Harper Neocons favour ideology instead of data

[Pliny]

Do you notice "PROA-cess"...instead of "PRAH-cess"?

I agree with Smallc. We do not say "aboot" We do say "Eh".

WE do say "pro"cess and not "Pra"cess but I think the two pronunciations are acceptable.

[bush_cheney2004]

....WE do say "pro"cess and not "Pra"cess but I think the two pronunciations are acceptable.

Dialects vary throughout Canada, just as in other nations. But it is very easy to spot a Canadian because of the raisings (Aboat, hoase, oat, etc.). Canadians in "stealth mode" are instantly de-cloaked at business meetings when they speak.

Edited March 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

From Reform to Canadian Alliance to Conservative he got rid of the "Progressive" Conservative designation when the Canadian Alliance and PC party joined together. It then became the Conservative party of Canada (CPC)

Oh is that how it happened? How nice. "Joined together..."

Joe Clark has a different view.

Orchard says merged party 'born in betrayal'

Fri Oct. 17 2003

Former Tory leadership candidate David Orchard is railing against a proposed merger of his party with the Canadian Alliance, calling the marriage deal "conceived in deception and born in betrayal" and vowing to fight it.

Orchard told an Ottawa press conference Friday that Tory leader Peter MacKay had broken a written agreement signed at the Progressive Conservative leadership convention when he agreed to the merger this week.

"I told him it was a complete and utter betrayal of our agreement," Orchard said.

"This creature ... is an illegitimate creation conceived in deception and born in betrayal."

MacKay's predecessor and one-time prime minister Joe Clark issued a statement Thursday saying he couldn't support the merger.

"This is about more than a name and a history. It is about a hard-won reputation as a party that is both inclusive and pan-Canadian. Speaking personally, I cannot support a proposal which would close down that party, and put at risk that reputation."

Harper, Mackay et al are children of the "Calgary School", the followers of Straussian neoconservative philosophy:

The Canadian Alliance was a right-wing party, with strong grassroots and neoconservative leanings. Its origin was in the Reform Party of Canada, which was a social conservative and populist party founded in 1987.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Canadian:Alliance.html

Neoconservatives... arise from the populist tradition of the Reform Party of Canada which was succeeded by the Canadian Alliance and now the Conservative Party of Canada.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ne/neoconservatism_and_neoliberalism_in_canada.htm

So what's the problem with calling them neocons? Is there something in it that you're afraid of? Like maybe the general public will come to uderstand the important but subtle difference. No need to worry about that, as long as there are good movies to watch...

[Argus]

I think this is what is known as an argument for hyperbole. Unless you can quote me some actual statistics on trials that collapse because of juries, I'm going to take this is a case of rhetorical overstatement.

Actual statistics? On what? On the number of appeals allowed because judges gave instructions to juries that some other judges decided might be slightly biased or misleading in some way? Statistics on number of juries which made dumbass decisions because a clever lawyer played word games? How about the statitics on the average IQ of a jury, given most smart people figure out how to avoid serving on them. Who sits on juries? The same people who are enthralled by reality tv and soap operas.

The point behind juries, and has been for centuries, is that an accused should have the right to be judged not by some rarefied legal scholar or other such magistracy, but his peers.

The actual point behind a jury was that a "Jury of ones peers" would be less likely to uphold idiotic laws those "rarified" political elites and lordlings put in place. That is, even if a man was convicted of stealing a loaf of bread, the jury would refuse to convict if the punishment was seen as ludicrously out of line for the offense. However, now that we're in a full democracy, there are unlikley to be such laws in place, and further, juries today are sternly instructed - and so far as I've seen are quite obedient to that instruction - that regardless of how stupid they think the law, regardless of how unfair it's application, their only allowable vote is yes or no based ONLY on whether the person on trial actually commited the offense. Thus the actual reasoning behind juries is gone and they no longer serve any meaningful purpose.

What you really want is the removal of any kind meaningful defense, and worse, the removal of any meaningful way to appeal when a judgment goes against you.

No. What I want is practical application of the law, without jury rigging games or the needless expense of catering to a group of ignorant people (juries deliberately exclude anyone with any knowledge of law or crime) who serve no actual purpose.

Yes, you have a "review board", which most certainly will be occupied by similar people to the original judge. And for what, because every once in a while, a jury screws up? Well, judges screw up to, as do all manner of review boards.

Yes, but judges serve a purpose. Juries do not. You can have trials without juries. We do it all the time. You can't have a trial without a judge.

And the idea of "simple cases" has me astounded

.

I imagine you are astounded a lot each day.

Can you even give a precise definition of a "simple" case?

How about that cretin who shoplifed from some stores in toronto a couple of months back, inspiring a chinese grocer to chase him down, tie him up, and turn him over to police?

