Funny how Day has to invent his own personal definition of 'social liberal' before he can get an argument together to attack it ... he certainly does not include me in that definition nor does he assuage the least bit of fear of a totalitarian bornagain regime ... this whole speech is a carefully crafted bit of fluff, there are no more specifics than you'd find in any other party.
Amazing how he seems to get it in the fiscal sense but is in other matters unable to comprehend viewpoints outside his narrow little spectrum ... It's well past time we found more useful terms than 'liberal' and 'conservative', than 'left' and 'right', even if they weren't so loaded with baggage they would be too restrictive to be useful ... Ok Mr Day, one of the points you bring up here is an increase over the last decades in children born 'out of wedlock' - What precisely do you propose to do about that? To what precise degree do you advocate state control of wedlock and/or reproduction? To what precise degree do you propose returning women to being forced to stay with abusive spouses and thusly improve your 'wedlock' statistics?
And complaining about 'The Valour and the Horror' bringing out the details of the firebombing of Hamburg, well come on now, surely after all these years we can come to terms with the fact that one of the largest mass murders in the history of the species was largely a canadian act ... it's a simple fact, time to acknowledge and accept and view in perspective ... of course this whole paragraph is about attacking the CBC ... on which i have noticed considerable canadian history, btw ... you must not tune in at the right time.
I want to like this guy, i really do ... i'm trying hard here, no other party comes anywhere near on economic grounds, i want very much to vote Alliance ... but man oh man, the more they try to sweep aside legitimate questions with non-answers, the more they look just like the rest. |
