CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Forum rules


This is a NDP Party forum meant for like-minded discussion, if you want to flame or debate in open, please use the main Canadian Politics forum.

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:45 am
 


Now, Blair, see, was that so hard? You wrote a fairly concise post without using the phrase "pig-fucker" once!

To answer a few of your points.

First, I am not an economist. I take great umbrage at that insult, a far worse slur than anyone has labeled at you!

Second, here is a definition of ad hominem;

Quote:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

So, clearly, my question was not an ad hominem attack. That should be pretty self-evident.

Third, Bob Rae did not pay his bills. But I have always admired the NDP in Saskatchewan for their fiscal responsibility. That is why I would have voted for Roy Romanow in 1995 had I been living in Saskatchewan. I have great admiration for Janice McKinnon, and I would recommend everyone buy her book. But, having lived in Saskatchewan, BC and Ontario, I have always found a difference between New Democrats who have had to govern and those who have not. That was evident in Ontario, when a light bulb came on for Bob Rae half way through his term. I admired Rae for his ability to grasp reality mid-course. However, much of his party did not. Also, this "Third Way, No Way" campaign at the federal NDP convention several years back was another example of why the NDP will never run Canada. Until the NDP models itself after the UK Labour Party, they will never form government in Canada.

Fourth, I never went door to door telling people that Tommy Douglas would have supported Grant Devine's Conservatives. Instead, we used to tell other NDP workers that because they would get all frothy and worked up. Like you for instance! Its amusing.

Fifth, brand the NDP as communists? lol That's a good one! First, you're saying that Tories said Tommy Douglas was a conservative AND a communist! Nobody does that, at least those not on the Fringe Right. Its as ridiculous as calling the Tories "neocons."

Sixth, on externalities. In the context of the academic discipline of economics, pollution is an externality. But that does not mean there is not a cost. Instead, it is difficult to model such costs. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor does it mean we should be ruled by economists. God forbid! But people who understand economics know this. Besides, we don't know what the economic costs of global warming are, though the British government took a stab at it. We're fairly certain about what the costs of dealing with it are though, at least in the Kyoto framework. And the costs to Canadians would be devastating if Canada tried to hit its Kyoto targets in the alloted time frame. I happen to agree that global warming is a problem, Blair. We do have to find a solution to the problem. But to say that "those who celebrate greed and arrogance" are opposed to it merely discredits those making such a statement and cannot be taken seriously. The chairman of Goldman Sachs is a strong proponent of dealing with global warming. Square that circle, Reverend.

Finally, I have nothing to apologize for.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:27 am
 


You have Grant Devine, Brian Mulroney, George Bush and Stephen Harper to apologize for. You have your arrogance and your refusal to pay bills to apologize for. You have your purposeful twisting of words to apologize for. You have your complete lack of substance to apologize for.

First, yes your entering a thread to troll by attacking the NDP is an ad hominem attack. Read it.

Second, Bob Rae was in power for four years during a major economic downturn. The NDP have done many, many terms in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC through good times and bad. They have outperformed your beloved but fiscally inept conservatives.

Third, Tony Blair is leaving office in disgrace due to his entry into Iraq...something your heroes Bush and Harper share with him.

Fourth, you told me one thing before and are telling me another now. It doesn't matter, either way you are admitting to telling lies.

Fifth, yes Conservatives and Liberals have tried to brand the NDP as communists. They had the RCMP keeping tabs on Douglas and others in the NDP because of it. That's been documented. Look it up.

Sixth, you know as well as I do, because you've admitted to telling that lie, that Conservatives were running around telling people that Douglas would be a Conservative if he were alive.

Seventh, the politicians you support, Harper and Bush and we might as well throw Howard in there as well, keep making the argument that global warming is too expensive to deal with, that to do so would destroy the economy. I've seen you say it on this very board.

The thing is that it's bullshit and if you have half the education you claim to, you know that it's bullshit...a lie to protect vested interests.

