bleeding heart

Apology accepted.

Yeah, you could be right. And I agree with you about the concentrations of power funneling up in direct proportion to concentrations of wealth, especially since so many "free marketeers" wish for total or near-total deregulation on the poor, oppressed elites' economic (and industrial) behaviour. It's odd to me that people who fear the potential for reckless and dangerous behaviour of "Big Government" see no possible danger to concentrating power in the hands of unelected, totally unrepresentative little groups.

Brother, please; you don't think a Bruins fan has heard it all before? (At least it's not the Leafs......now those poor suckers take a lot of abuse......)

That's an excellent point, one that is rarely mentioned in these discussions, but I don't think it's all that uncommon in reality (as in the case with your family). My friend tutors first and second-year university students in English, and she says that foreign students routinely work much more diligently at it, and take it very seriously...moreso than the majority of Canadian-born students she has.

Certainly, there are aspects in which private industry can do a better and more efficient job. Oh, yes, and private industry is important to things like Canadian health care as well. But it's still "socialism"...the military too--even if private contractors are used, because they're still getting paid with taxpayer dollars. Similarly (and less justifiably, perhaps), subsidies to business is socialism, even if we euphemistically call them "incentives." I'm not decrying tax-funded military or health care, by the way; I believe some measure of socialism is necessary. I once had an ongoing discussion with a self-labelled "anarcho-capitalist," and he thought everything--everything--should be paid for by consumers, up to and including the police and the courts...that if you couldn't afford "justice," you didn't deserve it. But such views are fringe lunacies, held by very, very few people.

ha! No, probably not too successful as a recruiting tool.

No, I think it sounds about right, and is in line with the document that poster g_bambino posted on this topic.

A little better, yes.

You got that right (though, for the sake of clarity, "the left" as I know it despises Chretien...most Liberals are hovering more or less around the centre...though that, too is a problematic term, I know). A PM behaving that way is completely outrageous. The country should have blown their tops at him.

Did you say you support an increase in military spending? You want the socialism to be extended, but just not in every direction. As Argus--who to at least some degree agrees with you--pointed out, we all think money should be cut in certain realms, and not cut in others. But let's not pretend that Canadian Conservatives are not believers in Big Government and big spending. Because they certainly are.

I appreciate the civil response, and should have approached it this way myself. First of all, the entire premise of your argument here sounds right. A tremendous amount of debate is about what money should be spent on, and what it shouldn't; where cuts can be made, where they can't, and so on. (Obviously.) I consider the refugee isue to be a legitimate use of money, because of dire situations. The abuse of the system is no doubt very real, but I don't see punishing those with legitimate claims is the answer. I see your point, too, about the dentist and your glasses; but the problem, in my view, isn't that refugees get them and you don't; it's that you don't, period.

But it's not necessarily "fiscal restraint," not if things like, oh, say, costs are at issue. It might be the ready response because it's a strong argument. Why? Or they'll come anyway and incur increased costs thanks to the initial, knee-jerk cost-cutting measures. Yes, if both history and current events tells us anything, it's that reducing things like health-care improves society. I mean, it's never happened outside an Ayn Rand tract or a Robert A. Heinlein novel...but that doesn't mean it isn't fact.

First of all, I don't presume to to speak for other people, and invent their opinions for them. Second--as you'd know if you read the piece, which you self-evidently did not--part of their complaint is that such "cost-cutting" measures actually can increase costs over the long run.

What in the world are you talking about?

Whew, you're not kidding. But what amazes me isn't the government behaviour on this, but that much of the public is indoctrinated into simply not seeing what a backwards way of thinking this is; the deference to authority is so reflexive that it requires no consideration; thought itself is considered hostile and "radical."

"Eat it or take it home" is "teaching nutrition"? And who ever said school standards have fallen?

A lot of doctors take their responsibilites as health care professionals very seriously, thankfully.

Yeah, it's not your belief, but a fact. However, there are strict guidelines covering this behaviour, because of the problem of entrapment (genuine entrapment can only be conducted by dictatorial police states, because it invents criminalty where none existed, the precise opposite of the police's job in a society such as ours). Protesters probably would be more appreciative, except the police are kicking and detaining innocent butt, too. "Thanks for hurting me officer, I appreciate your efforts."

Yeah....interestingly, the few dozen criminals are considered far more serious than the equal or greater number (90) of police behaving illegally. At bottom, this discrepancy in perception (authorities good, protesters bad) perhaps comes down to too-much credulity to authority...if not outright worship of Power, one of humanity's major moral and intellectual failings.

I make no arguments against military spending generally (I agree these matters should be hotly debated, and it's good to see it happen). That doesn't change the charge of statism; we can argue whether the statism is justified and necessary; we can't argue that conservatives are every bit as statist as liberals (despite the protestations) because it's a plain, and in fact uncontroversial, truth. Which makes many of the "big government" arguments rather moot. The political Right, just like the Left (and of course the self-described "Centre" who pretend they're above all this) love big government.

So I've heard. But then, I don't think anyone is arguing that military propaganda doesn't work. Even when it has a (probably unintentional) homosexual subtext. Or maybe that subtext actually helped recruitment!

Her allies? Really? Which ones? Alliances shift and change and alter all the time. And sometimes, Canada's allies are gangsters, and sometimes our enemies are not. For example, when Canada, France and the United States determined that the duly elected leader of Haiti should be illegally overthrown...he was. And his party's opponents, who felt that the democratic process was insufficient for their ambitions, were very happy to have these three great democracies aid them in subverting democracy itself. So, ok, in this case we plainly see that Canada, along with her two allies, despised democracy. At least, thought democracy irrelevant. And Canada's opponent, Aristide, was legally elected, but was ushered out of office at gunpoint. That's our doing. Makes one shiver with pride, yes? Canada rocks! So I'm interested in your view on this (as well as other times Canada supported gangsters and thugs, against democratic forces, an important aspect of Canadian history): would showing support for the ousted, elected President be wrong....and showing support for the thugs who took over be correct? It's an honest question, covering both legal and moral issues, and I'm interested in how you feel about it.

A politician distancing himself from controversies surrounding himself is par for the course, and tells us precisely zero about what he actually thinks. Bill Clinton did indeed "have sexual relations with that woman," no matter what he said about it; Chretien did indeed involve Canadians in the Iraq War, and his stated opposition to the war changes that fact not one whit. But still, and as I said, Paul might well be perfectly sincere on this....which means he is too incompetent to be aware of what is said in his name, and with his implicit approval all along until it became a controversy. Stupid is preferable to racist, if that's your point; fine, I agree. The "msm" doesn't "keep bringing it up," unless you have multiple citations to prove it. And I personally don't "keep bringing it up," as this is exactly my first time mentioning it, ever, anywhere. Of course, and I agree completely.

Sure, I agree.

It could be...there can be innocent libertarians who really believe in the perfectability of man through free market ideology. The problem or one of them, is that almost every libertarian loves Ayn Rand...who is explicitly elitist, and proudly so. And I can't believe that Doctor Ron Paul is unaware that his favoured philosophy is going to hurt the poor disproportioantely. By definition. So I think he is an elitist. It's just that he thinks elitism is "the natural order."