Figleaf

You we're supposed to answer two questions. This is only one. W / E. Yes. And I'm still waiting for someone to refer me to some useful infornation about why it should be needed. I had a mistaken impression about it. Hypocritical? How so? Sure I can. I was ignorant of those policies, they can be ignorant of others. If you think it was easy for me, you are mistaken. I pondered long and hard to achieve my excellent analysis. Again, W/E. Oh? How stupid are you? It appears you are not reading my posts with a sufficient level of care to make this exchange useful. Kindly refrain from personal attacks. 1. I'm not left wing. 2. Just because you can't comprehend my points doesn't make me arrogant. You mean 'than', not 'then'.

So Jefferiah, would you like to have a crack at my question, above.

As someone else pointed out already, he can't aplogize now because that would mean his earlier denials were fallacious. Politicians play stupid games with eachother all the time. Mostly the games never amount to anything unless one of them blunders badly, as Mackay has done this time by weaselling.

Some choices are good ones some are not. I see no reason to lump them together. I've already mentioned several ways I think the Conservatives get or have gotten it wrong. Deal with more of those if you like. But I've also said I'm not interested in diagnosing the choices of every Conservative on the board. I don't need to do that exercise ... just answer two questions: 1. Why did you vote Conservative? 2. What, if any, hesitations did you have in voting Conservative? I don't necessarily agree with the items on you list, but I'll certainly agree the Liberals have been wrong from time to time (less frequently and less wrong than the Tories, however). But look, it doesn't seem like were getting anywhere here -- would it help you if I changed my terminology to say that supporting the Conservatives can be explained by some combination of: -lack of relevant knowledge or information; -use of a faulty analytical method; -knowing it's wrong but doing it for an ulterior purpose; and/or -negligence? Is that better?

Fanatics? Revile? Totally inappropriate words pertaining to mere objection. You amuse me. People who get together in a bunch to harass NBC about the antics of a mainstream pop star are fanatics. Anyone who picks one person for chastizement out of (at least) hundreds engaged in similar conduct very likely reviles that person. ... anymore.

I try to explain it, but its not as simple as putting it into four camps. I believe, and challenge you to refute, that any explanation would fall within one of the four categories. Because even occasional non-troublesome policies don't overcome the general wrongness of the whole package. If I wanted to be completely blunt, I could say it's 'stupid' to vote a wrongheaded party into power just because they have one or two ideas that you like. No, you simply be mature and realize that they have their own reasons for voting that way. I fail to see what maturity has to do with it. And I don't think your answering my point. They have their 'reasons', sure. But if their 'reasons' aren't sound there's no basis for me to defer to that reasoning. You've got the wrong impression. Sure, I think the Liberals are less likely to be as wrong as the Conservatives, but they can be awfully bloody wrong too. No, no, no. The left can be profoundly wrong as well. If you ask me who is more wrong, the Conservatives or the Marxist-Leninist party, I'd say the latter. I did not say that. 1. Particularly I did not categorize the people but rather their choices. 2. I did not laud the left. I'm saying that whatever the number, they have made wrong choices and the wrongness of those choices falls within one of the categories given. I can't see how people can avoid buying into this line of thinking, if they think about it. IGnorance. I don't know what you mean by that. The place for wrongheaded decisionmakers is out of power. Absolutely not.

If they are making a wrong choice, in you opinion, and someone who agrees with your opini0n asks you why they make that choice, what do you say? Not at all. I'm not proposing to deny their politucal rights. I'm just saying they're dead wrong and saying how I think they must have come to that point. If I didn't think my reasoning is better than theirs, shouldn't I agree with them? Neither the Liberals nor the Democrats are guaranteed to be right all the time. I prefer to retain some political opposition (even wrong-headed) to prevent complacency or arrogance from taking root.

Gee, does that remind you of any other recent incidents? C'mon, I give up. Gimme the answer! Okay, I'll play along... there are two examples I'm thinking of, but you probably won't like them. First, Conservatives suggesting that all Liberals were guilty in Adscam. Second, Harper twisting Iggy's views on the Qana bombing into an accusation of being anti-Israel, and then smearing the whole Liberal party with the specious allegation. But you'd guessed these, hadn't you?

Gee, does that remind you of any other recent incidents?

Israel's alleged fears of the naiscent nascient self-defense initiatives of its neighbors are specious at best. Were 1948 and 1973 "nascient" self-defense moves? (I'm ignoring 1956 and 1967 for the moment because, even though heavily provoked, were technically pre-emptive wars). I've heard of 'naiscent', and 'nascent', but never "nascient". And to answer your query, I am refering to modern times.

