Michelle, Steyn, Hollywood - Academy Awards 2013

[Guest American Woman]

While you are at it, perhaps you could also explain why Kimmy and August 1991 who went at each other fairly vigorously on this thread didn`t get such a warning point and why I did for the single crime of calling Kimmy a lefty.

FYI, you can't see other posters' warning points - just your own.

[Michael Hardner]

I've been on team Harper for longer than anybody else on this forum, you hapless boob.

This is the type of insult that isn't acceptable on the thread - for which some posters have been warned.

Kimmy is a proud right-of-centre poster but she needs to suffer hapless boobs as do the rest of us.

[CaptainChatham]

FYI, you can't see other posters' warning points - just your own.

- AW ... Thank you for that very important piece of information! Perhaps then this Anthony character may not have singled me out for censure but nonetheless it will be interesting to read his reply to my questions.

[CaptainChatham]

This is the type of insult that isn't acceptable on the thread - for which some posters have been warned.

Kimmy is a proud right-of-centre poster but she needs to suffer hapless boobs as do the rest of us.

- Hardner ... Perhaps someone whom you would consider to be right of centre would be considered liberal or left of centre by actual right of centre people like myself. In any case, her response that one can only choose between reducing taxes and services or raising taxes and services is the kind of false choice championed by lefty and management-trainee-in-chief Barack Obama and is decidedly not a right of centre response. Nonethless, if she is offended by being called a lefty, I apologize unreservedly.

[The_Squid]

- Hardner ... Perhaps someone whom you would consider to be right of centre would be considered liberal or left of centre by actual right of centre people like myself. In any case, her response that one can only choose between reducing taxes and services or raising taxes and services is the kind of false choice championed by lefty and management-trainee-in-chief Barack Obama and is decidedly not a right of centre response. Nonethless, if she is offended by being called a lefty, I apologize unreservedly.

Are you going to use the terms "lefty" and "Barrack Obama" in every single one of your posts in the future? Cuz that gets pretty stale pretty quickly.

In fact, after only 8 posts, I am tired of your rhetoric.

And that Anthony character probably won't respond to your warning point question, FYI. The important thing to take away from it is to stop the silly name calling and all will be fine.

[CaptainChatham]

1/ Are you going to use the terms "lefty" and "Barrack Obama" in every single one of your posts in the future? Cuz that gets pretty stale pretty quickly.

2/ In fact, after only 8 posts, I am tired of your rhetoric.

3/ And that Anthony character probably won't respond to your warning point question, FYI. The important thing to take away from it is to stop the silly name calling and all will be fine.

Squid ... As a big aficianado of lightly breaded and fried calamari, I decided to respond to your trollish post.

1/ Yes, whenever either of these things is relevant to the topic at hand. In this case, a topic in the thread was Michelle Obama's appearance at the Oscars so it was somewhat difficult not to mention the Obamas and the false choice between having only higher taxes and enhanced services or lower taxes and declining services happens to be a specious left wing talking point whether or not you and the poster who argued it know this or not.

2/ Well that is a terrible disappointment which puts me in a dark and disconsulate mood since I live to impress you. Strange, though, that you deigned to read and respond to my post given that you are tired of my inconvenient truths.

3/ Well, I'd respect him more if he did respond to my post but obviously I can't compell him to do so and if he chooses not to out of arrogance or embarassment so be it.

[guyser]

3/ Well, I'd respect him more if he did respond to my post but obviously I can't compell him to do so and if he chooses not to out of arrogance or embarassment so be it.

Well well well....it couldnt be because he may be busy.... never responds to public protestations....pretty sure he doesnt curry people ratting others out.

[Pliny]

- In reality, tax cuts which stimulate savings, investment and employment are positive policies and even bring in more net revenue to governments over time and the breaking of the monopoly public sector unions which have so ravaged the beleagured taxpayers especially in Quebec, BC and Ontario will also free up billions of which some can then be invested in expanded public programs and services and some (oh, the horror) actually left in the pockets of the private citizens who earned it to spend (gasp) as they see fit.

Alright! Someone that knows some economic theory not just Robin Hood concepts.

By the way, Charles Anthony manages the forum and rarely appears. I'm surprised he took issue with your

post... it must be happening more frequently of late and he just wants to nip it in the bud before it gets

out of hand. Not that name-calling is a big problem here, regular posters are fairly civil.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Pliny

[kimmy]

Oops.

First off, I guess I shouldn't have called August a "hapless boob". That was excessive. Sorry, August.

In my defense, I will just say that I was riled up by August's condescending tone in message #46 above.

