The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Tip of the Whip Always Stings...
Here is a shining example of the NDP's sterling sense of diversity and tolerance...
A rebel New Democrat who defied her leader's order to support same-sex marriage has lost her bid to seek re-election under the NDP banner.
Bev Desjarlais, the NDP MP for the Churchill riding since 1997, was defeated in her nomination battle by Niki Ashton, the daughter of provincial cabinet minister Steve Ashton. Ashton grabbed the upset victory on the first ballot yesterday.
Desjarlais, who is expected to leave the NDP caucus and seek re-election as an independent in the next federal vote, said her stand against same-sex marriage cost her the party's nomination. [...]
Despite claiming her vote reflected her beliefs and those of her constituents, Desjarlais was stripped of her portfolios as NDP critic for transport and the Canadian Wheat Board as a result.
And now, she has been turfed from the party. I guess they are only interested in diversity and tolerance, if it falls perfectly in line with their ideology. And true to form, the minions of the NDP are following old Jack Sprats edict to keep their traps shut, about the whole thing.
So you get that? If you vote an MP into office, don't expect them to vote on your behalf on the issues. Oh no...You my friend, are just the platform they step on, to get there. Once they've shook hands and said their thank-yous, they're expected to chuck their conscience and their responsibility for their constituents, into the dumpster out back, and get in line to institute the will o' the party.
For the sake of the people, of course!
The Liberals are equally guilty of turning every issue, into a solidarity match. The only reason they are avoiding confidence motions now, is because they know they'll get wolluped! Otherwise, they'd be shoving every bureaucratic, money-wasting initiative they can think of, down our throats in a constant grand slam -- Just like in the days of 'Da Little Guy' (Maybe when you translate that from Jean-speak to English, it comes out something like 'small-minded twerp'...I don't know. I'm just guessing).
However you spin it, this lady got pitched because she believed in the notion that she should vote her conscience on an issue that would serve to dramatically alter the legal and social landscape of this country. I never thought I'd say this, but I dig this lady's integrity. The NDP could certainly use a few more people of conscience. Too bad Jack's not looking for anything more than puppets.
Hat Tip - Nealenews
Posted by Wonder Woman on October 19, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Tip of the Whip Always Stings...:
Sorry she lost the NOMINATION. That means the local NDP members didn't think she represented them which is their right. Desjarlais should have stepped down voluntarily after voting against ssm since it was clear she didn't feel the party represented her.
If she was truly "people of conscience" she would have left her party on her own without having to be voted out. Duh.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 7:18:06 AM
And, Justin, if you believe that the machinations of central party apparatchiks never play any role in nomination meetings, you'll undoubtedly believe that there truly are spontaneous demonstrations in Harare praising Robodan Mugabevich.
Oh, I forgot, you really DO believe both things.
Posted by: Paul Canniff | 2005-10-19 7:51:49 AM
Wow! Do you understand the first comment? Everyone knows how those nominations are organized. The person who wrote the first comment probably is one of them.
This is too bad in a way for B. Desjarlais, but it is a good lesson about the NDP. I hope many fellow citizens will take note and cast their votes accordingly in the next election.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-10-19 7:57:15 AM
Justin- it's only the NDP members who rejected her as their nominee. Not the people of that riding who voted her into the House.
Are you serious? You are suggesting that IF the party caucus or even leader, decides on a policy, then ALL members of that party MUST agree. If they don't agree, they should, according to you, resign from the party. Do you realize what you are advocating?
You've just rejected the basic atrribute of human beings - individual reasoning and analysis. You've said that people are voted into parliament, not to think, but only to Follow Their Leader. As soon as they enter parliament, they must drop their minds into a bucket and hand it over to the leader to program as mindless Stepford Wives.
You know, if we wanted zombies in parliament, as you are advocating, it would be easy. All we would have to do, is have a vote in the country for 'parties'. Then, each party gets a zombie-vote for which ever party won the vote in that riding. No human beings are involved. The single leader then uses this number in parliament, and he alone decides all issues. He 'votes' the number of zombie-seats he 'owns'. No discussion is needed, no alternate views, no debates. Nothing. Just four 'leaders' in parliament, with their zombie numbers. That would end freedom, wouldn't it?
