Women Abandon Conservatives

[Argus]

Yes, she goes where the power is. Who wouldn't.

Well, people who believed in loyalty, who had a certain vision, a set of beliefs based on their desires for what kind of Canada they wanted to live in.

Yes, people of loyalty like David Emerson...

He was given a Cabinet position by Stephen Harper and was warmly welcomed by the other Harpercrites, Garth Turner excluded. Last year when Stronach crossed the floor, outraged Harpercrites were calling Stronach a whore and proposing legislation requiring a byelection before an MP could switch parties. What utter hypocrisy!

There were some rather important differences. In Emmerson's case he had already been a cabinet minister, and a well-respected one, at that, a man commited to the goal of negotiating a settlement with the US over softwood lumber. The Tories brought him back in the same portfolio to finish what he started. He did not bad-mouth his former party, and his vote was not particularly needed on anything.

Stronach had been a leadership candidate for the very party she turned around and bad-mouthed only a year later when abandoning it. She jumped ship into a cabinet post she was most certainly not qualified for on the eve of a critical vote where her vote was the decisive one saving the government.

She betrayed her party, in other words, for the offer of a cabinet position, which makes her a political whore Emmerson can certainly be criticised for what he did, but not to the same extent.

[Argus]

It is so clearly obvious how wrong the Conservatives are that no 'smart' person could ever support them?

I'll try to be clear. There are very few possible reasons someone would support the malformed and mistaken Conservative party:

-ignorance,

-stupidity, and/or

-perceived self-interest.

Persons in the first and third categories may or may not be stupid.

Hmm, if only you could start up some camps, eh, Figleaf, call them uhm, "reeducation centres" so that those evil conservatives could be convinced of the wrongness of their ways and punished for their immorality.

That is where your type of thinking leads.

[Figleaf]

It is so clearly obvious how wrong the Conservatives are that no 'smart' person could ever support them?

I'll try to be clear. There are very few possible reasons someone would support the malformed and mistaken Conservative party:

-ignorance,

-stupidity, and/or

-perceived self-interest.

Persons in the first and third categories may or may not be stupid.

Hmm, if only you could start up some camps, eh, Figleaf, call them uhm, "reeducation centres" so that those evil conservatives could be convinced of the wrongness of their ways and punished for their immorality.

That is where your type of thinking leads.

Rather it is where a person of your attitude sees it leading. I certainly would not see it leading there.

[Canadian Blue]

QUOTE

QUOTE

They have stupid policies about crime. They don't seek to reduce the causes. Three strikes is a mistake unless you leave a lot of discretion to the judge, and if you do, then the law has no meaning. Stiffer sentences are shown to have little if any effect on crime rates.

They don't deter crime, I agree with that. However if somebody commits a violent crime then they should be put in jail indefinitely after the third crime.

If it doesn't deter crime, why would we want to incur such expense for every criminal who commits a petty offence after a couple of major ones? I certainly think repeat criminals should be given stiffer sentences, but making an inflexible formula is not sensible.

QUOTE

This is more or less about putting repeat offendors behind bars, why should a pedophile be able to get out of jail after ten years of committing sexual crimes.

The problem with the three strikes law is that it captures cases that don't fit the type you describe above. It will include people who rob two liquor stores in their twenties and then when they're fifty they kite a cheque. It's just not sensible to keep that person in jail at public expense for 20-40 years.

Thats California, not the plan here in Canada. The target here is violent and sexual offenders. Either I'm out to lunch or you are on this topic. The idea of the plan was to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.

As for Border Gaurds getting armed, the union president has been lobbying for this for years. It's basic common sense, these guys have to deal with criminal and dangerous situations and need the tools to do so. They shouldn't be relegated to having to leave their posts and wait up to half an hour for the RCMP to show up. It shouldn't take a shooting to change the policy.

It's not wise to elect senators until we can reform the whole system because if elected they gain authority which without proper reform we should not want them to have.

It's much better then the current system we have, and to a point I agree with you we should have sweeping reform first. The current system though is flawed, their are few nations were only 40% of the vote can lead to 100% of the power. That is a cause of alot of the divisions in Canada, gives way to much power to the PMO.

