Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff1987
I think it's time to coin a new sound byte. "The Slanderous Left".
It comes up ad nauseum in the Canada section, and the backhanded affair continues here:
"I had underestimated the amount of narrow-minded CJOB listeners in St.B." - DowntownWpg
Even if the above comment is tongue-in-cheek, it is degrading the way some - and I'd venture to say increasingly many - leftist forumers treat the right. Whatever happened to being as gracious in defeat as one is in victory. The Liberals have governed for the vast majority of Canada's history. When it's clear that the Conservatives were elected, and elected by a significant margin, why stoop to insult 40% of the country, or nearly 50% of a constituency. Is it really that difficult to disagree with someone in viewpoint without having to retort to adolescent backhanded swipes? Watching the attack ads from all parties on TV is bad enough. Having portions of the populace mimic it is even worse.
|
... I'll admit - a bit tongue-in-cheek, I'm also partisan (an Anybody But Conservative strategic voter). However, if you caught any of the CJOB airwaves in the weeks leading up to the vote, it was essentially like a non-stop advertisement for Shelley Glover courtesy of Adler, Courier, etc.
"Narrow-minded" in that Shelley was essentially a single-issue candidate ("tough on crime!").
I also find the whole "tough on crime" position to be narrow-minded. I'm still waiting for some academic or peer-reviewed journal to indicate that tougher sentences reduces crime. In actuality, we find correlations of crime in areas where there is also high levels of poverty, unemployment, and school drop-outs. I'm of the opinion that to "fix crime" we must address these vital problems in our society. So, I'm of the opinion that "tough on crime" is a narrow-minded two-second soundbite, appealing to those who don't understand the effort and time it will take to fundamentally improve the conditions that lead to crime.
Do you think that the street-gang kids on streets like Selkirk and Sargent will think twice because of some tougher sentence? Or, if we raise the level of their quality of life, education, and offer them all the same potential for a bright future that kids in suburban areas enjoy... would that not be the better solution? Sure, it'll take a long time, and "tough on crime" appeals to simpletons who want what they want "right now!" The problem with this more altruistic idea, is how do you boil it down to a two-second soundbite that conveys the concept?
To respond for the rest of your comments. I feel that in partisan politics, there is no time to sit back and gracious. The next campaign has already begun. Like it or not, that's the reality. As for the percentages you have indicated, I would point out that I'm only insulting 37% of the voters (or, 20% of eligible voters).