The strength of a democracy is that individuals are free to think, and reject any demands that they operate as zombies. The leader must PERSUADE his own members that his ideaas are valid, reasonable and good for the country. He's not God; his ideas are not immune to fault. His ideas must be open to debate. Why do you want zombies in a government?
Posted by: ET | 2005-10-19 8:04:01 AM
So let me get this straight:
You ppl tell Paul Martin that since he's Catholic he can't expect to support ssm and still expect the Church to welcome him or give him the eucharist.
But when it comes to the NDP (who have been supporting ssm and gay rights for YEARS and have made it one of their priorities) they need to welcome members that disagree with their policies.
Again, if Desjarlais really had a problem with her party's support of ssm she SHOULDN'T HAVE REMAINED IN IT! What was she doing in the party that is the strongest supporter of gay rights if she doesn't agree with it??
You ppl are hilarious - you'll bend anything to fit your rigid ideology.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 8:07:23 AM
So ET just said the Cathoic Church denies the "basic atrribute of human beings - individual reasoning and analysis."
He went on further to say that Catholics, "must drop their minds into a bucket and hand it over to the leader to program as mindless Stepford Wives."
Finally he called all Catholics "zombies"
Question ET: why are you so violently anti-Catholic?
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 8:10:20 AM
Justin - There isn't a single political party that has every member in full agreeance on all issues - To even expect it is idiotic. An MP can disagree on any one or two policies, and still agree on the rest. That's the functioning purpose of a Democracy. That they don't always have to agree.
She's in line with NDP policy on every other issue, except ssm. So that disqualifies her for party membership? Has the NDP become the party that represents ssm, to the exclusion of all else? Is that the only platform they're covering now?
Obviously your idea of democracy and my idea of democracy are very divergent. But who's surprised by that?
Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-19 8:23:46 AM
The troll pretends ET is a strawman.
Don't feed the troll.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 8:48:04 AM
The local NDP members originally nominated her to represent the party - that's how she got nominated in the FIRST PLACE. They giveth and they taketh away (I know many of you speak Biblease so maybe that'll help).
If you have a problem with the party system itself then that's another issue. No one took away her right to vote - they took away her right to vote as AN NDP!!! DUH!
"An MP can disagree on any one or two policies, and still agree on the rest." That's UP TO THE PARTY TO DECIDE and the local members - not you.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 8:51:04 AM
I guess the voters don't really count for anything, then...Do they?
Do you keep using the term 'DUH' because you don't know anything else? Just asking.
Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-19 8:56:02 AM
Justin while you are at it, write the liberal party and tell all the members who voted against SSM to resign. That way we will get an election and the Conservatives will win.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-10-19 8:58:30 AM
Socialists are known for their worship of orthodoxy. They like to call it solidarity. In order to insure this 'solidarity' the are famous for purging the unorthodox from their ranks.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 9:04:06 AM
THE VOTERS CAN STILL VOTE FOR HER IN THE NEXT ELECTION!!!! She is running as an independent so if the voters don't like what the local NDP members did they can respond by voting for her and not the new NDP candidate.
Jesus, what part of the party system don't you understand?
(please note: I'm not actually addressing the above question to Jesus.)
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 9:18:19 AM
justin is one of the most hateful commenters I've ever read. He is a perfect example of today's tunnel-visioned extreme left, resentful of anyone with differing opinions and always throwing out words such as "bigot" and "intolerant" towards those with opposing views, and not smart enough to catch the hypocracy of it. Leftist extremists isolate themselves more & more every time they shout out insults and support anti-democratic policies, and it only hurts their cause.
A little civility and less childish insulting might help you appear more Canadian, Justin, and less of a troll.
Posted by: Canadian | 2005-10-19 9:23:22 AM
Apparently Justin has never been involved in a local nomination campaign either. Theory versus practice, my friend.
Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-19 9:39:22 AM
You people know we're talking about Canada right? I know many of you get confused.
If a member of the PC party lost his nomination cause he chose to vote with his conscience and voted in favour of ssm I can GUARANTEE you people would be supporting his removal.
So now political parties can't decide who gets to be a member?
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 9:53:27 AM
Oops I meant the new (Regressive) Conservative party - not the old (PC) Progressive Conservative one.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 9:55:49 AM
What PC party is that, Justin?
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 9:56:14 AM
Were you confused, Justin?
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 9:58:14 AM
Although I think that the NDP are hosers, and although I would rather cut my hand off than vote for them, I kinda agree with Justin on this one. The NDP is big on SSM; she doesn't agree; they (the party apparachiks no doubut, cuz local democracy is usually a joke in these nominations) turfed her out. What's the big deal? If a Conservative MP came out for, say, man-boy love, wouldn't they be justified in giving him the heave-ho?
Posted by: BillBC | 2005-10-19 10:07:53 AM
Bill, Jim Prentice didnt get the heave ho from the conservatives for voting for SSM, nor did the others. Stepen Harper said for his members it was a free vote. The only party to do so.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-10-19 10:16:39 AM
BILLBC, if the CPC had the kind of orthodoxy you allude to above, would Belinda Stronach have been a CPC MP?
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 10:18:14 AM
Actually Mike, the Bloquistes didn't crack the whip either. I believe seven of their MPs voted NON as well.
Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-19 10:22:02 AM
Good points. Well, I said the NDP were hosers....
Posted by: BillBC | 2005-10-19 10:29:13 AM
I suggest we ignore Justin, who has some serious personality problems; he won't discuss issues; he just wants to rant and insult people. He goes off on 'red herring' tactics, mixes up variables, constantly denigrates posters - and refuses to discuss the issues. Leave him to his self-defined superior and angry 'attitude'.
The issue is- the nature of a political party as a domain for political thinking.
The question: Is a political party in a democracy a domain that rejects all debate, analysis and instead operates as a Unity, whose unity is expressed as only as a Number (of votes).
If this is the case, what is the source of this Unity? The leader? Since the ideology must be unified, then, the Leader need not take the time to persuade the members to agree with him. He simply demands it. This reduces the elected members to zombies. They operate only as programmed by the Leader. They have no other duty.
This includes no duty to represent the diversity of opinion of their constituency. This constituency may be made up of multiple parties. Under a Unity-ideology, all the people who are not NDP in this individual's riding, lose all parliamentary representation, because the elected individual is a zombie - and only of the NDP party leader.
This would set up a parliament of FOUR individuals, each with ONE set of votes. No debate within the party; no debate between parties. All decisions rest only on these four leaders.
And remember, with this structure - the majority of people who voted in the election - and who voted against the elected individual - would instantly lose all representation in parliament.
So- this system is dysfunctional. You cannot operate a democracy if you reduce decisions to only four individuals...who have silenced all debate within each party.
A robust democracy has to encourage varied perspectives; it has to come to its conclusions only by debate and discussion. It also has to acknowledge that a population of a country is not going to be unified within one perspective. Therefore, it cannot exclude these varied perspectives as 'beneath representation'.
The NDP, by rejecting argumentation and insisting on only one conclusion, is rejecting the basic nature of the democratic political process; it's acting as a fundamentalist religion where dissent is not allowed.
Posted by: ET | 2005-10-19 10:30:35 AM
The whole problem with the conservative movement today is the fact that we have people that are individuals and think that way. We will probably never have a consensus on anything, which is a good thing if you are looking for the right way to anything. The lib/left socialist is the epitome of groupthink. Thinking is not allowed except within the parameters they dictate. The public perception however is that we are divided and not sure what we will do [which is true because we actually think and talk about different solutions] and that the left is firmly in command of any situation because they appear to be. As much as I hated trudeau he had it right in his belief that only 10% of voters know what the hell is going on or understands any one given situation. Keep it simple stupid and appeal directly to the voter. Bye that I mean forget the press [he jumped all over them] forget the intellectual community [and their long winded documented babble] and present your case in a simple and straight forward [ Don Cherry ] manner that the average Joe voter can relate to. We must get off the defensive, on every issue it seems, and start presenting our case in an aggressive, pointed, logical and yeah, that makes sense way or these discussions will remain nothing but a hobby to pass a little time. Conservative’s time should be spent trying to win an election and not win a spot on some debating team.
