The Terrible Sweal

Really, Sweal. There's a long list of situations when generousity is not appropriate, and a lot of them happen to be within the sphere of politics. The question being posed here is whether giving money to a potential leadership rival is one of those situations. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Even if this is what she intended to do, I see nothing wrong with buying off the opposition if there is no principle in place against it. If we want to examine what this means for someone's sense of purpose or integrity, probably it is more relevant to reflect on what it means about Tony Clement.

I'm not a Liberal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... in the "cities" thread where you essentially accused Jack Layton of being Buzz Hargrove's hand puppet? Chee. That was pretty over the top. You think so? Hm. When it was time to cut a deal with PM and support the budget, who was at the table with Jack close it? Who was at his side when he announced it to sanctify it? Sure I was trying to get bigdude's goat a little, but I was pointing out a real problem the NDP has in making themselves more broadly palatable. They are rightly perceived as too beholden to Big Labor. It is true that of the three major parties as they stand now, I believe the best choice to govern federally is the Liberals. But I desperately wish there were better realistic options. I find myself drawn in some ways to the Canadian Action Party, but I worry there may be a hidden leftist or establishment agenda under the economic nationalism. The Greens have some appeal too. There's a couple of muddles in that sentence, which is causing your confusion perhaps. First, classical liberalism should not be confused with libertarianism. The latter has a more pronounced philosophical antipathy to co-operative/state action. Your use of the term conservative to describe parties today involves its confused and contradictory modern understanding. When the terms liberal and conservative first entered the lexicon they were philosophical opposites on the issue of whether to change social organization to accommodate individual liberty or to conserve the existing social organization sustained by class (or other group) determinism. In intervening years, the liberal philosophy won out in our 'western society', to the extent that liberal philosophy has effectively been implemented in the form of our present institutions. During this process of change, the term 'conservative' lost it's specific association with monarchial feudalism, and came to represent all impulse against liberal change as it occured from moment to moment. That is, while conservatives of the 1790s opposed changes from conditions as compared to the 1740s, conservatives of the 1860s did not oppose changes from the 1740s, they opposed changes from the 1810s. Conservatism's objectives evolved as they continued to lose ground to liberalism. By the late 20th century, most western states had reached the point that the institutional liberal agenda had been substantially completed. This means that a classical liberal can look at out institutions and say "Yes, these institutions provide for what I think are the necessary underpinnings for society." Accordingly, a classical liberal would find himself wishing no longer to change the institutions, but to preserve them ... or conserve them, if you will. So, in this sense classical liberals now find themselves in the position of being 'conservative' in some sense. But, the 'conservative' parties are something else entirely. They may in part comprise classical liberals who believe that the purpose of the party is to preserve classical liberal institutions (or even roll back socialistic influences). But they also comprise many other influences which, in my opinion, a classical liberal would have to blind himself to to support the party. Specifically, I refer to (1) theocratic (or similarly ideological) elements who seek dramatic changes to remake our institutions along dogmatic lines; or (2) social atomists who object to the apparent burdens imposed by social organization.

I simply oppose false and unethical accusations in general. Words without meaning. Oh yeah. Try these word then: Who made the false transcripts? Who doctored the tapes? Why did the tories defend 14 vital missing minutes as 'minor copying problems'? What did the CPC leadership know about the edits? Since the tape fraud has now been exposed, why haven't the tories retracted the false accusations? What is clear is that the Conservatives have a major integrity problem. What remains to be seen is how high up it goes.

You just vote for them. Actually I've voted Liberal only once in the last dozen or so times. Funny place to hang your hat. What has been said is sections have been cut and/or moved. That's bad enough to be fraud all on it's own. False. That type of sleazy tactic is what they seemed to do at first. Then it came out that they topped that distortion with ouright deceptions.

Isn't THELIBERAL one of those trolls Greg is complaining about us feeding? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How would I know? TheLiberal is posting here, so I'm assuming she's welcome here. As for 'trolling', in my opinion a troll is merely an expression of opinion that pisses someone else off. So, trolling is more a matter of the audience's petulance than the alleged troller's nefariousness.

Why not ask Buzz Hargrove? After all, if you watch close, when Layton talks you can see Buzz's lips moving.

Shshshssh! Caaaareful! They have ears everywhere.

I really didn't understand the point of this story. Belinda gave money to a tory politician. So what? Is this a story about her generousity or wealth? Was it not a legal donation? What was the point here?

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Notice the essential difference in these two comments, everyone. Gosthacked asserts individual liberty, while Geoffery insists on imposing social control. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gosthacked doesn't assert liberty whatsoever! Gosthacked is trying to suppress religious belief which is a blatant denial of liberty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So rants every religious fanatic bent on advancing hir cause. But NEVER is any evidence of such suppression or imposition forthcoming. Maybe this time? Please answer this question: What specifically does GH advocate which qualifies as 'suppression'?

