bk59

Practically speaking this just isn't true. For example, who represents Canada at the G8 summits? Who speaks for Canadians there? Who speaks for Canadians when Canada enters into agreements with other countries? It certainly isn't the Queen or the Governor General who is doing that negotiating. When the Governor General reads the Speech From the Throne, who wrote that speech? I am aware of the official titles given to the Prime Minister and to the Queen. The Prime Minister may not be "the embodiment of the state", but that isn't exactly what we are talking about. And this does not change the fact that today the Prime Minister, by convention if not by title, represents the people of Canada and speaks on their behalf. Let's take this apology example. Who decided to give the apology on behalf of Canadians? Who wrote the actual apology? Even if it was the Queen or the Governor General who issued the apology, do you really think they would have done that without the permission of the Prime Minister and/or Parliament? I think you might now be contradicting yourself. How does the government have the support of a segment of the people if it wasn't elected? Wasn't your argument that the Prime Minister is the head of government and that he can only speak on behalf of the people who elected him to that position? There is a huge hole in your logic there. If this were the case, then anyone opposed to the Queen, the monarchy in general, or the Governor General would be considered disloyal to Canada. This just is not true in today's Canada. If someone says "I think Canada should be a republic" no rational person accuses them of being a traitor to Canada. In the same way, no rational person goes around claiming that those who oppose particular policy decisions of the Prime Minister are traitors. We have these things in Canada called rights. Including the right to believe what you want and the right to speak that belief (I think with the exception regarding inciting hatred with hate speech). These rights allow Canadians to criticize the government no matter who you think embodies the state.

Haha. So McCarthy is (in part) responsible for left wing bullying? I have to wonder who is responsible for right wing bullying then. But is that some progress I see in your post? Instead of saying "This is the root problem with lefties" you said "This is the root problem with so many lefties". Is this some unconscious acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, not all "lefties" can be labelled in the same group? Could this be the start of the realization that bullying is the result of an extremist personality and not a particular ideology? Given how you've been bullying the left on here I won't hold out hope.

I think you need to look at how this country is actually run. Practically speaking, if the Prime Minister only speaks for those who voted for one party, how could Canada ever represent itself in the world today? Who would speak for those other Canadians? The Queen certainly does not do this. The Governor General does not. It is the Prime Minister who represents Canada to other states. The Prime Minister and Cabinet that enter into agreements with other states - agreements that bind all Canadians, not just those who voted for the Prime Minister's party. When the Prime Minister talks on behalf of Canadians, he or she is actually doing just that. Under your theory, who speaks on behalf of Canadians?

Actually, the Prime Minister does speak on behalf of the Canadian government and on behalf of all Canadians. (This is the entire Canadian government, not just Cabinet.) That is part of his or her job description. Now Harper as Conservative Party leader cannot speak on behalf of either the government or Canadians, but this wasn't Harper in that capacity. This was Prime Minister Harper giving the apology. It does not matter how many people did, or did not, vote for the Prime Minister. He or she speaks for all of us because he or she leads the government.