As August and I have been e-friends for almost a decade, I perhaps have a familiarity in responding to August that I wouldn't use in responding to a new member or to somebody who I don't care for.

-k

[kimmy]

After all, it doesn`t take Einstein on steroids or even Joe Biden after a lobotomy to figure out that she probably is a lefty and, furthermore, that she is unashamed to be identified as such. On the other hand, if Kimmy is insulted by being described as a lefty then I unreservedly apologize for hurting her feelings with such a horrible label.

I'm not offended by being called a lefty. I find it funny, more than anything.

It's funny, when I arrived on this message board I used to get accused of being on Stephen Harper's payroll, and being a Western separatist, and all kinds of stuff like that.

But over the last couple of years, a lot of people have decided I'm a lefty. I've learned that some people think you're a lefty if you believe the law applies to police as well as to the general public. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you think that sensible regulations should govern banks and corporations. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you don't love Jesus <------this much------>. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you think that raising taxes to what they were under Reagan wouldn't be an undue burden on the wealthy. And in this thread, I've learned that people will call you a lefty if you believe that explaining how he plans to prioritize competing and sometimes contradictory interests is a much more complicated task than just "tell the truth."

I do have a Red Army sniper in my profile picture. Is it because I'm a communist? No. I put that picture in my avatar partly because she was a truly heroic and inspiring woman. Partly because of my own enthusiasm for my growing collection of Soviet WWII weapons. And partly because it just tickles me to no end that so many people have decided that I'm "a leftist" because I think the rule of law should apply to police and that banks should be regulated and that people should pay their damned taxes and because I don't love Jesus <----this much---->.

The "Leftist from the Left Coast" stuff is pretty ill informed, btw. Outside of the Greater Vancouver Area, gulf islands, and Victoria area, BC is pretty much Redneck Country. I'm also not even from the "Left Coast", I'm a born-and-raised Albertan and I have roots in country that's so rustic that I doubt somebody from southern Ontario could even comprehend it.

I drove past Chatham-Kent on the way from London to Windsor one time, btw. Woo. Fun times. Go Red Wings.

In any case, her response that one can only choose between reducing taxes and services or raising taxes and services is the kind of false choice championed by lefty and management-trainee-in-chief Barack Obama and is decidedly not a right of centre response.

The point was to illustrate the dilemma of finite resources and infinite want. Ok, so you manage to save enough money by cutting waste and so-on to fill the pot-holes and add some new transit routes. You still don't have enough money in the city budget to four-lane Main Street. Whether you can find enough nickels in the couch-cushions to check off one more item from your voters' wish lists, you still have more items that you can't do. Or won't do, because there are lots of items that some in the community would like, but more people would oppose. A cyclist lobby is campaigning to have one lane of the busiest bridge in town turned into a bicycle-only bridge. Are you going to say no, and lose the votes of thousands of cyclists? Or are you going to say yes, and lose the votes of thousands of motorists who are already mad about traffic congestion?

"Telling the truth" is easy. Deciding what to say "yes" to and what to say "no" to is the hard part of a politician's job.

-k

[BC_chick]

We can fix potholes or we can add bus routes, but we can't do both. Pick one.

We can have lower taxes or expanded services, but we can't have both. Pick one.

Kimmy ... Your premise is totally fallacious. Perhaps this is not surprising seeing that you are a lefty from The Left Coast where monopoly public sector unions dominate government decision making and the grossly overstaffed public sector with its abysmal productivity, unmatched job security, inflated pay and grossly inflated pensions is the leading driver of unsustainable public spending, taxes and debt increases.

- In reality, the public sector's self serving waste and extravagance could easily be pared through attrition and pension reform and other productivity and public vs private sector employee equity measures so as to cut the public sector personnel costs by 50% which would mean a near 30% reduction in BC citizens' taxes.

- Also in reality, substantial tax cuts would fuel an economic boom that may very well result in an increase in net revenue to the government as more people work and save and invest and pay taxes and fewer languish on the dole and gourge themselves in the public trough.

- You mention needing better roads and fixing potholes in your post. This reminds me of the fact that monopoly public sector union contracts involving CUPE and some other unions require six workers to do a simple sidewalk repair job that is normally done by private contractors with three workers. It also reminds me of the time in Montreal in 2006 when city managers secretly videotaped two road repair crews of ten people during their 90 hours of paid time over a two week period. These public sector mugs, thugs and slugs were found to have actually worked a total of 7 out of 90 hours - or 7.7% - of their paid work time.