Anyone who won't support their party in a confience vote should do the honourable thing and resign from the caucus.

Just to keep things clear, the Bilderbergers conference is linked with the Gnomes of Zurich, not the Illuminati.

Now Grewal as gone on "stress leave". Which, of course, does nothing to address the major questions. Why were the tapes withheld? Who had custody of them? What did Harper know when he was supporting Grewal's false accusations?

Whose fault it is that this guy espouses beliefs no-one is interested in rewarding, and Belinda espouses beliefs that people do wish to reward?

The unwieldy provincial structure of Canada has been crying out for change anyway. Any time you see chance to improve things thwarted, there's about a 70% chance one or more provinces is to blame. Meanwhile, what good do the provincial governments do for their citizens? They're just one more layer of government to siphon money around for political purposes, and most provinces are too large to properly represent local interests. Canada should have about 18-23 provinces/territories, with some based on the metropolitan hinterlands of our larges cities.

So you're predicting that the Liberals will not just sweep Ontario, and gain seats elsewhere? That seems a tad optimistic... they're still going to get pummelled in Quebec and in the West, the two areas where they need to gain some seats to put them over the top. These latest numbers put them *almost* at the level that got them a minority last time out... I predict the Liberals will hold or gain slightly in Quebec and BC. They may gain one or two in Ontario, and they will improve in the Atlantic. I don't know about Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Alberta would be hard to do worse than now. In short, Harper has blown it.

These "Liberals" especially.

Not exactly, Sweal, though the 'trap' is of Hugo's design. He is the one applying the 'moralism' to the argument, and while we have made no such judgement, we have argued that 'amoralism' can, and does rule by force. Hugo then goes on and: -asserts I/we have taken a moral position -ignores my/our rejection of that assertion, -asserts with no basis whatsoever that I/we have taken a specific and highly offensive moral position. He IS a dirty rotten liar.

An excellent analysis, Sparhawk. I notice that it tends to be people in group 1 who have the most difficulty with the separation of church and state. Indeed, they are most likely to complain that this separation (which protects them the most) is an infringement of their rights!

Hooey. Giving away money, or carrying out federal stuff in ways cities ask for creates no jurisdictional problems at all. If they tried to do something the impinged on provincial powers, the provinces can take it to court.

Bye bye NDP balance of power, hello Liberal majority.

Just as we don't wish to see our society infected with atheistic and immoral legalised drugs, same sex marriages and abortion. These are all views that you, being the non-religious minority, have imposed on the majority. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Notice the essential difference in these two comments, everyone. Gosthacked asserts individual liberty, while Geoffery insists on imposing social control.

Offering someone a cabinet position and a chance to be in the seante to defect from their party is also illegal isn't it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Offering a senate seat would be illegal, in my opinion. Refusing to give a senate seat, which is what happened here, is honest. I think a cabinet seat is a different thing. Cabinet is the prme minister's complete discretion and has been used to make political compromises/deals from time immemorial. For example, putting your leadership convention opponents on your front bench is arguably just buying their vote.

!!!!!! !!!!!! What the fork are you talking about? The material you just reviewed at such length makes it very clear that nothing on the tapes suggest any crookedness on PM's part. Are you commending Ontarians on their reasonable judgement?

Hugo is a dirty rotten liar.

Isn't that the definition of externality?If the baker doesn't show for work, I don't get bread. But then, I don't have to pay the baker either. So, what is my loss? Sorry, August, but I'm getting a 'does not compute' on the baker analogy. Explain? I cannot imagine any situation where the sum of each individual's valuation would ever exceed society's valuation. Isn't that what I'm saying? That's not my understanding of a 'non public' good. A Pubic Good is where the vaule of it exceeds the price at which the market will provide it. Any other goods are assumed to be 'private goods'. Fairness is certainly not black or white. What is a fair outcome may vary with circumstances. But still, anything is either fair or not. 'ALMOST fair' means 'not fair'. ...So what "innate reasons" explain why a goal of efficiency leads to fairness? Well, I think if we aim for a "fair" or "equitable" health system, we quickly find that each person is different and so we can't really give everyone the same thing. In practical terms, a hospital administrator has to decide whether to renovate the psychiatric unit or the maternity ward. How to decide? In making those choices, the administrator will quickly affect the question of why doctors show up in the morning. If we concentrate on getting doctors to show up for work, we'll probably find the choices between maternity wards and psychiatric units much clearer. And how does that bear on fairness?