It looks like you are comparing two different things here, much like a lot of people in this thread. A lot of people seem to be confusing a political philosophy with how people who subscribe to that philosophy behave. (Except that in this thread this confusion only seems to apply to left wing ideologies.) You have given a summary of what you think the right wing believes in (e.g. not taking risks and choosing the lesser of two evils). Even if we agreed that this is an accurate summary, it does nothing to prove or disprove that people on the right are bullies. What they believe is separate from how they promote their beliefs. Likewise, just because you can think of individuals from a particular ideology who act like bullies, that does not mean that everyone from that ideology uses the same methods to promote their beliefs. This seems to be the big problem here. A lot of people are crying "oh, I've been bullied!" just because others disagreed with them. Others are even claiming that the government has bullied them simply because they don't agree with the spending choices made by a particular government. These types of actions apply across the entire political spectrum and are not limited to "lefties" or "righties". Part of this so-called bullying is just life. (Really, did you think a government would only spend money if 100% of the people agreed? Nothing would ever get done if that was the case!) I'll only look at one of your examples. First, even if those points of view on gay marriage were accurate, they do not amount to the type of bullying that the OP was complaining about. Simply having those views does not translate into always shouting down those with opposing views or not being open to debate. Also, this is a very interesting take on the right's position on gay marriage. Most of the time, when I hear someone from the right talking about gay marriage, they want to forbid it. Some may be willing to accept the position you have described, but for the most part I hear people who say that they would get rid of it if they could. You also seem to have misrepresented the left position. Sure, some people may say that ministers should be forced to perform gay marriages, but most people on the left that I know would not agree with that position. They would support a minister's freedom of religion to marry or not marry gay couples as per their and their church's beliefs. Justices of the peace are a different example though. Most people on most issues, left or right, would say that government employees should be expected to follow the policies of the government. For some reason, when it comes to the policy on gay marriage, some people think that these particular government employees should be exempt from doing their job. I think it is a perfectly valid opinion to say that government employees should follow the policies of the government and do their job regardless of the issue. It may be harsh, particularly for those who do not wish to perform gay marriages and were employed before gay marriages became a reality, but to accept the alternative would mean accepting the proposition that every time the government institutes a new policy any government worker could just refuse to work because they disagreed with that policy. Nothing would ever get done because you would always have half the government service sitting around doing nothing.

The only goof I see is the one jumping to a totally unfounded conclusion. From what I have read the police have confirmed that the suspect has no previous criminal record. Even if he did have a record, that does not mean that anyone could have predicted the suspect would ever commit this type of crime. Maybe it's time to take off the tinfoil hat and admit that crime is not caused by judges.

Luckily you don't have to differentiate between the two terms since the OP used both of them to describe "lefties" and their behaviour. Anyway, my point was simply this: Black Dog was simply responding to the arguments put forth in the OP and subsequent posts. You can ignore those parts if you want, but others chose to address them. I never said anything even close to that. Please actually read what I wrote. In fact, I even said, "Now there are legitimate reasons to argue both for and against those two issues." That is hardly calling anyone closed-minded. You seem to think that "The Right generally leaves the individual free to choose in his or her own way" and that "the Left" just likes to intervene as "busybodies". Except that there are two traditional right wing stances that seem to limit an individual's choice. My point was simply this: you have oversimplified both the views on the right and on the left and neither of those viewpoints can claim exclusive title to advocating for an individual's freedom to choose how to live their lives. Depending on the issue, there are stances on both sides where an individual's freedom to choose is limited. Yes, yes. Just like left wing people are forced to pay for right wing spending priorities when a right wing government is in power. Does that make all right wing supporters bullies? Fascists? (Hint: the answer is no!) So when a left wing government is in power, does that spending make all left wing supporters bullies? (Hint: the answer is the same as before!) GostHacked, your point was right on. Bullies exist on both sides. A few extremists does not make an entire ideological group into bullies. Or fascists. Or anything else. For every story of a left wing person harassing a right wing person there is a story of a right wing person harassing a left wing person.

This has been discussed recently on this forum in the topic "The Argus Party". I can't say that I know anyone involved in the process personally, but I am aware of the process for picking judges. Let me re-post some links... Ontario Court of Justice Ontario Superior Court Federally appointed judges generally and the committees At the very least this process ensures that judges are qualified. Hopefully it also ensures that judges represent the best interests of the justice system.

But we aren't defining any philosophy / ideology here. Although some people have definitely confused the "left" ideology with the actions of some extremists. The OP specifically talks about those who hold left wing viewpoints and how they act as people. You aren't going to find that in a dictionary. I think it's appropriate then to show real world examples of people from both ends of the spectrum who are acting like idiots. In fact, thinking about it now, your post should definitely be in response to the OP. The OP certainly has tried to label a collective group as you say and (again, as you say) this is nuts. "It's defining a philosophy with poster boys." It seems like this whole thread was started because someone has tried to define an ideology by the actions of some of its adherents. It is a foolish thing to do, particularly when all ideologies have people who act in the same ways.