Can you name one time in the history of our species where technological change has not increased wealth? From pointed sticks to computers, shifts in technology have made more people richer. It isn't the introduction of new technology either, but the use of existing technology...look at the automobile or the computer. We already have most of the technology needed to deal with the problem, but it isn't controlled by the guys who back your politicians. So the claim that your politicians make, that meeting Kyoto would lead to economic ruin, is a lie. One that you help to perpetuate.

It's no good hiding behind the complexity of some model or claiming that those of us who know you are wrong are too dim to understand. We understand perfectly. You've had years to address the problem of environmental costs...arguably since at least the 1960's in general and the 1980's for global warming, and you've done nothing about it.

That's because your economic models have less in common with reality than a Dali painting. There's something else you can bloody well apologize for.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 12:16 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
You have Grant Devine, Brian Mulroney, George Bush and Stephen Harper to apologize for. You have your arrogance and your refusal to pay bills to apologize for. You have your purposeful twisting of words to apologize for. You have your complete lack of substance to apologize for.


"Lack of substance?" I don't think so!

Quote:
First, yes your entering a thread to troll by attacking the NDP is an ad hominem attack. Read it.


I am not attacking the NDP. In fact, I have said many complimentary things about the NDP in this thread. I was wondering why the Canadian public would rather vote for corrupt and evil people than the NDP? Social democratic parties are the norm in Europe. They tend to rule fairly competently under many of the same conditions you ascribe the NDP's failure on a national level. Yet, Canadians don't trust the NDP to run the country. I wonder why?

Quote:
Second, Bob Rae was in power for four years during a major economic downturn. The NDP have done many, many terms in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and BC through good times and bad. They have outperformed your beloved but fiscally inept conservatives.


Actually, it was three in BC, not "many, many", one under the disasterous Dave Barrett, one under the reasonable Mike Harcourt, and one under the buffoon Glen Clark. Roy Romanow also ruled during that same recession. They didn't throw him out. The Tories in Alberta ruled during the same recession. They didn't throw them out.

Quote:
Third, Tony Blair is leaving office in disgrace due to his entry into Iraq...something your heroes Bush and Harper share with him.


Reverend Blair, my "heroes" are not politicians. My heroes are people like Raoul Wallenburg. But that's besides the point. After the Labour Party in the UK suffered defeat election after election because of the loonies in Labour, they chose a modern leader who was in line with the mainstream of British politics. Their next leader is of the same mold, though Gordon Brown is likely to lose the election to - a Conservative! But you don't see the Tony Benn's of the party banging on the doors of power, something that many in the NDP have decided is bad to emulate.

Besides, I've never been a Bush supporter. I've played one to the mindless crowd in the Fog of Rage, where everyone is a neocon of a Bush supporter if you don't toe the line. You'd understand that, right Derry?

Quote:
Fourth, you told me one thing before and are telling me another now. It doesn't matter, either way you are admitting to telling lies.


I doubt it. You're remembering wrong.

Quote:
Fifth, yes Conservatives and Liberals have tried to brand the NDP as communists. They had the RCMP keeping tabs on Douglas and others in the NDP because of it. That's been documented. Look it up.


So, in other words, the NDP's failure at the national level is because of tabs they took 50 years ago! C'mon! Weak!

Quote:
Sixth, you know as well as I do, because you've admitted to telling that lie, that Conservatives were running around telling people that Douglas would be a Conservative if he were alive.


Just like the NDP were running around with their typical Mediscare campaign, saying that Devine would close hospitals in rural areas. Oh, the sanctimony!

Quote:
Seventh, the politicians you support, Harper and Bush and we might as well throw Howard in there as well, keep making the argument that global warming is too expensive to deal with, that to do so would destroy the economy. I've seen you say it on this very board.

The thing is that it's bullshit and if you have half the education you claim to, you know that it's bullshit...a lie to protect vested interests.


