Wild Bill

You are setting up a straw man again. How do you know that was my choice? You know what they say about the word "assume". There's a simpler explanation. While I agree with your assessment of the present CPC party I don't take your claim of the NPD inheriting the Reformer mantle of policy from the party grassroots as gospel. Even more, if I accept it as truth that still isn't enough to overcome all the other differences between me and the NDP. Just because its the most populist party doesn't trump EVERYTHING else!

I love it when people don't even read their own links! It's just more proof of how some people are more religious than scientific with their thinking!

I don't know and I don't pretend to know! Just as I would never say that the population of Iran would automatically pull together and support the mullahs if someone attacked Iran. After all, western media has no problem being distributed within Iran. I've no doubt that the people there are well aware that if Iran is attacked it would be because of the actions of their religious government. At that point, do they still automatically support that government? They likely have other issues with their lack of freedoms, particularly with the younger demographic. They might well prefer to oust that government, removing the need for outside pressures and sanctions instantly and allowing more freedom within their own lives. Others keep making that statement of the Iranian people banding around their government. It's up to them to prove that premise, not me! Frankly, I don't think the premise has that much merit. I think it is just words to try to discourage outside attacks. The only people who would benefit would then be the mullahs.

Michael, it still all comes down to who actually decides? The people or someone else? Who says the people are wrong and that something is moral or right? Who do we trust to make such decisions? Judges? Who are appointed and not elected? Who are fallible men? I simply have more confidence in my fellow citizens as a whole than I do with some elitists.

Are you sure? At that time or forever? In the entire USA or just in a few cracker states? With all the riots and racial strife going on, do you think a majority would have voted to let it continue? Or do you believe that the majority of Americans at the time were evil and would rather have died than allow racial equality? How do you know if the majority at the time WANTED equal rights and the crackers were in the minority? If you have anything to prove your premise I'd be interested in seeing it.

Again, while I might personally disagree it would at least be democratic, assuming the new Law clearly came about as a result of a majority view of the people. Obviously, that can't be the case now or we would have the death penalty still on the books! There would be no polls showing so many people wanting it returned. With your examples Michael, this would be an example of the people learning from mistakes! Under our present system of non-populist elitism, they are not allowed to make such mistakes. Worse yet, since the Laws at times can represent the minority views of an elite they can make worse mistakes, such as the tyranny of Human Rights Commissions, where a citizen can be unfairly charged and given zero financial help for his defense while his accuser can lie with impunity and have his side fully funded! To me, these cases are as bad as executing an innocent man! If someone is unfairly charged, we don't hang him. We just destroy him financially and publicly so his life will never likely be positive again! I have enough faith in my fellow citizens to believe that if given the direct power they would never allow such inequities to have the force of law.

No, I would NOT consider that "right or ethical". I would consider it democratic! There's a big difference! First off, I consider your comparison so unlikely as to be almost impossible. Even Hitler kept his Final Solution largely secret even from the German people, who never got to vote on much of anything let alone gas chambers under Hitler's regime. It's much more likely that if the German people HAD a populist government at the time those gas chambers would never have been built! Clearly, it was a LACK of populism that let the minority view of Hitler's prevail! I think you are supporting MY argument here, CC! Even so, if Canada ever had a referendum or whatever to do such a terrible thing I would not oppose it as a matter of politics. I would just get a gun and take a stand myself! That being said, in such an extreme example such as yours I have no doubt that Canada would be making a mistake of horrendous proportions and would thus learn a horrendous lesson. Have you got any examples more geared to the real world?

Man, what a salesman! I really want to join your party now! Go on! Help punked out! Make me feel welcome! They should put you in charge of recruitment!

So I should join and sign up memberships? Bringing money and support to the party, I suppose. Reminds me of an old Goon Show record I've kept since the early 60's, where there was a radio show about an old Scot who had trained his dog to swim down to the wreck of a treasure ship in his local loch and bring some pieces of gold or whatever back to him. One day he comes up with a scheme to drain the loch and have access to all the treasure at once. Of course, that would mean the end of the dog's livelihood and the dog asks him "What will that mean?" "Well Laddiedog!" says the old Scot. "It means that I will be a very rich man, and you will have become a far better swimmer!" I think I'll pass!