So let's get this straight. You don't like judges, or at least some fraction of them, because you perceive them as "liberal" for not going by the letter of the law (whatever that may precisely mean). You also don't like lawyers, because they manipulate (isn't the whole point of argument to manipulate). You don't like juries, because, apparently, they're stupid and screw things up (though you fail to give any notion of just how often this happens).

You can summarize by stating I do not like the justice system - because it does not deserve the name, and because few who work in it have any working knowledge of the subject.

I think what you really want is trial by computer, where some witless government lackey punches in facts, and through some odd divination process, guilt, innocence, and who gets the bill, is popped out the other side. You don't want justice, you want a lottery.

Are you going to actually dare to suggest that justice has any place in the current legal system? That there is any part of the system which bows to the concept of justice, or even has a passing interest in taking justice into account in any way, shape or form?

[Argus]

If there was ever any doubt about Argus being a willing little fascist, it has now been dispelled.

Gee, and If I really cared what a wacked-out tattooed drug addict working as a bouncer at third rate bars thought of my politics I'd probably be quite hurt.

[Argus]

So what's the problem with calling them neocons? Is there something in it that you're afraid of? Like maybe the general public will come to uderstand the important but subtle difference.

Conservative - someone who is conservative.

New-Conservative - someone who is convervative

The only difference I can see is the latter term tends to be used by those who drool a lot.

[Sir Bandelot]

Conservative - someone who is conservative.

New-Conservative - someone who is convervative

The only difference I can see is the latter term tends to be used by those who drool a lot.

Aww shucks. There's meaningful discourse for you.

[Argus]

Aww shucks. There's meaningful discourse for you.

You're not interested in meaningful discourse. You just want to insult conservatives.

[Sir Bandelot]

You're not interested in meaningful discourse. You just want to insult conservatives.

Wrong. If I am to label myself as anything, I am a conservative.

[Argus]

Wrong. If I am to label myself as anything, I am a conservative.

Yes, but you think Joe Clark was a conservative. From what I've seen you are a liberal in everything that matters.

[Sir Bandelot]

From what I've seen you are a liberal in everything that matters.

I see no reason to get insulting. Call me liberal again and I will report you to the admins!

[Jack Weber]

Yes, but you think Joe Clark was a conservative. From what I've seen you are a liberal in everything that matters.

Could you define what,"matters"?

[Jack Weber]

Oh is that how it happened? How nice. "Joined together..."

Joe Clark has a different view.

Orchard says merged party 'born in betrayal'

Fri Oct. 17 2003

Former Tory leadership candidate David Orchard is railing against a proposed merger of his party with the Canadian Alliance, calling the marriage deal "conceived in deception and born in betrayal" and vowing to fight it.

Orchard told an Ottawa press conference Friday that Tory leader Peter MacKay had broken a written agreement signed at the Progressive Conservative leadership convention when he agreed to the merger this week.

"I told him it was a complete and utter betrayal of our agreement," Orchard said.

"This creature ... is an illegitimate creation conceived in deception and born in betrayal."

MacKay's predecessor and one-time prime minister Joe Clark issued a statement Thursday saying he couldn't support the merger.

"This is about more than a name and a history. It is about a hard-won reputation as a party that is both inclusive and pan-Canadian. Speaking personally, I cannot support a proposal which would close down that party, and put at risk that reputation."

Harper, Mackay et al are children of the "Calgary School", the followers of Straussian neoconservative philosophy:

The Canadian Alliance was a right-wing party, with strong grassroots and neoconservative leanings. Its origin was in the Reform Party of Canada, which was a social conservative and populist party founded in 1987.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Canadian:Alliance.html

Neoconservatives... arise from the populist tradition of the Reform Party of Canada which was succeeded by the Canadian Alliance and now the Conservative Party of Canada.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ne/neoconservatism_and_neoliberalism_in_canada.htm

So what's the problem with calling them neocons? Is there something in it that you're afraid of? Like maybe the general public will come to uderstand the important but subtle difference. No need to worry about that, as long as there are good movies to watch...

If Orchard had won the PC leadership race,I would have voted PC....

[Argus]

If Orchard had won the PC leadership race,I would have voted PC....

If Orchard had won the PC leadership the party would have disintigrated without anyone needing to merge it with the Alliance. And, in fact, Orchard probably would have merged the remnants with the NDP.

[Pliny]

Pliny

I don't think "appease" is the right word. I do think that the public needs to be continually told that crime is on the decrease. Fear mongering by politicians is too attractive an option to getting cheap votes, and we need to be wary of taking the low road like that.

So you approve of their interpretation of the statistics.

If you ask them to break down the crime statistics only small crimes have decreased while violent crime is up. Small crimes, such as B & E's, theft are down but is that because people are neglecting to bother even reporting them or police are not bothering to respond or document them?

The way the justice system works it is hard to believe the claim that crime is on the decrease.

Police used to respond to every car accident but now if there is no serious damage they don't. Astonishingly, if we look at police records car accidents will be down. If we check insurance claims there doesn't seem to be a similar drop.

