The Terrible Sweal

Venom, eh? Y'know what venom is? Venom is hating the poor or the few or the weak and exacting cruel policies at their expense. Venom is calling a formr colleague a whore when she dissents on principle. Venom is using falsifed tapes to besmirch reputations. Venom is tarring a whole group based on evidence applicable to only a few. Venom is waging a campaign of false accusations because you don't agree with other posters. Venom is exploding with insults when your points are demolished. Venom? Yeah, we know all about it.

You are seeking to challenge me with a contradiction, but ... Ummm ... our society generally DOES provide those basics, thru social assistance/welfare. Where it does not that is a regretable failure whic should be remedied. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But nowhere does it provide the same standard for those basics as the rich, or even the middle class enjoy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The question is what necessities are basic. The poor man eats baloney and rice. The rich man eats steak and pilaff. Both live. The rich man gets and MRI and the poor man doesn't. One lives and one dies.

The Fraser Institute are not academics. They are paid rightist polemicists. That "report" has already been thoroughly discredited HERE Fortunately, that is not happening. In fact, even though the Supreme Court has already said churches can't be forced to marry anyone, the present legislation is going even further to ensure protection of this right.

Why? Because you are immature. How? Let me count the ways ... First, like anyone lacking perspective or experience, you cannot distinguish important stylistic differences between writers, and so your speculations are not likely to be accurate. Second, you resort to imperfectly logical rhetorical diversions in support of your speculations. Third, your speculations are driven by emotions around who you disagree with, rather than a sensible assessment of other posters actual posts. Fourth, despite facts to the contrary, you persist in folly rather than adjusting yourself. Fifth, your thinking is solipsistic and self-exceptional.

So you mean 'parents's rights', not "family rights". Why confuse the issues with a misleading term?

Ah, interesting. But that really doesn't affect my suggestion. No one uses terms like that. Odd they would both even know what it meant, let alone use it. They both have the same bitter, venomous left wing politics, and share the same bigoted, simple-minded view of Americans. Sweal = Eureka? Has there ever been a topic where they disagreed? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just to put a end to your peurile speculations, I'll tell you ... Eureka and I disagreed fairly vehemently on SSM.

Parents, childern, grandparents you know families. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please don't play stupid. I didn't ask what are families, I asked what are 'family rights'. Sounds like an unworkably moronic proposition to me.

You are seeking to challenge me with a contradiction, but ... Ummm ... our society generally DOES provide those basics, thru social assistance/welfare. Where it does not that is a regretable failure whic should be remedied.

Come on, CC, surely you can do better than a kneejerk ad hominem rant. Or, maybe not.

What on earth are 'family rights'?

Well, I am arguing MY position, so to that extent it matters to this discussion. But also, I gave some indications of the reasons for my belief, so an interlocutor is able to make some level of assessment of the merit of my belief. The court can only say that, based on the evidence before them in that case, it is not sufficiently well-supported. I am saying two things in reply: First, the narrowness imported by the 'based on the evidence before them in the case' leaves me perfectly able to argue logically that their evidence is an insufficient survey. Second, their conclusion does not preclude the possible fact that I am right and they are wrong about the content and meaning of the evidence before them. I don't think your question is germane to the point we are discussing. The situation you've implied in it inappropriately crosses up individual civic choices with personal needs. If these parents AND the rest of their society had attended as well to health care as you suggest, they would not be faced with the misfortune you describe. I think you're wrong. We all pay our 7% on our SUVs (and bicycle tires...) And (whether we like it or not) the Saviors of Healthcare Party have been in power for 12 consecutive years. We pay taxes (enough taxes to build a hefty annual budget surplus) and a plurality of us have elected the party which claims to attend to our healthsystem in the way you depict, and to what result? Waiting lists that the court feels are inconsistent with the right to life and personal security. We can conclude one of two things from this. That our kind of public healthcare has been done poorly, or that our kind of public healthcare cannot be done. If the former, then the managers have been the problem and I have no need to answer for them. If you argue the later, then I would invite you to explain why. Well, that seemed to work pretty well for a large number of years. But anyway, no, I don't think it has to do with the name of the political party who governs. Whoever has charge of the reins needs to apply sufficient resources in an intelligent fashion. So, exceptions and cue-jumping in cases that tug at our heartstrings sufficiently to create public outcry? Nope, no cues, no exceptions. If we follow my way a family in that situation would be an anomaly because waiting lists would not be allowed to pose such dangers. The policy for anyone in that situation (should it somehow develop) would be that the system reacts to fix it forthwith.

Tories.

This Law Society complaining is nothing but a cheapshot. Meanwhile the Tories still need to answer: Why did they only partially release the Grewal tapes and withhold the rest for nearly two weeks? Who had the tapes during that time and what did they do with them? When did the tory leadership know that the tapes were questionable?

