What I saw tonight:
4 socialists
1 guy I used to hate but have upgraded to the "lesser of 5 evils".
Tonight Harper admitted he was wrong on his previous policies with Iraq (this may seem obvious, but I'm surprised Harper would admit anything he has done is wrong) and has accepted a withdrawal date for Afghanistan; point scored.
Harper was the only one who didn't suggest guns should be banned from individuals protecting themselves; point scored
Layton said that only law enforcement should have guns. Who protects the citizens from the government and corrupt law enforcement then Mr. Layton? Does an individual not have the responsibility and right to protect himself? YOU LOSE.
Elizabeth May seemed to suggest 2011 was too soon to move away from Afghanistan and also wants to ban hand guns. YOU LOSE.
Gilles Duceppe is on the national stage promoting the interest of only one province. YOU LOSE.
Stephane Dion. What can I say? Good effort. I completely agree with him on his green shift tax plan. Any plan that moves away from income tax and towards a user fee of sorts is morally responsible. The income tax is one of the most immoral institutions in a federal government. My issue with Dion is simple. In a time when tax revenues are going to be strained as the US falls into a depression and our export revenue suffers, the federal budget will be seriously strained and I do not trust that he would cut the programs he would need to in order to keep the government's financial house in order. The Liberals of the 90s had the benefit of a booming economy through most of their leadership, he would not. You lose. If he had suggested decriminalizing marijuana as Martin had wanted to do, he might have gotten a point.
Harper said on national television he would not raise taxes; point scored.
I disagree with our Prime Minister on a number of issues: the role our military should be playing in international affairs, same-sex marriages, and the legalization of marijuana. The points he scored tonight might have me vote for him, however my disagreements might have me stay at home on the 14th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
"4 socialists
1 guy I used to hate but have upgraded to the "lesser of 5 evils"
Yeah, those tested and tried free markets are everywhere!
"Harper was the only one who didn't suggest guns should be banned from individuals protecting themselves; point scored"
Indeed, there can't be a revolution without an armed populace.
"Layton said that only law enforcement should have guns. Who protects the citizens from the government and corrupt law enforcement then Mr. Layton? Does an individual not have the responsibility and right to protect himself? YOU LOSE."
Never did understand the liberal obsession with controling guns completely. Sure, background checks and such are good. But, no, you can't have a thriving democracy if the populace is at the mercy of the government.
"Gilles Duceppe is on the national stage promoting the interest of only one province. YOU LOSE."
LOL.
"Stephane Dion. What can I say? Good effort. I completely agree with him on his green shift tax plan."
Agreed.
"The income tax is one of the most immoral institutions in a federal government."
Why?
"My issue with Dion is simple. In a time when tax revenues are going to be strained as the US falls into a depression and our export revenue suffers, the federal budget will be seriously strained and I do not trust that he would cut the programs he would need to in order to keep the government's financial house in order. The Liberals of the 90s had the benefit of a booming economy through most of their leadership, he would not. You lose."
Probably not. Those "programs" are going to become more and more popular IF there is a recession.
"If he had suggested decriminalizing marijuana as Martin had wanted to do, he might have gotten a point."
Who gives a shit about marijauna? It's not a political issue.
"Harper said on national television he would not raise taxes; point scored."
Who else said that? Oh yeah, Bush senior.
"I disagree with our Prime Minister on a number of issues: the role our military should be playing in international affairs, same-sex marriages, and the legalization of marijuana. The points he scored tonight might have me vote for him, however my disagreements might have me stay at home on the 14th."
Don't worry, even though government has always existed and there has never been a free market, you are dedicated to free market ideology, so you'll probably go out and vote.
You're worried about YOUR taxes. That is why you support an ideology that is wreaking havoc on workers and indeed the entire population.
"Who gives a shit about marijauna? It's not a political issue."
I was just joking. Although it would provide insight on the leader's thoughts on individual liberty.
Why does my free market ideology automatically mean I'm going to vote?
Because getting more of your paycheck is the central theme of your politics.
Individual liberty is the central theme of my politics.
"Probably not. Those "programs" are going to become more and more popular IF there is a recession."
