Jump to content

The Terrible Sweal

Member
  • Posts

    1,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Terrible Sweal

  1. The concept of a 'secular society' seems at times to be viewed by some as being, in an of itself, an specific choice, as though at some point 'the founders' decided amonst themselves to toss a coin on the point, and we came up 'secular'. In fact, a 'secular society' is merely the result of a different choice, one made on the basis of observed history and humane principle -- the choice between a society based on reason or one based on unreason.
  2. From whatever cultural influence it may come, any 'good idea' should certainly be welcomed by any society. Of course, society must evaluate the idea for its own merits, and neither credit it with invalid authority, nor discredit it simply for its source. Indeed, I believe that is what has happened to bring about our liberal society today. We retain, for example, Jesus's basis point that each individual is an end in themselves; we discard the empty totems of superstition such as witch trials.
  3. This was my first Liberal vote in about 9 years. Ironically, if Harper falls short, or his minority is discredited quickly, I think this election will represent a big missed opportunity for the hard blue west to have significant influence in a national government. As for Duceppe in the English debate, he's perfectly entitled to be there... there are SOME Quebeckers who don't speak French as their language of best comprehension. I don't doubt that Duceppe earned some of their votes, do you? Here's a prediction btw: If Harper leads a minority it won't last 6 months. If Martin leads a minority with the NDP if could hold up for a couple of years. Either way, the Liberals win the next election.
  4. I think that as long as any state possesses nuclear missiles, it is perfectly rational for any other state to seek nuclear armaments itself and defenses against them, within the context of an overall strategy of peaceful relations.
  5. During the whole campaign, not one single candidate called, stopped by, or dropped off literature at my home, except one. The Liberal candidate, in the neighboring riding. If I'd heard anything from them, the Greens might have gotten my vote. With the Crappers and the NDP being basically unacceptable (we can't legitimize these people -- it's a slippery slope), I ended up deciding that Paul Martin earned my vote a few years back and his recent missteps notwithstanding, I wanted to see what he could do. Yes, this is an apologia for voting Liberal.
  6. Is there something other than subjective opinion behind that assertion? If so, what?
  7. BITE ME Seriously though, did my politics offend?
  8. I have analyzed the Crapper platform. Some items (which I won't bother to discuss) are sensible, others unobjectionably vague. However, other parts of it are rife with lunacy and code-speak. The platform is in bold; my comments are in goatCaps. • Create an independent Ethics Commissioner appointed by Parliament, not by the Prime Minister. ALREADY UNDERWAY BY LIBERALS. • End corporate and union political donations, and end forced taxpayer subsidies of political parties. LEAVING ELECTION FINANCING IN THE HANDS EXCLUSIVELY OF WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS. • Set federal elections on a fixed date every four years and examine other democratic reforms. LIKE REFERENDA, DORIS? • Ensure fairness in party nomination and leadership races. I.E. MEDDLE IN THE INTERNAL WORKINGS OF PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND DEFY THE RIGHT TO FREE ASSOCIATION • Hold elections to fill vacancies in the Senate. PROVIDING LEGITIMACY AND THUS BLINDLY ENTRENCHING OTHER PROBLEMS. • Increase the power of individual Members of Parliament. GOOD IDEA. HOW? • Give Parliament, not the Courts, the final decision on issues like marriage. THIS IS CODE FOR 'TURN BACK THE CLOCK ON CIVIL RIGHTS'. IT'S ALSO UTTER NONSENSE. PARLIAMENT ALREADY HAS THE 'FINAL DECISION' THROUGH THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE. NO-ONE QUESTIONS THAT PARLIAMENT HAS THAT POWER, ONLY THE WISDOM OF USING IT. • Improve relations with the provinces and clarify federal and provincial roles. I.E. SELL OUT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WHOLESALE TO THE RICH PROVINCES AND DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST. A Conservative government will cut taxes for individuals and families, get spending under control, and invest in critical needs like infrastructure for cities and communities. HOW HOW HOW? HOW WILL IT DO WITHOUT THE TAX REVENUE? WHAT SPENDING WILL IT CONTROL? • Introduce a $2000 per child deduction to reduce the tax burden on families with children. WHAT ABOUT FAMILIES WHO CAN'T MAKE USE OF A TAX DEDUCTION? AND WHY SHOULD TAXPAYERS WITHOUT CHILDREN BE FORCED TO TAKE ON A HIGHER TAX BURDEN? • Introduce a new Registered Lifetime Savings Plan that will allow Canadians to withdraw their money tax-free. CODE FOR: 'ESTABLISHING A GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MONEY-LAUNDERING REGIME WHICH WOULD FAVOR THE WEALTHY. • Control government spending and pay down the national debt. WHICH SPENDING? • Support Canada’s farmers, fishers, and forestry workers. CODE FOR ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALISM. • Work with provinces to build on the 2003 Health Accord on Health Renewal. SELL OUT WHOLESALE TO THE RICH PROVINCES AND THE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE LOBBY, AND DEVIL TAKE THE HINDMOST. • Provide relief to Canadians on low and fixed incomes to help them meet rising utility, insurance, and gasolIne prices. WHAT DOES 'RELIEF' CONSTITUTE? LIMITING THE BENEFITS UNDER INSURANCE? CUTTING GAS TAXES? PRIVATIZING UTILITIES? • Expand tax credits for those taking care of elderly, sick, or disabled relatives. WHAT ABOUT ACTUALLY HELPING THEM TAKE CARE OF THEM? • Become an environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy. MEANING WHAT? WHAT STEPS, TARGETS, POLICIES ARE IMPLIED HERE? • Protect our communities from crime by instituting truth in sentencing, tightening parole, and holding young offenders accountable. I.E. PUNISH MORE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE UTILITY OF THAT IDEA. • Protect our children by eliminating legal loopholes for child pornography. RIGHT, LIKE THE 'LEGAL LOOPHOLE' FOR ANATOMY TEXTBOOKS. • Fight crime by scrapping the firearms registry and redirecting the money to law enforcement. HOW ABOUT SCRAPPING ENFORCEMENT OF 'VICTIMLESS CRIMES' AND REDIRECTING THAT MONEY TOO? • Build a more constructive partnership with our major allies and trading partners and enhance the North American trade relationship. CODE FOR: 'CURRY AMERICAN FAVOR.' • Implement a Made in Canada foreign policy. CODE FOR 'FOLLOWING THE U.S. INSTEAD OF THE U.N.'
  9. I'd suggest that, rather than a means test for the ballot, that if you have no clue about the principles and institutions of our society you have no business voting. Though allocation of spending is important, elections and voting are about more than that. I suppose if you want to reconceive citizenship as shareholding, a one-dollar-one-vote method makes sense, but then you probably loose a level of commitment and participation from a substantial number of people. What about wealthy citizens who avoid tax through careful planning... presumably their votes would be stripped to, by this logic, right? Perhaps your brother thinks that kind of spending is efficient and neither wasteful or theft. To be complete, your argument requires that you support the implication that welfare and public housing are inappropriate uses for money.
×
×
  • Create New...