Oh, I have the education, Blair. And those of us who are educated and reasonable - and those who aren't educated either - know that reasonable people can disagree on issues without resorting to name calling or cartoonish characatuers of those who may disagree with us. You seem to have a problem with that.

Here are the estimates of what it would cost to Canadians to hit the Kyoto targets, from an economist BTW who is highly complementary towards the Swedish socioeconomic model, one I'd imagine you'd support

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhil ... .html#more

I guess Buzz Hargrove is a Harper and Bush supporter too, eh Blair?

http://progecon.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/buzz-on-kyoto/

Quote:
Can you name one time in the history of our species where technological change has not increased wealth? From pointed sticks to computers, shifts in technology have made more people richer. It isn't the introduction of new technology either, but the use of existing technology...look at the automobile or the computer. We already have most of the technology needed to deal with the problem, but it isn't controlled by the guys who back your politicians. So the claim that your politicians make, that meeting Kyoto would lead to economic ruin, is a lie. One that you help to perpetuate.


Actually, there is a hint of intelligent thought in this paragraph, at least until the rant begins at the end. Perhaps I will get to it in the future, but I have to get going now. I have to book my flights back to Canada. I'll be in Winnipeg this summer!

Quote:
It's no good hiding behind the complexity of some model or claiming that those of us who know you are wrong are too dim to understand. We understand perfectly. You've had years to address the problem of environmental costs...arguably since at least the 1960's in general and the 1980's for global warming, and you've done nothing about it.

That's because your economic models have less in common with reality than a Dali painting. There's something else you can bloody well apologize for.


Being a supporter of the Dail Museum in St. Petersburg, let me tell you that this statement isn't without merit. But it is amusing when you say people should apologize for advances in science!


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 3:36 pm
 


Quote:
"Lack of substance?" I don't think so!


You don't think period.

Quote:
I am not attacking the NDP. In fact, I have said many complimentary things about the NDP in this thread. I was wondering why the Canadian public would rather vote for corrupt and evil people than the NDP? Social democratic parties are the norm in Europe. They tend to rule fairly competently under many of the same conditions you ascribe the NDP's failure on a national level. Yet, Canadians don't trust the NDP to run the country. I wonder why?


Read you very first post. Read the many, many negative things you've said about the NDP over the years. I know you, Toro.

Social democratic parties are the norm in Europe. That's one of the many ways we know that they work. Canadians don't vote NDP for a variety of reasons. I listed some, but here's some more...voting to keep the Conservatives out of power, a lack of proportional representation, the perpetuation of the myth that money is all that matters, the influence of the US media, the perpetuation of the lie that the NDP can't manage the economy. If you had any depth of understanding of politics, you wouldn't be asking the question.

Quote:
Actually, it was three in BC, not "many, many", one under the disasterous Dave Barrett, one under the reasonable Mike Harcourt, and one under the buffoon Glen Clark. Roy Romanow also ruled during that same recession. They didn't throw him out. The Tories in Alberta ruled during the same recession. They didn't throw them out.


I name three provinces and you respond to one. Typical. Even more typical, your response doesn't take into account the records of the other parties. Do you live in Fantasy Gardens?

Quote:
But that's besides the point. After the Labour Party in the UK suffered defeat election after election because of the loonies in Labour, they chose a modern leader who was in line with the mainstream of British politics.


Oh come on, after Major's disastrous reign and as the the long-term impact of Maggie Thatcher's hateful policies became clear, Labour could have run a newt and won.

Quote:
Their next leader is of the same mold, though Gordon Brown is likely to lose the election to - a Conservative!


If Brown pulls out of Iraq, Labour will win again. That's the whole equation. The question is if he's smart enough to admit that Iraq was a huge mistake.

Quote:
Besides, I've never been a Bush supporter.


You've supported his economic policies, his trade policies, and his anti-environmental policies, all of which have had extremely negative consequences around the world.