Interesting that both you and Sweal misspell a common word, the same word, in the same way. I wonder if it's possible that you and Sweal are one in the same. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I dont see any misspelling in eureka"s post.

Then you're being even more childish.Are you actually going to try and make the claim that the Tories and their supporters don't think their ideas will actually be better for Canada? ... Anyone who thinks an entire party made up of hundreds of thousands of people is actually devoted to somehow making the lot of the common man _worse_ is a flaming ideological imbecile. First, I never claimed to know what tories THINK they are doing, only to observe what it is they actually do. Second, if you observe someone whose every idea would have the effect of making things worse, it becomes reasonable to wonder if such outcomes may be intentional. I answered that already. Where? What did you say?

I'm not sure the decision is quite as sweeping as you think. But your post givesme an idea I'll run by you on a fresh thread.

Why? The Supreme Court rejected that argument, pointing to other western democacies that have achieved shorter waiting times with mixed systems. I think there are a lot of problems with (a) the court purporting to conclude that their keyhole view of evidence would allow them to make sweeping policy conclusions of this kind, and ( b ) the correctness of their analysis of the evidence before them, and ( c) whether the evidence is credible and sustains the claims made for it at all. In short, I don't believe it, irrespective of what the court found. You would think that most people would say number 2, but if they are willing to spend the 60,000 on that, why are they not willing to pay 7% tax on the SUV along with everyone else to save their child through a public system? Do they want to make sure only their child lives?? Ok, so say that you've paid your taxes with a smile, you voted for the Saviors of Healthcare Party and done everything you possibly could to strengthen the public system... but your child is still sick and too far back on a waiting list. Now what do you do? I don't think your question is germane to the point we are discussing. The situation you've implied in it inappropriately crosses up individual civic choices with personal needs. If these parents AND the rest of their society had attended as well to health care as you suggest, they would not be faced with the misfortune you describe. Therefore, to make sense, your question imports the pre-existence of every policy error I argue against and your example-parents had individually struggled against. So I say: "here's how healthcare should be" and you then ask me what should happen if none of what I say should happen happens. What can I say? It's a very effective rhetorical manouevre (perhaps you yourself are convince by it), but unravelled, it doesn't serve as a critique in reason. What do I think 'should' happen to that poor family in that situation? The public system should act forthwith to serve them, and the state should pay for it with sufficient taxes.

Bush = BinLaden. Fits well with the rhetoric from the usual suspects eh? Bush = BinLaden <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 'Canadians believe'. What were the actual numbers, I wonder. Wouln't it be more likely that 'Equal numbers of Canadians view Bush as a threat as view bin Laden as a threat'?

Now, Argus, if you want insulting ...

I don't insult people. As for contributions of value, you simply disagree with my values and I yours. Trying to build that disagreement into a critique is merely an attempt to silence a POV you disagree with. One you cannot argue effectivley against.

August, I have rarely heard a more pompous whinge. You don't like hearing from posters who don't agree with your stance that Liberals are evil. Whoopee. At least none of us squirrel away a nasty snipe like yours here at the end of a longwinded disjointed spew.

Classic Fraser Institute distortion. Clearly Warnock was arguing that others saw Canadian nationalism as equivalent to anti-americanism. How can people take an organization like the FI seriously when it continues to produce this kind of pure mischief? A protester had interrupted the ceremony that day. How the hell is Hunter's comment reflective of any kind of bias???

Come on, August, have a little regard for your own credibility. The methodology is a joke. The researchers are neither independent of the Institute, nor of eachother. And the ctegoizing process each used seems to have been entirely subjective. It's just ridiculous. The headline should be: "CBC biased: Two rightwing grad students agree!"

This is the very defnition of junk science. This little squib epitomizes dishonest representation. What's pathetic is the transparency of the stupidity. One (Institute selected) researcher at U of W selected the items and put her initial spin on it. A second (institute selected) researcher reacts to the spin of the first. And the Fraser Insttiue pretends they are somehow independent and objective. Mindboggling.

Amazing. Out of one side of our mouth you say it works, while onthe other you're fully cognizant (even critical) of the problems. The public education system has the problems it does because of insufficient ingenuity and resources. Rather than contribute to success of the important community value of education through moderately higher taxes, some people prefer to take care of only themselves. How is this diffferent from private halthcare? Not very much. Only in the difference in the harms percieved between large class sizes and people dying. I care. First, I believe that like police and courts, the right to be cared for if we are ill is one that our society should provide. Societal rights should be provided equally. Second, a so-called 'single payer' model is demonstrably the most economically wise. Certainly not. One thing: the incentive to ensure high quality in the public system would be eroded. Another thing: efficencies related to scale would be sacrificed. A third thing: competion between the systems would raise costs in the public system. Absolutely true. You identify many important problems. But the solution is not two-teir care. (However, some resort to market-type incentives for patients, and use of private providers competing against eachother might be worthwhile.)