The Terrible Sweal
-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Terrible Sweal
-
-
You obviously haven't read the ruling. The court actually cites the witnesses, their claims and the FACT that no empircal evidence was brought forht to supprt those claims.
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.
I beg you, please: show me this famous empirical evidence or direct meto where I can find it???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?
-
The right thing to do is have a free vote on this issue in parlaiment, as Stephen Harper is demanding.
You mean "as the Martin government is providing".
-
... Canada's health system is unsustainable
Canada's health system as it exists today is in an unsustainable situation. But that certainly doesn't mean it needs to be gutted.
... Why? You can't spend someone else's money - forever.It is NOT somebody elses money. It's OUR money, spent by us, for us, by OUR government.
-
And by the way that's exactly my point you raised: The government couldn't find one witness to support it's claim with empirical eveidence.
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?
The ruling is CLEAR.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.
-
It's unconstitutional for a government to force people to wait ..
Says you, not the courts.
-
I CAN offer you a supreme c_ourt ruling clearly stating that a parallel private system would not be harmful to the public system.No, you certainly cannot.Read it and weep. Below is a direct exerpt from the supreme court ruling.
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.
-
You see, a gay couple has partners of the same sex, a heterosexual couple are partners of opposite sex. Different things. I'd post pictures, but that'd probably get me banned.
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?
-
My question is: why don't we enact a law changing the deifinition of the word "HETEROSEXUAL". It's equally as absurd.
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.
-
We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.
If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union.
This will go for all men and women.
There's your equality.
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.
No you see, this is not marriage.
Civil marriage is whatever the duly constitued civil authority says it is.
... Gay couples want to be the same as heterosexual couples, when for obvious reasons they're not.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'?
-
We all know there are Liberal MPs who oppose these things too. It just seems like whenever a CONSERVATIVE MP does it everyone in Ontario starts pointing fingers: "see? SEE? I TOLD you they are all redneckk bigots!!" Painting everyone with the same brush. It's prejudice.
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.
-
YOU are the one making the accusation, so the question is: ... can you offer me any evidence that the Cons would be the least favorable to public health care?
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.
I CAN offer you a supreme court ruling clearly stating that a parallel private system would not be harmful to the public system. That is the real issue here.No, you certainly cannot.
-
Harper to the Fraser Institute in Calgary 29 April 2005:
... Harper said a plan to gut medicare,... was both naïve and misguided. ... "I could not imagine a proposal that's more of a non-starter than that one," Harper said yesterday. ... the mainly business audience might not like his new position on health care, but said that political realism demanded it.
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.
-
Sweal,
My point was that the demand you were making for theocrats was unreasonable - I see the point you're making, though. Rather, I just don't think that demanding something that is admittedly impossible is a fair -
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 think we can agree that Theocrats should keep their ideas out of public policy, though
I'm glad. I have merely been driving home the 'Why' of that.
-
Sweal, I suspect you are trying to equate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. The comparison is entirely superficial.
I am not trying to 'equate' them. But in terms of the point I'm making don't see a relevant distinction.
-
To suggest ALL faiths must agree is quite unreasonable (as I'm sure you're aware) - you're basing your argument on the correct assumption that what you suggest religious groups do is impossible (not a very fair stance, is it?)
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.
... the vast majority (which is all you're going to get, and all you should really expect) ....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.
-
...healthcare ... choose what coverage would be appropriate for your lifestyle.
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?
-
Ok, and how can you make that conclusion without having made assumptions about the quality of care provided in each instance?
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.
Who would win a fight between Batman and SpidermanSpiderman, unless Batman found a way to outfox him.
-
Democracy is out the window, ...
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.
-
We do have an equality of rights, if a man wants to marry a woman to create a family etc then they can be classified under the term marriage.
If a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, for the sole purpose of sex with no social or biological purpose then they can be classified under the term civil union.
This will go for all men and women.
There's your equality.
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.
-
Choosing "option B" in the poll requires an ideological assumption too.
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.
You stated the assumption explicitly yourself when I proposed that the choice might be between a system where everybody gets "5/10" ...Please. That was much later down the thread. My opinions on healthcare are not built into the plain meaning of the question.
I make no conclusions about 'love'.
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.
If the system in Option A gives better healthcare to your children than in option B, then if your children's welfare was your foremost concern, you'd choose option A even if the quality of care isn't as good as Belinda.ca's kids get.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.
-
I'm glad you posted that article, even though I disagree with it, because it points out that there are different factors to take into account. As far as taxes are concerned, for me all that really matters is my personal experience. Compared to the taxes I paid when I worked in the US, I pay far more in taxes here. My take home pay was far better in the US. I don't really care what creative statistics you Libs come up with to try and convince me tax rates are similar, because they simply aren't. That's my personal experience and the experience of my counterparts living in the US. I have many friends and relatives who have the same experience as well.
Obviously you find other values in Canada to keep you here. Your higher taxes pay for some of that value.
-
The bigotry is in the minds of the accusers.
Who is the bigot?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.