Quote:
I doubt it. You're remembering wrong.


No, actually, I'm not. Like I said though it doesn't matter because either way you've admitted to lying.

Quote:
So, in other words, the NDP's failure at the national level is because of tabs they took 50 years ago! C'mon! Weak!


It still goes on today. It's never stopped. Read some of the posts on this board and that other snake pit you frequent. I've been called a commie by so many half-wit ReformaTories that I lost count long ago. Look at some of the shit Harper and his gang of thugs say. Every time Layton gets up to speak in the House, the frigging hillbillies start chanting "Taliban Jack," because he has the nerve to point out that their political policies are a farce.

Quote:
Just like the NDP were running around with their typical Mediscare campaign, saying that Devine would close hospitals in rural areas. Oh, the sanctimony!


Hmmm...he did close several rural hospitals, then opened a bunch in Conservative ridings. I guess if won't vote Conservative, you shouldn't get sick. He chopped funding to the bone. He also privatised Potash, costing the province billions. Then his cabinet ministers looted everything they could. Some of them, though not nearly enough, went to jail for it. These are the people you support, Toro...criminals and cheap thugs.

Quote:
Oh, I have the education, Blair.


The more I talk to you, the more apparent it becomes that your education is so narrow that it amounts to little more than indoctrination into a cult.

Quote:
Here are the estimates of what it would cost to Canadians to hit the Kyoto targets, from an economist BTW who is highly complementary towards the Swedish socioeconomic model, one I'd imagine you'd support


So? You want me to link to articles that say the opposite? You know I can. You want me to mention the Stern Report again and point out the costs of not doing anything? How about something even simpler? North America is becoming a technological backwater when it comes to green technologies.

Here's some facts for you:

When the Liberals were in power and holding committee hearings on Kyoto, hearing at which Bob Mills and Monte Solberg embarrassed Canada by launching attacks on professional witnesses BTW, the oil industry said they could meet Kyoto for between 7 and 25 cents a barrel, depending on the source of the oil, with existing technology.

Now they say that they could meet Kyoto for $1.00 a barrel. They could reduce emissions by 80% of 1990 levels for $2.50 a barrel, according to some sources.

No matter which number you use, the cost really isn't that high considering that oil is trading for super high prices.

Oh, now lets have a look at the auto industry. They say they can't survive if they have to build efficient cars for the Canadian market. That's the same thing they said about seatbelts and catalytic converters, so we can be pretty sure that they're lying again, but requiring higher mileage ratings and lower emissions would also give us a leg up into the very lucrative California market, who are putting standards in place. Not only that, but we're about to get our asses kicked by the Chinese, who already have stricter emissions standards than us.

How about electricity? Manitoba has been trying to get an east-west grid built since before I moved here. It would likely have been done by now, but Mike Harris decided to go with nuke plants (complete with crooked land deals) instead. We lost eight years. Oh, by the way, Harris is another of your spiritual brethren you should be apologizing for.

How about solar power? Hmmm, we've got a lot of that. The third richest man in China got rich by building solar panels. Now there's an industry we should be heavy into. How much funding has Harper given it? Oh, none. It was one of his first budget cuts, and there wasn't much there to begin with.

How about all of the science around global warming...both the study of warming itself, and the development of technology. That should be a natural for us, since we're already seeing the effects and it's costing billions. What have the Conservatives done there? Well, they cut all of the research money. How many jobs do you suppose went out the window with that? How many potential jobs will never be created because of it?

What do you money boys have to say about that? Oh, it doesn't fit your silly little models because all of your models are based on an oil economy. You are cheap labour conservatives, after all, and can't fathom the idea of multiple sources of energy paying high wages and benefits to a variety of workers.

Quote:
Actually, there is a hint of intelligent thought in this paragraph, at least until the rant begins at the end. Perhaps I will get to it in the future, but I have to get going now. I have to book my flights back to Canada. I'll be in Winnipeg this summer!


