Pliny Posted December 6, 2007 Report Posted December 6, 2007 Sure, see post #107 (till you manage to answer the question, all references to "more" and "fewer" are shallow, as majority has already spoken on the matter). In keeping consistent I must argue, "Special interests" have spoken on the matter. Democratic governments in North America and Europe have become nothing more than a trough for those special interests. The big issue now is the governments throwing back corporate and individual responsibility to society. They are just going to tax and legislate and take no responsibility - we would do better on our own regarding social issues. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
myata Posted December 6, 2007 Author Report Posted December 6, 2007 (edited) OK, now you're disillusioned with the general state of democracy in this country. But then, Harper's Conservatives, true to their Reform roots, could e.g. declare a referendum on the issue. Unlike our, in your view, undemocratic elections which are run by special interest groups, referendum would be talking directly to the voter. It would be the ultimate in democracy. Yet, they aren't doing that too. Why, I wonder? Edited December 6, 2007 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Wild Bill Posted December 6, 2007 Report Posted December 6, 2007 OK, now you're disillusioned with the general state of democracy in this country. But then, Harper's Conservatives, true to their Reform roots, could e.g. declare a referendum on the issue. Unlike our, in your view, undemocratic elections which are run by special interest groups, referendum would be talking directly to the voter. It would be the ultimate in democracy. Yet, they aren't doing that too. Why, I wonder? Given the way they govern, are you sure Harper's Conservatives still HAVE any Reform roots? You could ask those MP's tossed from caucus for showing the slightest signs of independence. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
myata Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Posted December 7, 2007 Agreed. They silenced those who were too outspoken. And they aren't tellilng much what they themselves are up to. Just "open transparent controlled good government"? I'd give them a benefit of doubt, but their silent behind the door and under the table, acts speak otherwise. Perhaps, it (the agenda), may in fact exist? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Pliny Posted December 8, 2007 Report Posted December 8, 2007 OK, now you're disillusioned with the general state of democracy in this country. But then, Harper's Conservatives, true to their Reform roots, could e.g. declare a referendum on the issue. Unlike our, in your view, undemocratic elections which are run by special interest groups, referendum would be talking directly to the voter. It would be the ultimate in democracy. Yet, they aren't doing that too. Why, I wonder? They are run by special interests. Simple enough for you. I remember what happened to the Reform party out here in BC. the Liberals flew in Joe Peschisolido from Toronto to run in Richmond. Once elected he decided he was a liberal - all on his own. Who knows why he did that? It was political suicide for him. The reform was popular in Richmond - he was there to betray the voters. I know in my own riding that people I had never heard of showed up at the AGM and elected a President for the riding that had recruited friends with affiliations with the NDP and basically hijacked the meeting - all the while crying grass roots democracy regarding any debate. Then there was Blair from West Vancouver, he showed up and was the darling of the Liberals. He got elected but now is disgraced and had his personal history been known he would never have gotten elected. He represented some special interests and election promises of the Liberals. The incumbent lost because he made no promises of handouts or pandering to special interests. You can't tell me that politics in Canada is anything but pandering to special interests. Democratically, the only people that take any interest in politics are those with special interests. The majority don't vote. Why don't you become a member of the majority? Is it because you have some "special interest"? Who cares about your claim of "contempt for democracy" by the conservatives? You are obviously biased and had you any concern for democracy you would have long ago left the Liberals. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
myata Posted December 8, 2007 Author Report Posted December 8, 2007 They are run by special interests. Simple enough for you. Fine, I can understand and even emphasise with your plight (not agree with what you're saying, though). Elections are run by special interests. Referendums are run by them too. I guess, media too. Everything is. They are everywhere! Dispair! Unless, of course, we manage to find, like Russians or Chinese, a (bunch of) true and strong leader(s) who, from now on, will tell us what to do, what's good for us, and what not. Away with doubt, doom and gloom. Bright future ahead! Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Pliny Posted December 9, 2007 Report Posted December 9, 2007 Fine, I can understand and even emphasise with your plight (not agree with what you're saying, though). Elections are run by special interests. Referendums are run by them too. I guess, media too. Everything is. They are everywhere! Dispair!Unless, of course, we manage to find, like Russians or Chinese, a (bunch of) true and strong leader(s) who, from now on, will tell us what to do, what's good for us, and what not. Away with doubt, doom and gloom. Bright future ahead! Sorry, a rather confusing response from you. Agreeing but not agreeing? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
