takeanumber

What's your point? I'm supposed to feel sorry for the neo-Nazis?

Say that you say it is hate speech. That's one of the problems with definitions, they can be greyed. That's one of the reasons why it's so anti-liberal to be a proponent of them. In fact, often, hate crime legislation is turned against the very people it's meant to protect. But I can't support the distribution of neo-Nazi material. I just can't do it. I won't stand up and defend that. So yeh, I support anti-hate legislation so long as it's used as it's intended. There's no guarantee of it being so. That makes me an anti-liberal. I'll admit it. But I won't change my opinion to suit neo-Nazis. I won't do it. As to your point about different versions of history. Alright. But we only have one version with respect to the Holocaust. It happened.

What I was saying there was: I havn't called you a holocaust denier. As for your excellent reply to the responsibility of freedom and the caustics to society: Great job Argus on the use of the 'slipery slope' boiler plate. Seriously. And it's why I'm have that anti-liberal streak in me. To prevent myself from falling down that slippery slope, I restrict my anti-liberalism to questions of Holocaust denial and hate speech. I control my anti-liberalism by restricting it to those two boxes, and prevent a slide into authoritarianism. I can understand why you'd fight for your right to complete, unfettered free speech (possibly including slander), for the principle. I'll give you, sir Argus, the benefit of the doubt. That you're arguing on the principle, and not because you want the right to inflict harm upon minority communities. Just be aware that when you make arguements like that, you risk being confused for those who want the right to deny the holocaust and the right to hate speech because they want to inflict harm. Alright, so are you fine with my explanation? You don't have to say that you agree with the stand, just that the explanation has signs of soundness and completeness.

I'm a supporter of freedom of speech, like a true liberal. I have a nasty, anti-liberal streak in me when it comes to Holocaust denial, and come to think of it, general hate crimes (distribution of hate pamplets). So yeh. But when it comes to other things, like critisizing affirmative action programs, I'm alright with that. It's not hate speech, and it's not holocaust denial. My whole thing is the single version of history and the relative caustic effects of hatred to society in general. And I'm not saying that anything that comes out of Argus', or AF's mouth that I disagree with should be sent to prison. I don't think I ever implied it. This whole attempt to paint me as a Leftist Stalin or a Socialist Lenin is starting to get pretty fun though, so if the personal attacks arn't going to stop, could you try to go more in that direction more often, because it's pretty fun to read and easier to dismiss. Thx.

Too early to say. I know that every time one of Harpers old guard says what they're really thinking/feeling, mainstream Canadians get suspicious. I think the debates are going to matter. I think many Canadians are mad with the Liberals, and now they're starting to look at the alternatives.

You support the freedom to deny the holocaust. I have yet to read that you deny the holocaust. I don't believe that I called you a holocaust denier. If I did, I don't remember, and if I did, I'm sorry for it. But I seriously don't remember calling you a holocaust denier. The freedom to be able to deny the Holocaust will, hopefully, like the freedom to streak, freedom to expose ones genetals, and the freedom to tape swastikas on synagogue doors, that you will never be allowed to do legally. Most freedoms have limits attached. This is one such limit that I support. I feel absolutely aweful for having such an anti-liberal view of it, but I just can't swallow it. I don't know why. Maybe I had a few problems with neo-nazis when I was growing up? --------------------------- Alright, Harper didn't even set any money aside exclusively for any of that equipment. To argue that since government doesn't know the cost of anything means that a government can't 'cost' anything is inacurate. True, the excercise of costing is difficult. Yet, many future services are costed. So, I'll repeat myself: Because Harper didn't cost out any of that equipment, he's not serious about buying it. It's not a major priority. Otherwise, it would have been costed. It's the same game the Liberals play. Make a commitment, don't mention a dollar figure, and that way, you can always point to the other things that you did when you're called on why you broke your past commitments.

I'm not going to type what I want to. Instead, I'll reply: Sure, so long as she confesses that she's a heather and his child is a bastard, and is otherwise 'preyed' upon by having their believes shoved on her. I think if men don't want a kid, they shouldn't be running the risk, (even with a condom). I can't believe that people are still screwing without a condom. (See: the Maury show) Not mandatory councilling. No way. She doesn't need to be humiliated by some anti-choice person. (And that's a real possibility.) It's her choice. If she wants councilling, she should get it, for free. If she doesn't want it, back off.