Another dodge. Jesus, you guys have more dodges than are in Belinda Stronach's wildest dreams.

Quote:
But it is amusing when you say people should apologize for advances in science!


What you do has nothing to do with science. You need to apologize for misrepresenting the real science to make a quick buck for yourself. Greed is not a virtue.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:04 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
You don't think period.


Oh Blair, how quaint!

Quote:
Read you very first post. Read the many, many negative things you've said about the NDP over the years. I know you, Toro.


You see, Blair, I don't walk around in a Fog of Rage. I have to think clearly and rationally in what I do for a living, not wallow in some shallow, spastic, knee-jerk construct of the mind where everything is delineated in only one shade of black and white. All political parties have bad and good. Reasonable people understand that.

So, say something nice about the Tories, Blair! C'mon, you can do it. "Buddy!"

Quote:
Social democratic parties are the norm in Europe. That's one of the many ways we know that they work. Canadians don't vote NDP for a variety of reasons. I listed some, but here's some more...voting to keep the Conservatives out of power, a lack of proportional representation, the perpetuation of the myth that money is all that matters, the influence of the US media, the perpetuation of the lie that the NDP can't manage the economy. If you had any depth of understanding of politics, you wouldn't be asking the question.


Well, I'm not a partisan ideologue, like some people on this thread. I have supported Republicans and Democrats in the States, and have already stated on this thread that I would have voted NDP in one election. Heck, under the right circumstances, I could even vote Liberal! Even the Marijuana Party in BC! How about you, Blair? Have you always voted the party ticket?

But I find it interesting that when Canadians decide to punish the Liberals, they choose to elect Conservatives, not NDPers.

Quote:
I name three provinces and you respond to one. Typical. Even more typical, your response doesn't take into account the records of the other parties. Do you live in Fantasy Gardens?


Where's Fantasy Gardens?

Well, I'm not going to scroll across every single provincial government since Confederation, Blair. I'll let you do that, what with your objective perspective and all. But reasonable people know that there have been good governments and bad governments of all political stripes. This cartoonish response about "greed and arrogance" being a constant evil of a particular party is not considered by reasonable, intelligent people.

Quote:
Oh come on, after Major's disastrous reign and as the the long-term impact of Maggie Thatcher's hateful policies became clear, Labour could have run a newt and won.


Hey Blair, I lived in England. I remember watching when Major won. At the close of the polls, BBC called a Labour majority government based on exit polling. It was amusing because as the results started rolling in, they had to keep revising their forecasts, from Labour majority to Labour minority to Conservative minority to Conservative majority. Later, they found out that even though people wanted the Tories out after 11 years of Lady Thatcher - God Bless her (I lived in Finchley, Blair!) - they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Neil Kinnock. So they lied coming out of the polling booth about who they voted for! Labour was so incompetent that the English weren't going to vote for them until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s. A lesson for the New Democrats BTW.

Quote:
If Brown pulls out of Iraq, Labour will win again. That's the whole equation. The question is if he's smart enough to admit that Iraq was a huge mistake.


Perhaps he will, I don't know. But I know that he is moderate, modern Labour candidate.

Quote:
You've supported his economic policies, his trade policies, and his anti-environmental policies, all of which have had extremely negative consequences around the world.


Well, again Blair, reasonable people don't look at the world in black and white. I support some of his policies and not his others. I think his tax cuts were wrong, his use of tariffs an affront to free trade, and his shallow promotion of the Doha Round to be disheartening.

Quote:
It still goes on today. It's never stopped. Read some of the posts on this board and that other snake pit you frequent.


I have never once posted at Lattitude, so I'm not sure what snake pit you are referring to.

Quote:
I've been called a commie by so many half-wit ReformaTories that I lost count long ago.


Let's see, what was I, a "neocon" a "Bush supporter" a "PNACer", etc. I wonder who called me that, eh Blair?

