Is Canada sick?

[I miss Reagan]

The effective tax rate in the United States for corporations, when they actually pay them, is around 31%. In Canada, 21%.

Then you have to ask yourself why companies in the US are not flocking to Canada in droves and why there is a one way brain drain going South. Is it because the employees of those companies don't want to lose half their income to taxes? Why does our PM ( ) locate his company off shore? You want to tax corporations an legislate unreasonable protection of unions then you get mad when the company relocates to Mexico . And you're right we care about the individual because we've learned that is the individual that drives the country not a matrix of robots on life support. Ireland has learned this too and is now booming because of it's own common sense revolution.

Conservative businessmen are allowed to be successful in part because of their own ingenuity and hard work, and IN PART because of the excellent society we have here, the cost of which is bourned principally by the middle class.

See this is where you guys miss the message. As long as I can remember Harper has been talking about aleviating the tax burden on the middle class.

Why do Conservatives believe, in upholding corporate welfare

I don't think we do. We want to let the market work. Why can't Air Canada just die!?

super-low corporate tax rates

Corporations provide jobs...

[Black Dog]

I find it uniquely left wing to equivocate and reduce the respect for tens of thousands of dead soldiers to nostalgia. It is quite specious of you (as usual) to imply that myself and other right wingers "look back with fondness for the slaughter" of our veterans. As if we revel in the horrors of war. 

Hardly. We respect veterans for what they did (defend against a legitimate threat) and for their individual sacrifices. However equating their struggle with today's realities is, again, ridiculous. We face no threat today on par with the threat of Nazi imperialism. I find that those who use veterans to scor epolitical points today to be quite distasteful.

The truth is we believe in standing up against attrocities and the legitimate present day threat of fascism. For some strange reason the left has decided to side with the Islamo-fascists.

Squawk squawk squak. Opposing aggression is not siding with "Islamo-fascists" (if one can be so dense as to equate a relatively small group of religious extreimists intent on instituting theocracy with real fascism). As for the right wing standing up against atrocities, your self-aggrandizing back patting rings hollow in light of how many atrocities the right wing ignores or sanctions.

Boost its reputation? We already had a strong reputation as a country which helped to liberate Europe. An honorable country which significantly contributed to peace keeping around the world. I don't think you lefties here realize how insignificant and ignored we are in the world presently.

The case for canada's diminished reputation is weak for two reasons: one, Canada was never the major player people seem to think it was. two, people over the world stil respect canada for its historical contributions and are probably otherwise as ambivilant about Canada as they ever were. The only people I've herad discussing Canadian irrelevance are Canadian pundits.

As far as Britain being a lapdog, it would have been a lot easier for them to join the anti-American bandwagon and stay out of it rather than fight. Integrity my friend.

What integrity?

As for Canada's military, we already spend a ton on the military. IIRC, we're the sixth highest military spender within NATO, and the sixteenth highest in the world. I'd like to see a stuctural overhaul of the Forces and an audit of expenditures before any new spending is put forward, rather than just throwing money at the shills in the defence lobby and their paymasters.

I wrote and passed the tests to become a pilot for the RCAF but in the end I decided I didn't want to be assigned to a Sea King and die because some liberal wants to spend the money on some useless social program.

Typical. Social programs (ie. programs that wil make life better for people) are a waste because they take money away from the branch which kills people.

The vocal left would have you believe that conservatives want the poor to suffer and starve. Sometimes there are better solutions to problems than taxing and throwing money at them.

Which is why the Cons believe in cutting taxes and throwing money at problems!

Corporations provide jobs...

Small and mid-sized business provide jobs. Corporations stow their loot in teh Cayman's.

[I miss Reagan]

Hardly. We respect veterans for what they did (defend against a legitimate threat) and for their individual sacrifices. However equating their struggle with today's realities is, again, ridiculous. We face no threat today on par with the threat of Nazi imperialism.

Oh ya that was just a one time thing, there are no more threats, history never repeats itself.

Opposing aggression is not siding with "Islamo-fascists"

See this is what I can't understand, you guys seem to think that just ignoring the problem will just make it go away. "If we close our eyes they'll just leave us alone". I'm not sure what your solution is. In fact I've never heard any decent alternative from the left aside from sitting down and talking things out over tea as if you can reason with these people. Oh wait "weapons inspections" right? That's working real well right now in Iran isn't it.

The only people I've herad discussing Canadian irrelevance are Canadian pundits.