Sorry for my bit off topic rant today, off golfing so won’t bore you anymore.
Totally ignore the Justin’s, all you do is give them a forum for their stupidity.
Posted by: AsISeeIt | 2005-10-19 10:43:11 AM
"The NDP, by rejecting argumentation and insisting on only one conclusion, is rejecting the basic nature of the democratic political process; it's acting as a fundamentalist religion where dissent is not allowed."
Posted by: ET | 19-Oct-05 10:30:35 AM
Fundamental does not equal orthodox, ET, your ignorance of religion is showing.
Actually, ET, the NDP is acting the way Marxist/Atheists have always acted, by PURGING those who diverge from the party line.
They are, after all, materialists.
For the NDP, the methods and means to achieve their goals are up for discussion, the goals themselves are not.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 10:55:29 AM
ET - you still didn't define what makes it a political party and not just a bunch of people thinking different things.
Anyway the Belinda comment brings up a good point - many of you cry-babies were complaining that 'she was never really a Conservative anyway' went she left the losers to join the winners (I mean the Liberals - you know the party rising in the POLLS AGAIN).
You're all so inconsistent but that's to be expected from simpletons who see "left socialism" where at another point you might have seen "witchcraft."
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 10:58:51 AM
Belinda Stronach was a very loud dissenter for a long time in the CPC.
The NDP would have giving BS the smackdown and told her to kick stones faster than you could say, "Justin, wake up!"
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 11:09:18 AM
Why don't you try using some other religion's most revered figure when you curse at the beginning of your sentence -
"Buddha, what part of the party system don't you understand?"
"Mohammed, what part of the party system don't you understand?"
or just use your own name:
"Justin, what part of the party system don't you understand?"
Oh but I forgot, in our multicultural Canadian paradise it is OK to curse Jesus but not anyone else.
PS: That you would defend the NDP on this one is pathetic. Good for her, keeping her word and standing up for her constituents despite the intolerant, undemocratic response that she surely knew would come from the radical left.
Posted by: timmyz | 2005-10-19 11:14:08 AM
AsISeeIt - very good points.
Individual thought does not produce randomness and chaos. After all, there IS a 'right' answer; it takes time and it takes evidence and it takes discussion - but- objective reality exists. The world isn't made up of only our individual perceptions.
So, if we take the issue of health care - we can begin with multiple perspectives of the 'right way' to carry out health care in a country. Or, we can begin with only ONE perspective of the 'right way'. In both cases, the operation of these health care tactics have to be tested against reality.
When we are testing multiple options for health care, we will usually come to a consensus on 'what works best now'. No chaos, no 'each individual thinks differently'. The society will come to a majority consensus. Not 100%, that would actually be dangerous for the society would lose its capacity to adapt. Probably about 75-80%. This 'right answer' provides both stability and diversity.
Changes might occur in the society; population increases, influx of new bacteria, etc..that require a different structure of health care. The society has to carry within its population, the right to debate, analyze, and dissent. That enables the society to argue about these new methods..and quite possibly, adopt them and adjust in a positive manner to the environmental changes.
The danger to a society is when it gets trapped in a one-view ideology - as we are trapped within the 'only public health care' ideology. Whatever the viewpoint, if it is singular and rejects dissent, this means that the society has lost its adaptive capacity. That's the 'locked in stupid' behavior.
That's why political parties must never move into singular ideologies. They represent a majority opinion within an ideology but they must enable dissent; otherwise they too lose their adaptive capacities.
I fully agree with you on your points - and the CPC ought to ignore the MSM, speak to the people and 'keep it simple'.
