Saturday, 28 May 2011

How To Defeat The NDP: Demand Their Constitution Be Made Public

How is a 'political opinion' established, then passed into law?
Is it based on 'what is right' and 'what is wrong'?
Is it based on 'popular majority, regardless of right and wrong'?
Is it based on a Deity saying something, and the people follow the code of the higher being(s)?

When the left strongly advocates for something, what presupposes their position? I.E, what under girds and makes it true, just or right?  The Conservative Constitution is public.

Is it, "this is what is right?"  If so, according to what or who?  Their opinion? Their hearts? The consensus of Canadian values?"

Perhaps we should discuss opinions on what is popular and not what is right or wrong.  If this sounds silly, then where is the NDP Constitution?

I find it striking that something by Mr. Layton can be said with such passion and conviction, but so little supporting core principles where others can learn just how his views are upheld.  I know his voter base are not anti-intellectuals and would appreciate seeing the constitution so they can base an argument on something besides raw hysteria, emotion or 'surface logic'.  Let's get the constitutions public.
I trust there is no hidden agenda, nor anything that will scare off millions of voters, uh...right?

The 'logic' the NDP are presenting to Canadians is "you can strongly and passionately advocate your views (at the Federal level) without defending/showing a core set of guiding principles".  From this, it follows, you don't need 'core principles' to have Mr. Layton's passion to argue positions (by default of him not apologizing for negligently not showing them).   If Mr. Layton does not need so show core principles, then it's not about 'what is right', rather its about what is popular.  Therefore, he cannot argue for his positions, or against others positions on axiomatic moral grounds (because they are not shared to argue from!).

When Mr. Layton attacks other party values, he is 'throwing stones at a glass house' until he presents his party Constitution.

My opinion on this matter is open and not firm.

(A note to people considering commenting: thank you for all the comments, even the ones that disagree with me.  This blog is not 'inspire you to agree', but inspire you to think.  So, if I make a point, try to find the problem with the logic and argue against it directly.  Not liking something and making a wild jump to an incredible conclusion based on nothing I said is permissible, but not advisable.  I would love for awesome debate, but please continue to develop and make it relevant to the flaws/problems with my said 'logic'.  I do not claim to be correct on all matters as I am open and willing to learn.  Thank you)


  1. I can't disagree or agree until I see their Constitution.
    Jack needs to cough it up or wear the hidden agenda dead crow around his neck till he does.
    Cheers Bubba

  2. It would be a hypothetical debate about hypothetical situations or ideas. Maybe that is what Jack is planning. To keep it confusing.

    Rob C

  3. Alas, they would need "two"; given the precedence they are setting in & outside of Quebec.

    In the meantime, I'll just assume its a cross between "Communist Manifesto" & "The Giving Tree** ("children's" book/enviro-propaganda)".

    **Seen some university student (votes NDP, :b) read it to a bunch kids then go out of her way to ruin it by pointing out the "environmental exploitation" of the "poor" tree. As if its a "limited resource".
    She never heard of Tree Farming, apparently.

    One more way to spread false guilt. The NDP are renown champions of bleeding hearts everywhere.


Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain