Mad_Michael

Being the only one on stage unwilling to join in the peddling of the big lies that they are all wrapped up in, really makes the guy stand out as a loner... And yes, the Paul fellow does seem to actually have some substance and principles to him - another strike against him in that crowd.

And with content like this, or this on their front page, who can refute their worth? Priceless. Looks like that CFP has all the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer.

I'm ignoring nothing. You say, then go on to ignore it again! Yes. Any Federal cuts are irrelevant to the critique of Harris as a 'shoot from the hip' flip-flopper who enacted policies and then had to backtrack those same policies because they were ill-considered in the first place. So what? He ordered cuts to balance the budget and in response to massive Liberal cuts, and five years later the economy had improved somewhat, and he put more money into health care? Maybe you should ask why the Liberals slashed funding to health care, and then enjoyed many years of massive surpluses, so massive they played accounting games to hide how much money they had - and yet did not restore money to health care until near the end, when the right united and began to seem like more of a threat. This is rich. Harris balanced what budget? Please cite. This discussion is about Harris's political games. Not the Federal Government's political games. It certainly does since you entirely ignore any cuts by the Liberals Yes. My point is not about cutting spending. I'm a strong fiscal conservative and I like budget cutters. My critique is against Harris being a wishy-washy conservative - and an ill-educated rube deciding public policy by the seat of his pants - and then being forced to reverse himself because he never really thought through what he was doing in the first place. If Harris had of done a better job of cutting, he wouldn't have had to backtrack. Ergo, Harris was lame. Yes, it certainly takes two to tango. Mike Harris and Union leaders are made for each other. But the bottom line was that Harris did a bloody piss-poor job of handling these labour relations. The Unions were pissed at Harris for darn good reason - he baited them. Like I said, it takes two to tango and Harris was dancing lead. Again, you're willfully blind. The public sector union leaders announced they would fight Harris with every tool at their disposal ON ELECTION NIGHT. They would fight him not only with regards to contracts for their members, but with regard to political issues that were really none of their business. The public sector unions were essentially the "owners" of the NDP, and used their power to oppose the conservatives politically. There was nothing Harris could have done to get peace from them other than surrender and implement left wing policies as designed by the NDP. Right. Harris announced that he is an ideological warrior ready to do battle. His ideological opponents (the unions) announced that they will meet him in said battle. So, Harris pours rhetorical gasoline upon the issue. That is poor leadership from a publically elected figure. Unions are private entities and as such, they answer to their membership, not the voting public. They can be rude and ideological if their membership approves of it - none of my (or your) business. But Mike Harris' rude belligerence is public business and that is a different matter. Thus, in this battle of obnoxious ideological warriors, Harris was in the wrong since he was supposed to represent the public interest - which is public peace and efficiency, not necessarily union-bashing for sport. Harris proved that he didn't understand the difference between the two. The Ipperwash report was written by a toady of the Liberals, and even so it found no evidence that Harris did anything wrong. The judge had the temerity to say Harris shouldn't have called in the police and called for law and order, but instead should have been more patient. But that's merely a private, personal opinion. Unelected judge have no business trying to tell elected leaders what policy decisions they should be making with regard to civil unrest. That the judge would have preferred the government sit back and sweet talk these criminals is beside the point. The government of the day makes a call based on its own views of issues. The personal opinions of unelected judges are no more important than the personal opinions of waitresses and computer technicians - nor any more educated for that matter. Harris calling for anything as Premier is not "a private personal opinion". Harris helped foster (with a big assist from the mass media) the belligerant environment that predisposed the police to perceive that particular native unrest as violent (which it categorically wasn't). The only violence in that native action was the murder of Dudley George by the OPP in a raid that was 'encouraged' by Harris who sought to score political points by being perceived as 'tough' on natives. That is because people of your political persuasion hate rather freely. My political persuasion? I was a card-carrying member of the PC party for a couple of decades. So what the f*ck do you know about my political persuasion?

But all the newspapers, the boy's family, the neighbourhood community and the school all said he was "such a nice boy"... nothing will ever change if all these people are in denial about the gang-cancer in their own families, neighbourhoods and community.

Yes, the vast majority of those who are actively religious had their religion given to them as children from their parents. Adult adoption of religion is comparatively quite rare. Any given person's religion co-relates with that of their parents at a far higher rate than political partisanship.

Indeed. Is that how we got you? Btw, didn't Khadr's charges just get dismissed for a lack of evidence?

Talk about spitting...

I commend your viewpoint and share it. However, with all due respect, I must say that the greatest militantism, religious violence and hate in Canada over the last ten years has come from white Canadian citizens. Yes, Canada needs immigration. At least these non-white immigrants actually have a work ethic. Something that is seriously lacking in white Canadians these days.