Posted by: ET | 2005-10-19 11:17:14 AM
Justin: You view on a party's internal politics is well illustrated by Lenin's "democratic centralism", perfected by Stalin. Layton is still at the Lenin phase, but when NDP members begin suddenly disappearing we will know he has reached the Stalin level. And I wonder when Ed Broadbent's photo will be airbrushed out of Party publications.
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-19 11:56:16 AM
One of the principle tenets of the NDP is "social justice" (sorry I know that phrase has the same effect on many of you as pouring water on the wicked witch of the west) which supporting ssm was a part of.
Therefore if Desjarlais didn't support ssm many in the NDP would naturally question her commitment to the fight for social justice. Now I know many of you have difficulty understanding these concepts but we're talking about this from the PERSPECTIVE OF THE NDP not you and your right-wing fanatical christian zombie party.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 12:26:17 PM
Fanatical Christrian Zombie party? Not all people in the CPC are Christians. I am a Christian but I know many conservatives who are. If I remember correctly, ET is not a Christian. How about you stop stereotyping the right? How about you stop being such an ignorant Christian hater. You wouldn't say those things to Jews or Muslims would you so why do you think it is acceptable to say them to Christians? You're the problem with Canada. You are a prime example of a living, breathing double standard. You call same sex marriage legislation social justice? What about the teacher from BC who is being persecuted by his union for not agreeing with them? Is that social justice? How about the priest in Calgary or the man from Toronto who was kicked out of his co-op? That's not social justice. That is borderline marshal law. If you want that kind of social "justice" why don't you just go move to China. You'd love China. They're world renound for social "justice".
Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-19 12:44:13 PM
Correction: I know many conservatives who aren't Christians.
Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-19 12:45:17 PM
I am a strict atheist. Does that make my argument more valid for you, Justin?
Talk about bigots...
Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-19 12:48:19 PM
And for the record...I don't believe in confidence votes for anything. Period. Regardless of which party institutes it. It stifles the democratic process, when you hamstring an elected official into a vote for something they might otherwise, not support.
Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-19 12:52:26 PM
NDP 'social justice' means minorities dictating the social engineering and redefining of social relationships on penalty of law.
Democracy has nothing to do with the New 'Democratic' Party.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 12:53:00 PM
Want more salt in your lashes/wounds, suckers? >>>>
It wasn't taxpayers' money: Dingwall
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
CREDIT: Canadian Press
Former Royal Canadian Mint president David Dingwall says that he did not use taxpayers' money for expenses during his tenure.
David Dingwall will tell a Commons committee it wasn't taxpayer dollars that funded his six-figure office expenses at the Royal Canadian Mint.
The money belonged to the Crown corporation, which has a monopoly on minting Canada's currency and a thriving business serving foreign governments as well, Dingwall said in a statement Wednesday. >>>
national Post via nealenews.com
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-10-19 12:54:17 PM
But maz2 - if a corporation is a CROWN corporation, doesn't that mean it is a PUBLIC corporation, which means that its assets belong to the public; i.e., the taxpayer.
What is the point of crown corporations other than to benefit the taxpayer, who, after all, is considered the main shareholder in this corporation. Does the CEO have the right to use this corporation's funds without shareholder permission?
Posted by: ET | 2005-10-19 1:01:12 PM
Layton is in his Lenin phase. Hilarious. If the NDP has a historical antedent it is the Fabian Society and the related Arts and Crafts Movement, not the Bolshevieks. Yeah. And Howard Hampton is riding Trotsky to Olivia Chow's Stalin.
For a bunch of 'free-thinking individuals' this page is pretty intolerent. Where is this opposition to Justin coming from?
If whatsherface had been booted from the NDP because she advocated, I don't know, lowering the corporate tax rate but only for US-based corporations operating in Canada, or, better yet, using Canada's public housing facilities to train Newfoundlanders on better techniques with which to club baby seals, would this page have noticed?
It would have been more surprising if the NDP hadn't kicked her out. Or is there something special about Same Sex Marriage?
