The Terrible Sweal

I have disagreed with various SCC decisions over time, chiefly based on the particulars of the decisions rather than any inclination to support or defy the court. And, I'm not leftwing, I'm a Classical Liberal.

One of three judgements says threis no emprical evidence for SOME of the contentions before them. But they cannot change the fact that empirical evidnece was presented. All they can do is reject the evidence. Did you read the "dissenting" opinion? Did you review the material filed in the court? Did you read the decisions of the courts below, and the evidence filed there?

You mean "as the Martin government is providing".

Canada's health system as it exists today is in an unsustainable situation. But that certainly doesn't mean it needs to be gutted. It is NOT somebody elses money. It's OUR money, spent by us, for us, by OUR government.

You keep making claims that are at odds with reality. The government brought forth many witnesses who supported its claims with empirical evidence. True, about half the judges weren't convinced by that evidence, but so what? Not in the least.

Oh boy. If the level of rationality on exhibit in the two prior posts is an example of conservative thinking, then 'thinking' is an overly generous term for it. P.S. Will any SSM opponent even try to defend you position? Answer just one question: Why should it matter to the state what gender someone's partner is? If you can't or won't answer this question, then your position is not only worthless, it is ridiculous.

Says you, not the courts.

I think you misunderstand the basis of my objection. I'm well aware of the decision. It just does not amount to what you claimed about it. First, it is not a 'clear ruling', as the court split 3 to 3 to 1. The passage you quoted is a decision of at most 3 judges. Second, the court is incapable of making a finding that it would not hurt he public system. The furthest the court can go is to say that the evidence before them in the case does not establish the harm.

Is that really the best you can muster? That's not a reason. By this logic if someone asks you why a dog barks you would answer 'because it barks'. Why is the sky blue? You'd answer 'because the sky is blue.' Try again. I'll even help. Why should it matter to the state what gender someone's partner is?

What is absurd is that comment. It would be absurd to enact laws changing the definition of heterosexual because the word has no legal status. By contrast, changing the LEGAL definition of marriage is an appropriately legal exercise. You claim to be a lawyer, but I frankly doubt it if you need to be instructed on this basic sort of thing.

Bumf. Before SSM if a woma wanted to marry a man for any purpose whasoever the state allowed it, but if she wanted to marry another woman, irrespective of the purpose the state prevented it, merely on the basis of the gender of her chosen partner. This is discrimination on the basis of sex. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No you see, this is not marriage. Civil marriage is whatever the duly constitued civil authority says it is. You say "obvious reasons". I say I don't find them obvious at all, and I doubt they constitute anything resembling reasonable. But hey, I'll keep an open mind ... what are your 'reasons'?

It is universally acknowledged that there are people in the Conservative party who are not social conservatives. But as between al te parties, the so-cons are more represneted in the Conservative party, and the Conservative party's policies are the ones most influenced and influencable by social conservatism.

I don't see it as making an accusation. I see it as drawing the obvious inference. Liberals (mismanagement notwitstanding) express and act upon a clear commitment to universal public care. The NDP position is equally clear. Only the tories have supporters and related think tanks and policy debates around changing those aspects of our system. No, you certainly cannot.

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare.

While I acknowledge that my criterion is practically impossible for the theocrats to fulfill, I do not agree that makes it unfair, given the claims and demands of the theocrats. Consider: they make competing claims as to 'truth' and specifically dismiss popularity, rationality or any effective means of testing their claims, and yet they want their contentions enacted. With no means avilable of choosing between their faiths, it seems fair to me that they e asked to resolve their differences before we are asked to carry out one version or another. I'm glad. I have merely been driving home the 'Why' of that.

I am not trying to 'equate' them. But in terms of the point I'm making don't see a relevant distinction.

All religious groups claim to have divine knowledge. THEY themselves deny the significance of popular opinion on questions of truth. Will the baptists agree they should not be at the table even though the catholics are obviously much larger in number. No, bringing in ALL faiths is the only approach consistent with the logic of the question. I will point out again, that it is the theocrats who seek to apply considerations other than pure democratic majority decision. Mainstream society is content with the outcomes of majority decisionmaking. If theocrats were content with that, they would not be seeking to have their faith be given extra credence.

The problem with reforming the Senate comes from the problem of out disporportionately sized and unwiledy provinces. We should have more and smaller provinces which more precisely match sensible local georaphies. Then the Senate could be adjusted to represent these rationalized regional interests. As things are now, the provncial governments are always standing in the way of the national interest.

I'm curious about conservatives when you say something like that ... do you yourself not hear the code-speaking doubletalk there, or do you think others can't hear the code-speaking doubletalk there?

We've already be over that, just above. The simple unadorned semantic meaning of the poll question should produce a masive preference among people to have prime healthcare for their children. You'd only vote against your kids if you complicate the question by importing an ideologcial stance on how healthcare ought to be apportioned. My actual question contains no implications about the 'hows' of heathcare, but a lot of people seem to have felt it necessary to react as if it did. Spiderman, unless Batman found a way to outfox him.

You tories sure hace a funny idea of democracy. A majority of elected parliamentarians express their views through the known rules of parliamentary process, and somehow tha is an affront to democracy!?!? Heads up, Harperco! YOU are the minority.

Bumf. Before SSM if a woma wanted to marry a man for any purpose whasoever the state allowed it, but if she wanted to marry another woman, irrespective of the purpose the state prevented it, merely on the basis of the gender of her chosen partner. This is discrimination on the basis of sex.

I don't see how. The assumption being made is that option A provides a worse standard of care for average Canadians than option B. That's just the flip side of the faulty assumption the child-haters inported. It is not an implicit or a required assumption someone needs to make simply to say they want equal or better healthcare for their children. Please. That was much later down the thread. My opinions on healthcare are not built into the plain meaning of the question. Sure you did. "...people who love their ideology more than they love their children," remember? You're right. I guess I do make conclusions about love too. All this stuff about systems is all part of the importation of exraneous assumtios. My quesion was blindigly smple -- who would you want to get better health care: the rich or your kids. Its not even a false dichotomy ... it's a hypothetical.

Obviously you find other values in Canada to keep you here. Your higher taxes pay for some of that value.