché à son nom.

 

Je ne prétends pas que ce que je viens d'écrire soit des vérités suprêmes, mais simplement comment je vois la situation se développer.

[MTLskyline]

So you're saying that Tea Partiers are for Gay Marriages and are pro-abortion???

 

I have to say I agree with Cyrus. The various tea parties have revolved around fiscal conservatism. The tea partiers themselves hold a wide range of views on social issues. And like him, I also believe that the religious right is losing its grip on the Republican Party. A LOT of the Tea Party people are libertarians (I am guessing you are somewhere between centrist and libertarian), although I won't hide the fact that there are a lot of social conservatives in the movement too (because they also happen to be fiscal conservatives).

 

A lot of the more extreme social conservatives would not support the tea party. Why? Because the tea party is about reducing the size of government. A greatly reduced government size means that there is no room whatsoever to manage people's private lives. Why would an someone on the extreme end of the religious right support such a movement that limits their control?

[GoMontreal]

So you're saying that Tea Partiers are for Gay Marriages and are pro-abortion???

 

Libertarians (whom a big bunch of tea-partiers are) are against the government regulating things that should be personal. Government shouldn't tell you who you can marry so of course, most tea-partiers don't hold gay marriage as one of their issues even though they might be against it personally, they don't impose that belief on others.

 

Abortion is a bit different because, for one thing, it's supposed to be a state issue, not a federal issue. Second, how do you deal with "do what you want as long as you're not harming others" when you believe that life starts at conception. If you believe that, then you're completely against abortion, whereas if you believe that life starts at birth, then you're pro-choice. Lots of libertarians or tea-partiers are split on this issue only because of how they view life, with the usual christians being pro-life and atheists being pro-choice. Disagreement is fine. However, I personally don't think that abortion should be paid for by the government because then you're making people who have a moral objection to this pay for those who don't. That doesn't sound fair to me. Also, if it's kept a state issue, then people can at least move to a different state if it bothers them so much.

 

Having things be state issues is a very good things because it lets states compete with each other and allows for states to try stuff to see if it works. If it does, many other states will jump on the bandwagon. If it doesn't, then the good news is that the whole country didn't get into the mess.

 

One thing that is not right to say about the tea-party is that they are racist because they disagree with ECONOMIC policies. Also, they are not religious nut bags, quite the contrary, they are people that are united in their fiscal conservatism as others have already said, and they stand for liberty and personal responsibility. There is practically never been any religious talk at these rallies that I know of, and no, Glenn Beck's rally was not a tea party rally.

 

The tea party is a response to the radical spending and statist agendas of both Obama AND Bush. There are plenty of republicans, independents AND democrats who support the tea party ideas, and about 60-65% of the american public now says that they support the ideas brought forward by the tea party.

 

All the "racist" and "religious-nutbag" attacks were simply smears by opponents and it might have stuck for a while but it isn't anymore, which is why today will likely be a landslide victory for the NEW and IMPROVED republicans. Let's just hope that these newly elected tea-party candidates keep to their stated principles... to be continued I guess...

 

What's great about the tea party is that it is trying to go back to basics, start over, bring it back to the intention of the founding fathers which is what made the US so great. Things have gotten so bad and politicians have strayed so much from the constitution that going back to basics is the only way to go.

 

It's because of the american founding fathers that the world has been richer then ever before. Let's go back to that.

[JFrosty]

So basically, they're the right-wing version of hippies.

[Cyrus]

I prefer the term, hippies with a job

[JFrosty]

What they have in monetary income, they probably lack in everything else.

[jesseps]

What they have in monetary income, they probably lack in everything else.

 

For a second I was looking for the "like" button but forgot I am not on FB woops lol

[Habsfan]

I'm sure a rather large percentage of them are!

 

So in other words you have no proof of this! I could just as easily say: "I'm sure that the vast majority of Tea Baggers are against gay marriage and Abortion". In fact, I'd say that most news reports with regards to the Tea Baggers say that they are very conservative with regards to social issues!

 

Everything I've seen and heard up til now about Tea baggers has shown that they are social conservatives, which doesn't jive with me. By the way, I do NOT get my news from MSNBC. I get my News from BBC, PBS and CTV, which are real news agencies who are objective in their fact finding(unlike FOX News and MSNBC).

 

En ce qui concerne les nouveaux mouvements de droites qui se pointent au Québec, je crois distinguer deux souches plus ou moins différentes : le groupe Liberté-Québec et celui Legault/Facal. Évidemment, aucun de ces groupes n'a de programme politique, et le groupe de François Legault n'est pour l'instant qu'une idée. Mais si je me fie à ce que j'ai lu et entendu (les livres de Joseph Facal entre autres), le groupe Legault-Facal semble être plus pragmatique que Liberté-Québec. Ils ne veulent pas jeter le bébé avec l'eau du bain, ils préfèrent le scalpel à la hache quand vient le temps des coupures. Le groupe Liberté-Québec semble plus idéologique: on coupe (aveuglément) simplement parce qu'il faut couper. Toute dépense gouvernementale est (par définition) mauvaise. J'ai cru entendre pas mal de mépris quand j'ai entendu M. Duhaime prononcer le mot "fonctionnaire". De plus, le nom "Liberté-Québec" me semble prétentieux. Les autres partis sont contre la liberté? Je ne voudrais pas voter pour un parti qui a le mot "liberté" dans son nom pas plus que je voudrais voter pour un parti qui aurait le mot "solidaire" rattaché à son nom.

 

Je dois avouer que le groupe Legault/Facal m'attire beaucoup plus que le groupe Liberté Québec.

 

Par contre je vais prendre mon temps et je vais lire tout ce que je peux sur ces deux groupes avant de prendre ma décision. Je veux m,assurer que je n'embarque pas dans quelque chose qui me fera regretter mon vote!(si jamais ils deviennent un groupe politique).

Modifié 4 novembre 2010 par Habsfan