Telling the Truth

[jbg]

All I can say is this is one of the better writen and nicer pieces of racism and bigotry that I have ever read.

Why is it that people use the term "racist" when they disagree with a statement but can't find any back up to refute it?

[bradco]

I'm new to the Board, but you'll find me to the left of the NDP on most issues, on some to the left of Pol Pot.

<heh> I cross back and forth. I am pretty conservative fiscally but fairly liberal socially.

Social issues are ones where I'm fairly far to the left. I'm in favor of a woman's right to abortion in first three months of pregnancy. I would be more in favor of SSM (I'm against it now) if some of the issues as same sex divorces, rights of creditors, impact on insurance rates and on rent control systems were considered.

Those positions put me well to Chow and Layton's positions.

I'm new to the Board, but you'll find me to the left of the NDP on most issues, on some to the left of Pol Pot.

<heh> I cross back and forth. I am pretty conservative fiscally but fairly liberal socially.

Social issues are ones where I'm fairly far to the left. I'm in favor of a woman's right to abortion in first three months of pregnancy. I would be more in favor of SSM (I'm against it now) if some of the issues as same sex divorces, rights of creditors, impact on insurance rates and on rent control systems were considered.

Those positions put me well to Chow and Layton's positions.

your position on SSM kind of does in your argument that your a liberal socially..

"there is little policy reason to give gay couples the same financial and other advantages that come from marriage."

-having a free and equitable society should be policy reason enough. one thing I can never understand about conservatives is their blatant self-interest-- freedoms for people like me only attitude.

"Liberals also will not tell you what happens when gay couples can file joint returns, and where the government revenues will come from to make up the shortfalls that will arise from the increased number of joint returns."

-conservatives never tell us how they can morally justify the unequal treatment of citizens of a country. if the money isnt there then reduce the financial benefits across the board....my guess is the shortfall isnt all that big

-is the world a safer place without Saddam? One could argue since he posed little to no threat to the security of any state the world isnt much safer, especially with the instability that now exists in Iraq. The people of Iraq may, I stress may, have gained safety in the long run. Too soon to tell what Iraq will look like in the future. One thing is for sure.....they are a lot less safe now than they were before the american-british invasion. Although some personal freedoms may have been gained....personal security has taken a massive hit.

-why the hatred of the UN? The ineffectual nature of the UN has nothing to do with it as an institution and everything to do with its members. The UN doesnt work when member nations dont want it to work.....it works when they do want it to work.

-as far as oil-for-food example: I dont think it is fair to highlight one example of failure in fifty plus years of existence and argue the organization is no good. All the other major failures of the UN are due to the lack of will from member nation governments.

-many people argue that the lack of legitmacy of the Iraq war (by not having been granted by a security council authorization) has led the US to shoulder all the post-invasion costs. no other nation has any obligation to shoulder any costs in a war that lacked international legitmacy. Both Bush and Blairs governments realized this and that is why they went to such lengths to get authorization. In the end they didnt get it because the SC (mostly france and russia with veto power) determined that there was no basis for invasion (which, especially after not finding weapons, was the right call)

[Riverwind]

Social issues are ones where I'm fairly far to the left. I'm in favor of a woman's right to abortion in first three months of pregnancy.

Your statement illustrates that left or right is a matter of perspective. 3 months is extremely restrictive and is pretty close to an abortion ban. Many teenagers have irregular periods and would not even realize that they are pregnant until 8-10 weeks. Expecting them to make such a life changing decision within 2 weeks is unreasonable - especially since a woman will usually need to consult with the father.

I would be more in favor of SSM (I'm against it now) if some of the issues as same sex divorces, rights of creditors, impact on insurance rates and on rent control systems were considered.

Nobody considered those issues when they extended 'martial' rights to common law couples. Gays make up, 5% of the population - at most. The impact of extending martial rights to such a small number of people is not significant.

[Higgly]

I can read. And I read the National Post among other publications.

There's your first problem. You really need to get out more.

A really sad testament to the old saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

[Argus]

Conservatives are more honest. Liberals lie to others, but also to themselves.