Handouts might be popular, however if there's no money for them, there's no money. Government should spend within their means. We'd be a richer country if we weren't spending billions a year on interest.
No, your pay check is the center piece. A libertarian doctrine just seems like the best way to promote it from your perspective.
Have you worked in a factory with some of these people, Josh? Some of them really can't work in the workforce.
The interest is what worries you? I think not. I think it is the tax you have to pay on your pay check is what drives your political ideology. The interest on the "debt" (the gov is not like a household) is irrelevant. The budget was balanced and can be balanced again, with a trillion dollars in social services. It has been done, but you don't want to acknowledge it, because you just want to spread idiotic propaganda. Moreover, the money that the welfare recipients receive is pumped right back into the economy, because *gasp* they have to spend it. Cutting those benefits would simply lead to an army of Garths and Cookies who want to pay their employess less than minimum wage and hence impoverish an entire class of people.
For once I finally see you using the word "responsibilty", Furlong. It is a nice change.
I am curious, though, how you go from a nice mid-week post of a video of pinkos (as you would have us believe) upon whom you heap praise for claiming in order to ask for more, we must, in the least, vote on election day.
Come weekend, you feel you will stay home on the 14th. Like much of your postings, the dots aren't connecting.
"Like much of your postings, the dots aren't connecting."
Ouch.
In regards to "responsibility" I would suggest my responsibilities are determined by myself. I have a feeling your perspective is that we have a responsibility to each other, which I would not disagree with. However, if someone else felt no responsibility to anyone but providing for himself I could not force him to be responsible for others.
Most people are pinkos they just don't realize it.
If I go to vote, and there are 4 names of people on my ballot that I think would all make horrible MPs for my district, why should I vote for anyone? I do not want to endorse an individual just because I hate him/her least.
I don't have a problem with people making a conscious decision to not vote. I would prefer to see on the ballot a vote of no confidence. This way, if the majority voted no confidence, the people wouldn't end up having someone represent their district that they didn't really want. This would also give more incentive for someone who doesn't like any of the candidates to vote.
Voting for the lesser of two, or 4, evils is still voting for evil.
And hence inevitable societal corruption will result from a truly free market.
Jon - if you feel my dots are not connecting, feel free to expose them as my brother loves to do. I invite the discourse.
I can only ever become more enlightened by being proven wrong.
This was my second post to your site. I had made one post previous to this thread and was disappointed to hear no response. I am not sure if you had no response, your voice was drown in guilty hypocracy or (most likely of all) you simply didn;t see it. What I ahd challenged you to defend was that you had made a post at 2:30 in the afternoon, presumably from your desk at RIM. You would have to be comfortable in your position, be provided with a decent living due to your position and actually exploited the position further than simply collecting your pay every other week. What I asked was why you accept this as not only a legitimate position to accept but to use as a platform for your 'revolution'.
RIM is in fact a perfect, concrete example of the government actions you so dearly oppose working out for the greater good of so many. RIM employs thousands, has promoted inovation and fosters a powerful driving light in Canadian business. You have lauded the ability of those who are willing to clinb the ladder and work their way to higher offices within the corperation. You have recently set out on the path of building a family on this dime.
None of this, however, would be possible had it not been for a generous grant from the government of Ontario that allowed an upstart, creative, intelligent business man to launch his idea into the market not 20 years ago. This is one example of where those dots don;t connect.
Aaaaaaaand, I don;t seem to have the free time you two have to exchange a dozen posts per day while keeping up on the reading to have it make any sort of relevent effect on the conversation...... If one were to be so honest...
Arguing this stuff must not be your hobby, Jonathan.
Government providing loans to small businesspeople and individual entrepreneurs keeps the mid and lower half of the business class independent of a possible corporate monopoly of investment capital if those loans were not offered.
I agree completely, Chris. This is why I ask Josh to share his thoughts on the matter. Such government actions are necessary, in many ways, to propel an economy forward. Josh's idea of the free-est market, this 'perfect' system to which he has dedicated himself, is at complete odds with such government support.
I am sure he will cite Bill Gates, if need be, as the perfect example of why monopolies work. His faith in mankind is extraordinary.
Actually, it is Faith in the market that is astounding.
Post a Comment