QUOTE

...Same with Universal daycare which would not give any benefits to stay at home moms or dads. The policy was an alternative to the position of the Liberal party.

A stupid alternative. If we are concerned about our population growth we will have to come to terms with making childbearing more attractive. If some parents want to opt out of the daycare provided, a rebate for their children would level that problem.

No rebate was offered by the previous government. If that had been adopted then support for Public Daycare would have been higher. As well I'd imagine giving a large sum of money back to parents would make childbearing more attractive.

QUOTE

As well your argument itself is flawed as the vast majority of people vote based on self interest.

Then, presumably my argument is actually correct, unless you are exempting the support of Conservatives from the category of 'most people'.

No it isn't, because you single out conservatives and no one else. I was pointing out that a large proportion of people on the left vote for illegitimate reasons as well.

QUOTE

Here's the thing, you have people who are conservative, liberal, libertarian, authoritarian, centrist, etc. All of them have reason's for supporting that view because they believe its the best way to run a government and a country.

Yes. Some have good reasons, some not. Those who are supporting the conservative side don't have good reasons IMO.

I just provided you with plenty of good reasons.

QUOTE

QUOTE

I voted conservative in the last federal election, and will probably be voting NDP in my province when the provincial election in my province. Am I ignornant, stupid, or acting in my own self interest.

ARE you? I don't know. But I will expand my reasoning slightly, people who supported the Conservatives may simply be thoughtless as well. When you voted Conservative, you must have been ACTING in one of those ways.

Not really, I looked at the policies of each party and decided Conservative was the best option and thats how I voted.

Okay, I believe you tried to do your best, but I also believe you made the wrong choice, probably by not taking proper information into account (i.e. it was a choice made through ignorance of important factors, no special offense intended).

I looked at each party platform and took all information into account. So far I'm content with my choice. Your trying to paint a broad section of people with the same brush, something extremely dangerous to do in politics.

Thoughtless, if we are all Liberals, and only accept liberal ideals then haven't we become thoughtless. How can their be thought, when all thought is the same across the board. Once again it proves this flawed argument. You say people on the right are thoughtless, but isn't it because of thought that they disagree with liberalism and instead adopt conservatism.

As for Republican's being thoughtless, are you saying Republican's who disagree with Bush, are thoughtless?

[Argus]

If you do something without good reasons, what other explanation would you think I can put on it?

Dunno, Fig, suppose you tell us why you so zealously support an ammoral party which has been corrupt down to the bedrock for two decades, has no plans, no policies, no direction, and has been known for its selfish, disinterested, dishonest, style-over-substance, divide and conquer rule for at least the last thirteen years?

Anyone who supports the Liberals is ignorant, dishonest, or both. Anyone who supports them zealously is probably not entirely sane.

[admclark]

Yes, she goes where the power is. Who wouldn't.

Well, people who believed in loyalty, who had a certain vision, a set of beliefs based on their desires for what kind of Canada they wanted to live in.

Yes, people of loyalty like David Emerson...

He was given a Cabinet position by Stephen Harper and was warmly welcomed by the other Harpercrites, Garth Turner excluded. Last year when Stronach crossed the floor, outraged Harpercrites were calling Stronach a whore and proposing legislation requiring a byelection before an MP could switch parties. What utter hypocrisy!

He has proved to make a valubale contribution to the country. Belinda, was just a slutty whore who doesn't give a crap (excuse the French) about the country.

[gerryhatrick]

Yes, she goes where the power is. Who wouldn't.

Well, people who believed in loyalty, who had a certain vision, a set of beliefs based on their desires for what kind of Canada they wanted to live in.

Yes, people of loyalty like David Emerson...

He was given a Cabinet position by Stephen Harper and was warmly welcomed by the other Harpercrites, Garth Turner excluded. Last year when Stronach crossed the floor, outraged Harpercrites were calling Stronach a whore and proposing legislation requiring a byelection before an MP could switch parties. What utter hypocrisy!

He has proved to make a valubale contribution to the country. Belinda, was just a slutty whore who doesn't give a crap (excuse the French) about the country.

And you're just an inbred idiot to dumb to figure out quote tags. Guess that makes it equal!