Or perhaps we could suggest, in Canada, at least, that the right is less expert at media manipulation than the Left, and foolishly speaks its real opinion rather than what it thinks will give it the best political mileage.

Look at some of the latest arguments, for example. Look at the shooting in Montreal. What's to really say about it? The guy shot up a school. Okay. There are freaks of nature which explode from time to time, but there really isn't a lot ot be done about them. That's basically what the conservatives have said. Those on the left, meanwhile, have immediately seized on the opportunity to pretend they can do something. Quebec leftists in particular, like Charest and Duceppe, speak of the long gun registry as a holy thing they will protect at all cots. This even though it was an utter failure. Where is the logic in that? There's none. In fact, the long-gun registry was a liberal invention designed to fool Canadians into thinking they were doing something about gun violence. It's a soother, a pacifier for whiny babies to get them to shut up. But it has no practical value.

Kyoto. If it worked perfectly it would very minimally reduce THE GROWTH of greenhouse gases. The objective is worthy, but hardly of great value. Further, there is no practical way Canada has any hope whatsoever of meeting its Kyoto targets. Conservatives have basically said this. Leftists have expressed outrage at conservatives for their devitation from holy writ. If you listen to Charest and Ducepee, Kyoto is the only thing which can protect the planet from certain devestation. In fact, even when it was signed the Liberals knew it was useless. They signed it as a placebo, as a grand gesture to show their care about the environment. They basked in this for years even while doing absolutely nothing to live up to the agreement. They realize it's of little use and that its goals can't be met, but they brazenly shout out their devotion to Kyoto regardless, reassured by polls demonstrating the vast ignorance of the Canadian public.

Whatever the topic, be it immgiration or military conflicts, welfare or education, multiculturalism or health care, the left clings to ideological and emotional arguments which don't bear up under any logical scrutiny. Its shrill attacks on those who disagree with it are riddled with accusations of moral failings and cruelty.

The wonder is that some of them actually are weak-minded enough to believe their own silly positions.

[Drea]

..., speak of the long gun registry as a holy thing they will protect at all cots. This even though it was an utter failure. Where is the logic in that? There's none. In fact, the long-gun registry was a liberal invention designed to fool Canadians into thinking they were doing something about gun violence. It's a soother, a pacifier for whiny babies to get them to shut up. But it has no practical value.

Ok so the gun registry doesn't work. I agree.

BUT, what exactly is the conservative gov't prepared to do about gun violence?

What gun control measures will they implement?

None?

"Too bad folks, once in a while a nut will come along and shoot everyone, there is nothing we can do about it because we don't want to infringe on the rights of honest gun owners. So tough luck for the next victims of the next shooter."

Oh, but we'll implement harsh jail sentences! Say the conservatives. Pfft. this guy is dead he don't need no jail -- so that won't work.

What will work?

Destroy ALL guns. ALL of them. If anyone other than a police officer or border/security guard is caught with a gun for any reason, throw em in jail immediately.

I have yet to hear Harper say anything other than "oooh what a tragedy". Come on Mr. Harper, do something. Grab some balls and eliminate guns from our society!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

While I claim to be a 'leftist', I am in agreement with most of your points. Both Kyoto and the gun registry are noble causes, but seriously flawed and in need of abolishment and re-thinking.

Whatever the topic, be it immgiration or military conflicts, welfare or education, multiculturalism or health care, the left clings to ideological and emotional arguments which don't bear up under any logical scrutiny

I disagree, for I am both pro-gun ownership and pro registry. However, I think the registry could have been organized to be easy and profitable. (In my opinion, and I believe Charles Anthony also voiced this sentiment elsewhere- that the Liberal gov't was either guiltly of massive incompetence or corruption with the cost ballooning from 2 million to over a billion, and I believe it is the latter)

The gun registry should have been (and still can be) privatized, just like automobile registration, with heavy fines if you get caught without it. A car dealer won't let you drive a vehicle off the lot without plates, nor should gun shops release a gun without paperwork.

With the problem of selling a second-hand gun (that is, pre-owned), there should be a 'relinquishment of ownership' registration form, so the seller becomes free of responsibility for that firearm in the future.