People need to understand statistics better - that would both prevent their misuse, and also would allow us to use them properly.

EVERY time somebody brings up statistics, there should be questions about the methodology, who backed it, and what was concluded - especially if a faulty cause-effect relationship is implied.

That being said, there's no reason that the public should accept any violence in society at all and they absolutely have the right to expect punishment for violent offenses.

I agree with your assessment on statistics and their use.

There used to be a political analyst on the radio here, I haven't heard him on lately, but he wused to bring up statistics for every argument. He had a statistic for everything. It was quite annoying because unless you are familiar with the production of the statistics you can't argue them or their interpretation.

[eyeball]

So you approve of their interpretation of the statistics.

If you ask them to break down the crime statistics only small crimes have decreased while violent crime is up.

Probe deeper you'll probably find the cause for this is almost exclusively related to the prohibition of drugs.

That said most violent crime is alcohol induced, which is something the government is responsible for selling. Ironic isn't it?

[Sir Bandelot]

I agree with Smallc. We do not say "aboot" We do say "Eh".

WE do say "pro"cess and not "Pra"cess but I think the two pronunciations are acceptable.

I know who it is that says "aboot". It's the French Canadians.

Tonight I played hockey with a bunch of young fellows, and there was two or three frenchmen there who dropped in to play a game. As we stood together in the players box, they were speaking english with the french accent, and I heard one of them say "aboot"!

[Sir Bandelot]

Stockwell Day says new prisons needed for 'unreported crimes'

Stockwell Day is facing criticism after he suggested that Ottawa needs to spend billions of dollars on new prisons in order to lock up people who commit unreported crimes.

When asked by a reporter why the government intends to spend billions of dollars to expand the penitentiary system in the face of falling crime rates, Day replied: "People simply aren't reporting the same way they used to."

"I'm saying one statistic of many that concerns us is the amount of crimes that go unreported. Those numbers are alarming and it shows that we can't take a liberal view to crime."

...

A StatsCan analyst said the most common reason people give for opting not to call police is because they believe an incident wasn't serious. Another two per cent of respondents said they feared revenge, and one per cent said they thought police could be biased.

Harper would do well to keep Day hidden in a closet where his bizarro view of reality can do the party the least amount of harm.

Want to make the CPC look like a bunch of idiots? The answer is through Stockwell Day.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[msdogfood]

Stockwell Day says new prisons needed for 'unreported crimes'

Stockwell Day is facing criticism after he suggested that Ottawa needs to spend billions of dollars on new prisons in order to lock up people who commit unreported crimes.

When asked by a reporter why the government intends to spend billions of dollars to expand the penitentiary system in the face of falling crime rates, Day replied: "People simply aren't reporting the same way they used to."

"I'm saying one statistic of many that concerns us is the amount of crimes that go unreported. Those numbers are alarming and it shows that we can't take a liberal view to crime."

...

A StatsCan analyst said the most common reason people give for opting not to call police is because they believe an incident wasn't serious. Another two per cent of respondents said they feared revenge, and one per cent said they thought police could be biased.

Harper would do well to keep Day hidden in a closet where his bizarro view of reality can do the party the least amount of harm.

Want to make the CPC look like a bunch of idiots? The answer is through Stockwell Day.

Yes the CPC just made THE STUPIDIST statement in HESTERY!!!.

[Bonam]

Yes the CPC just made THE STUPIDIST statement in HESTERY!!!.

Yes, in all of "hestery". Since the dawn of human civilization, through all the ages, never has anyone made a statement of comparable stupidity. This is truly a momentous landmark. Perhaps it should be entered into the Guinness Book of World Records?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Remiel]

The really weird part is that Day does not seem to get that you cannot lock up people that are not reported. You build prisons for the prisoners you have, not for the ones you think there ought to be.

[waldo]

Harper would do well to keep Day hidden in a closet where his bizarro view of reality can do the party the least amount of harm.

Want to make the CPC look like a bunch of idiots? The answer is through Stockwell Day.

Harper Conservatives... now they're getting tough on imaginary crime! Given the crime rate is at a 30-year low... that violent crime is in steady decline, (with exceptions being a rise in drug offences and impaired driving attributed to improved police enforcement), the Harper Conservatives see a need to spend $9 billion on new prisons without being able to provide any substantiation - other than "unreported crimes"! Oh my...

Unlike the Liberals, we do not use statistics as an EXCUSE not to get tough on criminals. As far as our Government is concerned, one victim of crime is still one too many.

just listen to Stockwell Day in the media scrum... stunningly stoopid!

[Mr.Canada]

The Liberals must also favor ideology because they haven't had a solid policy platform in years.

[PIK]

Harper Neocons favour ideology instead of data , now that is good, maybe it is the totally opposite and that is why he is getting rid of it, since the left uses the info for social engineering or in other words buying votes.

[PIK]

Day may be a little differenrt at times ,but he is the most honest hardworking politicion we have.