Christy Clark is the new Premier Designate

[Pliny]

-k

Wow! kimmy. Speechless? It's rare there is absolutely no comment from you. What's up? I don't really get your intent but I get the idea you disagree.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Pliny

[kimmy]

Cute, win, fail?

I was going to go with a "Cool story, bro", but it really wasn't that cool.

Wow! kimmy. Speechless? It's rare there is absolutely no comment from you. What's up? I don't really get your intent but I get the idea you disagree.

You've gone on at novella length in a post based on a fundamentally stupid premise. To paraphrase, you're arguing that: Christy Clark is a bully because she supported Pink Shirt Day, which is actually a form of bullying itself because it promotes intolerance towards bullies.

That's just stupid. It doesn't deserve a moment of consideration, let alone 5 pages worth. Did you think that if you hid it under enough verbiage people wouldn't notice how dumb the basic premise is?

-k

Edited March 13, 2011 by kimmy

[Pliny]

I was going to go with a "Cool story, bro", but it really wasn't that cool.

You've gone on at novella length in a post based on a fundamentally stupid premise. To paraphrase, you're arguing that: Christy Clark is a bully because she supported Pink Shirt Day, which is actually a form of bullying itself because it promotes intolerance towards bullies.

That's just stupid. It doesn't deserve a moment of consideration, let alone 5 pages worth. Did you think that if you hid it under enough verbiage people wouldn't notice how dumb the basic premise is?

-k

No attempt to hide among verbiage here. Is that similar to foliage?

The premise only suggests that there is perhaps a means to determine whether or not "good intentions" are indeed good or pave the road to hell.

I consider it essential rather than condemn all good intent as part of the ashphalt.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Pliny

[sharkman]

I was going to go with a "Cool story, bro", but it really wasn't that cool.

I should explain myself, when I saw "fail", I had some kind of Pavlov's dog response. I've been watching Win Cute Fail episodes (I don't even know how I latched onto them) and got somewhat addicted to them. Wait

BTW, I agree with your assessment of the odd Pliny post.

[Pliny]

BTW, I agree with your assessment of the odd Pliny post.

Of course it is odd. I doubt you have ever read anything broaching the subject before.

Why do good intentions pave the road to hell? Or is that just a cute saying that at times proves true.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Pliny

[kimmy]

No attempt to hide among verbiage here. Is that similar to foliage?

To the extent that some people might look at your wall of words and not see the forest through the trees, yes.

The premise only suggests that there is perhaps a means to determine whether or not "good intentions" are indeed good or pave the road to hell.

I consider it essential rather than condemn all good intent as part of the ashphalt.

The premise, quite explicityly stated, is that Christy Clark is a bully because she is bullying bullies.

The only "road to hell" you've offered is inane ideas like...

You never know what you will get if you oppress bullying - it might turn into being something a lot meaner because you aren't recognizing what a bully is, only trying to be a bigger bully yourself.

Oppressing bullying could lead to some sort of holocaust or something?

Pink shirt day is about "not liking" bullying and saying no to bullying, being intolerant.

Refusing to tolerate bullying is intolerant to bullies?

The intent of pink shirt day is to stomp out bullying. It has a destructive intent. Seek and destroy.

Stopping bullying is destructive because it seeks to destroy bullying?

This stuff is just plain ridiculous. It's worth of ridicule. There's no other way to describe it.

I should explain myself, when I saw "fail", I had some kind of Pavlov's dog response. I've been watching Win Cute Fail episodes (I don't even know how I latched onto them) and got somewhat addicted to them. Wait

BTW, I agree with your assessment of the odd Pliny post.

haha! Ok, I wasn't sure what you were saying. I was wondering if maybe you were criticizing me for not treating Pliny's magnum opus with the gravity it deserved ( ). Now I get where you're coming from.

Cute video I will start following those!

-k

[Pliny]

The premise, quite explicityly stated, is that Christy Clark is a bully because she is bullying bullies.

That's the conclusion from the premise.

I did my best to explain the premise by which I arrived at that conclusion.

