The_Squid Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 I have to agree with the editorial. This is a monumentally stupid idea. Where did the gov't come up with the idea that the number of regulations that happen to be in force as of this day is the ideal number? What about new laws that require a suite of new regulations? Somehow this is now a bad thing that we would have 2605 regulations instead of the arbitrary 2600? What gets dropped? These people are really, really STUPID. It doesn't take a PhD in philosophy to see that, although denigrating someone's education level as an argument to discount their opinion is ummmmm.... stupid. This committee was useless. Essentially, they could not find a single regulation that they should get rid of. Not a single regulation was singled out as being unnecessary. This tells me that the regulatory burden is a non-issue, but the committee couldn't come out and say that!! They had to come up with a STUPID reccomendation to justify all their hard work.... $60,000 in travel expenses in 3 months. Bring in a new regulation, get rid of an old one.That's the key recommendation of the government's red tape reduction commission. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/18/pol-cp-red-tape-commission-report-done.html From now on if a new committee is struck, an old one should be dropped, even if they are doing good work. Why? Shut up, that's why.... and we spent a bunch of money studying this... there aren't too many committees, but we had to come up with something. Quote
huh Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Decent, intelligent people, develop their own philosophies. Quote
guyser Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) History will say that the worst will be trudeau's and the 2nd worse will be when the idiots put in the 2nd trudeau. Actually history says Harper is 11th , Trudeau is 5th . Dsmn those pesky facts. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/06/10/canadas-best-prime-ministers/ Edited January 24, 2012 by guyser Quote
LonJowett Posted January 24, 2012 Report Posted January 24, 2012 The best part about a liberal arts education is it gives you the tools to actually criticize an argument, and not resort to remedial rants against the liberal arts. Quote Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan? Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...
Vendetta Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 The article doesn't say that Harper Conservative supporters are stupid, but if their posts here on these forums are any indication.... Lets just say that I don't need an article to tell me what is easily observed by reading the nonsense Conbots regularly post on web forums. Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 The best part about a liberal arts education is it gives you the tools to actually criticize an argument, and not resort to remedial rants against the liberal arts. The worst thing about a liberal arts education is that it can lead one to the false impression that just because you have read about a thing and can be articulate when discussing it, you actually understand it as well as someone with hands-on experience! You believe that you are qualified in making decisions to do with the subject and thus often make some very inappropriate ones. I'm NOT disparaging liberal arts education per se, merely stating that many liberal arts graduates form mistaken impressions! 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."
CPCFTW Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 The worst thing about a liberal arts education is that it can lead one to the false impression that just because you have read about a thing and can be articulate when discussing it, you actually understand it as well as someone with hands-on experience! You believe that you are qualified in making decisions to do with the subject and thus often make some very inappropriate ones. I'm NOT disparaging liberal arts education per se, merely stating that many liberal arts graduates form mistaken impressions! This. The only tools liberal arts grads have are how to find and create research that agrees with your preconceived notions, and how to write well to make the sheep think you know what you're talking about. They are dangerous tools though. Quote
Jack Weber Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 This. The only tools liberal arts grads have are how to find and create research that agrees with your preconceived notions, and how to write well to make the sheep think you know what you're talking about. They are dangerous tools though. Speaking of dangerous tools... So is being a Friedmanite... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Scotty Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 There's a difference between being pragamatic and pandering. Difference between being pragmatic and ideological too. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 How many times does it have to point out that it's not calling the supporters or people with particular political views stupid? Yes, he is. Who do you think supports a 'party of the stupid'? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 It's obviously the case that the policies are pretty divisive. This one-for-one rule, as a single example, is pretty stupid. I mean, monumentally stupid. Potter explains clearly why. No, in fact, he fails to do that. He mocks the decision on the apparent presumption that bureaucrats will be required to randomly retire old regulations without actually considering which need to be kept around. Of course, another possible interpretation is that he believes all regulations are good, and that even with thousands of them, finding one or two which no longer are needed would be a monumental task... Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 25, 2012 Report Posted January 25, 2012 The best part about a liberal arts education is it gives you the tools to actually criticize an argument, and not resort to remedial rants against the liberal arts. Perhaps the editor in question lost his toolbox somewhere. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
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.