Privatization of the registry would be a huge savings to the gov't, (and they would be collecting taxes off the deal) and they would simply need to maintain access to the registration database on their end.

I do not believe that this would cause any undue hardship on legitimate gun owners, and would help discourage the 'iffy' people from easily aquiring guns, especially if the registration database had access to criminal convictions. (Like the auto registry, if you have outstanding fines or too many demerits, they can withold registration from those who likely shouldn't have guns)

This would obviously not fully stop the random shooting tragedies, but nothing really will, no system is foolproof.

I think that this is an example of still holding on to the 'leftist ideology' of gun registry, while being somewhat logical and 'realist'.

[August1991]

This thread started out on the wrong foot and then went downhill. The entire OP was posted on a different forum by the same poster (a fact jbg failed to mention). That is dishonest and perilously close to spam. In addition, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean very different things in Canada and the US. When I saw the OP, I almost laughed - no one in Canada, even Liberals themselves, would claim that Liberals always tell the truth. The NDP, on the other hand, take pride in their honesty.

But I have to answer Argus:

Conservatives are more honest. Liberals lie to others, but also to themselves.

Or perhaps we could suggest, in Canada, at least, that the right is less expert at media manipulation than the Left, and foolishly speaks its real opinion rather than what it thinks will give it the best political mileage.

IMV, North American Leftists view civilized society as an insurance scheme. We are our brother's keeper. In the Left's view, the government is the best way to operate this insurance scheme. It means government should operate as Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The government should provide more than mere money. It must also help people to learn, change and be better. Margaret Thatcher referred to this form of Leftism as the "nanny state".

So, Argus, I think it's wrong to say that Leftists manipulate the media or lie. They see the world differently from the way you do. In particular, they would consider themselves to be idealists.

[Higgly]

This thread started out on the wrong foot and then went downhill. The entire OP was posted on a different forum by the same poster (a fact jbg failed to mention). That is dishonest...

Exactly. Pick your venue. Broadcasts are for people with CRTC licenses. Thanks for pointing this out. In some forums, jbg would be banned for these kind of shenanigans

[jbg]

Nobody considered those issues when they extended 'martial' rights to common law couples. Gays make up, 5% of the population - at most. The impact of extending martial rights to such a small number of people is not significant.

"Martial" rights, meaning the right to bear arms? I never realized that was in the mix here.

If you meant "marital" rights, monogamous traditional common-law couples may well have more settled, conservative life styles than same-sex couples and thus should qualify for cheaper insurance. As for rights of creditors, traditional couples can bear children, and the children deserve protection from their parents' losing a house because of the irresponsibility of any one of their parents. Those considerations do not apply to same-sex couples.

[jbg]

This thread started out on the wrong foot and then went downhill. The entire OP was posted on a different forum by the same poster (a fact jbg failed to mention). That is dishonest...

Exactly. Pick your venue. Broadcasts are for people with CRTC licenses. Thanks for pointing this out. In some forums, jbg would be banned for these kind of shenanigans

I was new to the forum when I posted this. Someone pointed this out early on in the thread and I invited the owner to erase the thread if he or she saw fit.

[Higgly]

"We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours."—Golda Meir

Is this some kind of joke? This is the same woman who said there was no such thing as a Palestinian. Remarkable for someone who whines constantly about people who refuse to recognise Israel.

Golda Meir. What next.

[Argus]

..., speak of the long gun registry as a holy thing they will protect at all cots. This even though it was an utter failure. Where is the logic in that? There's none. In fact, the long-gun registry was a liberal invention designed to fool Canadians into thinking they were doing something about gun violence. It's a soother, a pacifier for whiny babies to get them to shut up. But it has no practical value.

Ok so the gun registry doesn't work. I agree.

BUT, what exactly is the conservative gov't prepared to do about gun violence?

What gun control measures will they implement?

None?

I rather doubt that. But what they can impliment depends, to a certain extent, on what the socially liberal parties will accept. Neither of the other three parties has ever had any interest in strong punishments for violence. What I would advise the Tories to do is impliment very tough punishments for anyone smuggling, selling or posessing restricted weapons, and to do so in a way which sticks. That will have a hell of a lot more influence on gun violence than the long gun registry.