The poll choices contain so much bias and bullcrap that it is impossible to actually register a choice. I'll refrain from commenting upon what kind of bias motivated those poll descriptions - suffice it to say that the word I'd like to use here is not a pretty one (nor is it permitted by the site rules). Contrary to the poll statements, immigrants in Canada have (on average) higher rates of education, lower rates of criminal incarceration and lower usage of social services (UI & Welfare) than white Canadian born citizens. If you are looking for deadbeats in Canada, more of them are white Canadian born than immigrants.

Yes, this could be a hot one for Dalton since it was his government that did try to introduce Sharia Law on a trial basis (and had to back down in the face of immediate protest from the public). Though, to be honest, it really is hard to make a hard principled stand here given that Canada already permits two different types of law applied (Quebec has a Napoleonic Code-based legal system). And an alternative (optional) legal system is also recognised for Natives already. And indeed, taxpayers in Ontario are already FORCED to pay for a separate Catholic School system. In other words, the Muslims and Jews have a very strong case in demanding all kinds of special religious considerations at Canadian taxpayer expense. I don't like this one bit, but that is just the way it is. An eternal curse upon ex-Premier Bill Davis for foisting the monstrosity of Public funded Catholic education!

In all due respect, this claim makes no sense. How is Sarkozy an ephemeral conservative? Granted, he has been only recently made president, but I think his time in the M.I and M.F show is capable of towing the line in such a hostile environment as France. But again, views such as his apparently do not exist? Sarkozy is in his first week as President of France. He is an 'emphemeral' conservative (based on ephemeral words alone) until he actually governs conservatively. Then he becomes a real conservative. But when I asked you to do the same, your response was : I have argued for no such absurdity. Well, well - your accusation is unfounded. My "no such absurdity" line was in response to your assertion... To which I quite rightly stated that I have argued for no such absurdity. I just pointed out the tendency of 'conservatives' to praise theoretical conservatives (who haven't actually been conservative rulers - like the two examples you gave) and tend to ignore actual conservative rulers. I've made no argument about the nature of conservativism here. I have implied nothing of the sort. Sarkozy and Bloomberg are not substantial conservatives with track records. Thus, they are 'alleged' conservatives. You believe them to be conservatives based upon their flowery words. If they had actual track records of acting like conservatives, then they are 'real' conservatives. Pick any you like. I don't care which ones you choose. I merely pointed out that you avoided choosing any actual conservative who actually ruled (and has a track record that can be evaluated) and instead chose to praise the conservativism of two figures of whom their conservativism exists entirely of ephemeral words alone. That is an interesting (and common) phenonmena. Okay, if that's whay you say. I made no critique or argument. I just pointed out something that I found amusing (and a common pattern). So we live in vacuum. Merde. If you believe it so, that is your opinion. I am philosophically, anti-Straussian. Your curiosity isn't sufficient inducement to me. Indeed, your efforts in this thread to put words in my mouth suggest to me that I'd be wasting my time. I don't worry about much. And I don't care if we agree or not on "some stuff". It is immaterial to me.

I'm ignoring nothing. My point is that Harris ordered massive cuts in Ontario healthcare spending in his first term and restored those same cuts in his second term. That is the action of a government shooting from the hip without properly considering their actions first. This critique of Harris' government stands entirely independent of any cuts in Federal transfers. Indeed, Harris was claiming sufficient Provincial surpluses to pay for his tax cut at this time, so obviously, any cuts in Federal transfers were not the cause. In fact, the major unions, particularly the public service unions, anounced that it was their intention to bring down Harris' government on election night, and it was their obstructionist and confrontational policies and determination to use their labour power to fight against Harris' social and economic policies which triggered most of the unrest. Since McGuinty got in there has been relative peace - which came at the cost of paying virtually every additional cent put into health and education into raising salaries for the union people who were oh-so-concerned about the well-being of the people. We're spending billions more for our health care now, but it still takes ten hours to get a broken bone set - by a nurse and doctor who now make more money. Whoop-de-whoop. And Mike Harris' public confrontations achieved what? (besides enraging the unions and causing a public nuisance). I don't dispute that there are many valid public policy complaints with public sector unions. My point is that Mike Harris' confrontational approach was non-effective, indeed, counterproductive in any effort to address any real problem. Whatever public sector union problems we had, Harris made them worse. Didn't you and all the others virtually accuse him of pulling the trigger? The entire point of the Ipperwash inquiry was to prove that Mike Harris and his party forced the OPP into precipitous action which resulted in George's death. Instead it found they had no improper communications and did not interfere at all. The Ipperwash Final Report specifically points the finger at Mike Harris personally as one of the principal 'causes' of the tragedy. Not the only cause, just a significant one. And those are just some of the reasons that Mike Harris shall go down in the history books as Ontario's worst ever Premier. He certainly wins the "most hated" title rather easily.