myata Posted December 9, 2007 Author Report Posted December 9, 2007 Understanding is not necessarily agreeing. E.g. one can understand certain condition and potential causes of it, but not necessarily agree to become subject to it. If you understand what I mean. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Shakeyhands Posted December 9, 2007 Report Posted December 9, 2007 If he doesn't understand the meaning of hypocrisy he has sure proven it.Slimey Liberals break their word on NAFTA and the GST. Completely ignored. Conservatives keep their promise on Kyoto. They are ignoring 'democratic prinicples'. As for the Senate - can live with the compromises of democratic rule. Why, oh why can he obtusely hammer away at such a ridiculous issue? I'm pretty sure that "Slimey Liberals" would be contrary to the rules of this board Michael. Care to edit it? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Michael Bluth Posted December 9, 2007 Report Posted December 9, 2007 I'm pretty sure that "Slimey Liberals" would be contrary to the rules of this board Michael. Care to edit it? Hmmm Shakey, *unflattering adjective* *party name*. If it was against the rules of the board this thread title should have been changed. Interesting how your adherence to the rules is one sided. You didn't object to: More on sneaky cons transparency Why? You didn't object to: legitimate concerns are met with this rightard foolishness. Why? You didn't object to: More on sneaky cons transparency Why? You didn't object to: This is not what Harper cons do. Why? You didn't object to: Are you being, as they say, "deliberately obtuse"? Oh that's right, those were all posts from left wing posters. Got it. So, I'll let the mods do their job here and avoid following your self-appointed work as a moderator. Does that work for you? Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Pliny Posted December 9, 2007 Report Posted December 9, 2007 Understanding is not necessarily agreeing. E.g. one can understand certain condition and potential causes of it, but not necessarily agree to become subject to it. If you understand what I mean. Yes, I understand what you mean. You prefer democracy remain a voice for special interests and governments a source of favour for those special interests. Liberals are definitely more appealing in that respect. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
myata Posted December 10, 2007 Author Report Posted December 10, 2007 No, not exactly, sorry. I mean that a discussion only makes sense when arguments of logic, reason and fact are used. Trading guesses about others mental processes can be an interesting distraction, but it hardly adds anything to the substance of the discussion. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Shakeyhands Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 Hmmm Shakey, *unflattering adjective* *party name*. If it was against the rules of the board this thread title should have been changed.Interesting how your adherence to the rules is one sided. You didn't object to: Why? You didn't object to: Why? You didn't object to: Why? You didn't object to: Why? You didn't object to: Oh that's right, those were all posts from left wing posters. Got it. So, I'll let the mods do their job here and avoid following your self-appointed work as a moderator. Does that work for you? You don't see a difference between the concept of sneaky conservatism and calling a political party Slimey Liberals? Ok, we'll let the moderators deal with it. Forgive me for not reporting it right away. Look out Bluth... the whole worlds out to get you conservatives!!! Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Fortunata Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 You didn't object to: QUOTE(Fortunata @ Nov 30 2007, 01:59 PM) * legitimate concerns are met with this rightard foolishness. Why? Yet, you've never objected to moxie, on many occasions, using the term leftard. Why? Quote
Michael Bluth Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 (edited) You don't see a difference between the concept of sneaky conservatism and calling a political party Slimey Liberals? Ok, we'll let the moderators deal with it. Forgive me for not reporting it right away. Are you saying 'sneaky cons' is a concept where 'slimey liberals' is a reference to the political party? What about the personal 'obtuse' attack? What about the term rightards? Ahhh, gotta love the hypocrisy. Textbook liberal response (note the small L). If it's against the left it's an outrage and time to notify the authorities. Against the right? Pretend it didn't happen. Look out Bluth... the whole worlds out to get you conservatives!!! Nope, but you are. Will the mods say something? Who knows? But it definitely isn't your place. Yet, you've never objected to moxie, on many occasions, using the term leftard. Why? I'll give you the same answer I gave last time. If he is doing it then he is wrong, as you are. I make 98%+ of my posts on Federal politics. So if he's doing it on a different part of the forum I probly haven't seen it. If 'sneaky cons'/'sneaky conservatism' is wrong, the mods step in and posters stop using it I'll gladly stop using slimey liberals. Just like Harper con/Harper cons is wrong. I notice you have stopped using those. Was that a voluntary choice? Edited December 10, 2007 by Michael Bluth Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Shakeyhands Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 Are you saying 'sneaky cons' is a concept where 'slimey liberals' is a reference to the political party? You miss quoted me but yeah with regards to the thread title thats exactly what I am saying. You are paranoid my friend. Simple as that. