The Terrible Sweal

Have your say.

TS, that argument strikes me as a "conservative" argument - in the line of Edmund Burke. Very insightful, August. This is something I have been noticing about the public discourse for some time. The 'liberals' have become the defenders of institutions while the 'conservatives' (in their 'neo' incarnation particularly) have become the uprooters.

I'm happy to address the points where you made a lucid counterpoint: Argus: IMO It's a pretty gross generalization to say that all conservatives are Christian and that they all think along the same religious lines even within the Christianity. But feel free to show me where in the CPC policy declaration it says we want to impose tithing on the people of Canada. For some reason the secular humanist left seems to think religious bigotry and stereotyping is fair play. IMO it's a pretty lame response to resort to the 'not all' defense. It insults the voters' intelligence to suggest the connection between rightwing parties and social conservatism is in their imaginations. Where do social conservatives turn to pursue their agendas? Not the NDP, Bloc, or Liberals. Social conservatives accurately perceive where they can be most politically effective -- in conservative parties. When those same parties try to pretend this fact is imaginary they invite the suggestion of a hidden agenda.

Typical dishonest tory lawlessness! Of course it matters what the legal defiition is. Ringwing idealogues may consider our institutions dispensable, but the rest of us prefer the rule of law. The govenrment has lost the confidence of the house when it loses a real confidence vote, not some Separatist-Alliance procedural gimmick.

Ya a real gem. A series of false and bigoted insults that can only be refuted by taking the topic of this thread in 10 different directions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> An incisive, insightful summary of the degeneracy of conservative 'thinking'. Devastating in its accuracy and humor both.

This is not a confidence matter. On the simple face of it. It is a direction to a committee telling the committee to put forward a no confidence motion. Also, it would be the Speaker who rules on the nature of the motion, I should think.

Do you fellers think playing innocent like that actually works?

How absurd. Why would anyone vote in favor of corruption and graft? Why? Why? But that is the tory agenda, isn't it? If not, why else would they play games with the Bloc?

SUPERB post, takeanumber! Every word a gem!

Unh? Are you saying Canadians don't have a sense of fair play anymore? What is your basis for this contention?When the PM of Ontario claims that the Ontario government gets a raw deal, then obviously things have changed. Acts of selfinterested premiers fall short of establishing the general claim of widespread loss of fairplay. It was not a good agreement. A little less revisonism, please! Meech was passed in most legislatures. The Charlottetown Accord was rejected in Quebec. Please explain. In a different thread, maybe. What's to explain? Classical liberalism: Locke, Jefferson, Mill. More revisionism. Bush and Co. claimed KNOWLEDGE, not mere risk. I think the left understands, but they do not agree. But Bush does not stand for liberty or any other traditionally American virtue. And Kennedy did not say: "Tell any lie." "Bully any friend." "Break any treaty." or "Stifle all dissent."

]You are welcome to develop an intricate discussion, in Noam Chomsky style, to analyze the differences between Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini or Idi Amin. As far as I can see, they were all tyrants. I don't understand your desire to oversimplify and blunt the meaing of terms. If you wish to speak of general tyrrany, then by all means do so. But if you wish to speak of fascism, then it is necessary to understand that it has a meaning of its own. Any successful police operation would absolutely require an appreciation of such distinctions.

The fallatious regionalism relentlessly injected into every aspect of public discourse is a severe impediment to attaining sound policies.

????? Whaaaaat ? If Canada is not destroyed this corner of the world will collapse? The mind boggles!

Unfortunately, there is no discernible meaning in that sentence, until some sensible understanding of 'proprerty' and 'rights' is acheived. No. The state arises from the claim that an individual's 'rights' end where those of the others begin. The state is the means of enforcing this principle. Yet again, this ignores the essential: what makes it yours?

The problem with this formulation is that it implies a state which has an existence/agency separate from the collected individuals comprising it. Such separation is imaginary. The market, and any law it "provides", is a collective undertaking. Any practical uderstanding of the concept of rights necessarily implies that violations thereof will be coercively prevented if necessary. But anyway, Hugo, what are your answers to the fundamental questuons of this thread?

Bush claimed that he knew Saddam had WMD. But it was impossible for him to know this because these WMDs did not exist. Ergo, he lied about his state of knowledge. But worse than these lies was the imputation of dishonest motives upon those who noted that his lies were lies.

Instead of inventing an intentionally partisan and inflammatory explanation, you could instead look at a few basic demographic statistics. One of Bush’s most overwhelming bases of support was seniors of age 60 and over. Bush won this demographic by the large margin of 8%, which is very high considering that he only won the election by a margin of 2.5%. Obviously, almost everyone from this demographic would be rejected from military service should they attempt to sign up. Bush also won the age 45-59 demographic by an above-average margin of 3%, and the so-called Generation Jones (those between the ages of about 30 and 44) by 7%. Those between 30 and 59 who attempt to join the army would of course have a much greater chance of being rejected than those younger than 30. By contrast, Kerry won the age 18-29 demographic by a 9% margin. In other words, Kerry supporters, the demographic most likely to be against the Iraq War, are also the group that, should they attempt to join the military, are the most likely to be accepted and sent overseas. Another factor that may play a role is that most single and childless people are Kerry supporters, whereas those who are married and have children voted for Bush by the astounding margins of between 11% and 15%. Obviously, this would be a great deterrent to join the army. Funny... you say the suggestion that Iraq war boosters only support war when it's other people dying is inflamatory and partisan, and yet you posted a paragraph of data that precisely demonstrate that it's true.

How repellent! You object to prejudices about your group, but cheer on slurs against others. You must be a tory. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And you chastise his "slur" against the press by making slurs against Tories. How typically hypocritical. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OH GOD! I must be a tory too!

You are simply and totally wrong. The fed gov. was empowered to levy any kind of tax, direct or indirect. The provinces were confined to only direct taxation. You should read up before you blab off.

How repellent! You object to prejudices about your group, but cheer on slurs against others. You must be a tory.

Response: This is what gets me about you radical leftists, I am not a leftist. I'ma classical liberal. Hogwash. Bush is a known liar and total hypocrite. Changing course when circumstances require it is not, in itself, unprincipled.

Alberta has a lot of money. This makes almost anything easier to carry off. Except, seemingly, a sense of perspective.

Unh? Are you saying Canadians don't have a sense of fair play anymore? What is your basis for this contention?

Money shelters like Cayman provide lax incorporation rules, lax beneficial ownrship records, and until recently lax curremcy controls. No, the tax act provides for a method of taxing dividends whose effect is to avoid the posibilty of double taxation. It is imprecise to equate fascism with other variants of tyrrany. Fascism is a particular type of absolutism with theoretical/philosophical underpinings which distinguish it from others such as communism. Utter crap. What are you taking about?! Bush lied to create a public furor to enable his government to attack a beaten country which had committed no aggression against him.