Shwa

You see? I predicted the future. No facts, no debate, the same irrelvant talking points are trotted out at every turn. Same old story. Did you know that crime costs us all 47 billion dollars, maybe even 100 billion when you factor in other things and perhaps even a trillion when other values are added? And so on and so on, ad nauseum. Never mind explaining how that is relevant or how that will possible change, just parrot the talking point. Watch the intellectuals howl. Sheesh.

See how easy it is? You provide us your expertise in the esteemed area of guitar amp repair and some pc board sales back in the day as some sort of authority on modern regional power systems. You know, because the physics of them all are so similar. On some abstract level. You probably have the ability to digest the technical material in such a way as to provide a layman's explanation in an informative way, but you appear to be too lazy. I dunno, maybe you are trying to be folksy or something? At any rate, being on your ignore list is no matter to me. I still get to respond to your easy pickins.

LOL! Why would I cite in support of your false dichotomy? That is your quote dude. You haven't proven that the CBC is either. If you would take a few minutes out of your busy life and find out what the actual mandate of the CBC is, you likely wouldn't foolishly post such patently false dichotomies and might gain enough of an understanding for an informative debate. Seriously, all it takes is a few minutes. Here, let me help you out: CBC Corporate Wesbite

Nope. And to be precise, the quote was this: "majority of the citizens...Canada ... have come to rely on big government for survival" Unless you are willing to equate employment and survival, which is absurd. Special interests, regulations, dependencies... pfft. MLW is full of abandoned and dead threads on the subject of alternatives and this appears to be headed in that direction, more so since it is premised on something that simply is not true.

It is really easy to debate someone who uses personal anecdote as their main form of evidence. But you've been told this before and not just by me. So there is no ad hominem going on here sport, I am just attacking your "evidence" and you are taking it personally.

False premise. Conclusion from a false premise, so no, you're wrong.

Noooooo. Well then I guess we can truly correlate guitar amps and regional power systems after all because their innovative tracks, at the highest philosophical level, are just that similar. Thanks for clearing that up Capricorn, I feel better already.

Other than huckstering for a blog visit, please demonstrate how "a majority" has depended on government for "survival." Oh wait, I see, another false premise.

I rest my case about your qualifications. "His schemes," like he is a dictator with no expertise from industry consultants and advisors. They have bibliographies. You have notes from tinkering. So we have gone from the garage to the box store spacial construct have we? Good for you. Now keep going... Is has everything to do with forward looking innovation which would explain your comfort in fixing up old stuff.

You simply excuse anything the protesters McHale did. You'd champion Charles Eng if he were a white supremacist. If the shoe fits...

7 days = 6,000 years. Canada's contribution to the UN = $400 billion. It's the New Math.

Do you have some evidence to cite that the CBC is supposed to be a "neutral Crown Corporation?" For example, who is to say that your anecdote isn't based on some sort of temporary contingency for one purpose or another? Nah, forget the latter question. I'd be satisfied if you can simply answer the former.

A crime debate without facts or arguments Good article by Gardner, who hopefully has a little knowledge on the topic, or would seem to have. What is interesting is his take on the modern conservative tactic to subvert evidence in favour of political gain. What is interesting is to see how this party political method has played out among conservative supporters, as evidenced by some of the commentary right here on MLW. That they can only assert, but lack the evidence to engage.

So, in effect, what you are saying is that your opinion is based on a gut feeling and has no basis in the real world. Oh, other than debates on forums. LOL.

Right. How could anyone forget your eminent qualifications? Because everyone equates the expertise gained by noodling around with Radio Shack parts in your garage as being qualified to evaluate regional power systems.

You hope he'll be "civil" yet you invoke Charles Ng and suggest that CR would find something defensible about his acts because of his race. Right. Good one Wild Bill. A pitiful attempt at trying to avoid Godwin's Law. The content might be different, but the stink is just the same. Completely pathetic.

Right, because, you know, it's the Liberals fault, even on a personal level.

Trust McGuinty to be mindful of the fact that an innocent person was killed by police in a similar dispute under the watch of his PC predecessor.

Not totally, but somewhat right? Because it appears that way. Either that or you totally be-grudge the fact that you didn't get into the trades. Ignoring the fact that often - very often - those members of the public service union have first hand knowledge of whether or not the "governments are up against the wall" or are being hosed by a public communication campaign aimed towards the more doltish in our society. Like, that never has happened has it? Really? The public sector "has an unlimited source of revenue?" Unlimted? Cite please.

Seems to me that they are simply giving the police the same powers that private citizens have enjoyed for years.

Cite please. IOW, do you have some sort of rational data you are basing your opinion on or just a feeling that the CBC is divisive?

Right. Liberal fear mongering. As opposed to neocon hyperbole eh? It all balances out.

It is a paradox of semantics, which has already been pointed out. In fact, it seems that being tolerant and promoting diversity is in the attempt to achieve equality. Not a paradox at all. I see "the rich" being vilified just as much by the other "rich" in a thing called 'competition.' There isn't as much money to be made by preying on the poor as there is by preying on the rich. Well, unless you are McDonalds and WalMart. Be thankful that you stand tall with us, who believe you should be free enough to express such views. But I think you are referring to something beyond our familiar democracy right? Naw, there is always a place for thoughtful dissent Pliny. Be thankful that it isn't a grave like some regimes...

Ezra Levant doesn't prove your claim. Not even one little bit. But I do look forward to your evidence that the CHRC doesn't respond to claims made by caucasian males. Have you found any yet? No? Didn't think so.

Please piss off, now. I am merely speculating on one of a many possibilities as for your reason to start this thread in Canadian Federal Politics. Oh, and I meant it satirically, of course.