You might want to go back to the OP and read it. It quite clearly mentions fascism and implies multiple times that "left wing people" are fascist: Once again, this applies equally to "rightists" who are "on a crusade". It also does not apply to a vast number of "leftists" or "rightists". Ah I see. The right gives individuals the ability to choose in their own way. Except for that traditional stance on gay marriage where gay individuals would not have the choice to marry. Except for the traditional stance on abortion where individuals would not have the choice to choose. Now there are legitimate reasons to argue both for and against those two issues. But clearly your idea that only the right cares about giving people choices is false. Likewise, your position that there is something special about "lefties" that make them "crusaders" (and presumably therefore bullies as per the topic of this thread) is false. It is unfortunate that people feel the necessity to demonize all who disagree with them in this way.

That article is overselling things a bit. The basic stats aren't wrong, but the characterization seems a bit off. I remember reading articles about the falling crime rate. What I read used phrases like "lowest in the past fifteen years", etc. This article makes it seem like everyone was saying the crime rate is the lowest that its ever been. I certainly didn't see that anywhere. The author also takes a few liberties. Like when the author dismisses the property crime stats by saying that "many victims don't even bother to report [these crimes] anymore". If you are going to engage in that type of dismissive behaviour then you have to be willing to talk about how the same argument can be applied against your position (e.g. how domestic violence crimes were not always reported as frequently in the past). Anyway, the debate regarding punishment vs. rehabilitation is a valid debate. I'm just not sure this article really added much to that debate.

If you want a quick, high-profile example then Robert Pickton was charged with first degree murder. A jury found him guilty of second degree murder last December. The defence is appealing, but so is the Crown so that the appeal is heard on the basis of the original first degree murder charges. If the question is when was someone last convicted of first degree murder, that I don't know. Which makes sense. All reports so far have indicated that this was a random attack. Not pre-planned at all. This makes it second degree murder, not first degree murder. First degree murder exists so that those who plan to murder someone receive harsher sentences than those who murder someone without planning. It makes sense to me. Punish both, but punish the one who planned everything out more. Even if there aren't a lot of convictions then it is still worthwhile to have that on the books for when it is necessary. I mean, we don't exactly charge people with war crimes on a regular basis, but I still think we should include that offence in our Criminal Code. Perhaps someone with some time could dig up some recent stats on convictions for first and second degree murder.

Well, it isn't just this idea of an "uneducated populace" that makes judicial elections a bad idea. (That rationale is a bit elitist and perhaps simplistic.) Even those educated about the law may not have the specifics of a particular case. A judge will hear all of the evidence and take into account all of the circumstances of a case when giving a sentence. Often the general public does not have that information or insight into the case. A judge should feel free to give a sentence appropriate in the circumstances without worrying about keeping his or her job. Particularly when there may be misinformation about the case floating around.

There is a catch-22 in your argument. If Canadians have no power to affect how judges sentence criminals then Canadians would have no power to force judges to give mandatory sentences. Obviously Canadians, through their representatives in Parliament, can introduce mandatory sentencing. Therefore they can also, through Parliament, introduce some types of guidelines that make it clear that tougher sentences are required in some circumstances while not affecting a judge's ability to give a more lenient sentence where appropriate. This approach is not as easy as forcing blanket minimum sentences, I give you that. But mandatory sentencing makes the justice system less flexible and arguably less fair. We shouldn't shy away from a more appropriate solution just because it is harder to implement.

Why exactly is mandatory sentencing needed? The option to sentence criminals harshly is currently available in our justice system. Why not work to have the system (judges, juries, prosecutors, etc.) give out more appropriate sentences in individual cases? You can have harsher sentences where appropriate and lesser sentences where appropriate. Under a mandatory sentencing regime you do not have the option to give a lesser sentence where appropriate. Make no mistake, even if harsher sentences are required in some cases, the solution is not to limit choices. The solution is to utilize the choices that we already have (i.e. tougher sentences). Mandatory sentencing has no up side that we do not already have and has a down side that we do not need.

