Visionseeker

Number 3 due in March. Guess we're liberalizing the country. Having a blast doing so too.

Love how Stein minimizes the idea that 2 kids under 14 die each day from a gun in the US. I’m even more impressed how his crunching would have us believe that of the 10 a day fatalities of 15 - 19 year olds, they're all on crack. None are Jane Crebas or Anastasia de Sousas. Regardless, the gun violence amongst youth both here and the US is largely driven by disaffection and marginalization. We like to simplify it and call it gang violence. Like some deterministic design that exists so that we may have the benefit of fighting an ever- resilient evil. Well, I suppose we are half-right. There are ever-resilient evils in our midst that precipitates much of this violence; some call them racism and prohibition. But that’s another topic. Let’s turn our attention to Khadr, or Master Khadr as our friend Stein opines in consideration that he was 15 when he killed Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer. Khadr didn’t just decide to toss a grenade on that fateful day; he was groomed to do so almost from the time he was born. Most here should be somewhat aware of his father's exploits and should consider that Omar was in terrorist training camps from the age of 7. Now I ask you, if Omar were a white boy trained by his reclusive white supremacist parents to fight the government from the age of 7, and then subsequently killed an ATF agent during a raid on their compound when he was 15, would we vilify him so? Ah, if you don’t see my logic, maybe Dan Gardner can succeed where I failed.

The Liberals do not want an election before 2008. They need a new calendar year to draw enough finances to meet the election spending maximum. They are also waiting to see if the Commissioner of Elections Canada refers the Conservatives election advertising spending to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Lastly, they know that each initiative Harper releases will either alienate his base or shorten the tent. The worst thing to have at election time is a divisive record to run on. As for the Conservatives, it will be interesting to see what they dish-out with the Speech from the Throne. I have my suspicions, but I sure as Hell hope there are no hints of Constitutional overtures - the country simply wouldn't survive it.

Nail, Head, BANG! You have keyed-in on precisely what we can expect from the US economy in the short-to-medium run. The CDN$ is in a petro currency cycle that will only further feed a growing gap between currencies. Some say a 1.05 loonie is within the realm of possibilities, I say 1.10 is too. Each decline of the greenback raises the price of oil, which in turn raises the loonie, which in turn increases the cost of commodities, and then the cycle begins anew. The Fed can't continue to fight liquidity when doing so keeps weakening the greenback, eventually, they'll have to step back and just let things reset.

Ah no, that is not a fair representation of what I wrote by any stretch. I pointed-out that Libertarianism is often mislabeled as "personal choice and responsibility" and that those who exhibit libertarian tendencies "almost uniformly come from comfortable-to-affluent material backgrounds" which means they start-out that way. Well, I think you've digressed from my post even further here, but I'll play: Without obvious effort, one can hardly expect results; with hard effort alone, one cannot expect obvious results; yet with both hard effort and opportunity, results tend to be obvious. Tell me about it. Most of my university clan had school, board and entertainment suitably subsidized by their parental units. I on the other hand, had to resort to more menial sources of finance and state-sponsored student loans that I took 10 years to pay-off. So I wonder, why are their degrees' just as valid/valuable as mine? How very binary and therefore false. While it is certainly true that the capitalist model carries within it the motivation to pursue and gather wealth, it is also true that it tends to creates substantial numbers of economically dispossessed who if simply left to fall through the cracks will eventually turn against the model altogether. People who speak of the "left" and capitalists as mutually exclusive are really a curious bunch who seem to invite self-immolation. For without the influence of the left to counter unfettered capitalism, the law of the lowest common denominator would prevail and the system would self-destruct in short order. Welfare and other social programs are part hand-up initiatives and part pacification programs (social sedatives) which serve to keep most of capitalisms victims from becoming so miserable that they opt to take out the system. Now one can rightfully argue about the relative generosity of such programs, but when doing so it is important to keep in mind that diminishing investment on the social equity file tends to dramatically increase costs on the justice and corrections files soon after. It's all a matter of the balance that society is willing to accept. Well, it would seem that the voluntary system of the 1900s just didn't work (for one, people didn't give enough during the best of times and such a model was far too susceptible to recessionary factors for it to kick-in when it was most needed. See: Great Depression) and so a "compulsorily" system was devised to fill the need.