If a potential CPC candidate supported instituting Sharia law in rural Alberta and giving a tatoo allowance to lesbian punk rockers would the local CPC ridding association be right in voting down the nomination?
Unfortunatly, Dingwall is correct. The Canadian Mint paid his salary. And it has turned a profit.
That doesn't excuse him. It's still a patronage appointment and his expenses do still appear to verge on the disgusting. But by accusing him of directly stealing the taxpayer's money -- you are ignoring the facts.
That would be like accusing the CEO of an underperforming corporation for stealing taxpayers money because of lost tax revenue.
The whole Dingwall affaire looks bad enough for the Liberals without having to get in pissing matches over the revenue stream.
Posted by: History Man | 2005-10-19 1:27:34 PM
Camada, you say? Camada, my home and native land? O, Camada! Where is my memory? can't remmeberthe rst.....>>>>>
>> "... feel hopeless about politics, stymied and threatened by an insatiably greedy kleptocracy." >>
Paul Martin and his cronies also benefit from the psychological immobilization. >>>
All the stories and suffering rattle around in a vacuum. The country has been unable to create a thick enough public culture to relieve, even slightly, individuals of their terrible burdens: There are few rituals and no common moral discourse or meaningful memorials that connect redemption, justice, reconciliation, vengeance, or forgiveness to the plight of the whole country. Expressive forms are sparse. The literature of grief centers on memoir and oral history; the fiction, drama, and poetry of lamentation have yet to develop. Visual artists learn traditional techniques and iconography, locked in a fabled Khmer past. The fine films of Rithy Panh, a KR survivor who lives in France, aren’t available from the street sellers who hawk bootlegged American DVDs (ironically, Hotel Rwanda was a staple). Nor could I find his work at the concessions booth at Tuol Sleng, the museum on the site of the KR torture/interrogation center, although one of his films is shown there as a running feature.
With so little access to the expressive forms of art and moral discourse, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, for individuals to find a way out of their anguished solitude. It’s an isolation that echoes the situation the novelist Edmund Keeley found among refugees in the border camps in the early 1980s: “[W]hat memory remains seems to be confined to the lost family and the lost village that for most now begin to fade into a private mythology that has little to do with the country’s fate.”
The void in culture and the paralysis of emotional recovery are intimately connected to the political situation. Cambodians feel hopeless about politics, stymied and threatened by an insatiably greedy kleptocracy. The government’s relationship to recovery is ambivalent: Hun Sen and his cronies benefit from the psychological immobilization. The prospect of Cambodians’ remaking themselves as a people holds few attractions to a political elite that rules by fear and brute force in the absence of significant dissent. >>>>
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-10-19 1:41:39 PM
History Man- what a strange post.
Please provide proof of intolerance on 'this page'. The opposition to Justin is coming from our questioning his insistence that all party members of a political party MUST have the same perspective and if they differ on any issue, they must resign from the party. That seems an impoverished and dangerous definition of a robust democracy. That's what we are discussing. How does this show intolerance? We were discussing the intolerance for other opinions within political parties.
What is the basis for your conclusion that people 'on this page' would approve lowering the corporate tax rate but only for US corporations in Canada? That doesn't make any sense! What is the basis for your conclusion that we would agree with this?
Your example of 'public housing' and 'seals' is insulting. What's your point, other than to insult people? Also, your Sharia Law and tattoo example is equally insulting (but, don't you support lesbians and gays??). What's your point in these examples?
Inserting trivial examples isn't the way to argue. And - what we are discussing, is not the fact that the individual in question (not whatsherface - another insult by you)was not nominated by her riding, but that she was stripped of her party duties, which had nothing to do with SSM, because she disagreed with SSM. Layton was refusing to allow dissent. For a party that prides itself to the point of obnoxiousness with its insistence on 'allowing diversity' - that action by Layton revealed the extreme authoritarianism of the NDP.
And your CEO/corporate example misses the point. This is not a private but a public corporation. It belongs to the people.