LOL. Ya know why? LOL BECAUSE WE"RE IRRELEVANT!

Typical. Social programs (ie. programs that wil make life better for people) are a waste because they take money away from the branch which kills people.

Damn it! you got me. We want to make the poor suffer so we can arm everyone to the teeth and raze villages like Huns.

[takeanumber]

Alright, so corporation are stowing money in the Cayman's. They're dodging taxes, and clearly rent-seeking.

And the justification for rent-seeking is what?

They make jobs.

Yeehaa.

If I create a job, does that give me the right to register my company in the Cayman's and launder money out of the country?

Using Conservative logic, the answer is: yes.

Sorry, I believe in the notion of community responsibility. Call me old-fashioned, but you shouldn't plunder a society.

Moreover, how many more jobs would be created in canada, through the multiplyer effect, if all of this wealth that is flowing out offshore was retained?

If the problem is corporations sending money offshore, prevent corporations from doing it. How? Why, by growing a set of balls and fining them, my dear watson. As for the threat that if they're fined, and NOT allowed to free load, why, we'll lose jobs...I don't buy it.

that's the knee jerk reaction from the CEO's. IF you try to reduce corporate welfare: it'll cost jobs. Un-lead gasoline? It'll cost jobs. Banning Abspestos? It'll cost jobs.

Keeping more wealth in Canada by closing offshore loopholes: it'll result in more jobs.

Now seriously Reagan, you can paint yourself out of the corner on this one by accepting that companies ought to pay their fair share for the society that they enjoy. I think 21% is reasonable. I'd prefer 25%, but hell, I'll take 21%. Why should it be lower? Should it be 0%. If we're to compete with the Cayman's, then yes, indeed, it should be zero.

-------------

Harper wants to relieve pressure on the middle class?!?

lol.

Alright, so by cutting corporate tax, and middle class tax.....hmmm, who pays for hospitals, universities and schools?

The rich don't have to worry, they already have private schools, and, if they're successful, they'll be able to have private hospitals, poaching the best ppl from the public service.

The Conservative agenda is about growing inequality, including inequality of opportunity across the income quintiles.

-------------

Why arn't companies flocking to Canada from the US?

They are.

Well: many companies have. And, the auto makers are in huge trouble in the States because of the healthcare costs. Do you want to replicate that experience here in Canada?

In Canada, the auto-industry is blossoming.

Canada is a major place for companies to come and set up from Europe, as a base to penetrate the US.

The answer is: given the tremendous inflow of capital into Canada (something that those on the left denounce, personally, I think it's GREAT!) is proof of the success of a relatively .ow corporate tax rate: but they still HAVE to pay their fair share, otherwise, it's a net loss for society.

-----------

Air Canada should have been put down a long time ago. I credit the phenom to Quebec pork. Bombardier and Air Canada (or, as I call it, Air Montreal) should have been allowed to flounder a long time ago.

Again, thank the Conservatives for Air Canada. They set up a wonderful scheme back when they privatized it. Brilliant boys.

[Black Dog]

Oh ya that was just a one time thing, there are no more threats, history never repeats itself. 

No you are correct: fascism is a danger even today. But look at historical fascism. in every case, it arose from western democracies with free-market economies. Fascism is a modern creation and has bugger-all in common with Islamic fundamentalism.

See this is what I can't understand, you guys seem to think that just ignoring the problem will just make it go away. "If we close our eyes they'll just leave us alone". I'm not sure what your solution is. In fact I've never heard any decent alternative from the left aside from sitting down and talking things out over tea as if you can reason with these people. Oh wait "weapons inspections" right? That's working real well right now in Iran isn't it.

I see: you need simple solutions for your complex problems. Something bite-sized, like "bomb them!" It's also telling that the internal debates of Muslim society are now "our problem" to solve. You won't buy it, of course, but the problem isn't strictly one of Islamic fundamentalism, but of the choices presented to Islamic societies which, as Tariq Ali put it, boils down to a choice between religious fundamentalism and the funadmentalism of western neoliberal economics and increasingly aggressive militarism.

And actually, there are no weapons inspectors in Iran, but here are negotiations ongoing with the Iranians and the EU. So why the disdain for "talking things over"?That is how real countries deal with problems up until the point where negotiation is no longer an option.

LOL. Ya know why? LOL BECAUSE WE"RE IRRELEVANT!

BEEP BEEP! FALLACY ALLERT! CIRCULAR LOGIC IN PROGRESS!