"Too bad folks, once in a while a nut will come along and shoot everyone, there is nothing we can do about it because we don't want to infringe on the rights of honest gun owners. So tough luck for the next victims of the next shooter."

Oh, but we'll implement harsh jail sentences! Say the conservatives. Pfft. this guy is dead he don't need no jail -- so that won't work.

Fact is, you're right on that part. Nothing will ever stop people like him. If he couldn't buy guns legally, he'd buy them illegally. They're easily available in every city. You can buy one with little effort, and so could I.

What will work?

Destroy ALL guns. ALL of them. If anyone other than a police officer or border/security guard is caught with a gun for any reason, throw em in jail immediately.

Uhh huhhhh. Look, they pretty much have that law in the UK - an island, off a fairly peaceful Europe. And criminals still get guns fairly easily there. We are NOT an island. We have an umpteen thousand mile border with the gun loving Americans. The great majority of restricted weapons which are used by criminals come from the US anyway. Destroying farmers's shotguns or hunters rifles is not going to make any difference to the level of gun crime in Canada.

As for "throw them in jail immediately", get real. We have an extremely liberal justice system where even most murderers are immediately paroled. You think those liberal judges are going to stand for throwing someone into jail "immediately" because they're caught with a gun? We already have gun laws which call for mandatory minimum one and two year sentences for those in illegal posession of firearms. Our judges have refused to have anything to do with it. Prosecutors know that if they choose to actually lay and prosecute under those particular laws judges will do everything in their power to acquit the suspects.

Do you read the newspapers? I'm sure if you did you'd see plenty of people sentenced for armed robbery. How often do you see an additional 1 or 2 year sentence added on for illegal posession or use of a firearm?

I have yet to hear Harper say anything other than "oooh what a tragedy". Come on Mr. Harper, do something. Grab some balls and eliminate guns from our society!

You prefer liberal politicians who make feel-good mouth noises even though they have no ideas (or interest) on doing anything about crime?

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

While I claim to be a 'leftist', I am in agreement with most of your points. Both Kyoto and the gun registry are noble causes, but seriously flawed and in need of abolishment and re-thinking.

Whatever the topic, be it immgiration or military conflicts, welfare or education, multiculturalism or health care, the left clings to ideological and emotional arguments which don't bear up under any logical scrutiny

I disagree, for I am both pro-gun ownership and pro registry. However, I think the registry could have been organized to be easy and profitable.

There is little point to it since it's stated goal of forestalling gun crime will never work even if the gun registry was cheap and accurate. Gun crime comes from uncontrolled street crime and street gangs and uncontrolled smuggling of weapons in from the United States. You need to control both of those to have much chance of controlling gun crime.

Even then registration has limited value. If you actually wanted to do something about gun crime you would put major efforts into combating and severely punishing anyone who smuggles, sells, posesses, and god help them, uses a firearm illegally. But that would be expensive.

If you were worried about local firearms being used illegally then logically, you'd remove them. I would require that weapons used for target shooting be kept at the gun club, and weapons used for hunting be kept at police stations. They could be picked up on your way out of town. Rural people could keep shotguns and such, but guns would be banned within urban centres.

Now this would have an affect - but again, only if you could first do something about the flood of restricted weapons coming across the borders and easily available to criminals.

I think that this is an example of still holding on to the 'leftist ideology' of gun registry, while being somewhat logical and 'realist'.

Yes, but you are an unusual Leftist in that you actually ponder whether things will work or not.

[Argus]

This thread started out on the wrong foot and then went downhill. The entire OP was posted on a different forum by the same poster (a fact jbg failed to mention). That is dishonest and perilously close to spam. In addition, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" mean very different things in Canada and the US. When I saw the OP, I almost laughed - no one in Canada, even Liberals themselves, would claim that Liberals always tell the truth. The NDP, on the other hand, take pride in their honesty.

But I have to answer Argus:

Conservatives are more honest. Liberals lie to others, but also to themselves.