That's irrelevant! "always right or ethical" is an OPINION! We are talking democracy here! The will of the majority must prevail! If it is to be decided that a minority view must hold over that of the majority, who can possibly make that decision? The answer is, ethically NO ONE can! In practice, what happens is some elite makes the decision! THEY decide that the majority of the people do NOT have the Law reflect their views! Now of course, when you happen to agree with the minority over-ruling something you see no problem. In fact, you likely see it as a positive thing! However, if the shoe was on the other foot you might feel quite differently. I believe in populism. The people have a right to have their government reflect their views and values, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE WRONG! In fact, maybe MOST when they are wrong! It is only through making mistakes that most of us ever learn to correct our approach. Deny someone the opportunity to make mistakes and you deny them the chance to ever learn. Who says the majority should be denied> Me? You? How about it should always be me! Wouldn't that make me some kind of dictator? If you think so, why would it be any different if YOU got YOUR way? I'm REALLY looking forward to your answer!

Yeah, I don't know how that glitched so badly! Still, you can see my list of core beliefs. Do you really think I could be comfortable in the NDP?

I saw Bob Rae govern and that was enough! I know, "But that was the OLD NDP!" you will cry! If they kept getting in, you would say "2 out of 3, no 3 out of 5, no! 5 out of 7!" And I never helped to shape the CPC, thank you! The PCs took it over and I bailed on the PCs nearly 25 years ago for being too leftwing. Why would I feel more comfortable with the NDP? I don't want to abolish the Senate. I want to increase Canada's military and strengthen our NATO ties. I don't believe in taxing the rich till there are no more (to crib from that old Ten Years After song). I don't believe in corporate welfare to save the jobs of workers who make more than I ever did and I don't believe that any government run service could ever come close to being an efficient vehicle for delivering services! Frankly, I think the CNIB could do a better job of delivering the mail than the present crown corporation! I don't believe in a minimum wage. or rent controls. While I don't mind carrying an OHIP card, I would love to see as many private clinics as possible, to force CUPE and all medical unions into a competitive situation with private industry to deliver health care services. I would allow any bar, club or restaurant that wishes to allow smoking, non-smoking or mixed, depending on whatever clientelle they wish to attract. While I would legalize all drugs, I would not support paying a nickel towards needle exchanges or clean shootup rooms. I would support rehab only. I favour capital punishment! I would have sent tanks into Caledonia and Oka! I would abolish the Indian Act and negotiate one-tie reparations. After that you would either be a Canadian or not, and only Canadians would be entitled to government aid and services. No abortion would be publicly funded, except as a result of rape or incest. Along with that, condoms would be free for everyone! Anyone working for a Human Rights Commission would be designated a public target and could be beaten or shot with impunity! Just how well would I fit with the NDP, punked? I admit I got a bit carried away with the last point but still, somehow I don't think I'd be a good match.

I saw Bob Rae govern and that was enough! I know, "But that was the OLD NDP!" you will cry! If they kept getting in, you would say "2 out of 3, no 3 out of 5, no! 5 out of 7!" And I never helped to shape the CPC, thank you! The PCs took it over and I bailed on the PCs nearly 25 years ago for being too leftwing. Why would I feel more comfortable with the NDP? I don't want to abolish the Senate. I want to increase Canada's military and strengthen our NATO ties. I don't believe in taxing the rich till there are no more (to crib from that old Ten Years After song). I don't believe in corporate welfare to save the jobs of workers who make more than I ever did and I don't believe that any government run service could ever come close to being an efficient vehicle for delivering services! Frankly, I think the CNIB could do a better job of delivering the mail than the present crown corporation! Just how well would I fit with the NDP, punked?

Hey, I can wait! I'm always more inclined to see actions rather than listen to rhetoric to decide about something.