This post would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Left wingers wouldn't even have to leave this topic to find similar terms used by right wingers on this site. All you are doing is showing that people of every political ideology can be stupid. Black Dog is right to call this "a Moibus strip of stupid". Sort of like how you are claiming a monopoly on the "good guys" image? Sort of like how you are claiming that all "lefties" are out there demonizing all "righties"? Sort of like how you are tarring your opponents with evil terminology? Please tell me that you see the irony in what you are doing! By calling "lefties" fascists because they label the "righties" as fascist, you yourself, by your own definition, are a fascist.

For those who think someone with a gun could have prevented this tragedy: The first sign that people had that something was wrong was when this person stabbed the victim in the neck. He then continued to stab him multiple times. Realistically, someone with a gun could not have saved the victim in this case.

Doh, forgot to mention this: August1991, Visionseeker correctly called you out on your "repudiation by deferral nonsense." (Good term!) If you have links that prove your point then post them. Otherwise you just look like you are making stuff up. But here's the thing. Budget deficits DO matter. Government debt DOES matter. Governments must still pay interest payments on their debt. Deficits equal bigger debt. Bigger debt equals bigger interest payments. Bigger interest payments means more tax money must be spent on those payments rather than on government programs or reductions in the tax rate. In the short term you may be able to run a deficit and cut taxes, and this may even be beneficial to the individual taxpayer. BUT this behaviour is not sustainable long term. Eventually services will be cut to an unacceptable level or taxes will have to be raised. And who pays for this? Future generations of Canadians generally. Which is what people meant when they talked about leaving a burden to our children. Running a deficit is not necessarily a bad thing in the short term. In some cases it may be necessary. But this is entirely different from saying that deficits do not matter.

From the start, sorry for the long post. Umm... August1991... this subject isn't nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Government spending may be hard to track, but it isn't "very, very hard". For starters, this thread was talking about the federal government's deficit and budget. So any other provincial or municipal government does not factor in. If you want to have a discussion about spending by ALL Canadian governments then by all means go ahead. In which case things might approach "very, very hard". But if that is what you want to do then only talking about the federal Liberals will never accomplish that goal. You would have to take into account every single provincial and municipal government as well. All federal government revenue and spending could be considered a "shuffle" (as you put it) if you want to define things in that way. But that really makes no sense. Just because the revenue comes from taxpayers and the expenditures go to taxpayers does not somehow change the basic ideas of income and spending. So to answer your neighbour's OAP dilemma... if you pay for your neighbour's OAP by actually handing your neighbour a cheque, then it has nothing to do with government. If you mean to say that you "pay" for your neighbour's OAP because you pay taxes, then what you are really saying is that the government paid your neighbour that money. That is an expense. And counts as government spending. Just as your tax money counts as government revenue. I have no idea why you posted that link to the National Gallery. The fact that the top two bureaucrats at the National Gallery are feuding has NOTHING to do with deficits and the federal budget. I believe that msj has (sarcastically) pointed out that there is a difference between guaranteeing a debt and an actual expense. Something only counts as a federal government expenditure when the federal government actually pays out money. Did they only guarantee a debt? Then there was no expense and this is not government spending. Did they have to pay money to cover the debt? Then the situation has moved beyond a guarantee and the government actually paid money to someone. That is government spending. Your point about downsizing the civil service and hiring the employees back as contractors doesn't make sense. The government would still be paying the contractors. These payments would show up as federal government spending. So... what's the point? Not only that, but many companies have done the exact same thing to save money. Are you saying that the Liberals (on this matter) acted in the same way as a responsible business person running a for-profit company? (Sorry, couldn't resist closing the loop on your argument for you.) I love that you think there is more transparency in the US system. American federal government expenditures get tacked onto huge pieces of legislation. In many cases this spending is attached to and hidden within legislation that has nothing to do with the actual expenditure. No system is perfect. The US system can be manipulated as well. There is some irony in how you champion Mulroney and Reagan and vilify Chretien and Martin. Particularly when you then use a book by David Stockman as proof. This book was about how horrible some of Reagan's economic policies were and how they stuck by those policies even when they knew they were failing. So if I understand part of your point, Reagan = good and as proof that government accounting can be suspect see the book that says Reagan = bad.