Or perhaps we could suggest, in Canada, at least, that the right is less expert at media manipulation than the Left, and foolishly speaks its real opinion rather than what it thinks will give it the best political mileage.

IMV, North American Leftists view civilized society as an insurance scheme. We are our brother's keeper. In the Left's view, the government is the best way to operate this insurance scheme.

Yes, yes, I understand the philosophy of the Left. In fact, as you've stated it, I even agree with much of it. Would that surprise you? My opposition to gun registrion, for example, is simply based on the fact it can't work, not any great love of guns. And my opposition to much of what the Left proposes is again, not so much based on ideological grounds as the illogic of their implimentation, the unlikelihood, if not the impossibility of success.

The NDP is honest? even with themselves? The NDP is fiercely determined that we must impliment Kyoto and reach our goals.

Even though there is absolutely no possibility of meeting or even coming close to meeting our goals.

So are the NDP lying to the public, or are they lying to themselves?

So, Argus, I think it's wrong to say that Leftists manipulate the media or lie. They see the world differently from the way you do. In particular, they would consider themselves to be idealists.

I have nothing against idealism - except experience. If you want to be an idealist, sure, fine, more power to you, but if you expect me to go along with programs and policies which affect me then you need to show how those programs and policies will work, not just how nice the world would be IF they worked.

This is the problem with the Left. They express a NEED, which, for the most part, everyone agrees with. But then they express a POLICY to take care of the NEED. Problem is, the POLICY is unworkable and nonsensical as often as not. When conservatives point that our we're accused of being evil and cruel in our opposition to taking care of the NEED.

Again, Kyoto is a good example. We cannot possibly achieve anything remotely close to a 30% reduction in emissions over the next 6 years. But when you point that out all the Leftists here bleat and whine and accuse you of hating the environment or some other such nonsense.

The Left might be idealists, but the Right are practical, and it seems that never the twain shall meet.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

This is the problem with the Left. They express a NEED, which, for the most part, everyone agrees with. But then they express a POLICY to take care of the NEED. Problem is, the POLICY is unworkable and nonsensical as often as not

I defy you to take apart my example (above) of a workable gun registry.I could do the same for Kyoto, though I think it should be re-considered. The problem is that all gov'ts always use the stick and never the carrot. Even as a leftist, I can see where the private sector couled be utilized to tremendous advantage.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

This is the problem with the Left. They express a NEED, which, for the most part, everyone agrees with. But then they express a POLICY to take care of the NEED. Problem is, the POLICY is unworkable and nonsensical as often as not

I defy you to take apart my example (above) of a workable gun registry.

Certainly.

First, what is the NEED? The need is to cut down on gun violence, to remove guns from the streets, to keep guns away from criminals and crazies. All of that. Yes?

Now here is where Left and Right normally collide. Left proposes a solution; the gun registry. The Right mocks it as useless. The Left accuses the Right of not carying about gun violence in the streets.

The long gun registry is a solution?

Let's remember that the vast majority of gun violence involves restricted weapons - ie, hand guns and assault rifles. These have ALWAYS been registered (at least in my lifetime). Furthermore, the great majority of these weapons are smuggled across the border from the US anyway.

So how can the long-gun registry possibly have any influence here? How does it address NEED?

Remember, also, that the registry is not gun control. The registry does not decide who can and who cannot have a weapon. That is an entirely different system. Registration takes place only AFTER someone has been approved to purchase a firearm.

Again. How does it address NEED?

Your proposal to privatize the gun registry is also somewhat naive in its utter faith that once taken from government hands the registry would immediately become this wonderously efficient thing, despite the fact there are presently gaping holes in it, misfiled information, and that it was designed without the capacity to update its records. Basically, if you want a long gun registry the entire thing should be scrapped, along with all the information in it, because it's so wildly unreliable, and you should begin again.

You also say that the gun registry can be profitable. Dandy. That means those who own or want to purchase rifles, shotguns, etc., will have money taken away from them to fund the system and then, apparently, overfund it so it makes money. To what end? Because of NEED? But the registry in no way addresses NEED!

Good luck with the Kyoto thing.

