The Terrible Sweal

BTW, Alberta isn't allowed to separate.

Could you explain this a little bit? How have small town Abertans especially suffered? Can you give us any examples? Sort of a self-flfilling prophecy, eh?

On reflection, I find myself in awe of the sheer machiavellian brilliance of both Belinda.ca and Martin's strategists. What a coup for each of them! Martin staves of the election, gets a high profile outsider to lead on Gomery, gobsmacks Harper hitting him directly in exposed vulnerabilities. Belinda gets a real job, in a real party, with potential to establish social prgrssive credentials. She gets the Liberal party of Canada in her debt. She proves to voters she's tough and smart. And she gets to stick it to the Alliance cement-heads who waged a wispering campaign against her. Meanwhile, the disgraceful spectacle of conservative caracter assassiation has @most certainly alienated vast numbers of moderate voters. Sweeet.

What I don't get is how Quebeckers can take such offense at the sponsorship scandal. It was principally Quebeckers involved in it, right? So because some Quebec Liberals were corrupt it therefore follows that Canada is to blame? What am I not getting here?

Newbie, I fear your monicker may become an oxymoron if you end up sticking around.

It's not a membership list, it's a guest list. The Bilderburg conference is just a party the Gnomes of Zurich throw. After all, why should Illuminati have all the fun?

Have your say?

Which was fine when she was a tory, eh?

This works just so amazingly well for both Martin and Stronach. He gets an outsider to implement Gomery, she gets a job with social-softiness and a real shot at the top job. Meanwhile she gets to stick it to the Alliance cement-heads and their backbiting campaign against her.

What we have in this particular statement is the assumption that hefty welfare payments are the proper way to help the poor, Not at all. Not in the least. I a mamking no normative comment on what should be theway to help the poor. Conservatives believe that certain measures produce a 'strong economy'. Unfortunately, they arw mistaken about what measures work, and misquided about what constitutes a strong economy. Some conservatives who should know better nevertheless demonstrate this lack of foresight, and by sheer coincidence it favors private econimic interest.

Whoever is doing the thinking in the NDP these days is really earning hir money. They've got the Liberals by the balls, even without enough seats. They're showing they're base that they're not a wasted vote. They're showing Canadians that they know where the high road is. All they need is a coherent economic policy and they could really go places.

Exessive or ill conceived regulation can be an awful drag on the economy. However, there is a 'noise' problem in the pubic discourse on this topic, basically in the form of a credibility problem on the part of regulation-cutters.

Oh, I'm a classical liberal, alright. (Thanks for noticing.) I think I may have mentioned some objections to the CPC already ... but anyway, basically I don't find the party program coincides well with liberal policy. For example: -Law and Order policies of the CPC tend to be overly statist and class biased; -social conservatism and theocratic influences; -economic policies which favor (unmeritorious) entrenched interests at the expense of individual opportunity (to exercise merit); and -a tendency to draw upon non-Reasonable criteria or analyses. BTW, I am not intending to imply any comparisons to the Liberal Party here. Footnote: the economic problem with entrenching unmerit is that it sacrifices efficiency and therefor destroys wealth. Think of Eatons.

Surely you know that the raping of children on film is already thoroughly illegal in Canada. I think Nazis should be allowed to carry out any otherwise legal act irrespective of their political opinions. I do not support hate crime legislation. (Though I support laws against inciting violence or victimisation.) No. Sensible public policy requires that criminals be prevented from obtaining any benefit from their crimes.

Absolutely ridiculous. Your rule says you own the orchard. My rule says I own the orchard. So now what?

What the hell does anything have to do with anything, Sweal? You're the one who thinks that arguments ought to take into account points of insane solipsism such as the possibility that the entire physical world does not actually exist. Crap. Indeed. Well, then I am cut to the quick! Alas alack! Hugo imagines my blood on the floor and LO! though there is no mark on my vest, his honour is won. Not so. What I am implying is that if your position on the nature of rights is premised on a moral argument, then your position is in fact a normative/policy argument. On the other hand, I am taking a descriptive/explanatory position. I.E. you are prescribing principles on how rights might be best formulated, I am demonstrating how we find rights to be in our environment/experience.

You've asserted nothing throughout this thread, then? Either you're lying in your teeth, or you really don't understand how to debate at all. Anyway, human beings are not objectively superior to one another since there are no objective measures for intelligence, wisdom, beauty, or anything else that may make one human superior to another. About all we can objectively measure are things such as size, weight, skin colour and so forth, but these have no bearing on judgement and wisdom - unless you are going to tell me some kind of Nazi racial superiority claptrap. Are you? And so the so-called Terrible Sweal concedes another thread (like this one) in his usual inelegant and clumsy fashion. Why don't you go troll somewhere else? Babble is suitably full of dimwits who won't challenge your prejudices too much and embarrass you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Incredible. You really have no idea.

Cunning. Pass the budget ("to get things done for Canadians") then have a secret deal with the tories to bring down the government to "Oppose Liberal Corruption". The NDP are playing this brilliantly, it seems. Parliament Seat Prediction: Conservatives 110 Liberals 99 Bloc 68 NDP 31.

Is he still flip flopping? Wow. Gads! The worst kind!

Have your say.

Why won't someone 'pair' with him? By the way, what sort of egomaniac is this KILGOUR character anyway?

Shit! Artistic Expression?! Free speech?!?!? Repellent concepts!

Look up "lightweight" in a dictionary of historiography and you'll see a picture of Michael Bliss.

Morally? What the hell does tha have to do with it?

You can't defend your position except through a pretense that I dn't have one? Pathetic. Why don't you just acyually attempt to be responsive to the point I ask? (Because your ideas are crap, tha's why.) You have no idea how foolish you appear, I guess. Is it not? Make a case for it. It's YOUR assertion. YOU defend it. Only a complete berk doesn't understand that protocol.