Figleaf

You are answering your own question there. Educate themselves in anything else in addition to the Bible. Your ignorance makes you look ridiculous. Learn: By the age of eight [John Stuart Mill] had read Aesop's Fables, Xenophon's Anabasis, and the whole of Herodotus, and was acquainted with Lucian, Diogenes Laërtius, Isocrates and six dialogues of Plato (see his Autobiography). He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic. A contemporary record of Mill's studies from eight to thirteen is published in Bain's sketch of his life. It suggests that his autobiography rather understates the amount of work done. At the age of eight he began learning Latin, Euclid, and algebra, and was appointed schoolmaster to the younger children of the family. His main reading was still history, but he went through all the Latin and Greek authors commonly read in the schools and universities at the time. He was not taught to compose either in Latin or in Greek, and he was never an exact scholar; it was for the subject matter that he was required to read, and by the age of ten he could read Plato and Demosthenes with ease. His father's History of India was published in 1818; immediately thereafter, about the age of twelve, John began a thorough study of the scholastic logic, at the same time reading Aristotle's logical treatises in the original language. In the following year he was introduced to political economy and studied Adam Smith and David Ricardo with his father--ultimately completing their classical economic view of factors of production. This intensive study however had injurious effects on Mill's mental health, and state of mind. Embrass!

Nice mantra, but how about some substantiation of such a counterintuitive assertion. :lol: Stop! IAGTDL!

Who have ears, let them hear! Welcome to the forum, rrabbit.

Holy Sweet Lord! That's the great grandmother of all pwnings.

Wow, the ridiculous nonsense is running thick! Dion is not 'far left'. He's a Liberal for cripes sake!

Trudeau would have disagreed with you. "Luck is the time when opportunity and preparation meet." I don't see how there's any disagreement. I think all you people who pretend not to believe in luck are deluding yourselves. Play poker for a few hours without ever getting a single decent hand, and your ability to win much is severely limited. Same with life. You can still blow it with good luck, and you might still make it despite some bad luck, but to pretend luck plays no part is so contrary to actual experience that it smacks of being a quasi-religious position.

Should Islamic states also reconstitute themselves as religiously neutral states? Yes. As I just said above. Read much?

Idiotic doublespeak term for a hare-brained moneywasting policy. Actually, Paul Martin made such an initiative as well. In fact, it's curious that the Conservatives would try to claim this ground, given: -Peter MacKay's history of lying, -Stephen Harper's use of the doctored Gurmant Grewal tapes -continuing false advertisements against Ralph Goodale after the RCMP cleared him -the lie that cost investors billions on investment trusts. I.e. None, to date.

Jean Chrétien launched a very quick campaign againsty the integrity of Stockwell Day. Anybody remember Warren Kinsella and that dumbass Barney doll? I don't remember a campaign against Day. I remember he made a lot of misteps and was not PM material in the first place. What do you point to as demonstrating a campaign? What ad buy?

I would say I am critiquing the character of the Conservatives's conduct. We see a surprisingly quick, particularly personal, partially proven false, certainly expensive, and coordinated with the grass-roots campaign against a party's leader, not even in an election campaign. It's unprecedented, so it invites remark. (P.S. and still, none of the above tells you shit about how little or much I agree or disagree with 'leftism'.)

Well, there is both a historical answer and a political answer. Historically: Progressive Conservative was the political party that resulted from the merger in 19whocares of the Conservative Party with the Progressive Party, in a political realignment of forces not totally unlike the much later merger of the Progressive Conservative Party with the Canadian Alliance party in 19someoneelsewillknow. This later merger resulted in the Conservative Party of Canada. Politically: The Progessive Conservative Party was a brilliant oxymoron which allowed the moderate right in Canada to project reasonable pragmatism without rashly abandoning the psycho-philosophic state of toryness. That is, they made themselves capable of competing with the Liberals for the center. Today's Conservative Party -- after the dialogue and dashing about, after the lightning, after Frankenstein's monster lumbers from the room to terrorize the village -- is the thing that crawls from the pile of leftover parts. Lacking a brain or a heart, without internal cognition or coherent motivation, it has a pseudolife emobodying the fantasies of the resentful right and pulling levers for the masters that feed it. Having no hope, interest, or concept of competing for the political center, the CPC utilizes wedge tactics to fool voters into misperceiving their interests; an effort (like the Republicans in the US) to prove Lincoln wrong.

I have the feeling you have a profound misunderstanding of classical liberalism. I would be surprised if there were anyone here who doesn't. Honestly. You have nothing but contempt for all conservative symbols, for the party, and for Harper. Working backward through your comment: Harper: I actually have a mild grudging respect for Harper, I just happen to think his ideology is wrongheaded and that he has contempt for the institutions and values I think are important. The Conservative Party: Yes, I have contempt for the Conservative Party. Conservative symbols: I have no idea what you mean by conservative symbols. But I'm somewhat iconoclastic by nature, so probably symbols of most stripes wouldn't fare well under my scrutiny. Now, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION: None of those positions demonstrate any support for 'leftist' thought. What they do show is that I'm not rightist. That's one half of the picture.

Well put. No, they are trying very hard to do it for him.

Call yourself what you will, but you offered only choices that fit your pre-conception of the world. No, I only offered choices that didn't fit yours. I don't doubt there are. Why investigate what is a virtual certainty? "Fair"? You want to inject that consideration at this late juncture?!? Certainly. Everybody start being fair and I'll be right there with you.

Now you're on to something! Though for many states it's probably sufficient to simply reconstitute them minus archaic religious references, rather thant to dismantle them completely. And what about the Islamic countries? Or is pointing out that inconsistency taboo? What do you mean, what about them? Are you suggesting they should be exempted???

There you go, Leafless assures you. So that settles it.

Remember, they cashiered the General running Walter Reed Army Hospital over that episode. Why not answer th esubstance of my post, or can't you? There was substance in your post???

Has it ever been used that you know of ? It's in continual use. It's what prevents people who are found Not Guilty from suing for damages for false accusations and malicious prosecutions. Not that I know of.

The arrogance and assumption that the only answer to social issues is government actions is probably why someone would label you a leftie. I fail to see how arrogance is applicable on that basis. Government may not be the sole source of those goods, but when the market doesn't produce them in sufficient quantity, quality or price, it seems reasonable to ask government to enable the provision of them. That's your faulty understanding. I certainly do advocate it in appropriate circumstances, on classical liberal principles. Or government action. As a classical liberal, I have no generic objection to government action as a means of coordinating shared efforts and objectives. I don't know Gates political views, but his wealth came mostly from clever opportunism and a strong dose of good luck. That doesn't make him a criminal or a bad guy, but it's the truth.

Their view would be they are standing up for it. And why do right wing complainers always assume people who don't agree with them must automatically be feckless or unemployable?? It's an odd, incorrect, and rather facile chauvinism.

Are they maybe labelling you as such beause you favour government footing the bill for those things? So right wingers think worthwhile things like those can come about thru magical wishes or something?

There is no cop.

Actually, he's got it perfectly right already. The Harris tories removed a water safety protocol that would have prevented the Walkerton tragedy. Previously, town water samples passed through a provincial lab screen. Harris cut that practice and people were poisoned as a result. True, and had Harris never become premier, Stan's default of his duty would not have resulted in dead people.

I like to think that John Tory is a far remove from Mike 'Ripper' Harris. But still, I think the McGuinty government has actually done a pretty good job and I'd give them another go.

I agree, but it's funny that so many rightists label me leftist whenever I advocate any of those things.