We want to make the poor suffer so we can arm everyone to the teeth and raze villages like Huns.

Nope, didn't say that. Are you now denying you refered to social spending as "useless" and a waste of money? Are you also denying that you support increased military spending? Are you also denying that the primary purpose of the armed forces is to wage war (wars where, presumably, people will get killed by the same armed forces)?

[Guest eureka]

There is not a "one-way- brain drain. In fact, there, is in the past few years, a considerable movement of American "brains" to Canada particularly in the academic area.

People do not move to the US to avoid our taxation - unless they are stereotypocal right wingers and ignorant of the reality. The total tax take from all authorities in the US is about 31%: in Canada, it is about 36%. For the difference, we have healthcare and the Americans use part, but not all, of the difference wastefully on military affairs.

Our corporate tax rate is slightly lower than the Americans but when healthcare is calculated in the comparison, our effective rate is substantially lower.

For where corporations want to open for business, there was an instructive example in today's business news.

An large Indian company is starting up in Canada, partly to be near the American market. It chooses Canada because of our favourable competitive situation; access to research, and for the quality of life.

[August1991]

Response Part I

What utter nonsense is being posted in this thread. I don't mind a Leftist viewpoint but I iobject to nonsense.

I'll start here:

Alright, so corporation are stowing money in the Cayman's. They're dodging taxes, and clearly rent-seeking.

And the justification for rent-seeking is what?

Please, tell me, how do Corporations "stow money" in the Cayman Islands? Are there huge vaults in the sand dunes? And if the Cayman Islands has lots of cash, does that make the Cayman Islands, uh, rich?

And what does this have to do with "rent seeking" anyway? TalkNumb, you seem to be throwing this term around even more liberally. Do you know what it means?

[Hint: Imagine that I move my bookkeeper to an office on a small island.]

BTW, the corporate tax is double taxation which is rarely a good way to tax. I believe the economic incidence of the corporate tax falls mostly on consumers, not shareholders. There is no doubt such a tax makes for inefficiently large firms.

No you are correct: fascism is a danger even today. But look at historical fascism. in every case, it arose from western democracies with free-market economies. Fascism is a modern creation and has bugger-all in common with Islamic fundamentalism.

BD, it is unfortunate that you do not have a better understanding of free markets. As an institution, markets have done more to protect the meek, help the poor and encourage co-operation than any other invention of humankind.

The world faces two problems: First, for free markets to function, the conditions appear as a threat to some and certainly counterintuitive to most. Second, even in the best of circumstances, free markets don't always work.

Poor countries face both problems. Rich countries face primarily the second problem.

Fascism is the use of brute force to impose the will of a tyrant. IOW, I see no difference between fascism and tyranny. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were all fascists and tyrants. (They were all psychopaths too, I suspect.)

Tyrants attain power through various means and I would not limit this to "western democracies with free-market economies". Augustus and Caligula too were tyrants.

Fascism is a modern creation and has bugger-all in common with Islamic fundamentalism.

I conclude that you have never lived in an Islamic State or Kingdom. I don't know if the worst tyrants believe they are inspired by God. Caligula thought he was a God.

I find it uniquely left wing to equivocate and reduce the respect for tens of thousands of dead soldiers to nostalgia. It is quite specious of you (as usual) to imply that myself and other right wingers "look back with fondness for the slaughter" of our veterans. As if we revel in the horrors of war.

Hardly. We respect veterans for what they did (defend against a legitimate threat) and for their individual sacrifices. However equating their struggle with today's realities is, again, ridiculous. We face no threat today on par with the threat of Nazi imperialism. I find that those who use veterans to scor epolitical points today to be quite distasteful.

BD, you miss Reagan's point.

For those who understand the benefits of a free market, we have an army to defend ourselves against idiots, marauders, thieves. But we should use this army with great trepidation. The Americans, like the French in Quebec, are by nature isolationist. They know little about the outside world and have less desire to get involved.

I did not agree with the Bush-Blair-Howard decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But I certainly understood why they did it.

Let me state this emphatically. George W. Bush has principles. Paul Martin does not. (I think Bush's principles are based in the United States itself. Bush had no choice but to respond as he did. At most, we can criticise his bungling in the execution.)

Canadian federal politicians, by and large, cannot afford to have principles. Such is our country. Pierre Trudeau had one or two principles that came from his childhood.