[belinda emerson]

She betrayed her party, in other words, for the offer of a cabinet position, which makes her a political whore Emmerson can certainly be criticised for what he did, but not to the same extent.

They both betrayed their parties for the offer of a cabinet position but David Emerson went on to betray the softwood lumber industry. In December, 2005, Emerson turned down an offer from the US, relayed through Frank McKenna, for Canada to forego a billion in illegal duties and put an export tax on Canadian lumber. Months later, this same "political whore" accepted an offer, relayed through new ambassador Wilson, to forego a billion in illegal duties and put an export tax on Canadian lumber. Today the softwood lumber industry is paying a 15% export tax which is even higher than the illegal US lumber duties. Why did Emerson flipflop? Is it conceivable that Harper, eager to please Bush, had something to do with this? Why aren't Canadian softwood lumber companies pleased with the deal imposed by Emerson/Harper?

[Canadian Blue]

Anyone who supports the Liberals is ignorant, dishonest, or both. Anyone who supports them zealously is probably not entirely sane.

Their are still those that strongly believe in the Liberal party which once valued Compassion, equality, and founded many of the values which are hallmarks of Canada today. However now I find that pretty well every single party now values power above all else. In todays political climates its choice between three evils. I think we need more people to get into power that actaully care more about Canada then power.

[Argus]

She betrayed her party, in other words, for the offer of a cabinet position, which makes her a political whore Emmerson can certainly be criticised for what he did, but not to the same extent.

They both betrayed their parties for the offer of a cabinet position but David Emerson went on to betray the softwood lumber industry.

If the Liberals had gotten back into power, and if they had been able to sign this deal the Liberal party would be throwing parties and trumpeting it as a great victory for Canada.

In December, 2005, Emerson turned down an offer from the US, relayed through Frank McKenna, for Canada to forego a billion in illegal duties and put an export tax on Canadian lumber. Months later, this same "political whore" accepted an offer, relayed through new ambassador Wilson, to forego a billion in illegal duties and put an export tax on Canadian lumber. Today the softwood lumber industry is paying a 15% export tax which is even higher than the illegal US lumber duties.

You have things more than a little off, which makes me wonder about what else you have off. Where do you get that Emerson turned down a deal in 2005? Also, Canada will not be paying any kind of export tax unless the price of lumber drops below a given limit. And if they do pay it it will go to CANADA, not to the US, and all provinces have signed on to the agreement.

Perhaps you would like to review your history here.

The softwood lumber dispute

[Figleaf]

Thats California, not the plan here in Canada. The target here is violent and sexual offenders. Either I'm out to lunch or you are on this topic. The idea of the plan was to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.

I understand that's the goal, but the actual policy says any crime with federal time, I thought.

As for Border Gaurds getting armed, the union president has been lobbying for this for years. It's basic common sense, these guys have to deal with criminal and dangerous situations and need the tools to do so.

So,... no examples then? Having their union prez onside is not all that convincing.

[Canadian Blue]

What would it take to convince you the a dead Border Guard?

The union is onside, and their have been numerous cases where the CBSA has had to flee their posts, I don't really know what you mean by provide examples.

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 22 2006, 03:11 PM)

Thats California, not the plan here in Canada. The target here is violent and sexual offenders. Either I'm out to lunch or you are on this topic. The idea of the plan was to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.

I understand that's the goal, but the actual policy says any crime with federal time, I thought.

That doesn't include petty crime, lets just say that the Trailer Park Boys won't be getting 25 to life anytime soon. We've also seen what happens when repeat offenders are allowed onto the streets who haven't been rehabilitated.

Figleaf, why haven't you answered my previous question. It seems that me being a thoughtless individual has provoked a certain amount of civilized debate here.

[belinda emerson]

You have things more than a little off, which makes me wonder about what else you have off. Where do you get that Emerson turned down a deal in 2005? Also, Canada will not be paying any kind of export tax unless the price of lumber drops below a given limit. And if they do pay it it will go to CANADA, not to the US, and all provinces have signed on to the agreement.

The story that Emerson turned down the deal in 2005 appeared in the April 28th, 2006, issue of the Vancouver Sun. It's in the A section. I have the hard copy in front of me but unfortunately no link.

