The Terrible Sweal

Who are they? To take the Canadian social contract as an example, the citizens of Canada principally, and residents of Canada secondarily. What are they? Why don't you guess. How does that not completely destroy the very idea of contract law? I'm sorry I can't respond because I don't even comprehend the premise of your question. How would it do that at all?

Sorry Sweal, I thought you said you lived in Rob Anders' riding. My mistake. Sorry again, I missed that. Interesting thanks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cheers. If you want to discuss classical liberalism some more, well, you know where to find me.

Tory sleaze. Why won't they release the entirety of the tapes? Tory sleaze.

... you know if you were in a similar situation and your significant other made a huge decision and decided to confide in everyone but you, you'd feel pretty betrayed. But that is not what happened. The story is they spoke at length about the move before her dinner with Martin. Then she told him her decision right after the meeting. These are the facts. Admit it.

Oh you're an eastern transplant, even worse . I don't live in Alberta. Honestly, how am I not? That's a highly digressive and value-laden way to begin a 'definition'. BTW, it is important to remember that the opponents of liberalism are the ones who tagged it's name on the wrong group. It was a very successful bit of spin-doctoring. Substantially, yes. !!! Marginal counterculture!?!? No. It forms the premises of our western societies. Only so known to the ignorant. I answered you last time you asked this, I think. Please see the 'Paul Martin THE Monster?" thread here.

Then the social contract that supposedly justifies government is actually no such thing at all, because in that "social contract", there is no "we", there is no "basis of association" and there is no "made" - the parties are not defined, the terms are not defined, and the contract is not expressly consented to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The parties are defined, the terms are determinable, and the contract need not be expressly consented to.

Probably because she totally betrayed him and the party at the time when she mattered most. How did she betray him? Did he own her vote?

I'm curious why it is necessary that their relationship end just because they are members of different parties. Surely mature people who respect eachother's views could maintain a relationship if it was based on genuine and significant affection.

I think we're seeing a little bit of a pattern here on Maple Leaf Web. I bunch of bitter liberal Albertans coming here to spew. We have you, Black Dog, Sweal. Any other lefties willing to admit they're Albertan. I love you guys! Um, just fyi... I'm not bitter, I'm not Albertan, and I'm not leftist (I'm a classical liberal).

This is just sickening!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's laughable and pathetic. Cadman beat the tar out of the CPC nominee last time, and now the CPC think offering him an unopposed nomination this time is some kind of inducement. Hilarious.

kimmy -- I agree your strategy would have had better overall optics, but it would not really have changed the essentials of the deal, ethically speaking. (Which I see no problem with (on a 'Parliamentary level' anyway).

Right. Chuck Cadman approves of stealing money. Ken Dryden approves of stealing money. Ed Broadbent approves of stealing money. Peter Milliken approves of stealing money. Stephane Dion approves of stealing money. Belinda Stronach approves of stealing money (and she's a "whore"). Let me tell you ... one problem the tories have with their public image in Canada is that you try to combine two sins which are forgivable in Canadian politics into one which becomes unforgivable. Canadians will forgive disingenuous spin if it is is done temperately. Canadians will also forgive interperate speech if it has the ring of truth. But they don't like intemperate disingenuous speech much at all.

Who put the wire on Grewal? COUGHtomCOUGHflanaCOUGH?

kimmy -- 'Belinda.ca' is delightful. Re giving credit to PM, here is a pearl of wisdom for you: It is no small talent to know how to use good fortune.

You just can't speak a straight word, can you? Trudeau gave the finger to a bunch of protesters, not 'the west'. Who's slogan is that? That isn't mockery or derision. It's cold calculation, and inappropriate, but not mockery or derision. ?? A decent example requires both a 'who' and a reasonably specific 'what they said or did' part. Hanimansing is a westerner himself. You want to blame Ontario for the opinions of westerners too? Actually, that is in your imagination. People in Ontario just don't think about 'the west' so often as to have a set view. Yes? EXAMPLES please? So far I conclude that the claim that 'westerners' are the subject of mockery or derision is laughable.

I think the concepts of theocracy and democracy are mutually exclusive. A theocracy has authority and legitimacy arise out of the ostensible deity, and places power/rule in the hands of the purported representatives of that deity. In a democracy on the other hand, authority and legitimacy arise from the consensus of the citizens, and power/rule are placed to effect this principle. While it is possible that in democracy the vast preponderance of citizens might share a religion, or that a theocracy might have the consent of a majority of its people (albeit untested), neither of these cases bridges the qualitative distance between these two political systems.

We have made a contract which forms the basis of our asSOCIAtion -- hence, it is a social contract.

Have your say.

The go between between Grewal and Dosanj (a mutual friend) says Grewal made the first approach. And it turns out he came carrying a tape recorder. Looks like a sleazy attempt to get the Liberals to do something sleazy that didn't quit turn out that way, so Grewal has tried to pretend the Liberals did something with this partial recording. Typical tory sleaze.

James Bredin!!! You ol' corndog you! Remember me?! It's me, The Terrible Sweal. Oh, what fun we used to have...

Then why have you, in the past, argued rights from a normative position? I don't see any problem with making either kind of argument, as long as it's clear that they are different arguments. Negotiate with me, go to arbitration, or go to war. I'm too self-righteous to negotiate, and war would destroy the orchard. So, you and I agree* to an arbitration**. For all intents and purposes we have: formed a social contract*, and constituted a state.**

First, what is "Theocratic Democracy"? 1. It is doutful that suppression of information is a consistently effective means of "good government". 2. It is questionable whether a government with the authority to supress information can qualify as providing for the freedom of its citizens.

What do you mean, asshole?

What kind exactly?

We don't blame canada, we blame the quebec liberal organisation. I don't think you should see quebec support for sovreignty as an act against canadian, just like canada refusal to participate to the iraq war didn't mean we hate american. Its just that we had different vision. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it's nice to knowit's nothing 'personal', but it doesn't really explain the logic involved. How is secession a rational response to corruption among some Liberals?