Alliance Finatic wrote: Let's go through it one piece at a time: Not sure if I do hate either. I strongly disagree with the far right and the extreme left. I never said that I hate anybody who doesn't believe in my opinion. I shout holocaust denier at anybody who denies the holocaust. I say that those who say that holocaust denial should be permissable are new anti-Liberals. (And I'm indeed a new anti-Liberal on that point. I fully confess that. I just can't stomach the thought that we should allow something like Holocaust denial to be even spoken. It's aweful, but I just can't do it. I have many liberal (small 'l') bones in my body, but every time I put that thought in my mouth, my jaw just won't clamp around it. I gag. RCMP quotas are anti-Liberal. I don't see how RCMP quotas are linked to Holocaust denial. You can be against one and for the other, and vice versa. I am part of the Echo generation. It's okay to leave the quotations off it. Does that put me on a higher pedastal? Nah. Afghanistan. Crime rates are down. Sexual assault figures are probably on the rise. As for the 2/3 of women being raped, it's interesting you should mention that, in light of the Judge scandal in Prince George (and the disgusting actions of the Crown and sluggishness of the police.) I wonder who's doing the bulk of the assaulting. See: 1960s See: 1970s See: 1980s See: 1990s See: 2000s Jaundiced view? Again, I've stopped making blankes assumptions about all Conservatives because I met somebody who is a counter-example. If you want to carry on the tract of general attacks, have fun. That said: On Harpers Moderate Image: It's just that. An image. If anybody is familiar with the Calgary school of Conservative Thought on the SCC, they should give the briefing.

Ugh. I don't know where to begin. See: Native American wars. See: Civil War See: American 'opening' of Japan. (1855) See: American take over Philipines (1898?) See: American imperial rape of China. (1880-1941). See: WWII. (Atomic bombs spring to mind.) (1945) See: CIA involvement in Honduras. See: Korean War (World War III, as it should be balled.) See: CIA involvement in Angola. See: CIA involvement in Uganda. See: Vietnam War. See: First Gulf War See: Second Gulf War See: LA Riots See: American equivalent of soccer hooliganism. Anyway, it's evidence that the US is at least on par with European imperialism during the 1700's to 1945. History since 1955 would suggest the US is more violent. I'm not going to make that assertion though. I offer the points above as fodder for a counter-arguement, and to point out that the US isn't exactly peace loving, that's all. Battle of the Atlantic was important. US contribution to Chinese front somewhat important. The US contribution was huge, as was the Canadian. It wasn't really imperialism. I think there'd be some European men who would return the favour, especially for Canada. There'd be a lot of men who wouldn't, just as there were a lot of Quebecois who wouldn't go over during WWI and WWII. So you know, it works both ways. There'd be a few who would, for sure. August gets points for being forthright. Great points.

In a nutshell, 'seperate but equal' is not acceptable according to the SCC. I just deleted a detailed explanation, if I'm challenged on that point, I can call up the relevant quotes from M v. H., Vriend, and that first one about the pensions, with the delightful passage by Heureux-Dube in the dissenting. Anyway...Harper wants to unmarry people. He should come out and say it. He wants to reinstate the old status quo, and in so doing, make null the marriage liscenses issued by BC, Quebec, and Ontario. As for Martin, for a man who shifted to the right to satisfy the pseudo-Liberal crypto-Conservative supporters, he certainly is shifting back to the social left quite quickly on this issue...realizing that his old position (the pseudo-Liberal one) coincides with Harpers, he moves back. Shame on Martin for thinking we wouldn't notice his about face. Talk about a waffler. Starting to sound like Harper on Iraq. Eh, Leggo my Eggo.

The rural areas are really overrepresented, and I've written multiple papers on how to tackle the problem, you know, rural communities have needs when it comes to representation because of geography; but at the same time, there is this liberal (small l) idea of one person, one vote...equal voting parity for all; which I know sounds really, really offensive to people in PEI and rural Alberta, but it's true. George Brown (Reform Party, 1850's and 1860's) wanted there to be one person, one vote, that was the entire point of the whole federation idea from his point of view (confederation was really put together by different people for different reasons, like Tupper, who had been lusting after more allies across the istmus in New Brunswick, etc) anyway. Equal voting parity CAN be achieved, and not through something caustic like pure PR, or some mixed PR demon child from Germany . Whatever: I think rural issues are being drowned out by the constant whining from the farm; and the fact that since it's a 'family' business, it's exempt from market forces. Low prices, soaring fertilizer costs, drought, soaring gas prices, drought, BSE, soaring gas prices, drought. Staggering from one disaster to another, always asking for more money, constantly asking for more money...more money, more money. And you know, I'm sure some urban Canadians are tired of it just as many rural voters are tired of being ignored. They may be grossly overrepresented, but they still feel cheated if they only get 3 billion. Or only get 5 billion. Anyway. Rural issues, aside from the gun registry (for which there is a better, cheapter, potentially new anti-liberal solution for which I favour) are issues for this election.

