The Terrible Sweal

... to suggest that lawyers are all 'morally impeccable' is silly. Well, good thing I didn't suggest that then, eh?

Have your say.

No Teows didn't steal the money, just the votes!

Let's be clear about one thing... Fraser Institute reports do no constitute 'evidence' of anything about the world.

Obviously true. So the question is why have they not done so already? Two possible answers: 1. The policy they want IS in fact a privatized fend-for-yourself system. or 2. A viable program is extremely difficult to devise. Rhetoric aside, there is no easy answer. Either way, the Tory bastards have a major credibility gap.

The thing about people with no morality is that they believe everyone is like them. Well, there in a nutshell is exactly why the CPC can never be permitted to be the government. It's the self-righteous mindset. If you say people have "no morals" simply because they have different views than yours, they are going to recognize you as a dangerous extremist. This IS a discussion of what it would take to get elected. Dropping unproductive attitudes is one basic requirement. Indeed. And most Canadian voters don't want those 'accomplisments'. There seems to be a reality-gap in the CPC ... they want somehow to get elected in spite of the voters' not wanting what they're selling.

It's odd that you strt your list with crime. As you say it's 'hot button' issue but I will add: for the Right. Fortunatly, most Canadians don't fall for the idea that crime is a major issue nor that the solutions is to just swing a bigger hammer. Most of the measures you suggested are impractical or counter-productive, and appeal to a desire to project a visceral toughness rather than prevent crime. On the other hand, your health suggestions might have substantial merit, especially as a Tory PR strategy.

As usual, bigotry and ignorance come hand in hand. Caesar, if you knew half asmuch as you pretend, you would understand that settlements go to litigants, not lawyers. In this case the concept of a money settlement is irrelevant, since the claims don't seek money. Doctors must save the lives of patients, whethersuc patients are good people or bad people. And most do not work for cheap. What utter crap. Do you imagine that some lawyer called the Shindlers first, or did the Shindlers call a lawyer?

True. It is practically impossible to get a straight story out of most of the media most of the time.

The fact that capitalism as we practice it today DOES allocate production does not mean that capitalism is the same thing as the PROCESS of allocating production. Perhaps you simply mean that you see no distinction between capitalism as we practice it today and the very concept of using the market to allocate production. If so, I would not agree. Capitalism as we practice it today gives lip-service to the market, but adopts it in a debased and corrupted way.

Well, it is the right wing people who love to attack anyone with any compassion or concern for the environment as "lefties" or even "communists" Conservatives have compassion and concern for the environment, too. The difference is we also have a concern for what is economically sound - or at least possible. The Left rarely pays much attention to such things. No. The portion of the 'left' that made up of reasonable environmentalist thinkers (REL) says that the society's approach to this balance is the wrong approach. The REL says that in that balance it is necessary and appropriate to put more weight on the side of conservation. The portion of the right that is unreasonably economically self-interested then often fallaciously attempts to revert the argument back to whether-there-should-be-a-balance, rather than face the Left on the question of what-the-balance-should-be. The unreasonable portion of the left, by contrast argues that there is no balance necesary and that all weight must go to the environment. And so, the public discourse chases it's own tail.

Unfortunately, the majority of people utilize a 'bounded rationality' 'satisficing' approach to making choices. If people could be counted on to be rational about politics and public policy, the likes of O'Reilly and the Faux News Cabal would never get any kind of viewership.

And I can't help but notice a profound sense of ignorance in yours. I can't help but notice a nasty attitude on your part. Ignorance??? My dear chap, ignorance is not being able to discuss topics on which you loudly assert "truths". Winterhaze13, eh? Are those digits your age? CAPITALISM, as for as I know there is only one variant. Then why not tell me which ONE you mean rather than this odd evasion? I specified the distinctions I think exist. You should try to address them. Well, again you resort to that as yet unclarified term 'capitalism'. Do you even know what you think you mean? This is a red-herring argument. Darwin's 'intentions' have no relevance whatsoever to my use of the expression darwinian.

You made a sweeping generalization about individual people based on presumed negative characteristics of the group. Sounds like bigotry to me.

CAPITALISM, what other type is there. I also get that question alot. I think its an attempt to stire away from the negative aspects of the system. I don't think you have answered my question very well. I am hoping to engage you meaningfully, but cannot unless you are willing to be clear about aspects which give meaning to the discussion at your end. C'mon, just answer: A, B, both or neither? Oh, btw, it's prefered to post excerpts and a link to material rather than cutting and pasting in large bodies of text.

True in a partial, distorted, tory-istic kind of way. Mulroney led that charge, Chretien abetted it to curry favor with generally rightwing interests. Trudeau had fought it, but undermined it with unsustainable (at least in the time frame involved) economic measures.

What do the tories want to do with health care? We know now that the party's policy under Harper is to not go after abortion. But the electorate didn't know it then, and a major policy vote was needed to clear it up. The party's policy on marriage indicates a willingness to distinguish the rights of some from the rights of others. The comments of some party members and adherents is distinctly hostile to homosexuals. ...

And so can Mr. Gate's pet dog and cat. If you somehow are operating under the belief Bill Gates is controlling your life that's your problem. Oh, please. Don't stoop to such nonsense. Gates was your image to represent the general whole to which I had refered. I took up your analogy as an analogy too. In light of such assertion, it would be interesting if you would consider the distinction I made in the rest of that post and let me know what your response is.

I guess you don't know as many lawyers that I do. What do you think the lawyers are in it for???? Money What is your occupation? Why do you do it, whatever it is? I think your attitude about lawyers is nothing short of raw bigotry.

There may not be a reason, but I'll bet there is an explanation.

And so can Mr. Gate's pet dog and cat. So either one of two things. Mr. Gates has obtained his wealth primarily through applying a combination of industriousness and smarts, or he has obtained it primarily through social or political advantages extraneous to such merits. If the former, society has been well served by Mr. Gates obtaining (creating) that wealth. If the latter, Mr. Gates' obtaining such wealth is at best neutral for society, but probably negative.

Winterhaze: What do you mean by Capitalism? Do your criticisms apply to the 'capitalist' economic system as it exists now, or do you mean them to apply to the very concept of having the market allocate economic production? (Or both, or neither?)

What a wonderful imagination you have. Nice how you just assume perfectly decent people are automatically acting poorly. With such a negative imagination, maybe you should give it a rest before it convinces you life isn't worth living.

Her family caused that, not him.