- So please save me this Obama style socialist silliness about how not a dollar of public spending or of taxes or of borrowing and debt can possibly be cut without things falling apart and the only way to improve public services is by hiking taxes.

- In reality, tax cuts which stimulate savings, investment and employment are positive policies and even bring in more net revenue to governments over time and the breaking of the monopoly public sector unions which have so ravaged the beleagured taxpayers especially in Quebec, BC and Ontario will also free up billions of which some can then be invested in expanded public programs and services and some (oh, the horror) actually left in the pockets of the private citizens who earned it to spend (gasp) as they see fit.

Kimmy's premise is not flawed, scarcity is the basic tenet behind economics. We have to make choices about our resources and we prioritize as a society.

And the issue isn't taxes/labour unions *or* corporations. One overpaid CEO makes up for 100 overaid union worker but the fact remains that we need both the worker and the manager in order to create a growing economy.

It comes down to finding a balance where neither management nor unions have too much power. The US and Europe serve as examples where the power is favoured too much on one side and if anything, we're in the middle. Our tax-wedge is at par with the US yet our social programs are more in line with Europe.

There is a joke - when the economist was asked 'how is your husband?' she says 'compared to what'. It always find it funny when people say Canada is leftist. Compared to what?

We're a pretty centrist country given our influences from both Europe and the US.

[CaptainChatham]

Alright! Someone that knows some economic theory not just Robin Hood concepts.

By the way, Charles Anthony manages the forum and rarely appears. I'm surprised he took issue with your

post... it must be happening more frequently of late and he just wants to nip it in the bud before it gets

out of hand. Not that name-calling is a big problem here, regular posters are fairly civil.

- Pliny ... Thanks much. I minored in economics in university and majored in economics by surviving nicely in one of the most competitive industries in existence. So I tend to analyze economic issues through the prism of economic principles and to believe that community organzers and others who are obsessed with redistributing wealth and unschooled and uninterested in creating it are ultimately playing a losing hand.

- Thanks, too, for the heads up on Anthony and civility.

Edited March 8, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[CaptainChatham]

1/ I'm not offended by being called a lefty. I find it funny, more than anything.

2/ over the last couple of years, a lot of people have decided I'm a lefty. I've learned that some people think you're a lefty if you believe the law applies to police as well as to the general public. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you think that sensible regulations should govern banks and corporations. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you don't love Jesus <------this much------>. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you think that raising taxes to what they were under Reagan wouldn't be an undue burden on the wealthy. And in this thread, I've learned that people will call you a lefty if you believe that explaining how he plans to prioritize competing and sometimes contradictory interests is a much more complicated task than just "tell the truth."

3/ I do have a Red Army sniper in my profile picture. Is it because I'm a communist? No. I put that picture in my avatar partly because she was a truly heroic and inspiring woman. Partly because of my own enthusiasm for my growing collection of Soviet WWII weapons. And partly because it just tickles me to no end that so many people have decided that I'm "a leftist" because I think the rule of law should apply to police and that banks should be regulated and that people should pay their damned taxes and because I don't love Jesus <----this much---->.

4/ The "Leftist from the Left Coast" stuff is pretty ill informed, btw. Outside of the Greater Vancouver Area, gulf islands, and Victoria area, BC is pretty much Redneck Country. I'm also not even from the "Left Coast", I'm a born-and-raised Albertan and I have roots in country that's so rustic that I doubt somebody from southern Ontario could even comprehend it.

5/ The point was to illustrate the dilemma of finite resources and infinite want. Ok, so you manage to save enough money by cutting waste and so-on to fill the pot-holes and add some new transit routes. You still don't have enough money in the city budget to four-lane Main Street. Whether you can find enough nickels in the couch-cushions to check off one more item from your voters' wish lists, you still have more items that you can't do. Or won't do, because there are lots of items that some in the community would like, but more people would oppose. A cyclist lobby is campaigning to have one lane of the busiest bridge in town turned into a bicycle-only bridge. Are you going to say no, and lose the votes of thousands of cyclists? Or are you going to say yes, and lose the votes of thousands of motorists who are already mad about traffic congestion?

6/ "Telling the truth" is easy. Deciding what to say "yes" to and what to say "no" to is the hard part of a politician's job.

-k

- kimmy ... What an enjoyable and interesting post!

1/ Since reading is pointless unless it is either profitable or amusing, I am glad that you at least got giggles out of my post

2/ Being a Red Tory from the Stanfield-Clark-Mulroney era meaning that I am conservative on economic and fiscal issues and moderate on social issues, I happen to agree with every one of your opinions in this paragraph.