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Fortunata Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 If 'sneaky cons'/'sneaky conservatism' is wrong, the mods step in and posters stop using it I'll gladly stop using slimey liberals. Just like Harper con/Harper cons is wrong. I notice you have stopped using those. Was that a voluntary choice? Let's get right back to kindergarten shall we? Tattle, tattle, tattle. But, if everyone stopped being insulting and outlandish, nobody would be doing it so nobody would have to retaliate. It's tit for tat and you're as guilty as anyone else. As much as you would perhaps like to think you're "above" it all. As far as equivalency goes if you used slimy liberalism it would be the same as sneaky conservatism. Slimy liberal is not the equivalent, which you know already right? Being educated and all. As far as my use of the short form of HarperConservative, you know why I quit, don't you? As you were the tattle tale. Teacher, teacher.... Fortunata said a bad word against the HarperConservatives. At least I think it was a bad word. Make her spell it out teacher... wah, wah, wah. Kindergarten tactics. Quote
Michael Bluth Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 (edited) t's tit for tat and you're as guilty as anyone else. As much as you would perhaps like to think you're "above" it all. I am and I'm not saying that I am not. As far as equivalency goes if you used slimy liberalism it would be the same as sneaky conservatism. What about sneaky cons? As far as my use of the short form of HarperConservative, you know why I quit, don't you? As you were the tattle tale. Teacher, teacher.... Fortunata said a bad word against the HarperConservatives. At least I think it was a bad word. Make her spell it out teacher... wah, wah, wah.Kindergarten tactics. I wasn't the only person who took offence to 'HarperCons'. I would have no problem with a complete wild west environment. The moderators won't allow that. So my goal is the provision and enforcement of a level playing field. I do believe that both rightards and leftards should not be allowed. This little tangent wasn't started by me. I'm pretty sure that "Slimey Liberals" would be contrary to the rules of this board Michael. Care to edit it? Ok, we'll let the moderators deal with it. Forgive me for not reporting it right away. Have you taken Shakey to task for his tactics? I apologize if I missed it but I haven't seen it. Why ignore his tactics yet take me to task for mine? Level playing field. Yet, every mention of personal attacks from a leftwing poster is completely ignored by you. Edited December 10, 2007 by Michael Bluth Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Pliny Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 No, not exactly, sorry. I mean that a discussion only makes sense when arguments of logic, reason and fact are used. Trading guesses about others mental processes can be an interesting distraction, but it hardly adds anything to the substance of the discussion. I guess (again) that puts me in my place. I guess I haven't presented any logic, reason or fact. Opinion is of course of no value in a discussion. I really only do present opinion. I hope it appears logical and reasonable but then again what place has it in a discussion. I do not post a lot here so forgive me if I seem to be guessing about the stance of particular posters. I assume you are Liberal, sorry if that seems a guess but from the original post it was something of which I felt some certainty. I don't post here much because I don't find it much of a discussion of "politics" but more of a partisan discussion of political parties. I will voice an opinion on that once in awhile as well, and so here I am. I have said something similar earlier, but a poster that is concerned with sneaky conservatives is not really concerned with "sneaky" as much as he is about "conservatives". I think that is a valid assessment and not so much a guess about "others mental processes". If you were concerned about "sneaky" you could, would and should condemn all parties but you don't. So you are concerned about conservatives moreso than sneakiness in government. I am more concerned with how we are governed and find no real political party I can be partisan to as there is not one that represents my views of a federal government which embraces the concept of a limited mandate that does not include a central authority on social engineering. Since you approve of the use of sneakiness by using it yourself I do expect a sneaky attack on Conservatives, but be ready for their sneaky attack in return for they too have no qualms about being sneaky as you have so craftily and brilliantly figured out. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Shakeyhands Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 Have you taken Shakey to task for his tactics? Why ignore his tactics yet take me to task for mine? I have tactics? This must be some sneaky plan to expose me!!! Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Michael Bluth Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 I have tactics? This must be some sneaky plan to expose me!!! Don't blame me Shakey. Blame your most prominent partner in the conspiracy against me. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Who's Doing What? Posted December 10, 2007 Report Posted December 10, 2007 Poor MB. Still feeling persecuted I see. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.