Well, you didn't really touch a nerve in that my post may have been interpreted to be more dramatic than I intended. Still, it makes me want to bang my head against a wall when people complain about how mistreated they are and then proceed to mistreat others in exactly the same way. It just makes no sense! I have never been on that forum, but I can believe your experience there. I find that this is not limited to left or right wingers, or even political forums. There is something about the internet that dehumanizes other people and makes it easier for people to act like jacka**es. Part of the problem is that without body language or tone of voice a person's intent can seem more sinister than they intended. But most of the problem is just that people feel comfortable "yelling at" and insulting others online when they would probably not do that in a face-to-face conversation. I totally agree with you that if you find yourself in an online community that cannot police itself and abide by simple manners, then it's not worth the trouble. I am going to assume that you are talking about Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. If so, then I am kind of surprised by this. I know a good number of Queen's people and more than a few self-identify as conservatives. Now if you had said York University... Yes, well... as I said, all sides have their zealots. Taking your specific example though, unfortunately I do think David Suzuki has a number of intelligent things to say. The problem is they get mixed in with the comments like your jail comment above. (Is there a website where he said that? I'd be interested in reading the context of that statement.)

Sorry, that's just not true. It may be true of some with left wing views, but certainly not all. Of course, it is also true of some with right wing views, but certainly not all. Other posters have already picked up on that fact though. Yes, and many conservative types have said much worse things to homosexuals and their supporters. One anecdote does not prove your point. Your willingness to characterize those who disagree with your politics as immature or volatile says more about you than it does about "the left". Ironically, this type of name calling is indicative of bullying. This isn't really a problem for a lot of the right wing people I know. No more than it is true for a lot of the left wing people I know. Hahaha. Of course. All right wing views are rational and all left wing views are unfounded and touchy-feely. Again, these types of characterizations are indicative of bullying and definitely not based on rational thought. To pick up on one example from your post, how much of a part did rational thought play in determining that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction? Look, no matter which side of an issue you come down on, characterizing the other side in these ways hurts you more than it hurts them. There are rational people on both ends of the political spectrum. Pretend otherwise if that will make you feel better. Sigh. Once again, self-righteousness is a trait found across the political spectrum. And clearly the act of demonizing one's political opposites is not limited to the left. If you have any doubt of that just read your own post. Or some of the above posts. All "lefties" are immature? Volatile? Irrational? Unintelligent or impractical? It is so much easier to pretend those who disagree with you have something innately wrong with them. It is much easier than having a dialogue.

False. People do risky stuff all the time if they think the potential gain is worth the risk. As others pointed out, it looks like Harper just wants to make the Liberal Party spend as much money as possible. Which in my opinion is absolutely despicable. It would be nice if the different parties competed on issues and policies not on trying to bankrupt and smear one another. Except for the experts who say it is too early to make that determination since no one has actually analyzed the original tape. The important question is whether a bribe was actually offered. And who knew what and when in the Conservative Party. The RCMP concluded there was not enough evidence to answer these questions. Case closed. Move on. Quite frankly I don't care that the Liberals posted quotes of what their members said in the House of Commons. I don't care that they referred to allegations of wrongdoing in their promotional and fundraising material. It is no different than what other opposition parties have been doing over the past decade. The litigation is frivolous, and wastes the court's time and therefore taxpayer money. It makes Harper look petty and unable to act like a Prime Minister. The statement of claim is in many ways sad and amusing. The one part I do like is where Harper accuses the Liberal party of libel for saying that "the Conservatives knee-jerk reaction has been... [to] threaten litigation". You know something is wrong when you sue someone for, amongst other things, saying that you threatened to sue them. One thing I am sure of, the case will not be entertaining. It will simply be an example of politicians on both sides whining and attempting to justify their actions.