Quote:
Look at some of the shit Harper and his gang of thugs say. Every time Layton gets up to speak in the House, the frigging hillbillies start chanting "Taliban Jack," because he has the nerve to point out that their political policies are a farce.


Do you not see the irony of complaining about "hillbillies" calling others names?

Quote:
Hmmm...he did close several rural hospitals, then opened a bunch in Conservative ridings. I guess if won't vote Conservative, you shouldn't get sick. He chopped funding to the bone.


That is utter nonsense. Healthcare funding rose 7% per year in Saskatchewan under Devine, pretty much the same rate as under Roy.

Quote:
These are the people you support, Toro...criminals and cheap thugs.


What were the names of the NDPers who were also nailed for the same "criminal" offenses? Wasn't Eric Klein one of them? I can't remember.

Quote:
The more I talk to you, the more apparent it becomes that your education is so narrow that it amounts to little more than indoctrination into a cult.


Only someone without an education would say that!

Quote:
So? You want me to link to etc., etc., etc.


Blair, I see prospectuses coming across my desk every day for this and that alternative energy power company. Our "money" boys are getting rich investing in green technologies. Oh, but wait, I represent "greed and arrogance!" lol

Quote:
Another dodge. Jesus, you guys have more dodges than are in Belinda Stronach's wildest dreams.


No, its silly to say that we have all the technology we need. That's just silly. I could answer it, but 60 Minutes is on in 3 minutes. Besides, do you think you'd understand? Maybe later, "little buddy"

Quote:
What you do has nothing to do with science. You need to apologize for misrepresenting the real science to make a quick buck for yourself. Greed is not a virtue.


Blair, we hire frickin' rocket scientists. Do you understand that Blair? Guys who built rockets for NASA! Now, they are much smarter than I, but I do know "real science" when I see it.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:48 pm
 


:roll:


How many ad hominem attacks in this post, Toro? How many dodges? How many attempts to twist words?

That's been your pattern since the first post of yours I ever saw, which is why I respond to you the way I do. You are an arrogant little prick, and maybe a quarter as smart as you think you are.

Quote:
So, say something nice about the Tories, Blair! C'mon, you can do it. "Buddy!"


Just as soon as they do something worth applauding. They haven't yet.

I have said some good things about real tories (not the Harperites...even calling them tories is a lie) in the past though. I've also said good things about Liberals the few times they've gotten things right.

Quote:
Well, I'm not a partisan ideologue, like some people on this thread.


Nah, you just came into the NDP section to bash the NDP. Tell me, El Toro Mierdre, would you have posted here at all if you didn't want to drag a thread about Harper's corruption off track?

Quote:
How about you, Blair? Have you always voted the party ticket?


Nope. I ended up having to live under Filmon's for eight years as a result though. It's funny, Pawley looked pretty damned good once Filmon got into power.

There's more to it than that though, and if you actually knew anything about politics, you'd understand that. I think I tried to explain it to you once, but you were too dim to understand. Perhaps it was somebody else. Funny thing about you guys...you all sound the same when you try to defend the indefensible.

Quote:
But I find it interesting that when Canadians decide to punish the Liberals, they choose to elect Conservatives, not NDPers.


Not where I'm from. Not where you're from either. You are misrepresenting the reality of Canadian politics though. Quebec has been tough for the NDP because there has always been a Quebec-based leftist party there. The generational voting patterns on the east coast cost us there. Alberta always goes conservative and if they get pissed off at one bunch of conservatives, they simply find another bunch of conservatives.

Again, you should be asking how the NDP has done so well, not why they aren't the government.

Quote:
Where's Fantasy Gardens?


It's funny that you brought up BC politics and have to ask that question. Funny, but kind of sad.

Quote:
This cartoonish response about "greed and arrogance" being a constant evil of a particular party is not considered by reasonable, intelligent people.