No eyeball, but I grew up with Quadrophenia!

Interesting. Reform never stood for electoral reform! And they never wanted to abolish the Senate either, instead wanting a Senate that was Equal, Elected and Effective. So how does that make the NDP so attractive again?

So I should put you down in the "elitist" column?

Ah, so that's your game! I've said it many times, punked. I vote CPC only as the party that stinks the least to my nose! That being said, I could NEVER vote for the NDP unless they changed drastically! I could vote for a Tony Blair Labour type party. The federal NDP here in Canada is not even remotely close! If we were up to our asses in alligators and the task of the moment was to recover arms and legs that were chomped off, for hopeful re-attachment at the hospital, the federal NDP would be forming a committee to have alligators declared an endangered species. As for the Liberals, maybe if they paid back about 65 million of the dollars they stole with ADScam I might consider it. As I keep saying, I really have no other choices! So you can fan my dissatisfaction with the Tories all you want. Until the NDP becomes a BETTER choice to my eyes than they are now I will not even consider voting for them!

Most to gain? There is a technical term for that sort of thinking. It's "loser"! Who had the most to lose if or rather WHEN such a thing were to be exposed? Sorry, it still doesn't make sense to me. I would accept that if there was zero chance of discovery any politician might do such a thing. I just can't believe he would do it with so much to lose and so great a chance of discovery. Nobody gets so high up in any organization by being that stupid, no matter how much their rivals would want them to be! Meanwhile, if you want to talk about stupidity, how about being so focused on pinning crap on your opponents that you forget you are spilling some on a third party, such as Racknine, the folks with the dialing machine? Now they are talking a libel suit against the Liberals and NDP! To not see that coming as a direct result of the way they presented their case against the CPC was indeed stupid! They could have done so with no fear at all of any such libel suit! A high school law student could have done better! As for being a Reform member, it's true that I am not happy with the present CPC party. That being said, BS is BS from ANY party! The difference seems to be that some folks who support the NDP or the Liberals will believe ANYTHING bad against the Tories, no matter how far fetched! I would never believe that someone is an alien, reptilian kitten-eater just because he's in the political party that's not my personal choice. However, as far as many posters here on MLW I just can't say the same...

Certainly, I support an investigation! It's just that Rae and Martin really seem to be going over the top here! You make a reasonable argument for WHY the Tories might have deliberately done this dirty deed but it still leaves unanswered WHY they would do something with such a high risk of discovery and potential for incredible negative repercussions! It's like saying it's understandable why someone would steal a Corvette, when the Corvette is parked where there are lots of witnesses in a state where the penalty for car theft is hanging! The whole thing strikes me as just too simplistic! Harper and his boys are many things but blatantly stupid has never been one of them! Plus the fact that Rae and Martin have a vested interest in all the publicity they can achieve makes me deeply suspicious of their motives. One thing's for sure, if it all comes out to be a bunch of BS we won't hear any apologies from the Opposition!

Nope! I guess I wasn't clear. Let me try again. I'll agree that most Canadians ASSUME that Life means a life of incarceration, just from their understanding of the English language. However, in Canada a life sentence is NOT incarceration for life! As I posted before, it is actually incarceration for 25 years, which is then further reduced by many factors by an appreciable fraction. As for what I favour, I'm easy! I'd agree with capital punishment, as long as its only for those cases where the ruling was considered beyond any reasonable doubt. Not being an Islamic fundamentalist I would not support stoning someone to death just for being gay. So hang Paul Bernardo, but not Richard Simmons! (although I did have to think about if he deserved punishment for his choice of music!). I could also agree with a life sentence, as long as it actually meant the murderer was indeed incarcerated for the rest of his life. I think even a large percentage of capital punishment advocates might grudgingly accept the same idea, although being a populist I would want it to be put to some sort of referendum or at least, be a campaign issue. I just consider the present situation to be rather a scam and frankly, a sleazy one!

Care to take a try at MY points, punked? Or are my questions too awkward and don't serve the NDP's purpose?