The only "road to hell" you've offered is inane ideas like...

You never know what you will get if you oppress bullying - it might turn into being something a lot meaner because you aren't recognizing what a bully is, only trying to be a bigger bully yourself.

Oppressing bullying could lead to some sort of holocaust or something?

Well, you could look at it from some childish aspect like someone that doesn't get their way may do some harm in another way. A sour grapes kind of thing.

Pink shirt day is about "not liking" bullying and saying no to bullying, being intolerant.

Refusing to tolerate bullying is intolerant to bullies?

No. It is a demonstration of intolerance. And the whole point is about determining what is and what is not bullying. Does being intolerant of bullies mean I become a bully to do so?

The intent of pink shirt day is to stomp out bullying. It has a destructive intent. Seek and destroy.

Stopping bullying is destructive because it seeks to destroy bullying?

This stuff is just plain ridiculous. It's worth of ridicule. There's no other way to describe it.

Stopping bullying does not mean I must be one. It means I must first recognize it. I think that is the only thing necessary to curtailing it. You and millions more do not recognize any bullying in "pink shirt day" so people can now bully and cajole people who don't wear something pink on Feb 23 and we can have a big campaign to bully everyone to support anti-bullying. And the result is no more bullying, right?

Naw. I think we just recognize that if we act collectively we can get our own way. We still don't know what bullying is if we act like a bully.

While I'm certain we can agree on the objective to rid ourselves of bullying I think it is only necessary to recognize what it is, not become one and crush all who may be in oppostion to that goal. Unless we clarify what it is exactly becoming one will deteriorate to a state where crushing anything we determine to be in oppostion is anti-bullying and acceptable behavior where only the biggest bully wins.

By being one you are asking to be crushed. It isn't a method to eliminate it.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Pliny

[Scotty]

del

Edited March 13, 2011 by Scotty

[kimmy]

That's the conclusion from the premise.

I did my best to explain the premise by which I arrived at that conclusion.

Well, you could look at it from some childish aspect like someone that doesn't get their way may do some harm in another way. A sour grapes kind of thing.

No. It is a demonstration of intolerance. And the whole point is about determining what is and what is not bullying. Does being intolerant of bullies mean I become a bully to do so?

Stopping bullying does not mean I must be one. It means I must first recognize it. I think that is the only thing necessary to curtailing it. You and millions more do not recognize any bullying in "pink shirt day" so people can now bully and cajole people who don't wear something pink on Feb 23 and we can have a big campaign to bully everyone to support anti-bullying. And the result is no more bullying, right?

Naw. I think we just recognize that if we act collectively we can get our own way. We still don't know what bullying is if we act like a bully.

While I'm certain we can agree on the objective to rid ourselves of bullying I think it is only necessary to recognize what it is, not become one and crush all who may be in oppostion to that goal. Unless we clarify what it is exactly becoming one will deteriorate to a state where crushing anything we determine to be in oppostion is anti-bullying and acceptable behavior where only the biggest bully wins.

By being one you are asking to be crushed. It isn't a method to eliminate it.

rofl

-k

[Pliny]

rofl

-k

Well, bear with me and let me entertain you a bit more.

I was trying to think of an analogy here and perhaps war is a good one.

Does a country achieve peace by getting rid of it's defences? Do we all just become peaceniks and voila war is gone? A lovely dream but once again aggression is a characteristic of human behavior. What will aggressive behavior turn into if we are all peace-loving people. It will become the behavior of the ones that will enforce peace while all others are defenceless. I believe it was Lao-tse in his book the Art of War where he says, "the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it". This requires vigilance and a willingness to recognize aggression when it occurs. A country may be covertly undermining the government of a nation and in defence the government attacks the other country. Do you protest and set up picket lines against the perceived aggressor because they attacked and ally with the country covertly undermining their sovereignty?

This seems to be the way of political solutions. They wish to fight a war on poverty or a war on drugs or a war on illiteracy, all well intentioned objectives I'm sure. None of which seem to resolve the problems.