-----

To get back to the thread's original point, I have often wondered why young English Canadian men willingly risked their lives in Europe in the 1940s. What motivated them? Did they take this risk of death for the British Empire? Did they go because others went? Did they go because they were poor? Did they want to make the world free for democracy? Or did they go because they were asked to go?

However one answers this question, they found the courage to do it. I suspect that young Canadian men today would not.

I have spoken to various French, British, Russians, Germans, Dutch, Finns, Bulgarians et al about this whole absurd period in human history. I usually finished the conversation by describing my only family story and noting "It was your country. But what the hell was a Canadian mixed up in this for?"

Canada is no longer the country it once was.

[August1991]

Response Part II

Now that's someting we're not used to ... a post from August that makes things less clear.

I find the vagueness of both Cameron's and August's complaints makes it difficult to make sense of the content of their objections.  To some, it seems that giving effect to a familiar and essential principle of our culture (equality bfore the law) is somehow a betrayal of our traditions. This is incomprehensible to me.  To some, it seems, Canada is spineless and irrelevant EXCEPT WHEN, we stand up for ourselves against unreasonable demands from the most powerful country the world.  Then we are arrogant.

You know what becomes obvious from all this?  To some, Canada can do no right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if this post will clarify my viewpoint.

I agree that the past 50 or so years have seen "progress" (to use an undefined Leftist term) for Canadians. We are a richer country. But I don't know if Canadians are more tolerant. Rene Levesque often referred to English-Canada's sense of "fair-play".

I'll hang my argument here. Canadians used to have a sense of fair-play.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

this whole absurd period in human history. I usually finished the conversation by describing my only family story and noting "It was your country. But what the hell was a Canadian mixed up in this for?"

I think the purpose was to thwart the efforts of an evil madman, who hypnotized almost as many people as he killed. Canadians, as well as many of the other foriegn, and former, British Colonies realized early on that if they didn't 'join the fight now', they'd be going it alone later.

BD, it is unfortunate that you do not have a better understanding of free markets. As an institution, markets have done more to protect the meek, help the poor and encourage co-operation than any other invention of humankind.

Mammon is Janus-faced, and does giveth with one hand whilst he taketh away with the other.

Canada is no longer the country it once was.

This is sadly too true.

[Guest eureka]

You are not wrong about the nonsense on the thread, August and you are contributing more than your share.

To say that markets "protect the meek, help the poor, and encourage so-operation" gave me the best chuckle I have had in a long time. It was the reaction of the poor; the banding together in unions; the "worm" turning in the meek, that won improvement. They rose against the market and forced those markets to be regulated to produce the benefite.

Today, we are seeing the counter revolution of the markets.

I am not so sure that Fascism and tyranny do not have differences. Tyranny can cover a much wider brange of systems than Fascism. Fascism itself does not begin with the use of brute force to impose the will of a tyrant: it may not require organized force at all. Fascism is, in its essence, a middle class reaction to uncertainty and the suppression of the working classes. The tyrant is the leader who emerges and, in theory, embodies the will of the people - that middle class, for practical purposes.

It does, as BD says, arise in countries where free markets are the mythology. It arises in them because of the fear of loss of ststus by the middle classes and is usually related to economic uncertainty. But there has to be an underclass to keep down.

The USA was, in some regions, Fascist (still is) in having a coloured class at the bottom.

Tyranny can include other systems that, however they develop, may not have theose features and may, as in collectivist ideologies, actually favour a reverse discrimination.

However, it is an enormously intricate topic and should not take too much of this.of this one.

George Bush has principles: Martin does not! That would be dependent on what you think of as principles and for Bush, I would recommend a read of "It's still the economy stupid." I forget the author for the moment.

In a sense, Bush does have principles that he will stick to through thick and thin. But those principles are only ones that serve his own interest or ideology. They never change even when proved to be harmful, dangerous, or wrong.

Martin. in my opinion, is a principled man. He is, however, blessed with sanity. His principles can change, as they should, when he is convinced that he is wrong.

Which would you prefer?

I would like to see what you understand in the Blair/Bush/ Howaed decision to go to war with Iraq. I believe that I, too, can understand it and it sickens me to think of their reasons. I won't belabour that since we have gone through it on several threads.

There is no great mystery in why English Canadians went to war. They went simply because it was the right thing to do. And it was their war, as Thelonius said. It was their war because their relatives and friends were under attack. It was their war because democracy and freedom were threatened for all. Most may not have understood this entirely, but their leaders convinced them. Just as in French Quebec, the leaders convinced their following that it was none of their business and that they were not "their brothers keepers."

