I Miss Trudeau

Except that "political laborer," or "political line chef," or "political cashier" would all convey the meaning of someone selling themself politically. The point is, you didn't use any of those alternatives. You picked the word "prostitute" as a means of derision, with all of the nasty connotation intentional. That the word "prostitute" attached the image of sex to this "bimbo, flake, dipstick, blonde, whore" is exactly why you picked it. P.P.S. Your dream of people letting ignorant fools run their mouths off at length with no one calling them on their BS is a longshot. Just give up on it now.

What I do with my body is my "thing," as per your previous argument.

How can I possibly break rules that you've made for yourself?

But why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? It doesn't violate my morality, just yours. Why do you get to make the rules for me to live by?

So why can't I beat you up and steal your property? You've avoided answering that for many posts, presumably because you can't yet think of a "non-statist" response to it. Edit: quote format

She should have hired my 5 month old niece over whatever cluster**** did that. Honestly, though, I hope she finds the resources and a network willing to air that POS. That'd be one riding not going to the Cons, thats for sure. Doesn't seem likely. Word is that she intended it to "appeal to the younger generation," and is happy with it.

Kind of ironic, then, that that is exactly what you're saying here.

You mean other than the overall horrible design, Connie crashing like an airplane into the parliament buildings (ring any bells?), and a bunch of riflemen shooting us for no apparent reason?

Perhaps the most pathetic display ever....

Hugo, correct me if I'm wrong, but all of this ballyhoo prety much amounts to the following claim: "People should not have any other restrictions placed upon their actions than the ones which I prefer."

To be fair, the government has not done that, and no one here as suggested that they ought to be able to. You're flogging scarecrows, August. Really all I am getting out of your posts here, August, is that you seem to think that YOU ought to define what is and what is not a vote of confidence. Edited for quote format

Not as hot as the Sun's corona, therefore the surface isn't hot!

You know, this entire fiasco really demonstrates why the Conservatives should not be given the keys to 24 Sussex. They were given a gun, plenty of ammunition, and the Liberals lined up neatly in a row, and all Harper could manage is to shoot himself in the foot.

Read the thread again. You're very confused. I wouldn't say "absolute truth" (whatever that means), bur rather "accurate," "correct," or just plain old "true." You're very confused. You've just supported BD's point.

So, I assume that you will agree that it is impossible to be a "moderateamericain?" You have to be either an extreme liberal or extreme conservative, I guess. Which is it?

I think she was just enraged that the entire community of scholars saw her and her "philosophical" system as an object of derision, so she decided to get even.

No, not in BD's opinion. In reality.

Perhaps. Thankfully, however, most people require a little more than unsubstantiated testimony, particularly when some of that testimony comes from a person who has changed his story three times in two years.

The problem is that some people are not willing to try to bridge the gap between individual experiences by trying to the best of their ability to adopt the other experience. They've closed themselves off from seeing any "evidence" of inequality by demanding evidence of it before they bother looking for evidence. How do you expect that to work?

And here we see the tried and true Argus escape again. Cut and run when someone questions your view, and pretend to have been talking about something else entirely all along. That said, I'm glad that you seem to have realized that "evidence of Liberal corruption" is not the same as "evidence of public perception of liberal corruption." Small steps!

Argus, anything that doesn't fit your simplistic world view, or is not conducive to your tiresome ranting, is "liberal spin." As I said earlier, that is because civil or criminal liability can not be decided in an inquiry. The inquiry is there to figure out what went on. So, for example, Gomery could say "This is what Guite did," but not "Guite is guilty of money laundering."

Thats a pretty standard clause. It basically means that Gomery does not have the power to convict anyone in the inquiry. That, of course, is because its an inquiry, not a trial. Gomery is there to figure out what happened, not punish the offenders. That is an entirely different process.

I would ask him, but I'm sure he would like to hear this evidence as much as anyone else, if it exists. Looking back over this thread, I see a small handful of posters who claim that there is evidence linking the liberal party to adscam. I also see that not a single one of them has been able to offer even a shred of that purported evidence. You'll have to excuse me for thinking that the absence of evidence is conspicuous.

And this counts as evidence in your world, I suppose? Do you even know what evidence is? I realize you don't want a lack of evidence to get in the way of your blanket condemnations, but come on. Have another look at what Sweal wrote. You know, the post that you have responded to, and quoted, but which you still seem to not have read. SWEAL: There is no evidence whatsoever that the Liberal Party as an organization, or that Paul Martin, or that any present cabinet minister had anything to do with the sponsorship scandal If you take issue with that claim, simply provide some evidence. Simple, yet effective! Could you clarify this please? As it stands, I can see no connection between this and the post you are responding to. It pains me to read nonsensical drivel, due to your need to rant incoherently. Oh, you mean the bit that you still havent read and fully understood? Anyway, let me try to get your "logic" straight. Your claim seems to be that if there is evidence that anyone remotely connected to the Liberal party was involved in Adscam, it is evidence that the party was involved? So, by the same line of reasoning, we can conclude that if there is evidence of a person connected to the Conservative party being involved in corporate fraud, there is evidence that the Conservative party is involved in corporate fraud?

Most Canadians believe... I think... I think... Did you even read Sweal's post before you tried to respond to it? If you did, you no doubt noticed that your post supported his claim. Could you clarify this please? As it stands, I can see no connection between this and the post you are responding to.