As far as the export tax goes, the price of lumber has already dropped to the point that the 15% tax has now kicked in. That's why the softwood lumber industry is unhappy. You can read more about how Emerson and Harper betrayed the industry here:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/

[betsy]

hi dear Andrea.I miss u too very much.I am studing architecting in Tehran university now .the capital of Iran.so I am not at home and I can use computer just at the university.plz tell me whw\en u are online that I can find a time and chat u

Just got this instant message from my friend in Iran.

a FEMALE!

an EDUCATED female!

in IRAN!

becoming an ARCHITECT!

wimim ar sew stoopid and unedukated eh argus!?

Good for her!

Planning to migrate to the west, I suppose?

[Figleaf]

What would it take to convince you the a dead Border Guard?

How about an EXAMPLE of when there has been a potentially dangerous confrontation at the border?

The union is onside, and their have been numerous cases where the CBSA has had to flee their posts, I don't really know what you mean by provide examples.

Refer me to a report of such an case, please.

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 22 2006, 03:11 PM)

Thats California, not the plan here in Canada. The target here is violent and sexual offenders. Either I'm out to lunch or you are on this topic. The idea of the plan was to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.

I understand that's the goal, but the actual policy says any crime with federal time, I thought.

That doesn't include petty crime, lets just say that the Trailer Park Boys won't be getting 25 to life anytime soon.

Any sentence over 2yrs. is federal time in Canada, and theft or fraud over $5000 can get you that.

Figleaf, why haven't you answered my previous question. It seems that me being a thoughtless individual has provoked a certain amount of civilized debate here.

Sorry if I overlooked something important ... what question?

[blueblood]

What would it take to convince you the a dead Border Guard?

How about an EXAMPLE of when there has been a potentially dangerous confrontation at the border?

The union is onside, and their have been numerous cases where the CBSA has had to flee their posts, I don't really know what you mean by provide examples.

Refer me to a report of such an case, please.

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 22 2006, 03:11 PM)

Thats California, not the plan here in Canada. The target here is violent and sexual offenders. Either I'm out to lunch or you are on this topic. The idea of the plan was to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.

I understand that's the goal, but the actual policy says any crime with federal time, I thought.

That doesn't include petty crime, lets just say that the Trailer Park Boys won't be getting 25 to life anytime soon.

Any sentence over 2yrs. is federal time in Canada, and theft or fraud over $5000 can get you that.

Figleaf, why haven't you answered my previous question. It seems that me being a thoughtless individual has provoked a certain amount of civilized debate here.

Sorry if I overlooked something important ... what question?

Sorry for hijacking the thread but not arming the border guards is just plain stupid. Lets ask Cst. Stronquill what can happen at a routine checkstop, oh wait he's dead, and the point I'm going to make is at least he had more of a chance as he had a sidearm, what chance does the border guard have unarmed. Do you want an unarmed guard shot first? A dangerous confrontation can just as easily happen on the border as on Hwy. 16 in small town Manitoba. Lets at least give the guard a fighting chance.

Oh back on topic, maybe it's just a coincidence...

[Figleaf]

I read the newspaper every day. I watch the TV news. I cannot recall any reports of violence at the borders.

Is this all just anti-American fear mongering?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I read the newspaper every day. I watch the TV news. I cannot recall any reports of violence at the borders.

Is this all just anti-American fear mongering?

There have definitely been cases of Canadian border guards leaving their posts out of fear for their safety.

Here's a quote from a story this past March.

So far this year, guards in British Columbia walked off the job three times. In one instance in January, they were warned armed American fugitives were racing towards the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver. In the incident, gunfire was exchanged and a murder suspect was shot in the neck.

[Canadian Blue]

Figleaf my question was about your belief that any person supporting the conservatives are in four camps. I was able to debate you on many of the points the conservatives had.

QUOTE

QUOTE

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 22 2006, 03:11 PM)

Thats California, not the plan here in Canada. The target here is violent and sexual offenders. Either I'm out to lunch or you are on this topic. The idea of the plan was to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.

I understand that's the goal, but the actual policy says any crime with federal time, I thought.

That doesn't include petty crime, lets just say that the Trailer Park Boys won't be getting 25 to life anytime soon.

Any sentence over 2yrs. is federal time in Canada, and theft or fraud over $5000 can get you that.