The war on poverty does not seem to be, and many on the left make the claim, preventing the poor from getting poorer and of course the rich from getting richer. I am certain that the war on drugs will turn into government declaring itself a monopoly on the sale of certain currently illegal drugs. So is that how things are resolved? Get rid of drug lords and the associated problems of drugs by laying claim to a monopoly and being the biggest drug dealer? Get rid of gambling by having a monopoly on casinos and ruinning the gaming industry? Help the poor by divesting them of all or anything they may possess? Just to make sure they qualify, of course.

Yep - and we're going to get rid of bullying by being the only bully and granting licence to bully to only legitimate anti-bullying agencies.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Pliny

[sharkman]

And so that's the issue you've chosen to not support Clark? You really have an issue with bullies, and you suspect that Clark is one.

Edited March 14, 2011 by sharkman

[bloodyminded]

Stopping bullying does not mean I must be one. It means I must first recognize it. I think that is the only thing necessary to curtailing it. You and millions more do not recognize any bullying in "pink shirt day" so people can now bully and cajole people who don't wear something pink on Feb 23 and we can have a big campaign to bully everyone to support anti-bullying. And the result is no more bullying, right?

That's nonsense.

The fact that this is nonsense was part of Kimmy's point.

This reeks of desperation.

[Pliny]

And so that's the issue you've chosen to not support Clark? You really have an issue with bullies, and you suspect that Clark is one.

I said I would probably vote liberal. Although she is more "liberal" than I like.

Have you had the pleasure of listening to her radio show?

I used to listen to Peter Warren in her time slot and he was pretty good. Then a lady named Jennifer Mathers took over from Peter. I thought that would be it for that show - but she turned out to be great very fair and could play the devil's advocate in quite an even handed manner, not being critical or judgemental in tone, just wanting an honest answer and allowing the person their point of view; leaving it to the audience to think about it. Then Christy Clark took over, I listened for awhile for her to find a bit of a comfort zone, she was a neophyte so she needed to learn the ropes and settle in, but I soon found myself tuning out. She was a little too liberal for me. Bill Good claims he isn't a liberal, but it still comes through. Anyway, I know what I can expect with Christy politically. It won't be a change I'll like.

If the Conservative party could tear itself away from the NDP I might support them. I'm talking about the HST alliance.

When Carol James was ousted I thought it was because she was attempting to take the NDP a nudge to the centre. She was not really a hard left NDP'er. However, when Campbell got into hot water on the HST issue and turned in the towel, I think the NDP smelled blood for the first time since Glen Clark. This intitiated an internal power struggle, with hardcore NDP'ers previously content to bide their time letting the public forget their failures under Glen Clark while they licked their wounds and allowing Carol James to take the brunt of the party's dismal fortunes over that period, now bared their teeth and shoved her aside. After ten years they were getting pretty hungry. It may be true that Carol james may not have won an election but she would have gained some more ground maybe even limiting the Liberals to a minority government.

But anyway when Christy Clark threw her hat in the ring I thought, well maybe Carol James should do that too - they're pretty close on the left side of the spectrum.

I hope Christy doesn't shift the rudder too much and maybe the Conservative party can find some leadership and some principles for the next election.

[Pliny]

That's nonsense.

The fact that this is nonsense was part of Kimmy's point.

This reeks of desperation.

Desperation? True, I do wish the view could be understood but It's only a point of view and I am willing to be wrong on it. But I don't think I am.

The usual political approach to social problems seems to only serve in building bureaucratic empires, monopoly dynasties, and exacerbated social chaos - and the failures of all contribute to an ever-increasing demand for even more resources.

To me, being in the class that enforces the classless society is analogous to being a member of the anti-bullying league that will end bullying. You can't end a human characteristic by epitomizing it. You can recognize it as simply a means to an end, and the primary end is more often than not an invisible aspect of bullying. Oh, there's the obvious picking on someone for some fault and if you call someone on it they will generally back off but if they have a tendency to bully they will do their bullying outside of view and as an adult who has learned a bully can be fairly devious and destructive.