The 'dog' issue would have sunk quickly into obscurity if Mackay hadn't tried to weasel out of it. Think how much better off he'd have been to say 'I guess i'm still a little raw over how that relationship ended, and I let Mr. McGuinty's shot bother me more than it should have. I apologize to Belinda for my implication.' He'd have come out looking like a great guy. Instead, his real instincts led him to weasel.

There's at least a couple of problems with that. First, many US actions (e.g. illegally attacking Iraq, claiming exceptional status, undermining the UN) are counterproductive to stability. Second, seeking 'stability' will automatically imply conflict with parties to whom the status quo is not acceptable, some of who have quite valid reasons for that stance (e.g. the poor in Latin America, or the Palestinians). There is terrible poverty in England and In France, and terrible violence, crime, social upheavel and injustice. Twenty or thirty years of socialist government does not seem to have done anything to change that. So? I don't concede that you're correct, but what's that got to do with my point? Beneficial to whom? Beneficial to everyone, or beneficial to those dis-served by existing traditions, obviously.

Spartacus? That old 1960 release was prior to the Internet, political forums and more relaxed political free speech. In general people of that era only protested in the form of song especially relating to the Vietnam war and religious protest were pretty well taboo. It seems to me that the fanatics involved in this dust-up are driven more by a wish to flex their muscle and revile Madonna than they are with depictions of crucifiction.

And now by pretending that he didn't make a silly almost-meaningless comment that everyone knows he did make has further undermined his credibility. It shows a disregard for truth far more troubling that mere ungentlemanliness toward his ex g/f.

Name the policies which are harmful and why you believe them to be so, and then let conservatives debate you on them. Just to see which of the four camps they falled into. How are they harmful, so far what major harm has been done to the country. I haven't seen any harm done yet, and I work for the federal government. The sky isn't falling. Personally this forum should be about debate, not name calling and childish behavior which mirrors are current politicians which is the reason why many Canadian's don't even bother with politics anymore. 4. On thoughtless individuals, don't you remember your comments saying all conservatives are "thoughtless". I said I voted conservative, yet I think I am perfectly capable of having my own thoughts on issues. I'll paste this a few more times so you can read. 4. On thoughtless individuals, don't you remember your comments saying all conservatives are "thoughtless". I said I voted conservative, yet I think I am perfectly capable of having my own thoughts on issues. 4. On thoughtless individuals, don't you remember your comments saying all conservatives are "thoughtless". I said I voted conservative, yet I think I am perfectly capable of having my own thoughts on issues. PART 1 I gave three reasons that could explain why someone might support a party whose existing and expected policies are unwise, impracticsl or harmful: ignorance, stupidity, or perceived self -interest. I added thoughtlessness to capture a less intense manifestation of stupidity or ignorance. I have no desire to diagnose the choice of each Conservative voter who seeks to challenge my opinion. Obviously many Con. supporters here are incensed by my statement, which surprises me somewhat, since most of them are astoundingly immoderate in their criticisms of others who disagree with them. (This tendency toward double-standards on the rightwing is ONE of the reasons I think it is ill-advised to give them political power.) Now, consider my point again -- how to explain the choice of people who support ill-advised political options? Could it be because they're brilliantly insightful, clear-thinking, and broad-minded? That's not a satisfactory explanation for poor choices, is it? To explain something negative, one will perforce have to turn to unflattering attributes. Now obviously you don't believe you made a bad choice. But I do, so what other explantion for bad choices are available from my perspective? When you think about the choices of people you disagree with, what explanations do you come up with? PART 2 Next, to deal with the question of whether Conservative philosophy and policies are [i[actually[/i] wrong, I can give you my reasons and you will like them or not. You can give me your reasons and I'll ke them or not. If one of us convinces the other, then the one who becomes convinced will have to recognize that his prior opinion was incorrect, and that the explanation for that mistake will have to have been one or more of the reasons I gave that started this discussion. For example, my opposition to the three strikes law was based on ignorance of its contents. (Though I'm still not thrilled with it.) PART 3 What are my reasons for thinking the Conservatives are wrong or should be expected to be frequently wrong? I've alread given some and I can only give you a few more examples for now: -Harper supports U.S. foreign policy which is inimical to international security. -Conservative economic philosophy is unlikely to lead them improve/redress market failures. -Conservative traditionalism is likely to steer them against beneficial social reforms.