The justice minister was very clear that those who committed a violent or sexaul offense after the third time would have the onus put on them to not be labelled a dangerous offender. If they are named a dangerous offender then they are put away. I think your confused as to what the policy actaully is. It might be smart not to ridicule people for being uninformed when you yourself are uninformed.

QUOTE

Figleaf, why haven't you answered my previous question. It seems that me being a thoughtless individual has provoked a certain amount of civilized debate here.

Sorry if I overlooked something important ... what question?

Your belief that any person who does not support liberalism is a thoughtless individual. Do you still honestly believe that. I think it simply shows a lack of life experience on your part. I've met people from each political camp who have been intelligent and articulate. I've met so far in my short life, Raj Pannu, Ed Stelmach, Stan Woloshyn, Stephen Harper, Laurie Blakeman, and John Williams. Every single one having some degree of an effect on my view of politics.

[Figleaf]

I read the newspaper every day. I watch the TV news. I cannot recall any reports of violence at the borders.

Is this all just anti-American fear mongering?

There have definitely been cases of Canadian border guards leaving their posts out of fear for their safety.

Here's a quote from a story this past March.

So far this year, guards in British Columbia walked off the job three times. In one instance in January, they were warned armed American fugitives were racing towards the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver. In the incident, gunfire was exchanged and a murder suspect was shot in the neck.

That's a weird report. All it says is

So far this year, guards in British Columbia walked off the job three times. In one instance in January, they were warned armed American fugitives were racing towards the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver. In the incident, gunfire was exchanged and a murder suspect was shot in the neck.

So, where did the violence happen?

[Ricki Bobbi]

That's a weird report. All it says is

So far this year, guards in British Columbia walked off the job three times. In one instance in January, they were warned armed American fugitives were racing towards the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver. In the incident, gunfire was exchanged and a murder suspect was shot in the neck.

So, where did the violence happen?

Part of the violence happened in the murder suspect's neck when he got shot there.

[blueblood]

I read the newspaper every day. I watch the TV news. I cannot recall any reports of violence at the borders.

Is this all just anti-American fear mongering?

There have definitely been cases of Canadian border guards leaving their posts out of fear for their safety.

Here's a quote from a story this past March.

So far this year, guards in British Columbia walked off the job three times. In one instance in January, they were warned armed American fugitives were racing towards the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver. In the incident, gunfire was exchanged and a murder suspect was shot in the neck.

That's a weird report. All it says is

So far this year, guards in British Columbia walked off the job three times. In one instance in January, they were warned armed American fugitives were racing towards the Peace Arch border crossing south of Vancouver. In the incident, gunfire was exchanged and a murder suspect was shot in the neck.

So, where did the violence happen?

Do you want me to lend you a shovel to help you with that hole your digging

[Figleaf]

Figleaf my question was about your belief that any person supporting the conservatives are in four camps. I was able to debate you on many of the points the conservatives had.

QUOTE

QUOTE

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 22 2006, 03:11 PM)

Thats California, not the plan here in Canada. The target here is violent and sexual offenders. Either I'm out to lunch or you are on this topic. The idea of the plan was to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.

I understand that's the goal, but the actual policy says any crime with federal time, I thought.

That doesn't include petty crime, lets just say that the Trailer Park Boys won't be getting 25 to life anytime soon.

Any sentence over 2yrs. is federal time in Canada, and theft or fraud over $5000 can get you that.

The justice minister was very clear that those who committed a violent or sexaul offense after the third time would have the onus put on them to not be labelled a dangerous offender. If they are named a dangerous offender then they are put away. I think your confused as to what the policy actaully is. It might be smart not to ridicule people for being uninformed when you yourself are uninformed.

QUOTE

Figleaf, why haven't you answered my previous question. It seems that me being a thoughtless individual has provoked a certain amount of civilized debate here.

Sorry if I overlooked something important ... what question?

Your belief that any person who does not support liberalism is a thoughtless individual. Do you still honestly believe that. I think it simply shows a lack of life experience on your part. I've met people from each political camp who have been intelligent and articulate. I've met so far in my short life, Raj Pannu, Ed Stelmach, Stan Woloshyn, Stephen Harper, Laurie Blakeman, and John Williams. Every single one having some degree of an effect on my view of politics.