Here is the great thing about your posts: you actually think that allegations that a Prime Minister is immoral, unethical or engaged in illegal activity "go far beyond the usual" and are "over the top". Give me a break. Where were you when the opposition parties were calling Chrétien immoral, unethical and guilty of engaging in illegal activity? Where were you when they did the same to Martin? Allegations that a PM, or anyone in politics for that matter, is immoral or unethical are almost par for the course. Allegations of illegal actions pop up in a number of scandals. Instead of dealing with the situation like a Prime Minister, Harper decided to sue. It looks petty. It looks like he and his party are playing games with the legal system. I am not saying the Liberal party was right to act as they did. But inappropriate action by one party does not excuse the inappropriate action of the other party. Your position that these actions "fully warrant" litigation is absurd. Should Harper have been sued every time he called the entire Liberal party corrupt? That was equivalent to saying that PM Martin was immoral, unethical and engaged in illegal activity. The bottom line is we need to demand more of our politicians. We need to see some decorum. No more crazy allegations (which all parties are guilty of). No more "I'm telling my Mommy on you because you insulted me" litigation.

Welcome to politics in Canada over the past decade (at least). Opposition parties make allegations about the government. There is nothing new about that. The distinction that people keep trying to make about Parliamentary privilege is just a smokescreen in my opinion. Again, let's look at politics over the past decade. There have been many allegations that would count as slander. These have been made in the House, outside the House in media scrums, in the talking points that get repeated on news broadcasts, etc. No one started suing based on those allegations. No one tried to make this distinction regarding Parliamentary privilege. Mostly because the allegations were essentially the same inside and outside the House. Sure, there was still more "colourful" language used in the House, but the allegations were substantially the same inside and outside. Honestly, as far as I can tell, there is nothing different about this "present crop" of Liberals compared to any other opposition party over the last decade. For example, the NDP and CPC were more than happy to allege wrongdoing and call for RCMP investigations during the last election. There was definitely a partisan motive there. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the Liberals are perfect. It's just that they were the government for so long that many previous examples all involve other parties in opposition. The bottom line is that the CPC has become quite litigious for a political party over the last few years. I find that inappropriate. Do I think it's right that all of the parties are wasting the public's time with pointless slander & libel? No. But wasting more time and money on lawsuits is not the solution. In my opinion the solution is for politicians to start sucking it up and ignoring the excessive comments of those other politicians that have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the governance of this country. They should be concentrating on having real debates and not making outrageous claims or suing each other.

Some of these posts show why it is that many times when someone is on trial it is the "alleged crime" that is discussed and not the "crime" per se. Because Wild Bill is correct in pointing out the catch 22 of saying "something is not libel until proven in a court of law so you can't go to court because you do not know if it is libel". So for all the particularly precise people out there, we can say that the Liberals allegedly libeled Harper. However, Wild Bill I think you may be missing one of the points that was hidden within the post. If someone printed a libelous book, and then someone else repeated that libel on their website, why would you just sue the website people? As you said, it does not make sense that you would sue only the author of the book, because the people who ran the website also engaged in the alleged libelous behaviour. But it also does not make sense to only sue the website people since the author of the book also engaged in the libelous behaviour. So it does seem odd to only sue one of the two parties. Why not sue both? It doesn't make sense unless you are just playing games. It never looks good when a PM is suing someone. But suing the opposition party looks better than suing average joe citizen. If the alleged libel is not serious enough to sue everyone involved then I say stop playing stupid politics and wasting the court's time. Get on with actually governing the country. The parties do not have to agree on every policy, but they should be working together and at least be civil towards one another. They shouldn't be bringing useless lawsuits in an effort to score political points.