Posted by: ET | 2005-10-19 1:52:48 PM
History Man, if it were a real corporation we’d own the shares and we’d sell the stock if we lost confidence in the operation. Then the value of the company would decline and the Board of Directors would be obliged to improve operations to restore value. With Crown Corps we also own it as taxpayers but we can’t do anything when we’re being abused because it’s run for patronage purposes by the PMO. We’re lucky if we even find out what’s going on.
The Mint should be privatized along with a whole host of other Crown Corps which are part of the Librano$$$ rewards and patronage machinery.
Meanwhile, while Canadians are caught up in scandal after scandal the world turns and is leaving us behind …
“Cisco Systems will triple the number of workers it employs in India in its biggest investment outside the US. India has a low-cost English-speaking workforce, making it more attractive to foreign companies.
Cisco Systems is the world’s biggest maker of Internet equipment. India’s economy continues to grow at a good pace and by 2025 the Indian economy is projected to be 60% of the U.S. economy, and by 2035 the Indian economy will be only a little smaller than the US economy but larger than that of Western Europe.”
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-10-19 2:16:09 PM
The point of my examples was obvious. The only person who could find a joke about lesbian punk rockers and a tatoo subsidy insulting would an activist for political correctness with a 'patriarchy outrage' quota to fill. In my experience conservatives aren't a bunch of humourless shrews. My mistake.
I apologize to the gods of political correctness everywhere.
"... Interesting trivial examples aren't the way to argue?"
What is then? Let me guess.
How about lengthy, sleep-inducing posts which employ the lecturing tone of a schoolmarn whose students have forgotten thier homework. Posts so overflowing with abstractions and unproveables their central arguments are constantly at risk of becoming unmoored, sprinkled with assertions so biased its impossible to know where to start when answering them?
Is that how you make an argument? Where, on the debating team for a particularly average high school?
Posted by: History Man | 2005-10-19 2:21:30 PM
I'm not interested in political correctness. Also, I don't know what 'patriarchy outrage' quota means.
But, when you try to make an argument based on insults and trivia,then, I think you have to be 'called' on that. You, by the way, haven't answered my questions.
This current post of yours also reverts to insults and poor argumentation. You simply move into ad hominem. That's bad tactics.
And - You are defining poor argumentation (lengthy..overflowing with abstractions, biased etc) but, provide no examples. That's an empty post and is without validity. Try again but don't get into the ad hominem.
Posted by: ET | 2005-10-19 2:32:41 PM
Is the Canadian Mint a "Crown corporation"? To whom/what is a Crown corporation ultimately responsible?
Easy: to AdScam Martin, Dingwall & the Librano$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Is this being cynical? Or, a statement of fact? For this one, it is fact. The Librano$ have stole/usurped the government of Canada in exchange for a mess of pottage and a bag of phony newly-minted Judas coins. >>>
Accountability to Parliament
Accountability to Parliament
88. Each Crown corporation is ultimately accountable, through the appropriate Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-10-19 2:34:58 PM
ET, H Man's examples were less than trivial, they were strawman arguements bearing not even a caricature's resemblance to reality.
Now this is not a caricature: "How about lengthy, sleep-inducing posts which employ the lecturing tone of a schoolmarn whose students have forgotten thier homework. Posts so overflowing with abstractions and unproveables their central arguments are constantly at risk of becoming unmoored, sprinkled with assertions so biased its impossible to know where to start when answering them?
Is that how you make an argument? Where, on the debating team for a particularly average high school?"
Posted by: History Man | 19-Oct-05 2:21:30 PM
Pretty accurate description of your style, ET.
Posted by: Speller | 2005-10-19 2:36:56 PM
Dingwall's expenses are to the taxpayer what executive compensation is to shareholders, potential profits that are consumed by hirelings, not the owners.
It's a cute argument though. Dennis Kozlowski tried that one too. He's currently doing eight to twenty-five as a guest of the State of New York.
Posted by: herringchoker | 2005-10-19 2:37:54 PM
ET...ah...History Man was...well...what he was doing was...ah...forget it.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-19 2:48:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.