1. I have now reviewed the text of the Bill. I admit unequivocally that I had a wrong understanding of its terms. It addresses violent and sexual crimes (only) by reversing the onus of proof in dangerous offender applications after a 3rd offense. As such, it is an incremental change, not drastic.

2. I still don't know what your question is.

3. Notwithstanding point 1, above,m I stand by my analysis of the general merits of voting Conservative. Not everthing they do has to be wrong for it to be ill-advised to support them.

[Canadian Blue]

3. Notwithstanding point 1, above,m I stand by my analysis of the general merits of voting Conservative. Not everthing they do has to be wrong for it to be ill-advised to support them.

Based on what?

Seriously I've met some Liberal voters who have abuse drugs, would it be fair to say all liberals are thus drug addicts. As for being ill advised, you were confused about some of the policies that the conservatives have brought forward. My advice to you is theirs life outside of the Liberal party box, be open minded. Barak Obama one of the possible contenders for president down in the United States has shown respect towards Republican's and conservatives despite political differences. He is as liberal as they come yet realizes something you still do not. Not everything in politics is black and white.

I'm not sure if your planning on becoming a politician later on in life, but you'll find out the majority of issues out their aren't necessarily black and white. Whether it be welfare, gay marriage, abortion, the military, charter rights, etc. Each side has valid view points, something necessary in a democracy. The problem with our democracy is we put way to much faith into an unelected judiciary. As well in each election, the usual result is that a majority of the population is not heard due to the first past the post system.

2. I still don't know what your question is.

Its about thoughtless individuals. I'm a thoughtless individual according to your personal beliefs, however have seemed to have had a civilized debate with you. Then will you withdraw your thoughtless comments since they are flawed, as a thoughtless person does not have the power to debate.

3. Notwithstanding point 1, above,m I stand by my analysis of the general merits of voting Conservative. Not everthing they do has to be wrong for it to be ill-advised to support them.

Don't worry, once you get more life experience you'll find out for yourself. I was the same way when I was younger, then once I matured and learned more about the world I found out things aren't as simple as they seem. Thats the only way you can learn is through life experience.

[Figleaf]

3. Notwithstanding point 1, above,m I stand by my analysis of the general merits of voting Conservative. Not everthing they do has to be wrong for it to be ill-advised to support them.

Based on what?

Seriously I've met some Liberal voters who have abuse drugs, would it be fair to say all liberals are thus drug addicts. As for being ill advised, you were confused about some of the policies that the conservatives have brought forward. My advice to you is theirs life outside of the Liberal party box, be open minded. Barak Obama one of the possible contenders for president down in the United States has shown respect towards Republican's and conservatives despite political differences. He is as liberal as they come yet realizes something you still do not. Not everything in politics is black and white.

I'm not sure if your planning on becoming a politician later on in life, but you'll find out the majority of issues out their aren't necessarily black and white. Whether it be welfare, gay marriage, abortion, the military, charter rights, etc. Each side has valid view points, something necessary in a democracy. The problem with our democracy is we put way to much faith into an unelected judiciary. As well in each election, the usual result is that a majority of the population is not heard due to the first past the post system.

2. I still don't know what your question is.

Its about thoughtless individuals. I'm a thoughtless individual according to your personal beliefs, however have seemed to have had a civilized debate with you. Then will you withdraw your thoughtless comments since they are flawed, as a thoughtless person does not have the power to debate.

3. Notwithstanding point 1, above,m I stand by my analysis of the general merits of voting Conservative. Not everthing they do has to be wrong for it to be ill-advised to support them.

Don't worry, once you get more life experience you'll find out for yourself. I was the same way when I was younger, then once I matured and learned more about the world I found out things aren't as simple as they seem. Thats the only way you can learn is through life experience.

1. Please don't bore me with condescension. I've plenty-o life experience.

2. My opinions on the Conservatives don't hinge on any particular appreciation of the Liberal party.

3. Notwithstanding particular policies that may be unharmful, the Conservatives policies and the ideology behind them are ... negative on a net basis. Support for such a party cannot be explained except through some combination of the factors I've listed.

4. I still don't know what your question was.