As I posted already, in Canada we practise NEITHER option! We don't hang 'em and life is NOT life! I wonder Waldo, given the statistical math skills of many of the leftwing posters here on MLW use to claim a majority of Canadians support the opposition over the Tories, should I not be able to add that 50% and 38% and make the claim that 88% of Canadians want life to mean LIFE?

Well Shakey, some folks are ignoring some pretty basic premises here. First off there's the issue of the people getting the law that they want! I can understand how some would be against a majority opinion but I have never understood how they can expect their minority opinion to win out over the wishes of the majority. To me, this is simple elitism and frankly, I despise it, even when my views are those of the minority! Sadly, my views usually are, it seems! Second, I too am worried about a mistaken execution but these are not the days of Steven Truscott! Modern DNA forensics are such that there are times when proof of guilt is overwhelming. Just because capital punishment returns is no reason to expect it to be compulsory! It never really was! There is no reason not to reserve a capital sentence only for cases where guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt, as with a Paul Bernardo. So the idea of executing the wrong man is really a red herring used by those who don't want capital punishment period, in any way, shape or form! The idea that life in prison is somehow less humane seems also a red herring. It is a clumsy appeal to any "red neck" opposition, to try to make them think that life imprisonment is a harsher punishment, as if that would be the only reason why some wanted capital punishment in the first place! This is yet another area where the Law is in conflict with the wants and values of the majority of the country's citizens, for over half a century! I truly believe that this sort of thing only breeds disrespect for the Law and that is NOT a good thing! And you can't get respect back by scolding people to change their beliefs! Since clearly data shows that only a minority supports banning capital punishment, it is only logical that only a minority respects the Law in this matter! Finally, here in Canada when the choice is to have life imprisonment or capital punishment it seems we do neither! We issue life sentences, but they are never consecutive. As has been said many times, for a murderer in Canada only the first one costs. Any more are free! When we issue a life sentence, it actually is only 25 years. What's more, we come up with all sorts of ways to shorten that sentence! Time served awaiting trial (at double time!), time off for good behavior, mandatory two thirds served parole - it's hard to see how all this is harsher than capital punishment! Of course, we do insert a clause or two to make sure that a truly dangerous wacko will never be released, under the definition of a dangerous offender. That sounds nice to those of us worried about a wacko sitting beside us on a bus who wants to chop off our heads but it tells a whole different story to the family and loved ones of a victim who's murderer is NOT declared a dangerous offender and is given early release! This is one of those issues that politicians hate, either because the majority view conflicts with their own or the majority does not represent a clear voting bloc that would help them next election. They would much rather ignore it, with no party bringing it up during a campaign so no voter gets any electoral choice in the matter. Still, a conflict between the will of the people and the Law of the land will never disappear. It will just fester for years, until the boil comes to a head and needs to be lanced!

You know CC, something puzzles me here. I can understand one or maybe a few Tory idiots doing something like this, especially at the riding worker level, without the candidate necessarily knowing. I don't think it's likely but hey, it's politics! Look at that stinker Rahim Jaffer. What I can't understand is why the Tories would have done this as a high level policy! They were going to win anyway! Has everybody forgotten the situation during the last election? The Liberal support was in free fall! The Tories were polling high all over the place! True, the NDP surge was far higher than most pollsters were predicting but to hear Rae and Martin tell it, the only reason they lost ANY seats was because of dirty tricks sanctioned straight from Harper's office! If this scandal is as true, deep and widespread as Rae and Martin are painting it then I just can't for the life of me see why the Tories bothered! Nothing is as insecure as a political secret. They would have known that eventually it would come back to haunt them! I could understand the Liberals having done it as a desperation move to try to keep enough seats to survive but why on earth would the Tories have felt the need to do so? Considering the consequences when the truth came out? Now I know that some posters here would simply tell us that Tories do such things simply because they are evil and take fiendish delight in such tricks but you have always been a bit more sensible. Do you really think this scandal has legs? Is it as bad as Rae and Martin are painting? Is there truly sound logic behind such a premise?