I'd agree with August. But meh. There are other priorities. The thing with things not being costed is that they become easy to ignore. A 'commitment' or 'intention' is meaningless if there's no actual money costed out for the plan. Otherwise, other priorities, which also have not been costed, can easily take precendence, and the announced policy during the an election becomes nothing more than an announced policy.

Chincy on the sample size. I prefer 2600 for a country like Canada. More reliable results. The 1000 makes me wince. If we believe the poll, I'd say Martin needed to stop the hemoraging on Monday.

I don't think you can turn your head and cough on the Island without somebody gossipping about you. To drive to Moncton to get an abortion is no biggie. It's literally a drive over the bridge and then a quick hour drive, either taking the Acadian coastal route or taking the trans can to the 1 and then up. You know, it kind of brings up the whole issue of rural healthcare. The country side is really going to get gray soon, and I mean, it's just gonna be hard to service them. I mean, forget being a woman needing an abortion, what about driving for hours to get a hip done? Anyway, nobody wants to talk about something as mundane as 'rural healthcare' because it's an issue to be reserved for 2015 when we all say, "why didn't we plan for this". Meh.

Alright idealist. I'll concede the 3 billion, and that I got confused between the original 5 and the new 3. The original 5 was being screamed a lot. Anyway. Take 3 billion, add 5 years (2006 minimum), I think it'll end up being 5 billion in the end, maybe? Demand for gear is up. who knows. I said it was 5 back then, but I said it would cost 5 now, so whatever. I'm wrong. But I didn't just pull the number out of the air. So, it's not costed. The new boats. Not costed. Heavy lifters. Not costed. New tanks. Not costed. From here on out I'd have to pull numbers out of the air. Heavy lift aircraft....how many? They're expensive. New tanks. Relatively cheap for the chassey. The gear inside is expensive. The Boats, as I mentioned, if we go Korean, their shipbuilding industry is really subsidzed, so we could get a good deal. Beats me. It's not costed. And there are always going to be bigger priorities for a Harper government. Neverending farming bailouts, which will much fatter under Harper, for instance. Votes or airplanes? I think Harper would pick votes.

Superior points idealist. Alright, if we accept that parties shouldn't have a monopoly on the public discussion. But that corporate money, and the rich in general, can monopolize public discussion. And then we accept the premise that NGO's should be able to speak on behalf of the interests we like the most (ie. we put our money where our mouths are.), then I gotta side with 'equalization'. I mean, if Alberta is soooo rich, we don't tell Alberta "No, you can't make any more money, you're making Nova Scotia look cheap!", we equalize the money, and that way everybody gets equal opportunities. Now, if you're generally against social mobility and equality in general, then you're just not going to like the idea of equalization. It smacks of US style liberalism, and you'd be right. So feel free to attack equalization of opportunity, I understand the critiques and I'll never be able to change the mindset of an entitled persons' mind. Anyway, how do you achieve equalization? If you're a third party involved in the election, you gotta register, and if you're spending more than a certain amount, prepare to be taxed, with the taxes being transfered directly to the under-caps. That's one way. It's not pretty, but at least it's transparent. the real terror are the photocopied sheets of paper mysteriously being distributed the night before election day. Even the relative poor can put 100 photocopies together (25 dollars roughly, maybe a bit more). Maybe more.

I recall the number distinctly from the 2001 debate because Rob Anders was yapping and Herb was replying. I remember a 500 million dollar cancellation fee, from the original Eurocopter contract. I remember distinctly that the investigation into the Mulroney dealings were well over. And I recall the total price tag of 5 billion was being bandied about, by the Alliance as being 'too high', and by Gray as being a great deal for Canadians. The line was, "Mr. Speaker, we want to get the best helicopters, with the best equipment, for the best possible value for Canadians, and that's exactly what we're going to do Mr. Speaker." And like Herb Gray, this gets repeated, over and over again, with those little remarks at the end, you know with that evil little finger pointed out towards the opposition. So yeh, I remember the 5 Billion dollar price tag. It fell through though, because he got the sack. I think they wanted more than just 22 Sea Kings though, because of their expanded role with the whole integration with the US army that was going on. I can't remember for the life of me who was the other bidder though...because there were accusations that Herb was chuggling the contract against so-and-so in favour of so-and-so.

Moncton services most of the North East shore, which is the poorest. Might explain the high incidence of abortions. I didn't know Moncton Hospital was doing abortions. Impressive. But Odd.

