Figleaf

!!!! You've somehow missed the thousands of individual investors shouting their anger from the rooftops? Tremendously bad. His political dishonesty has been exposed at the cost of $30billion of innocent investors money, including retirees and pension funds. Plus, they've done tremendous harm to the level of trust in our capital markets. We look like Mongolia where the rules change every week. He's willing to promise anything for short term electoral gain, and doesn't care if that damages people.

1. It was the Chretien gov. that changed the political funding rules. 2. Paying 'their share' may be appropriate, but then why did they promise otherwise, thereby inducing innocent investors to be put in a position to be damaged by their flipflop? I'm sorry, but that comment shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Income trusts are Cdn.-resident businesses, and are something different from "Trust Funds". The 'goodies' are too much of a mismatch both quantitatively and as to who is affected to redress the harm caused by the tories' lying.

Which is why he's not a 'socon' Since he's not a liberal, liberalism isn't preventing him from being a socon. But maybe it's Straussian crypto-fascism that causes him to endorse so many socon positions.

It's not liberal to posit rights for objects. Rights are for people. The woman who will be forced into chlidbirth is a person. The object on behalf of which she would be forced is not. No, it's not "difficult", it's impossible. Mill didn't mention drugs, did he? Prohibiting THEM from having them, perhaps. Prohibiting people of majority age, no. No. Do your own research. Those policies could be justified in classical liberal terms -- review the Mill quote you provided above. That's Libertarians. Classical liberals want limited government, not government of some formulaic size. SoConism is essentially incompatible with the individual freedom philosophy of liberalism. Harper cannot be both.

What a ludicrously inapt red-herring. Sorry, but in case you didn't notice, this thread's about Afghahistan.

It doesn't matter if the soldiers 'know the risks' when they sign up, I still don't want them exposed to 'the risks' of futile irrelevant missions. It also doesn't matter if they 'believe in' their mission. To do their jobs thry have to believe in it. Since that's their job requirement we can't expect them to be doing a strategic policy analysis. Therefore trategic policy analysis is our obligation here at home. We owe the soldiers careful thought on the risks we ask them to take.

That wasn't the story when it was Rwanda.... I certainly never advocated Canadian intervention in Rwanda.

Which in no way changes my rationale.

1. wtf are you talking about it being the proper Parliamentary tradition? Wasn't it PM Dithers ... It's a principle far older than Martin's time. Actually I miswrote. The Gov.-Grn. should ask for the resignation of any minister who votes against the government. I just like to give a fair shake to the female world by occ. use of the feminine in examples and hypotheticals.

Why do you have such disdain for the innocent Afghanis who are relying on our troops? My view is that as a Canadian my obligations are toward the noble men and women who signed up to defend this country. I think we should be more concerned with protecting their lives and limbs than with the impossible to resolve needs of remote foreigners. (Sorry to Ricki Bubba if that doesn't sound reasonable to him, but his faculty of reason is demonstrably impaired anyway.)

There's no problem for the Liberals. They already allowed members to vote freely on this before, so there's no reason not to now. If a few Liberal anti-gay bigots actually help it pass, that's even a bigger headache for the tories. Kind of, but not really. The Liberal cabinet had to vote with the Government.... Not so free really. All members were free to vote as they saw fit. They just weren't free to stay in cabinet if they felt they had to oppose their government. That's the proper Parliamentary tradition. If the tories try do any different the Speaker should over-rule them. Any minister who doesn't support her government is in a Conflict and should resign. Sudden inexplicable change of subject there. But anyway, I'd say two too many.

You mean the Liberals, right? FYI, they held a free vote parliament.

Support the troops! -- bring them home.

That system could work, and would ensure that each member has broad support among her constituents. We should avoid any system that involves party lists, multi-member districts, more than one method of election, or quotas.

Well, that certainly sounds like the most cynical of pandering imaginable. You imply he doesn't care about the issue and will hold the vote with the intention of losing it. Why then, hold the vote at all if not to pander to those who want to beat the issue a little bit more. The responsible thing to do would be to admit the issue has been settled and move on without any further nonsense.

]

[

Sure, keep telling yourself that, if it helps you sleep at night. (Not that I buy into any Protocols of Zion type bullsh*t, mind you, but SOME conspiracies were/are real.)

Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade[bolding added] Soooo, when you said: Were you simply completely mistaken, or ... you know ... lying again?

What definition? Q: Which side of the border? A: Their OWN side of the border. I fail to see ... Yeah yeah, blah blah. What definition?

What definition? Q: Which side of the border? A: Their OWN side of the border.

I did no such thing. You are lying again. Stop lying. Your words mate......your words....... Which way is that? The way political characters Like Day and MacKay commit political suicide? Or the way that Hamas commits suicide? 1. No-one on this thread was discussing suicide bombing until you raised it to make your dishonest attack. 2. If you were to read the thread, you would realize that I simply refered to the Conservative party to illustrate the relation between parties and the states they govern. I was clearly making no attempt to compare the philosophies or actions of the parties. Your suggestion otherwise was utterly wrong. What on Earth are you talking about? If your mischaracterization of my comments is inadvertent, I urge you to re-read the thread more carefully. If it's deliberate, stop lying and GFY.

Paranoia? You've clearly targetted me with a series malicious and dishonest attacks. It's hardly paranoid to notice that. I have never done that. You are lying. I did no such thing. You are lying again. Stop lying.

First and foremost, their interest in our affairs has been formally terminated. Second, IMO, any moral obligations have been discharged. I see the positions of Canada's provinces in relation to Canada differently in both these respects. I may never understand because you can't explain it. The facts don't explain it, certainly. You seem to think I woke up one day and decided 'Hey, I'm gonna pick Alberta to hold in contempt and close my mind against.' Not so. Why would I do that? It would help if you'd actually try to answer the questions I've raised about the validity of your grievances. It is hard to understand your reasoning if you won't provide it.