Too true. Though, as long as it is just a make-work project for French speaking bureaucrats, it is just mildly annoying, not really consequential. However, when the elitists get the delusion that French might be good for me personally that I get seriously annoyed. Dion is pushing this envelope and it is guarenteed to drive his numbers down further. Has this guy got any clue at all?

Between 1999 and 2002 there was a rather substantial stock market crash. There was something about some 'high-tech bubble' going on back then. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the drop in Roger's stock value at that time.

I'm all for innovative ideas for combatting global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. But how come all the plans call for giving the government massive amounts of money? 1) That makes me very suspicious of the motives for this carbon tax. Indeed, if this carbon policy turns out to be useless for reducing greenhouse gases, we can never get rid of the tax because the government will never cut the tax since they are always addicted to tax revenues (remember that income tax was introduced as a temporary tax to fund WW1 - the war ended, the tax didnt'). 2) Governments have a long track record of encouraging greenhouse gas emissions (with subsidies and favorable tax treatments for big-scale polluters). So why is the government to be rewarded with a massive tax increase for helping to create a huge problem? 3) Governments cannot be trusted with money. Don't give them any more than we have to. I'd put money on the Government taking a huge chunk of this carbon tax revenue and then using it to fund a big 'rising gas prices rebate' to the voters just before the next election. Governments can't be trusted with money. They like to use it to bribe voters to vote for them.

Right. But by your own admission, you don't know who is a homo and you don't care, the issue doesn't interest you at all. You lie. You are demonstrating your obsession with homosexuals even as you try to deny it. Get a life. And once you have one, you might find that people might respect it.

Do people actually think about what they are saying before they post it? If you have "no method of knowing who is gay, and no interest in knowing either", how can you know that gays even exist, let alone have any meaningful objection to their existence? And if you have no method of knowing who is gay, and no interest, why are you displaying such a strong interest in the topic? Alternatively, homosexual taxpayers can say exactly the same thing as you. They don't want their tax dollars supporting your abberent heterosexual lifestyle. They have no actual interest in interferring with your chosen aberrent lifestyle, but they don't want it shoved in their face at their own expense. And they most certainly don't want your abberent lifestyle compared favourable with their noble and glorious lifestyle - especially in public, paid for from gay people's taxes.

Youth. That explains a lot. Thankfully, I'm not young enough anymore to know the answer to everything!

So now a translated interview is the final word? Is this what you are implying? Was my definition not acceptable? I'm accepting the OP definition of the term for the purposes of this thread discussion. I make no comment upon its validity or acceptability. It just is. I did? Could you kindly show me where? Sorry - the OP states this view. I critiqued that view - you attempted to debate my critique. That implies that you accept that this is indeed a core principle of neoconservativism (as per the OP). I know. But my knowledge of Strauss is shallow, at best. And unlike some characters, and I would rather avoid arguing for something I know little about. But with some time.... Fair enough. That is indeed refreshing. Most posters never let a little ignorance stop them from anything! So what you are asking for is proof of a (conservative) political system which runs by the book, irrespective of the conditions and stimuli it faces? Not at all. I was asking for no such thing. I was only pointing out the common (and amusing) conservative habit of praising ephemeral conservatives (such as Sarkozy or Bloomberg who are potential conservatives that haven't acutally delivered any conservativism) and apparently ignoring actual conservative leaders who did apply conservativism (which is rarely popular, which is why I suppose they tend to not mention them). I have argued for no such absurdity. They are your words, not mine.

1812, US nuclear missiles and the Arctic come to mind as classic examples of the US ignoring Canadian sovereignty. Rather I think the Americans only respect it when it is convenient, rather than stand as any kind of protector there of. Unfortunately, our American friends have apparently learned NOTHING from their Iraqi debacle. Not surprising that - our good American friends still haven't taken any lesson to heart from Vietnam yet. Indeed, if they learned any lesson from Vietnam, they would not have invaded Iraq. I see no signs of the USA changing any policy on the international or foreign level. "Stay the course" is Bush's middle name. Lots of media spinning and wishful thinking upon the topic though...

Several intersting articles in The Economist this week about the anniversary of the Six Day War. They argue (quite convincingly) that the victory has not been good for Israel at all. Classic case of win the battle but loose your soul in the process.

Indeed, Dion is as uninspiring as Harper is. Both ambitious technocrats (with virtually no accomplishments between them) unloved by the populace.

A new cold war? Like has the USA decided to start another one?

I'm reminded about an old Eagles/Don Henly song... "The bubble-headed bleach blond comes on at six. She can talk about a plane crash with a gleam in her eye."

Don't know. You'll have to ask him yourself - or read the Ontario PC party literature. Btw, Rogers corporation 'turned around' under Tory. The shareholders apparently liked him.