Based on what? Seriously I've met some Liberal voters who have abuse drugs, would it be fair to say all liberals are thus drug addicts. As for being ill advised, you were confused about some of the policies that the conservatives have brought forward. My advice to you is theirs life outside of the Liberal party box, be open minded. Barak Obama one of the possible contenders for president down in the United States has shown respect towards Republican's and conservatives despite political differences. He is as liberal as they come yet realizes something you still do not. Not everything in politics is black and white. I'm not sure if your planning on becoming a politician later on in life, but you'll find out the majority of issues out their aren't necessarily black and white. Whether it be welfare, gay marriage, abortion, the military, charter rights, etc. Each side has valid view points, something necessary in a democracy. The problem with our democracy is we put way to much faith into an unelected judiciary. As well in each election, the usual result is that a majority of the population is not heard due to the first past the post system. Its about thoughtless individuals. I'm a thoughtless individual according to your personal beliefs, however have seemed to have had a civilized debate with you. Then will you withdraw your thoughtless comments since they are flawed, as a thoughtless person does not have the power to debate. Don't worry, once you get more life experience you'll find out for yourself. I was the same way when I was younger, then once I matured and learned more about the world I found out things aren't as simple as they seem. Thats the only way you can learn is through life experience. 1. Please don't bore me with condescension. I've plenty-o life experience. 2. My opinions on the Conservatives don't hinge on any particular appreciation of the Liberal party. 3. Notwithstanding particular policies that may be unharmful, the Conservatives policies and the ideology behind them are ... negative on a net basis. Support for such a party cannot be explained except through some combination of the factors I've listed. 4. I still don't know what your question was.

I don't understand. You're blaming Israel for wanting to defend itself by destroying Iranian nuclear facilities when the Iranian President makes no qualms about talking about wiping Israel off the map. It's well known that Israel and Iran don't like eachother. Provocative rhetoric is thus not surprising. However, rhetoric does not create grounds for states to attack eachother.

The justice minister was very clear that those who committed a violent or sexaul offense after the third time would have the onus put on them to not be labelled a dangerous offender. If they are named a dangerous offender then they are put away. I think your confused as to what the policy actaully is. It might be smart not to ridicule people for being uninformed when you yourself are uninformed. Your belief that any person who does not support liberalism is a thoughtless individual. Do you still honestly believe that. I think it simply shows a lack of life experience on your part. I've met people from each political camp who have been intelligent and articulate. I've met so far in my short life, Raj Pannu, Ed Stelmach, Stan Woloshyn, Stephen Harper, Laurie Blakeman, and John Williams. Every single one having some degree of an effect on my view of politics. 1. I have now reviewed the text of the Bill. I admit unequivocally that I had a wrong understanding of its terms. It addresses violent and sexual crimes (only) by reversing the onus of proof in dangerous offender applications after a 3rd offense. As such, it is an incremental change, not drastic. 2. I still don't know what your question is. 3. Notwithstanding point 1, above,m I stand by my analysis of the general merits of voting Conservative. Not everthing they do has to be wrong for it to be ill-advised to support them.

There have definitely been cases of Canadian border guards leaving their posts out of fear for their safety. Here's a quote from a story this past March. That's a weird report. All it says is So, where did the violence happen?

How about the same justification they used for taking out Saddam's nuclear facilities back in the eighties. Blow up the nutbar's weapons before he has a chance to use them on you. Okay. I should have said: "On what possible VALID justification?" Survival counts over morality. These are crazed, dangerous leaders. Israel's alleged fears of the naiscent self-defense initiatives of its neighbors are specious at best.

I read the newspaper every day. I watch the TV news. I cannot recall any reports of violence at the borders. Is this all just anti-American fear mongering?

I still don't get why Christian fanatics are so upset about Madonna on a cross. I mean, Christianity doesn't OWN the history of crucifiction. Were there extensive protests when Spartacus depicted hundreds of dudes hanging on crosses? What's the beef here?

How about an EXAMPLE of when there has been a potentially dangerous confrontation at the border? Refer me to a report of such an case, please. That doesn't include petty crime, lets just say that the Trailer Park Boys won't be getting 25 to life anytime soon. Any sentence over 2yrs. is federal time in Canada, and theft or fraud over $5000 can get you that. Sorry if I overlooked something important ... what question?

Now THAT is a valid criticism. Well put.'

I understand that's the goal, but the actual policy says any crime with federal time, I thought. So,... no examples then? Having their union prez onside is not all that convincing.