Levesque's appeal to the English sense of fair play was a particularly slimy tactic. He used it to instill guilt and to cover the worst discrimination in Canadian history. One French Quebecker once made the same appeal: justly so and won his point. That was St Laurent when the proposal to remove French as an official language of Canada came to Parliament. The proposal was defeated by that sense of fair play.

That incident came about through the refusal of French Quebec, though, to its credit, not all of French Quebec, to fight beside their English brothers for their country.

[I miss Reagan]

Fascism is the use of brute force to impose the will of a tyrant. IOW, I see no difference between fascism and tyranny. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were all fascists and tyrants. (They were all psychopaths too, I suspect.)

Tyrants attain power through various means and I would not limit this to "western democracies with free-market economies". Augustus and Caligula too were tyrants.

August pretty much summed it up. Great points August!

The USA was, in some regions, Fascist (still is) in having a coloured class at the bottom.

I think Black Dog, and his ideological friends, use the term fascist and fascism as an anti-euphamism to describe conservatives. It's another part of the hyperbolic schtick of the radical left. He'll use some remote similarities as a tool to critisize us conservatives and the US. But when it comes to people like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban somehow there is no comparison . I find his selective use of the definition interesting. For instance Mussolini's facism included progressive taxation, separation of church and state, used techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engaged in severe economic and social regimentation and concentration of power. Hitler's included socialized medicine. To me this sounds more like the direction Canada is headed rather than the direction the US is headed and the conservatives want to take us.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Please, tell me, how do Corporations "stow money" in the Cayman Islands? 

Money shelters like Cayman provide lax incorporation rules, lax beneficial ownrship records, and until recently lax curremcy controls.

BTW, the corporate tax is double taxation which is rarely a good way to tax. 

No, the tax act provides for a method of taxing dividends whose effect is to avoid the posibilty of double taxation.

Fascism is the use of brute force to impose the will of a tyrant.  IOW, I see no difference between fascism and tyranny.  Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were all fascists and tyrants.

It is imprecise to equate fascism with other variants of tyrrany. Fascism is a particular type of absolutism with theoretical/philosophical underpinings which distinguish it from others such as communism.

Let me state this emphatically.  George W. Bush has principles.  Paul Martin does not.

Utter crap.

(I think Bush's principles are based in the United States itself.  Bush had no choice but to respond as he did.  At most, we can criticise his bungling in the execution.)

What are you taking about?! Bush lied to create a public furor to enable his government to attack a beaten country which had committed no aggression against him.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'll hang my argument here.  Canadians used to have a sense of fair-play.

Unh? Are you saying Canadians don't have a sense of fair play anymore?

What is your basis for this contention?

[I miss Reagan]

George Bush has principles: Martin does not! That would be dependent on what you think of as principles and for Bush, I would recommend a read of "It's still the economy stupid." I forget the author for the moment.

In a sense, Bush does have principles that he will stick to through thick and thin. But those principles are only ones that serve his own interest or ideology. They never change even when proved to be harmful, dangerous, or wrong.

Martin. in my opinion, is a principled man. He is, however, blessed with sanity. His principles can change, as they should, when he is convinced that he is wrong.

Let me state this emphatically.  George W. Bush has principles.  Paul Martin does not.

Response:

Utter crap.

This is what gets me about you radical leftists, you have no objectivity whatsoever. If anyone has principles and stands by them it's George W. Bush. You may totally disagree with those principles, you may think he's totally stupid insane, a war monger or any other pejoritive you have for him.

Trudeau was principled, I've said it before and I'll say it again even though I can't stand the man. August even admitted the same. Trudeau made decisions based on what he thought was right (even though he was totally wrong), and he stuck by those principles. Paul Martin is unprincipled, a ditherer who flip flops which ever way will keep him in power as clearly evidenced in his budget flip flops first flips right to the conservatives, then makes a radical swing left to appease the NDP. He doesn't stand for anything.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let me state this emphatically.  George W. Bush has principles.  Paul Martin does not.

Response:

Utter crap.

This is what gets me about you radical leftists,

I am not a leftist. I'ma classical liberal.

If anyone has principles and stands by them it's George W. Bush.

Hogwash. Bush is a known liar and total hypocrite.

