The Terrible Sweal

Did you really expect that your asinine comment would draw a deep, philosophical reply? It's getting so we can't even expect a coherent, intelligible reply from you. Well, garbage in, garbage out. If you want something more than an instant and contemptuous dismissal put more effort into your posts than "all tories are evil and consort with Satan! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your reading is going of the scale on the sickening pomposity meter.

Did they not cme to a halt due to the operation of regular Parliamentary procedure? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There were dozens of witnesses they still were to hear from, and many documents they wanted - or at least, the opposition wanted, when the Liberals shut the committee down. How did the Liberals do that?

Well fair is fair. The English in Canada have been appalled at the voting habits of the French in Quebec for a long time now.

The Calgary School is not the same thing as the Chicago School. The latter is an academic movement in economics. The former is a clutch of bighead/smallbrain leatherelbows at the University of Calgary. Their goal is to have Canada disestablish itself and become annexed to the United States.

Newf, I don't understand some of the critisism of Harper. The only strike against him I see is that he is branded as being 'from the west'. True he's dull but do we want an aggressive candidate to encourage conservative stereotypes the left use against us? However I do think a guy like Peter McKay would be a great leader. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harper's problem is not that he is 'from the west'. It's that he's: -too pro-American/insuffiently Canadian Nationalist, -identified publicly with harsh right-wing economics, -leading a party that plays footsie with radical social conservatism, -leading a party that is seen as least-environmental, and -is completely uninspiring. And as for Peter MacKay, he's a known liar and permanently damaged goods.

Hey, you are female, and you noticed them. What more could they want?

Stephen Harper and his tories need to lose a vote of no confidence as soon as they can.

The present day threat of fascism is definitely real. It is being hatched daily in Washington and a ranch in Texas.

Supposition, and biased supposition at that. Thank you for another empty, unsupported and entirly pedictable grunt. Did you really expect that your asinine comment would draw a deep, philosophical reply? It's getting so we can't even expect a coherent, intelligible reply from you. You're just brilliant when it comes to vapid blowhardery, but not much goodwhen it comes to persuasion or proof. What (other than your aesthetic objections) is wrong with remarking on the nature of the Alliance-Tories?

Did they not cme to a halt due to the operation of regular Parliamentary procedure?

Two things: First, yes, society should offer better choices, but that part of it is not a gender issue. Second, Canadian society does, usually, offer better choices than starvation.

And you're basing this belief on...what, exactly? Certainly not the information I presented, which showed that financial concerns are a barrier to women leaving abusive relationships, not an incentive to stay. Your information said financial concerns were a reason that women might not leave an abusive relationship. Financial concerns are exactly the reason that workers hold onto unpleasant or dangerous jobs. While arguably both are caught within a harsh capitalist reality, both are, nevertheless making a calculated choice.

Now that's someting we're not used to ... a post from August that makes things less clear. I find the vagueness of both Cameron's and August's complaints makes it difficult to make sense of the content of their objections. To some, it seems that giving effect to a familiar and essential principle of our culture (equality bfore the law) is somehow a betrayal of our traditions. This is incomprehensible to me. To some, it seems, Canada is spineless and irrelevant EXCEPT WHEN, we stand up for ourselves against unreasonable demands from the most powerful country the world. Then we are arrogant. You know what becomes obvious from all this? To some, Canada can do no right.

So based on these beefs, when we see headlines like: "Oppositon Seeks Inquiry", I guess we could interpret that as "Tories Demand Witchhunt".

It's a crap analogy. Sez you, but kneejerk reactions don't amount to arguments. Sure...if you're intent on blaming the victim, that reasoning makes perfect sense. I'm not blaming the victim. And you have offered nothing that refutes the validity of the analogy, bluster notwithstanding. Just as, apparently, some women remain in abusive situations (for money reasons), knowing the risks.

Huh? You are comparing people who willingly take physical risks for money with people who stay in abusive relationships because of a lack of financial support? Yep. It's called an 'analogy'. On the plain meaning of the source you cited, it seems to me that is precisely the calculation (in the financial category of reasons). Just as the steeplejack lacks the financial independence to quit to seek safer work.

As for leaving abusive relationships, the failure of the authorities to protect women and children from violent estranged partners is notorious. Thus, fear for self or children seems to be a sensible reason for not staying, but being sensible and measured about any escape plan. However, I must say I find other excuses rather faulty. Financial reasons, for example -- lots of people accept physical risks for money, are they all abused?

Only if you consider that sworn testimony, corroborated by other sworn testimony, delivered tearfully in front of a federal judge at a public inquiry is not evidence.... Judge Gomery calls it evidence. Bullcrap. That is not evidence of the Liberal party as an organization doing anything. It is may be evidence of some Liberals doing things in the name of the organization, but that is not the same.

The Claude Boulay letter, and the Kinsella Earnscliffe memos are paper evidence. But if Nixon had never taped his conversations, he would have completed his second term and his political bio would include at most a reference to some scandal.As to PM PM, the best evidence is his alacrity in changing his budget to accommodate Layton. Drop the corporate tax cuts and add this weird NDP shopping list. He could have done all this a few months ago. Why suddenly now? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What exactly do you think the Boulay letter is evidence of? Also, please remind me what the Earnscliff memo said, I've forgotten? As to the budget, I don't see how changing it proves any corruption whatsoever. It proves the NDP had the leverage to make it happen. It proves it's a minority government. It proves politics involves politics.

To me, this passage simply reinforces your prejudice. Your criterion for honesty is leaving the Liberal party. A modern-day Robespierre, you'd send every Liberal to the guillotine. And still, no evidence.

Would you care to define X Y, and Z? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the point of the tory pantomime is clear without that detail. For examples of X Y amd Z I refer you to my post on the thread: "Hidden Agenda..." thread

Wishful thinking, kimmy. The people want the Gomery report, and the people don't like to be defied. To side with separatism at the same time would be disastrous for the tories.

The "federal government" is not the same thing as "Canada" and the "Liberal Party of Canada" is something else entirely.I don't think Bakunin had any plans to abolish "Canada", as if that were possible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well I don't recall refering to the Libarals, but as to the rest, can you make sense for me of the notion of a federal state without a federal governmant?

Your position contains an inherent inconsistency. You say one mustn't judge all politicans the same, but you also say one must judge all Liberals the same. My Sovereigntist friend, your fangs are showing! I continue to await anyone presnting some evidence implicating Martin in this. I don't know Kierans. But John Crosbie??? Get real!

They have more in common than that. Both of them resent the very existence of a central government of Canada able to act for the benefit of the country as a whole. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Supposition, and biased supposition at that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you for another empty, unsupported and entirly pedictable grunt. It is not supposition, it is ratiocination. Surely you don't deny that the CPC stands for limiting the federal government? Don't blame the Liberals if your agenda is showing. They didn't dress you.