The Terrible Sweal

Perpetrating this tape fraud could qualify as a criminal offence. It is certainly a civil tort. I think this is a very important issue which is not getting enough attention. It is time for Stephen Harper to answer some specific questions: Who had the tapes for the almost two-weeks they were held back? What was done to them during that time?

But look, on any close examination, none of those motivations is rationally defensible in the context of public policy. Don't like gay promiscuity? Not your business. But hey, maybe marriage would lead to less promiscuity. Cherish the 'man/woman family'? Okay, tell me how homosexuality or SSM poses any realistic threat to it. Dislike court driven legal changes? Move to Russia. We're a society of laws. Too bad.

I ask you to consider the possibility that an untreated broken leg might mean a little league team without a coach, or a family without a provider. Externalities become a problem when they are not included in the price. Isn't that the definition of externality? No, public goods. The value to society of the good health of its members exceeds the sum of the value accruing to each of the members. (Noting that the indivdual values are included in measuring the social value obtained.) So you arrgue that to avoid waste we must accept unfairness. I'm not quite so pessimistic, but I think your position involves a practical problem apart from my factual dispute. It is this: How do you socialize/sensibly incentivize those who you propose to neglect? What's in it for them? It is either fair or it's not, surely. But anyway, if you don't make fairness an objective, there is no innate reason that efficiency gains will contribute to fairness.

If we worried a little bit less about the injustices of health care reforms and worried a little bit more about not wasting resources, we may well be surprised to find that our health care system will be more equitable.Evasion.This is not evasion at all. I mean that if we were more concerned with making the system work better and less obsessed with making it "fair", we may well find that there would be fewer "adverse events". If we were more concerned with efficiency we could become more efficient. If we became sufficiently efficient do you think we could eliminate scarcity? If not, the we still have the fairness issue. I ask you to consider the possibility that an untreated broken leg might mean a little league team without a coach, or a family without a provider.

Yeah, right. WHICH religion(s). And how do you select? Can you give even ONE real example? I doubt it. Please support that allegation, if you can. It's pretty hateful to say people are hateful who are not hateful. Oh no! Not that. Shame on them.

You spelled optimistic wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, it was optimistic alright!

Bigot. Look at yourself in the mirror. You are the Fundamentalist, full of hate. And is theTerribleSweal's post not considered trolling? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh ho! Quoting The Bible is trolling to you, is it?! Pretty intolerant, Ramesh.

With the latest information, I would say that there is nothing to SHOW they have acted at all dishonourably. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, but if there were full colour video of Martin stuffing taxpayers money into Grewals pockets and promising him millions more you'd still shake your head and say it proves nothing. I don't think any amount of evidence of any kind of crime will ever convince you that the Liberals have done wrong. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess it's your nature to deal in extremes, Argus. But in fact, I think the people involved in the sponsorship scandal are crooks, and I think there's a pretty bad stink around Chretien himself.

I wonder if he expected the new party to be more conservative and less alliance...perhaps he thought he could beat Harper for the leadership. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I'm fairly confident he had an opportunistic motive something like that.

There is only one thing I can say to that: ?????? Again: ????? LOTS of people believe that, me among them. For your answer, read this very thread.

With the latest information, I would say that there is nothing to SHOW they have acted at all dishonourably.

bigdude -- What did you just say? 1- It is an abusive term used against caucasian people in poverty or the "lower classes". It's a realy strange thing for an NDP supporter to say. IF you are an NDP supporter and not a tory posing as one. 2- Given that the evidence now clearly shows the Liberals did nothing wrong in dealig with Gurmant-baby, you ought to come clean and retract these sorts of statements. 3- Please stop moving your answers to my posts to other unrelated threads. It makes following the conversation very difficult.

Fair enough, but witholding the tapes and Harper's lack of general circumspection in handling this so far suggest at best poor judgment on his part and possibly complicity in the cover-up.

I didn't know about this, what was this public demonstrated lie? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He signed an agreement with David Orchard not to merge the PC party with the Alliance, and then he merged the PC party with the Alliance.

Persnally, as a citizen and a taxpayer, foreign aid is at the bottom of my list ways to spend money. Until failed states can be re-institutionalized, most money spent in them won't provide lasting imrpovements. Partly because of tha futility, I also feel that we have issues with a higher ethical priority here at home. If a rich man like Bono feels it's important to help the third world, I encourage him to do so with his own wealth and time. But frankly, I know a lot of secretaries and security guards here in Canada who need their tax dollars more than Bono needs his First-Class ticket to Bimini.

Good Lord! What a notion. Peter MacKay is a publicly demonstrated liar. He's permanently damaged goods.

It should surprise no-one, after all the prevarication and delay that it turns out the FULLer version of Grewal tapes destroy the tories' outlandish accusations. Quite apart from the bad ethics of trying to use partial, doctored evidence to besmirch reputations and destroy careers, what strikes me is the utterly amateurish stupidity of it. When it comes to Harpers CPC, the words 'Not fit for any public office' just LEAP to mind. G&M story Key Excerpts:

Only because we won't allow it. There are no shortage of people who want to do just that. If you are getting that sense, I don't know where it would be coming from.

What did you just say?

Snipped or inserted. Well, I think they are entitled to tender some 'favours' for an MP to cross over. Specifically, I think it is reasonable for them to be allowed to offer any party role in Parliament, like Whip, committee seat, Parliamentary secretary, even Cabinet. I think it is also acceptable to agree to move on a legitimate policy concern of the Member, or to scrutinize the actions of the bureaucracy on a matter of interest to him. Since the parties allocate their own resources, including things like extra travel, administrative support, publicity opportunities, office selection etc., it could easily be these kinds of things (all acceptable, in my opinion) which amount to a 'furry welcome mat'. Unacceptable offers, of which we have heard none, would be a senate seat, a judicial appointment, agreement to thwart the proceedings of an independent decisionmaker, or employment in a crown corporation, etc. I don't see why. It's a perfectly reasonable thing for Murphy to want to do for any MP of his own party.

Yeah, what happened to that? Is Layton pulling his own version of a Peter-MacKay? Meanwhile, the NDP holds the balance of power now, and Layton wants to jump into an election? Pooooooor strategy. He'll get slaughtered.

I find it disturbing that Layton would pander to this tory sleaze element.

"20th Century Assinine" I believe it's called.

I thought Layton cared a little bit more for sanity and integrity than to hop on this bandwagon of doctored tapes and extreme exaggeration. He's really gone down a peg or two in my eyes.

Right.