  Paul Martin is unprincipled, a ditherer who flip flops which ever way will keep him in power as clearly evidenced in his budget flip flops first flips right to the conservatives, then makes a radical swing left to appease the NDP.

Changing course when circumstances require it is not, in itself, unprincipled.

[takeanumber]

Well, if we're going to talk about principles here, what about Harper et al sitting down on the budget.

Then having the hutzpah to complain about a budget deal with the NDP...

Sounds like sour grapes really.

Moreover, what about the Conservative principle of being grassroots and majoritarian, but when a majority of Canadians want same sex marriage and no election, well then, they ignore their principles.

See with Martin, we always knew he was a populist. The Liberal Elite always straddle what the majority of Canadians want. That is true populism. (And I can point to academic studies to prove this: see Young, 2004.

With the cons, well, it's different. They claim to be populist, but turn around and only listen to their out-of-step base.

Cons seem to think that they really represent the true wants of Canadians, and what's hillarious, is that in spite of poll after poll, election after election that holds them at 30%, they continue to insist that this fiction is true.

----------

Bush looked me in the face and misled me on Iraq. He did it on purpose.

Did he have base principles? I'm sure. But he broke an important one: on honesty. That's unforgivable.

Buchard and company looked me in the face and misled me on the Referendum in 1995. They broke an important principle: on honesty. That's unforgivable.

I do not feel as though Martin has ever lied to me. If anything, he's been ultra-honest about the scandal.

Am I mad about the scandal and the waste of my dollars in Quebec?

Damn straight.

But I want it fixed. And I think Martin is an honest man, not covering anything up, and I think he'll fix it. He's been tough on Gagliano and the Chretien gang-bangers. Let's let the Liberals lock up that wing of the party.

I think Martin is very principled indeed.

[I miss Reagan]

Bush looked me in the face and misled me on Iraq. He did it on purpose.

Did he have base principles? I'm sure. But he broke an important one: on honesty. That's unforgivable.

He looked you in the face and lied to you? I think you're thinking of Bill Clinton. He was the grey haired guy with the big nose. Anyway, I think you need to get off the Michael Moore. Lying generally means you intend to decieve. Conveying faulty intelligence doesn't constitute lying.

He did it on purpose.

Prove it! Prove that he intentionally misled the American people into the war. I want documentation showing me that it was all part of the plan to lie.

[takeanumber]

Proof:

Niger Uranium Yellow Cake. Bush knew before the State of the Union that the whole thing was a sham (bad docs, etc) and yet, he repeated the mistruth.

Hence, he lied.

Conveying faulty intelligence, when you know full well that it's faulty, is lying.

Now you can try to play around with the semantics...after all, if I ate the cookies, and I tell my mother that I didn't, that's not lying, I'm just conveying 'faulty intelligence'.

Come now Reagan, surely your ethics are at least on par with mine.

The documentation is not from Mr. Moore. You order an excellent copy of a British documentary that was repeated on PBS's "FrontLine". The name of documentary escapes me, but I assure you, it most certainly is there.

[I miss Reagan]

Proof:

Niger Uranium Yellow Cake. Bush knew before the State of the Union that the whole thing was a sham (bad docs, etc) and yet, he repeated the mistruth.

No no no, that isn't proof. That is a regurgitation of anti-US talking points. Proof is where you give me a reference to some real evidence where Bush is shown to conspire to provide false evidence.

Conveying faulty intelligence, when you know full well that it's faulty, is lying.

NO!. He was providing the best evidence there was at the time, which the whole world agreed with. To say that he knowingly decieved is slander. For instance if in January I tell you there are 30 moons orbiting Saturn and then in February they discover another moon it doesn't mean I was lying. It means I was giving what seemed to be rock solid evidence at the time. I think you guys understand this, actually I know you guys do. The fact is you love to hate Bush so badly you want every rotten thing people say about him to be true. Be honest with yourself.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Bush claimed that he knew Saddam had WMD. But it was impossible for him to know this because these WMDs did not exist. Ergo, he lied about his state of knowledge.

But worse than these lies was the imputation of dishonest motives upon those who noted that his lies were lies.

[August1991]

BD, it is unfortunate that you do not have a better understanding of free markets. As an institution, markets have done more to protect the meek, help the poor and encourage co-operation than any other invention of humankind.

Mammon is Janus-faced, and does giveth with one hand whilst he taketh away with the other.

It is fate and drama that are Janus-faced. As in all competition, there are winners and losers.