Well, your having "no issue with people assisting their neighbours" is not the same as stating that you, as a Libertarian, have no compunctions about doing so yourself; ergo, that's their problem, not yours. It is more proper to speak of economic Conservatives being "against the State coercively taking our money and giving it to someone else" as it is economic conservatism that speaks against the redistribution of wealth. True Libertarians are opposed to state interference in all its forms because they are opposed the "tyranny of the state." It is a mistake to confuse "freedom of choice" with libertarianism, for freedom of choice is really a centrist philosophy (i.e. the mid-point between the Libertarian-Authoritarian spectrum). In a true Libertarian's view, cars represent an extension of state intrusion because they are only practical where a state exists with the capability to build and maintain roads and thereafter police their use. I don't understand what you mean by "It is the most rational political ideology in that it's not hypocritical of itself." Perhaps you might expand? There's a big difference between a Libertarian and someone with libertarian tendencies. A true far "right-wing" libertarian believes in no law (imposed order) and adheres to the "law of the stronger". The right of possession is both gained and defended by force and no legitimate arbiter shall exist to interfere with this natural state. A true far "left-wing" libertarian also believes in the absence of imposed order and adheres to the principle of "inherent goodness". The right of possession exists only in the satisfaction of immediate utilitarian needs (i.e. taking only what you need). There are some tribal communities throughout the world who continue to practice variants this belief system. A true "centrist" libertarian believes that order can be achieved through the tacit or conventional consent of the commune. The "right" of possession exists as is a privilege recognized by the commune as belonging to all who keep to communal values. Somehow I don't think you would claim to belong to any of these. Now the above is a pretty good example of libertarian tendencies. But I suspect that you haven't thought it all through. If the state is to stay out of the marriage business altogether, does it not stand to reason that it cannot preside over divorce? How then can one reconcile the division of assets let alone the right of claim? Who ensures an "equitable" custody arrangement? And what of any enduring financial obligations? Or are you simply saying that the parties simply go their separate ways and that's that? My point with respect to the SSM example is that most people who call themselves libertarians are actually economic conservatives who use a libertarian tract to defend their opposition to the redistribution of wealth within society. As their conservatism is not necessarily socially motivated, they can often appear at odds with more authoritarian-leaning conservatives and thereby seem libertarian by way of comparison. I think you meant to place economic conservatism with social liberalism as this would seem consistent with your argument above. Based on what you've revealed above, I have no doubt that you possess libertarian tendencies; some of which maybe motivated by self-interest and others perhaps more altruistic. But I harbour strong doubts that you are so far from the middle ground to be called a Libertarian.

Hammer, nail, head, BANG!

LOL!

Yes, if only men could start having them, that would be more fair wouldn't it?

Libertarianism is often simplified as, as you say “personal choice and responsibility”, but in reality libertarianism is the philosophy of the self-absorb hermit. A true libertarian rejects intervention in any form, including the idea of rendering aid to a neighbour or friend. For the true libertarian holds that “that’s your problem, not mine.” Libertarians, and not conservatives, are the advocates of social Darwinism. Those who exhibit libertarian tendencies are not really libertarians. They are individuals who almost uniformly come from comfortable-to-affluent material backgrounds and possess “right-wing” sympathies born from a predisposition to resist change. But their loyalty to the “conservative” playbook is tenuous in that the pseudo-libertarian tend to acquiesce to progressive initiatives if they consider such outcomes as inevitable (i.e. gay marriage). Those with libertarian tendencies are apt to be disproportionately represented in the group of undecided in political polls. In the US, they call them independent voters.

Ah yes, the self-hating line. Most commonly used to deride Israelis or Jews who criticize the occupation and settlement of Palestinian lands, mikedavid now introduces this puerile label to a discussion about multiculturalism. Why you may ask? Because he is finding it increasingly difficult to intellectually support his position.

Indeed, and properly exportable to boot: In Vietnam India and Europe "In Europe, the Terry Fox Run is run in Italy, England, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Finland, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Germany." To name but a few.

Huh, I must say I am impressed with Mayrand. He’s standing up to the plate and performing his duties with distinction. After seeing some of his testimony, I’m left with no doubt that his is the solid position. One cannot say that veiled women must prove their identity by lifting their veils while the same electoral system allows people to vote quite unidentifiably through the mail. The PM would be best to just let the matter drop (unless he’s also willing to scrap voting by mail), for his is the losing argument here.

Possible libertarian tendencies.

I have no doubt that they mostly die for each other no matter where they are. But their families are condemned by time and displacement to perform deeper analyses.