3/ I could care less what your avatar is and I also agree with the opinions you have stated in this paragraph.

4/ My experience in reading more than posting on the various Canadian political forums is that there are usually more left of center than right of center posters and that BC posters are generally even more likely to be left of center than those from other provinces. There are several reasons for this including that monopoly public sector union employees and early retirees tend to have a lot more time to indulge themselves in these kinds of time intensive activities. So not having the time nor the inclination to read your past posts here, I was generalizing from your one post and from your location (they call it The Left Coast for a reason) and I unequivocally withdraw the lefty label as applied to you.

5/ I guess I haven't fully and clearly explained the huge potential savings in the proper position management and compensation of the ever more ravenous public sector nor the expanded government revenues to be had from targetted tax cuts that stimulate economic growth. But yes, governmetn can't and should not try to do everything even if they did have the resources to do so.

6/ In general I agree with you on this as well.

Edited March 8, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[Pliny]

"Telling the truth" is easy. Deciding what to say "yes" to and what to say "no" to is the hard part of a politician's job.

-k

The problem with our political system is that if a politician says "no" you go and look for one that will say "yes".

They say yes mostly during campaigns. In my opinion, they should not have the power to say yes or no on a lot of issues.

The limits of government should be understood by the people. Politicians cannot promise economic well-being by creating

money for too long before the nation goes broke.

[Pliny]

- Pliny ... Thanks much. I minored in economics in university and majored in economics by surviving nicely in one of the most competitive industries in existence. So I tend to analyze economic issues through the prism of economic principles and to believe that community organzers and others who are obsessed with redistributing wealth and unschooled and uninterested in creating it are ultimately playing a losing hand.

- Thanks, too, for the heads up on Anthony and civility.

Your welcome.

I'm more a fan of Austrian economic theory so we'll probably butt heads on a few things, and I don't think I'm as

conservative as you. I find Conservatives and Liberals are too supportive of big government and big government

solutions, hence I understand your mistaking kimmy as being left-wing from her post. She positions social problems as

requiring government solutions. Like, we must ask politicians to decide too many things for us. And I understand your

agreement with her on your last post.

[Pliny]

Kimmy's premise is not flawed, scarcity is the basic tenet behind economics. We have to make choices about our resources and we prioritize as a society.

It is flawed in the sense that government is being forwarded as the arbiter of our social needs dependent upon their

economic well-being.

And the issue isn't taxes/labour unions *or* corporations. One overpaid CEO makes up for 100 overaid union worker but the fact remains that we need both the worker and the manager in order to create a growing economy.

What's overpaid? Getting too much money for what you are doing? Most people will tell you that they are underpaid or at least need more money. I appreciate that you express the need for management and labour to work together but what is

flawed is the regulatory agency. The third party that plays one against the other. Giving subsidies to corporations and monopoly to Unions, for example.

It comes down to finding a balance where neither management nor unions have too much power. The US and Europe serve as examples where the power is favoured too much on one side and if anything, we're in the middle. Our tax-wedge is at par with the US yet our social programs are more in line with Europe.

There is a joke - when the economist was asked 'how is your husband?' she says 'compared to what'. It always find it funny when people say Canada is leftist. Compared to what?

We're a pretty centrist country given our influences from both Europe and the US.

My how the goal posts have moved. The confusion may be that we are moving toward bigger government not necessarily

left or right but more interventionist from both sides. But - that is the nature of government and it should be

constrained from growth by its national constitution.

[CaptainChatham]

Your welcome.

I'm more a fan of Austrian economic theory so we'll probably butt heads on a few things, and I don't think I'm as

conservative as you. I find Conservatives and Liberals are too supportive of big government and big government

solutions, hence I understand your mistaking kimmy as being left-wing from her post. She positions social problems as

requiring government solutions. Like, we must ask politicians to decide too many things for us. And I understand your

agreement with her on your last post.

Pliny ... Yes, while I am a fan of Hayek I also believe that government has a modest but meaningful economic role to play in the macroeconomic sense in particular in helping to create an optimal climate for investment, trade, innovation and productivity. But certainly like you and others who champion Austrian Economics I am more concerned than ever with the current US administration's money supply/quantitative easing and low interest rate policies and how they may be creating a perfect storm for hyperinflation followed by a new depression.

Edited March 9, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[roy baty]

Pliny ... Yes, while I am a fan of Hayek I also believe that government has a modest but meaningful economic role to play in the macroeconomic sense in particular in helping to create an optimal climate for investment, trade, innovation and productivity. But certainly like you and others who champion Austrian Economics I am more concerned than ever with the current US administration's money supply/quantitative easing and low interest rate policies and how they may be creating a perfect storm for hyperinflation followed by a new depression.