A market is a sophisticated process to achieve anonymous co-operation despite the appearance of competitive Mammon.

It is imprecise to equate fascism with other variants of tyrrany. Fascism is a particular type of absolutism with theoretical/philosophical underpinings which distinguish it from others such as communism.

I am not so sure that Fascism and tyranny do not have differences. Tyranny can cover a much wider brange of systems than Fascism. Fascism itself does not begin with the use of brute force to impose the will of a tyrant: it may not require organized force at all. Fascism is, in its essence, a middle class reaction to uncertainty and the suppression of the working classes. The tyrant is the leader who emerges and, in theory, embodies the will of the people - that middle class, for practical purposes.

It does, as BD says, arise in countries where free markets are the mythology. It arises in them because of the fear of loss of ststus by the middle classes and is usually related to economic uncertainty. But there has to be an underclass to keep down.

The USA was, in some regions, Fascist (still is) in having a coloured class at the bottom.

Tyranny can include other systems that, however they develop, may not have theose features and may, as in collectivist ideologies, actually favour a reverse discrimination.

However, it is an enormously intricate topic and should not take too much of this.of this one.

You are welcome to develop an intricate discussion, in Noam Chomsky style, to analyze the differences between Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini or Idi Amin. As far as I can see, they were all tyrants. We might as well discuss the finer distinctions between the New York Mafia and the Hell's Angels.

(BTW, I'm perfectly aware of the Leftist argument that the Nazis drew their support from the "non-working classes". I just think the argument is specious.)

Martin. in my opinion, is a principled man. He is, however, blessed with sanity. His principles can change, as they should, when he is convinced that he is wrong.

Changing course when circumstances require it is not, in itself, unprincipled.

Paul Martin is over 65 years old. I somehow doubt that he suddenly discovered a new principle concerning campaign finance (to pick only one of the new principles he seems to have learned in the last few hours).

See with Martin, we always knew he was a populist. The Liberal Elite always straddle what the majority of Canadians want. That is true populism. (And I can point to academic studies to prove this: see Young, 2004.

....

But I want it fixed. And I think Martin is an honest man, not covering anything up, and I think he'll fix it. He's been tough on Gagliano and the Chretien gang-bangers. Let's let the Liberals lock up that wing of the party.

I think Martin is very principled indeed.

TalkNumb, you would have been one of those Americans who said of Nixon, before his resignation, "Politics is sometimes a dirty game and obviously, some hotheads went too far. But the President hasn't been implicated directly."

WTF? I think Martin is an honest man, not covering anything up, and I think he'll fix it. TalkNumb, do you really believe that?

As to your Liberal-populist-median voter theory, why are the Liberals aiming at best at a minority government. (What's wrong with this picture?)

Please, tell me, how do Corporations "stow money" in the Cayman Islands?

Money shelters like Cayman provide lax incorporation rules, lax beneficial ownrship records, and until recently lax curremcy controls.

How do these examples have anything to do with "stowing money" in the Cayman Islands? You use the word "lax" alot. Many people would change the word "lax" to "non-existent". Is that bad?

BTW, the corporate tax is double taxation which is rarely a good way to tax.

I'm aware of many provisions that allow for avoiding corporate taxes. These provisions are partly the problem. They are akin to saying that you can reduce your income tax by 30% if you show evidence that you drove to Yellowknife this summer. To collect $30 in tax, the government incurs $150 in cost.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Overall, there is an important point that the Left fundamentally doesn't understand. It concerns signals. By his dramatic elimination of Saddam, Bush Jnr has sent a message to all tinpot dictators.

You almost have it right here. In Gwynnne Dyer's book, "Future: Tense", he says much the same thing, but with a little more qualification. It is not a message to the 'tin-pot dictators', (since a good number of them are, or were, directly in the employ of the USA) but rather a message to the rest of the world. "The US will remain the sole superpower, and allow no one to even come close to them in terms of military capability, until the end of time". Further, the US also says it will have no regard for the UN, nor the wishes of any other gov't or peoples, and will act pre-emptively, without regard to fact or truth, as long as it serves the interests of the United States."

The first bit about "being the sole superpower until the end of time" can be referenced through the Sept. 2002 document submitted to Congress called "The National Security Strategy Of The United States".

[i think the Left confuses reality and symbol because Leftists have traditionally derived their self-worth through written words. But I digress.]