[Pliny]

Awwww....everybody left!

Leadership at times may call for a little bullying, using a little force to get your way. Christy will be an ok leader because she can be a bully. I however, probably won't agree with her policies but she will bully them through anyway.

[kimmy]

Awwww....everybody left!

I'm sure you're used to it.

-k

[Pliny]

I'm sure you're used to it.

-k

Yep. Did you just come to bully me and make me feel bad about it?

You see, Christy Clark just set her own trap. Whenever she wants her own way or wishes to force an issue, all you have to do to introvert her is accuse her of bullying.

[Handsome Rob]

Tell me something,BC'ers...

Were there any substantial public hearings on the efficacy of the HST in British Columbia...

And,to grease your collective palms,are you being bribed with your own money and being told by the provincial gov't that it will create up to 600,000 new jobs??

Don't care. Better it comes out of the coffers of the feds than my pocket. Boy did we ever spend the money on that party, city of Vancouver will take a while to recover from the Olympic Village.

All in all, lots of reason to be pissed at the Liberals, not much reason to be pissed at the HST. It's probably a good thing compared to the alternatives, half the people crying about it were adamant Olympic supporters. Still lots of reason to be wary of the NDP, especially the current group.

The BC Conservatives are also a growing player, to what extent we'll see. I wouldn't be surprised, wouldn't expect, but wouldn't be surprised to see a Liberal minority.

[Handsome Rob]

Who will oppose her? Other than the HST, and being a woman, I think her NDP opponent is another key question.

I hope Dix wins, Cummins takes the Conservative leadership, and Clark gets a run for her money. Best possible result IMHO.

Farnworth seems to me to be Glen Clark reincarnated.

[Handsome Rob]

Who did that analysis? I spent over two grand on life saving surgery for my dog last July and because of HST it cost over $150 more than it would have in June. Try buying a home in the Vancouver area. It will cost you a hell of a lot more. Need your home painted or a new roof? You will now be paying an additional 7% on every hour of labour that went into doing the job. HST boosters pooh pooh criticism by just talking about haircuts and restaurant bills but it is far more than that. It's everything that wasn't taxed before.

Consider the budget shortfall trying to replace $1.6 billion in essentially free money from the feds. What kind of tax will replace it, and how much more will that cost?

[ToadBrother]

Farnworth seems to me to be Glen Clark reincarnated.

I can't quite figure out where you get this from. He's as close to an antithesis of Glen Clark as you can get in the BC NDP.

[ToadBrother]

Consider the budget shortfall trying to replace $1.6 billion in essentially free money from the feds. What kind of tax will replace it, and how much more will that cost?

Something the BC Liberals should have thought about before they let Campbell and Hansen screw things up so badly. Maybe in the future in BC when a Premier announces a new measure without talking things through with Caucus, said Caucus will say "Uh, no."

[Handsome Rob]

I can't quite figure out where you get this from. He's as close to an antithesis of Glen Clark as you can get in the BC NDP.

I can't either, but I still can't help but think that. Regardless, unless they have a reset to Harcourt days I don't believe I'll be voting NDP.

Something the BC Liberals should have thought about before they let Campbell and Hansen screw things up so badly. Maybe in the future in BC when a Premier announces a new measure without talking things through with Caucus, said Caucus will say "Uh, no."

I don't disagree.

[kimmy]

Yep. Did you just come to bully me and make me feel bad about it?

Yes. Rest assured, if this was high school, I would give you a "swirly" and then pull down you pants in front of the other kids.

You see, Christy Clark just set her own trap. Whenever she wants her own way or wishes to force an issue, all you have to do to introvert her is accuse her of bullying.

Yeah, I bet that'll be a winning political strategy.

"Mr Speaker, the Premier is behaving like... a bully! b-b-b-but she said bullying was wrong!"

-k

[nittanylionstorm07]

Bump.

I watched the online interview that Stroumboulopoulos had with her... and she seemed very, very, very much like Hillary Clinton's doppelganger. Looks and sounds like her and has similar belief sets. It was ridiculous.