Happy New Year JBG. To you, your family and especially your son. May each day bring him greater victories, for surely G-d will look kindly upon him among the troop.

Life is unfair. For if it were fair, humanity would have no need for a system of justice, children’s aid societies would be without clients, and a military would be an abomination. That life is unfair, replete with injustice and horror is the underlying motivator for all of society’s institutional constructs. From the most basic tribal society to more elaborate constructs of nation states, the desire for order and security is behind all of its rules and conventions. Where they differ is how they define order and relative tolerance to insecurity. In “western” societies, one finds civilizations that have built an immense variety of institutionalized mechanisms and conventions that are designed to influence the relative order and security enjoyed by its inhabitants. From mandatory helmet laws to statutes prohibiting regicide, from financial regulators to by-law enforcement, each measure represents a curtailment of freedom in the name of public order (or more commonly held, in the “public good”). But our penchant for intervention doesn’t end there. It expands into realms that intrude into our ostensibly private lives in the form of gun registries and proscribes employment quotas in our places of work. If there is one thing that civilization has proven itself adept, it is in the formulation of rules. Now this thread framed the question in terms of the right advancing that we should all accept that life is unfair and that the left stand in opposition to this premise. I say it is all hogwash! Both the left and the right accept that life is unfair, they simply differ as to which injustices are to be met and/or the methods for doing so. An adherent on the “right” is prone to demand intervention by children’s aid when a mother, immersed in poverty, is having difficulties providing for her child; while someone on the “left” would argue that the state should intervene through better welfare benefits. Both recognize that something unfair is occurring (a child is suffering) and both demand that the state intervene, the only difference is how such intervention should proceed. I surround left and right with quotes above because it is actually wrong to look at this from a left-right perspective. What is more meaningful is to recognize that one advances punishment while the other appeals for compassion. Framing the issue as a right-left dichotomy serves only to compel us to dogmatically follow what the right-left playbook says, regardless of the circumstances. As I reject the validity of dogma, I must reject such dichotomies. For dogmatic battles produce either inertia or victims, neither of which advances the public good.

Lets start with no putting words in my mouth. After all, the longest journey begins with one step. I'd invite you to reread it. Carefully and slowly. For that post is his response to my specific question as to whether or not O'Connor is tied to Lockheed. Nice. Use the quote out of sequence. Must be a new form of dislexia. Uh, jdoddin supplied the evidence that Lockheed was not a former client of O'Connor's IN POST #4. I invite you to read and reread it until that basic fact sinks in. You utterly failed to read the article in the posted link, one that actually supports your cause as it were, and instead fixate as to the reliability of the source. Then go flailing about to try to cover-up your intellectual bankruptcy by pointing to the very post that defeats your own argument. If you want to go about defending the conservatives, I suggest you try Treehouse so that you can work at your level.

How is he linked to My Lai? As I said before, a piss-poor job. What an awful way to frame it. But yes, the KIAs in Afghanistan die for a reason; those killed in Iraq died for a lie.

How the hell should I know? Uh, I'll take blatant non-sequitors for $300 Alex. Demonizing!? Geesus on crutches I haven't the foggiest what your viewpoint is. Do you? The link he supplied addressed (and clearly refuted) any question of O'Connor having a lobbying relationship with Lockheed. A concise and clear response to the question I had put to him. Don't put words into my mouth. The original article clearly raised questions about procurement (or is CTV also an unreliable source to you?) and my question was whether or not O'Connor had previous ties to Lockheed. In response I was given a link to an item from John Gray that clearly indicated that O'Connor was in no way linked. Meanwhile, you go off on a rant about the supposed unreliability of the source without even reading the piece. If there's anything that should be discounted in this thread, it is your presumptive opinion.

I am aware that literacy is a growing problem in this country. But I'd always thought that this spoke to peoples' inabilities to read and not their refusal to do so.

The site notwithstanding, the piece is attributed to John Gray, former Ottawa bureau chief for the G&M and one of the least likely people to don foil on his head. The piece in question speaks to O'Connor's lobbying past and demonstrates quite clearly that there's no previous link to O'Connor and Lockheed. I frankly don't understand your reason to bluster.

Wow, that was quick.

This one has girlfriend written all over it. That the RCMP is claiming that he's probably hiding in the maritimes rather than suggesting that "Gomley may be travelling with a female companion" is odd.

I wonder, was Lockheed Martin one of O'Connor's clients in his lobbying days?