Molly Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 This morning's news is all about Insite, and the irrational federal attempts to kill it in spite of it's obvious value. I'm honestly quite surprised to be seeing, every morning, a lead news story that describes yet another failure of the Harper GovernmentTM. I didn't expect so many, so regularly and so soon. Everything listed so far is obviously just references to, or results of, or the next chapter of past performance. We had the opportunity to 'Stop the madness!', but didn't. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Smallc Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 This morning's news is all about Insite, It doesn't even appear anywhere on CBC or CTV websites. I doubt it can be consuming too much time on TV. Quote
Molly Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 It doesn't even appear anywhere on CBC or CTV websites. I doubt it can be consuming too much time on TV. I hadn`t checked the websites, but I did watch it on both CTV and CBC news loops, right there next to the flooding in Manitoba. (CBC is talking about it again at this very moment.) Will this do? http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110512/supreme-court-insite-110512/20110512/?hub=EdmontonHome Or this? http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story/2011/05/12/bc-insite-supreme-court-canada.html If you are short of info on the story, it`s one of the lead stories in almost every print outlet in Canada. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
RNG Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 It was on both the CBC and CTV websites that I visited this morning. And I do see both sides of the story. The Cons are saying that it legitimatizes drug use. The supporters say it saves lives. Pick one side and I will argue the other, but would have more enthusiasm for the pro-Insite side. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Dave_ON Posted May 12, 2011 Author Report Posted May 12, 2011 It was on both the CBC and CTV websites that I visited this morning. And I do see both sides of the story. The Cons are saying that it legitimatizes drug use. The supporters say it saves lives. Pick one side and I will argue the other, but would have more enthusiasm for the pro-Insite side. I don't think the CPC can in good faith support a Pro-Insite position as it's not particularly compatible with their "tough on crime" stance. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Molly Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 Meh. I'm sure he just thinks that I'm being disgracefully partisan, but I've never misled anyone about my opinion of the CPC, and I very truly am surprised at this parade of items. None of them were top of mind (except for my dread of the 'control your wimmin' social dinosaurs). A functioning opposition would be having a field day with these things even without a sitting house- but they are all 'otherwise engaged'. Instead of discussions of federal/provincial roles in healthcare or the desireablity of punishment vs. reduction of harm, we have dopes babbling about how to make Bob Rae the leader of the Liberal party now and forever, and a bunch of hyperbole (read: slander) about an unlikely MP having gone on a long-planned vacation. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Dave_ON Posted May 12, 2011 Author Report Posted May 12, 2011 Instead of discussions of federal/provincial roles in healthcare or the desireablity of punishment vs. reduction of harm, we have dopes babbling about how to make Bob Rae the leader of the Liberal party now and forever, and a bunch of hyperbole (read: slander) about an unlikely MP having gone on a long-planned vacation. Agreed, but this further demonstrates the NDP was not ready to rise to the station of official opposition. Further the LPC needs this time of renewal, hopefully they avail themselves of this opportunity and they take this time to involve the entire party in the rebuilding process and get back in touch with the grassroots. Like it or lump it, there is no one in a position at present to oppose the CPC, so we're in for a rocky 4 years on some issues. It's my hope that the NDP or the LPC, not both, are in a position to give the CPC a run for their money next election. Having only one party capable of governing is not a good thing at all. We need two equally capable parties ready to take the helm at any time. If provides a balance and keeps the politicians "honest", and by honest I mean less corrupt. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
RNG Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 Meh. I'm sure he just thinks that I'm being disgracefully partisan, but I've never misled anyone about my opinion of the CPC, and I very truly am surprised at this parade of items. None of them were top of mind (except for my dread of the 'control your wimmin' social dinosaurs). A functioning opposition would be having a field day with these things even without a sitting house- but they are all 'otherwise engaged'. Instead of discussions of federal/provincial roles in healthcare or the desireablity of punishment vs. reduction of harm, we have dopes babbling about how to make Bob Rae the leader of the Liberal party now and forever, and a bunch of hyperbole (read: slander) about an unlikely MP having gone on a long-planned vacation. Mr. Harper turns down an invitation to go to the royal wedding because he feels our democracy is important enough to forgo that personal pleasure, and she gets a pass for not postponing/changing her vacation plans. Yup, priorities. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
eyeball Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) The Cons are saying that it legitimatizes drug use. So do bars - safe ingestion sites where the government goes the extra step and actually supplies the drugs. Edited May 12, 2011 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Molly Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 Mr. Harper turns down an invitation to go to the royal wedding because he feels our democracy is important enough to forgo that personal pleasure, and she gets a pass for not postponing/changing her vacation plans. Yup, priorities. spe·cious/ˈspēSHəs/Adjective 1. Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument". Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
RNG Posted May 12, 2011 Report Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) spe·cious/ˈspēSHəs/Adjective 1. Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument". I guess one of the downfalls of our free society is that we all are entitled to our opinion. And I am included in "all". So are you. But be ready to type your fingers to the last knuckle and I won't change my position on this. IMHO you are wrong. Edited May 12, 2011 by RNG Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Molly Posted May 13, 2011 Report Posted May 13, 2011 IMHO you are wrong. Yeah, that was pretty darned snotty. (Sorry. I was out of line.) I won't type my fingers to the bone over something so paltry, but neither am I likely to ever percieve: 1) Harper staying home from the wedding as a praiseworthy act in defense of democracy. The only reason he was on the invitation list at all is because he was, at that moment, the Prime Minister of Canada, and he stayed home to protect his phoney-baloney job - which was in jeaopardy at the time. or 2) any meaning at all to the fact that a space-holder candidate with no reasonable expectation of more than a few dozen parked votes, actually went on with her life while the election swirled on. I'm surprised that anyone would see any meaning at all in either event, much less those particular meanings, and then tie them together? Uh-uh. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.