The Terrible Sweal

What hasbecome tiresome is your frequent resort to vapid and insulting repudiations rather than argument.

Well, since you ask, no. That is the tory spin on events, not a fatual representation.

You mean the entity called Canada should be abolished, right?

The provinces have unlimited powers of direct taxation. I don't know how they could do better than 'unlimited'.

Harper's strategy now has to be to LOSE a no confidence motion.

That thinking could be taken to an impractical extent -- a surrender to a tyranny of subjectivity.

My point was not that the right wing is wrong about markets (though they are, in some ways). Let me try to be precise. RIght wingers worship the concept of the 'free market', although in reality and in concept, the market is distorted. Nevertheless, the market includes marketting, so it is ironic to me that right wingers, who worship the market, don't appreciate the significance of marketting in politics. The Liberals have been more effective in marketting (delivering product with percieved value), which amounts to being successful. If we unravely 'perceived value' we will find that it means the Liberals have done a better job in the eyes of their customers, the electorate. If we consider the present Conservative pitch, what do we see: 'Dear voters/owners of a carrot patch, You are so stupid you support a party that steals half your carrots! Don't take it anymore! Elect us and we will pave your carrot patch and no-one will steal your carrots anymore.'

In marketing terms, the signal must be credible. The Liberals are failing now. PM PM is not delivering. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In marketting terms the signal need not be credible (though that is usually advantageous). The signal simple needs to be effective. Whatever the voter's choice, it is based on her percieved value. If she values social progressiveness more than probity, she might decide to vote Liberal. Conservative supporters who insist on denigrating this choice are burying their heads in the sand.

Since you obviously have no idea what I am 'really saying', you would appear less foolish if you did not pretend that you do.

I'm getting tired of this false accusation. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal. It's nice you object to theft, but too bad you seem to have no similar objection to bearing false witness. Of course it matters. If they were involved, they are theives. If they were not involved, they are not theives. You JUST SAID your main concern, what you really objected to, is THEFT. You don't have any idea what you are typing from moment to moment, do you? There you go with the likely false accusations again. Who do you mean by 'they'? Brian Mulroney has not happened yet? Whoa! You missed the 80's did you?

All the lamentation by tories is making me laugh. But the script will soon tire. Consupporter: Why don't you vote for Conservatives? NonCon: I worry that the Conservative party will carry out the policies that their vocal supporters and MPs have advocated, for example X, Y, and Z. Consupporter: That's just scaremongering! Harper doesn't eat babies! Noncon: But my concern is the possibility of X,Y, or Z, not eating babies. Consupporter: X, Y, and Z are vitally important policies for the public good. Noncon: I disagree, and so, I don't vote for a party that supports such things as X,Y, and Z. Consupporter: You've been brainwashed by the Liberals! Stephen Harper does not eat babies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But Stephen Harper does eat babies and he also bathes in the blood of our healthcare workers. I don't think any true Conservative supporter would deny these facts. He's also a misogynist and bigot. Tell all your friends. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> See what I mean?

I'm afraid I don't see the connection. Can you explain further? The provinces choose to accept federal funds. They are free not to.

All the lamentation by tories is making me laugh. But the script will soon tire. Consupporter: Why don't you vote for Conservatives? NonCon: I worry that the Conservative party will carry out the policies that their vocal supporters and MPs have advocated, for example X, Y, and Z. Consupporter: That's just scaremongering! Harper doesn't eat babies! Noncon: But my concern is the possibility of X,Y, or Z, not eating babies. Consupporter: X, Y, and Z are vitally important policies for the public good. Noncon: I disagree, and so, I don't vote for a party that supports such things as X,Y, and Z. Consupporter: You've been brainwashed by the Liberals! Stephen Harper does not eat babies.

No-one is doing that. The Canada Health Act doesn't stop you from spending your money. What it does is require health care providers to offer services through certain channels. Like broadcasting, banking, and all sorts of other regulated industries. Why should it be that while feeding six kids, volunteering for local community services, and working 40 hours per week for $45,000/year my neighbor could be bankrupted by an illness or just die, while a selfish, single person who happens to have inherited a few million gets to live? The idea that a society would allow money to be the criteria of whether you get quality health care is barbaric. Isn't that what you advocate? Then what exactly are you complaining about?

What are the figures for men, I wonder.

Please have a little respect for our intelligence. The Bloq wants a separate Quebec. 'Firewall' Harper wants a diminished federal government. Anyone can see how these interests run together. I don't think it has to do with the fact that the Liberal party forms the present government. After the Bloq, there will still be more Liberals from Quebec than either of the other parties. But the reason Liberals represent national unity now is that the Tories don't anymore. (And haven't ever since Mulphoney.) What!?! The Tories are trapped in a continuous helix of on the one hand fighting eachother over what they are, and on the other hand hiding whatever that is.

I fail to see what reason there is to try to think of racism as a gender issue.

The forum, or the government? -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I meant the forum.

'Thank you.' The obvious answer is that veteran's opinions do not trump others'. All citizens are equal, and while having made a sacrifice should entitle one to the gratitude of one's country, it in no way makes one's opinions more valid than others.

A comprehensive comparison and analysis of the very extensive and sometimes conflicting evidence. The identification of which individuals were involved and not involved. Indications of systemic and personal failings which lead to this problem. A quantification of sums involved and where they went. Maybe Tory strategists don't care about these things, but voters do. Yet another dichotomy between Tory interests and voter interests.

system has gone haywire

I am totally opposed to PR. In my view, one of the chief problems with our parliament is that members are too much creatures of their parties and don't stand up for their own selves enough. They become the 'trained seals' that we so rightly deride. With PR, the individual member is even more a creature of her party than they are now. They don't represent any particular citizens, they represent their party. The citizen cannot hold the person to account at the voting booth, and they cannot call upon a member who is THEIR OWN member. A reform which would meet most of the needs addressed by PR, but not involve PRs deficiencies is the rank-order ballot (which I believe is being considered in BC).

Have your say.

Harper hardly has "ties" with the Bloc, they simply have a common enemy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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.

Thegue! Thegue very buch.