Herb Gray = 2001. Eurocopter Consortium. If they're out of business now, they're out of business. But I remember the debate distinctly. Herb Gray was about to open up the tenders to Eurocopter again after they had previously cancelled the last time. If I've misread, I've misread. The Labs need to be retrofitted with up to date technology is what I read. The Alliance defense critic (Rob Anders) insisted. Plus they're saying that need more. The modified frigates? Harper said he wanted two more. Those cost money. I'm not so sure if they'll be made out of Quebec or Saint John. He might go lowest bidder and get Korea to build them.

Once again, what is it with you and attacking people instead of the arguement? I thought you were doing quite well there until you messed it up with a snide personal attack. For shame. Where did I get the 5 billion number? I got it from Herb Gray's attempts to close the deal with Eurocopter prior to his uncermonious sacking at the hands of Chretien when he shuffled him out in favour of John Manley. The number was NOT pulled out of my ass. Why is the number so high? Because these were to be multiple use vehicles, capable of the heavy lifting required for field ops, and to complement coast guard support. (Debates, Issue 54). The Alliance countered that the proposal from Eurocopter was woefully inadequate, because the proposed replacements did not have the range needed. You have to remember, they're replacing the Atlantic coast guard fleet, and the Pacific coast guard fleet, AND, the artic support copters. (Not to mention the Anti-Submarine role of the Sea King that needs to be replaced, which is one of Canada's principle duties when it gets intergrated with the US navy. (Current contribution to the war on terror in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Plus Harper has to buy more copters to put on those modified frigrates. I know the standard response to facts is another personal insult, so bring it on. Regards, Takeanumber.

An Old Anti-liberal is an old defender of inequality. Think: the ppl who used to beat on Jews in Toronto up until 1950. (And then, think of the fringe who continued to do it up until, well, the current day.). Old Anti-liberals are like that. A defender of negative inequality. A new-Anti-liberal is a defender of new inequality. Things like, discriminatory hiring practices...hiring people based solely on the color of their skin with disregard to equality. Ah, defenders of quota systems. Ah, defenders of a policy that defeats equality in the name of equality. Like.... The SCC, by gagging the rich, they're taking away their freedom to even responsible speech. That to me is a defence of this new inequality, that political parties should be the only actors during an election, to the exclusion to all others. An old-Anti liberal might argue that the SCC is totally wrong for their decision, but for the inequal reason. One such person might argue that if you have money, you must be virtuous, and you thus have the right to dominate society. You know, 'Torie' logic from the 1850's. (? That logic wouldn't still exist today, would it?) The liberal position would be to defend the rich's right to free speech, but to equalize the gap through subsidy or other forms of equalization. Balance the scales in a manner that is 'equal', instead of doing so in a way that is inequal. I know it's nuanced; and any nuanced arguement is attacked by those who don't 'get it' as being socialist or whatever names they can hurl (attack the person, and not the arguement). But there it is.

Yeh, it's a legislative void. So I'll just outline the absurdity of New Brunswick social policy on this front. The thing that irks me about New Brunswick though is that if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, especially if she's younger (16-20), there's really no support at all for her if she goes through with it. So it's kinda this conservative double standard, you know what I mean? We don't want you having an abortion, but agree that it's your right, but as a province, we're not going to enable you to do it, so, if you're having that kid, but don't expect us to help you out or anything, because you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place, so you're screwed. It just seems to be inconsistant social policy. Some conservatives (note the small c), don't want to pay for other people's kids. But they don't want them to have abortions (and let's face it, condoms and birthcontrol CAN fail.) So then, they'll argue abstinence. So in a way, the poverty imposed on the mother and the kid (because the man typically runs away), is a punishment for her, because conservatives want to send a message about abstinence, in effect saying, "if you're a harlott, you're going to get screwed". So the kid should suffer too, which makes sense, especially from a fundamentalist Christian point of view, because the Kid is a bastard, and is thus, astigmatized as such. So the kid is clearly guilty too, for his mothers offence, and deserves to grow up in poverty. And seriously, that's what happens in New Brunswick, a jurisdiction where a Liberal isn't a liberal, and a Conservative isn't a conservative. Now I know that this line of logic is incorrect, because I'm the one pointing out how 'they' tend to think on the issue. So, no conclusion. I have my take on it. They can have theirs. It won't stop me from pointing out their faults.

I'm not so sure about this arguement. I think there are like, a set of procedures that you do have to provide, like, you know, emergency surgury and so on. I know they can delist things like cosmetic things, and even certain joint surgeries, but yeh. Not so sure.

Exactly. International law is a lot like American domestic law: if you're rich (ie powerful), you can buy your innocence, but there's the rub. Everybody knows OJ did it. Everybody knows the US did it. They've squandered their greatest weapon: moral superiority.

The Liberals favour the status quo: shame on them. The Conservatives favour a regression: shame on them. Shame on both of them.