Well said, not to mention very disturbing. Too bad the now controlling left wing interests in the US see this from a completely different and warped point of view that is completelely uncomprehensible to rational minded people.

[August1991]

, If I had time (and the patience to deal with Windows 8), I would methodically go through this thread. Instead, I'll pick Kimmy.

"Telling the truth" is easy. Deciding what to say "yes" to and what to say "no" to is the hard part of a politician's job.

-k

My point, Kimmy, was simple. "Leftists" imagine a leader, a benevolent State, who always take decisions in favour of the "collective".

Well, what if the leader takes decisions contrary to the "leftists"? If you desire a dictator, then you must live with the dictator's decisions. In "Leftist Universe", the leader is always Tommy Douglas or Jesus Christ or Mahatma Gandhi. But what happens if George W. Bush or Stephen Harper becomes the leader, Master of the State?

I oppose Leftism (greater power to the State) on these grounds alone. God knows who will have State power. (IMHO, Europeans have too often concentrated power in State hands.)

In North America, I oppose Leftism because it has married itself with Calvinism and the Catholic church. Savonarola is now called "political correctness".

Finally, I am a conservative because after all, I realize that "small steps" are more civilized than any revolution. Market prices can change quickly; State power is different. I reckon that governments should change according to defined rules. Residential schools, for example, were once considered "progressive".

Edited March 10, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Kimmy, I'm struggling with Windows 8, and our forum's interface with Java. In case I missed your question:

"Telling the truth" is easy. Deciding what to say "yes" to and what to say "no" to is the hard part of a politician's job.

I disagree. Good politicians have no problem deciding what to say.

Or, how about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJbcOBFo3Y

Edited March 10, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Or how about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk-dZARtrFA

[Pliny]

Pliny ... Yes, while I am a fan of Hayek I also believe that government has a modest but meaningful economic role to play in the macroeconomic sense in particular in helping to create an optimal climate for investment, trade, innovation and productivity.

It is the Government's charge to create that climate through its role of justice and maintaining the peace not through

domination of the economy.

But certainly like you and others who champion Austrian Economics I am more concerned than ever with the current US administration's money supply/quantitative easing and low interest rate policies and how they may be creating a perfect storm for hyperinflation followed by a new depression.

After creating the housing bubble they double down with the same policies.

I read an interesting article that suggested maybe government, since it has a policy of inflating the currency, should

just finance itself through that inflation and not through taxation. The worry is that they would spend trillions more

than they should and decimate the currency.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Pliny

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I'm struggling with Windows 8, and our forum's interface with Java. In case I missed your question:

"Telling the truth" is easy. Deciding what to say "yes" to and what to say "no" to is the hard part of a politician's job.

I disagree. Good politicians have no problem deciding what to say.

I've only bothered watching the Trudeau video, but it illustrates my point perfectly.

He is not there "telling the truth", he is discussing competing objectives and making a case for his choice of security over liberty. In my earlier terms, he is saying "yes" to security, and "no" to people like the interviewer who believe that liberty trumps everything. There's no way to frame this in terms of "telling the truth", because there's no objective fact to be discussed. Trudeau argues for security, Benjamin Franklin famously took the opposite view, and neither is "right" or "wrong".

-k

[kimmy]

If I had time (and the patience to deal with Windows 8), I would methodically go through this thread. Instead, I'll pick Kimmy.

My point, Kimmy, was simple. "Leftists" imagine a leader, a benevolent State, who always take decisions in favour of the "collective".

Well, what if the leader takes decisions contrary to the "leftists"?

Your original point was nothing to do with "leftists" and "dictators" and "the collective", it was a the proposition that the Republicans could succeed if they just "told the truth".

And now to illustrate your idea of how successful politicians "tell the truth", you provide examples of politicians who are arguing for their values better than their opponents argue for competing values.

Thanks, you've made my case for me.

Perhaps if the Republicans had a Margaret Thatcher to argue for conservative values, they'd do better. But it's not a question of "telling the truth", it's a matter of explaining to voters why your values should matter to them too. The Republicans have become terrible at explaining why their values should matter to anybody outside their base of rich-guys, old-people, and Bible-thumpers.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

... The Republicans have become terrible at explaining why their values should matter to anybody outside their base of rich-guys, old-people, and Bible-thumpers.

...and women opposed to abortions on demand.