[August1991]

This is the problem with the Left. They express a NEED, which, for the most part, everyone agrees with. But then they express a POLICY to take care of the NEED. Problem is, the POLICY is unworkable and nonsensical as often as not. When conservatives point that our we're accused of being evil and cruel in our opposition to taking care of the NEED.

Once again, Argue, you state well the idea. But I'm not sure your point is useful.

We should not be arguing objectives because we largely agree on those. Where we disagree is how to achieve those objectives. It works both ways. The Right accuses the Left of being anti-West because it opposes military adventures abroad.

The Left could just as easily argue that our Afghan policy is "unworkable and nonsensical".

It's nice that you've noted that we largely agree on goals but not on means. Now, how does that advance the debate?

[jbg]

So how can the long-gun registry possibly have any influence here? How does it address NEED?

Remember, also, that the registry is not gun control. The registry does not decide who can and who cannot have a weapon. That is an entirely different system. Registration takes place only AFTER someone has been approved to purchase a firearm.

Again. How does it address NEED?

It is always easier for a government, when faced with a problem, to pass a new law, rather than dedicate the resources neede to fight the problem, using already-ample existing powers. A perfect example are speed limits. Recently, a 16 year old driver in our town was tragically killed driving about 150 km in a 68 km zone (speeds translated from normal units to Trudeau Units). The response; to lower the limit to around 59 km. How lowering the speed limit would deter someone driving 80 km over limit is an interesting question.

When there was a rash of drunk driving accidents, the United States Government compelled states to lower the BAC limits from 0.10 to 0.08. Keep in mind that most of the people involved in the accidents were totally sauced, well over the 0.10 limit. In that case, if society were serious about drunk driving the police would set up a checkpoint say 100 meters from a restaurant or bar frequented by heavy drinkers, and pull over ever 10th driver, or similarly enforce near large private house parties. The trouble with this is that it would be politically unacceptable since people's ability to enjoy the use of alchohol would be severly curtailed.

Thus, telling the truth, society wants pretend action, not real action, on many problems.

Good luck with the Kyoto thing.

Kyoto is a solution, highly profitable to Maurice Strong (now on the lamb) and Paul Desmairis, in search of a problem. The problem they found; a few warm years in the late 1980's and early 1990's, which were largely driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the sunspot cycle.

[August1991]

If you actually wanted to do something about gun crime you would put major efforts into combating and severely punishing anyone who smuggles, sells, posesses, and god help them, uses a firearm illegally. But that would be expensive.

I agree. We need more severe penalties for any crime using a firearm.

If you were worried about local firearms being used illegally then logically, you'd remove them. I would require that weapons used for target shooting be kept at the gun club, and weapons used for hunting be kept at police stations. They could be picked up on your way out of town. Rural people could keep shotguns and such, but guns would be banned within urban centres.

That's draconian but is it feasible? Could gun clubs store all the guns? What about gun collectors?

[August1991]

The NDP is honest? even with themselves? The NDP is fiercely determined that we must impliment Kyoto and reach our goals.

Even though there is absolutely no possibility of meeting or even coming close to meeting our goals.

So are the NDP lying to the public, or are they lying to themselves?

The OP concerned whether Liberals tell the truth and it seemed to me that the poster was unintentionally hilarious. The NDP, on the other hand, is sanctimonious like a protestant clergyman. Not only do they tell the truth, they're the only ones who know it.

[drift]I have always felt that the NDP's lack of success in Quebec and among other Catholics was due in part to this puritan smugness.[/drift]

[jbg]

The NDP is honest? even with themselves? The NDP is fiercely determined that we must impliment Kyoto and reach our goals.

Even though there is absolutely no possibility of meeting or even coming close to meeting our goals.

So are the NDP lying to the public, or are they lying to themselves?

The OP concerned whether Liberals tell the truth and it seemed to me that the poster was unintentionally hilarious. The NDP, on the other hand, is sanctimonious like a protestant clergyman. Not only do they tell the truth, they're the only ones who know it.

[drift]I have always felt that the NDP's lack of success in Quebec and among other Catholics was due in part to this puritan smugness.[/drift]

As the "O-Poster" I meant "l"iberal, not "L"iberal. Sorry for the confusion.