It is to laugh, especially at this one. Written words formed the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Holy Bible. All of them were intended to produce more equality and inclusiveness, yet all have been considered 'the holy writ of the conservative'.

I suppose I could argue that the right has always derived their self-worth with the sword and the gun, and been called 'liberators', while the leftists who sought to overthrow oppressive right-wingers (though calling themselves 'freedom fighters) were labeled 'the godless communist horde'. But yes, this digression is for another thread.

[August1991]

I'll hang my hat here. Canadians used to have a sense of fair-play.

Unh? Are you saying Canadians don't have a sense of fair play anymore? What is your basis for this contention?

When the PM of Ontario claims that the Ontario government gets a raw deal, then obviously things have changed. John Robarts and Bill Davis would never have done such.

In 1971, Trudeau came very,very close to getting a Constitutional agreement. Bourassa alone walked away. Mulroney, in 1987, managed with all his skill to get a good Constitutional agreement. English Canada walked away.

There is no "fair play" anymore. We are miles and miles from Expo 67. In PM PM, we are witnessing the logical conclusion: grab what you can.

I am not a leftist. I'ma classical liberal.

Please explain. In a different thread, maybe.

-----

Bush looked me in the face and misled me on Iraq. He did it on purpose.

Did he have base principles? I'm sure. But he broke an important one: on honesty. That's unforgivable.

This really should be in another thread.

TalkNumb, as usual, provides a slippery argument and I'll take it as a starting point for my argument about Bush Jnr's principles. (No offence TS.)

No one knew for sure if Saddam Hussein had WMD. But Muammar Qaddafi did have WMD. We know this because he gave them up. Syrian troups have also left Lebanon, women are voting in Saudi elections and can stand for the Kuwaiti majlis. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

The Blair-Bush-Howard argument against Saddam was that the risk, even small, that a rogue regime would use or supply WMD to a terrorist group was a risk no responsible leader could take. The regimes identified were Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Different strategies were adopted for each case.

Overall, there is an important point that the Left fundamentally doesn't understand. It concerns signals. By his dramatic elimination of Saddam, Bush Jnr has sent a message to all tinpot dictators. [i think the Left confuses reality and symbol because Leftists have traditionally derived their self-worth through written words. But I digress.]

The principles of Bush Jnr are the principles of the United States itself. John F. Kennedy espoused them more neatly:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more.

Now then. Tell me. What are Paul Martin Jnr's principles?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is imprecise to equate fascism with other variants of tyrrany. Fascism is a particular type of absolutism with theoretical/philosophical underpinings which distinguish it from others such as communism.

]You are welcome to develop an intricate discussion, in Noam Chomsky style, to analyze the differences between Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini or Idi Amin. As far as I can see, they were all tyrants.

I don't understand your desire to oversimplify and blunt the meaing of terms. If you wish to speak of general tyrrany, then by all means do so. But if you wish to speak of fascism, then it is necessary to understand that it has a meaning of its own.

We might as well discuss the finer distinctions between the New York Mafia and the Hell's Angels.

Any successful police operation would absolutely require an appreciation of such distinctions.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'll hang my hat here. Canadians used to have a sense of fair-play.

Unh? Are you saying Canadians don't have a sense of fair play anymore? What is your basis for this contention?

When the PM of Ontario claims that the Ontario government gets a raw deal, then obviously things have changed.

Acts of selfinterested premiers fall short of establishing the general claim of widespread loss of fairplay.

Mulroney, in 1987, managed with all his skill to get a good Constitutional agreement.

It was not a good agreement.

English Canada walked away.

A little less revisonism, please! Meech was passed in most legislatures. The Charlottetown Accord was rejected in Quebec.

I am not a leftist. I'ma classical liberal.

Please explain. In a different thread, maybe.

What's to explain? Classical liberalism: Locke, Jefferson, Mill.

The Blair-Bush-Howard argument against Saddam was that the risk, even small, that a rogue regime would use or supply WMD to a terrorist group was a risk no responsible leader could take.

More revisionism. Bush and Co. claimed KNOWLEDGE, not mere risk.

Overall, there is an important point that the Left fundamentally doesn't understand. It concerns signals. By his dramatic elimination of Saddam, Bush Jnr has sent a message to all tinpot dictators.

I think the left understands, but they do not agree.

Kennedy:  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more.

But Bush does not stand for liberty or any other traditionally American virtue.

And Kennedy did not say: "Tell any lie." "Bully any friend." "Break any treaty." or "Stifle all dissent."