Oh, it's not a particular party. Harper and Bush are far worse than most, but if you'd been paying attention you'd understand that the Liberals and Democrats aren't much better. Nor have I been shy about criticizing them. Greed and arrogance...the insistence that corporate profits will somehow address the very real issues that face us...have failed time and again. Real wages are down. Poverty keeps on going up. All that and you fools keep insisting on re-trying the same failed ideas over and over again.

Quote:
Hey Blair, I lived in England.


So did a lot of people. I'm going drinking Tetley's with one of them tomorrow. It's funny, when he gets drunk he reverts to this almost incomprehensible Northern accent. If I hadn't read all those James Herriot books, I wouldn't understand him at all.

Quote:
I remember watching when Major won. At the close of the polls, BBC called a Labour majority government based on exit polling. It was amusing because as the results started rolling in, they had to keep revising their forecasts, from Labour majority to Labour minority to Conservative minority to Conservative majority. Later, they found out that even though people wanted the Tories out after 11 years of Lady Thatcher - God Bless her (I lived in Finchley, Blair!) - they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Neil Kinnock. So they lied coming out of the polling booth about who they voted for! Labour was so incompetent that the English weren't going to vote for them until they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s. A lesson for the New Democrats BTW.


Ah, you either didn't read what I said or are purposely misrepresenting it.

Go back and try again.

Quote:
Perhaps he will, I don't know. But I know that he is moderate, modern Labour candidate.


Is he? The jury is still out on that, according to most who I talk to. They keep hoping his Scottish socialist roots take over to fix all the things that Blair failed at...schools, healthcare...little things like that. You see, that's the problem with Blair being Maggie Thatcher's bastard son. He liked wars, but kind of sucked at helping people.

Quote:
Well, again Blair, reasonable people don't look at the world in black and white.


Nice try at implying that I do. You know so little about me that it's laughable.

Quote:
I support some of his policies and not his others.


You support his "greed is good" policies...the neo-conservative/neo-liberal myth that markets can solve problems.

Quote:
I have never once posted at Lattitude, so I'm not sure what snake pit you are referring to.


oh, you know exactly what I'm referring to. Now you've been caught in another lie.

Quote:
Let's see, what was I, a "neocon" a "Bush supporter" a "PNACer", etc. I wonder who called me that, eh Blair?


What's really funny is your increasingly silly attempts to back away from positions you formerly took. If you wouldn't have supported Bush, his PNAC buddies, and their neo-conservative policies, you wouldn't have been tagged for doing so.

Quote:
Do you not see the irony of complaining about "hillbillies" calling others names?


Just responding in kind. Funny thing though...Pat Martin got called onto the rug for calling Chuck Strahl "Il Duce" and pointing out, quite rightly, that Chuck acts like Mussolini. This while the Conservative benches toss insults regularly. Why is it that you conservative types don't like when the rest of respond to you in the same way you treat us?

Quote:
That is utter nonsense. Healthcare funding rose 7% per year in Saskatchewan under Devine, pretty much the same rate as under Roy.


Again, read what I wrote. Devine closed hospitals in towns that didn't vote for him, then opened new, more expensive, facilities in ridings that did. He used the healthcare system to punish people who didn't support him.

Quote:
What were the names of the NDPers who were also nailed for the same "criminal" offenses? Wasn't Eric Klein one of them? I can't remember.


There was one NDP MLA who was corrupt. The NDP had him charged for his corruption. That's the way things are supposed to be handled. How many of his people did Devine have charged? None. In fact most people who watched what went on think Devine covered for corrupt Conservatives. Either that or he was too incompetent to know what was happening in his own caucus.

Quote:
Only someone without an education would say that!


Not at all. Your arrogance is showing again though.

The fact is that your education is severely lacking. It taught you what to think, not how to think.

Quote:
Blair, I see prospectuses coming across my desk every day for this and that alternative energy power company. Our "money" boys are getting rich investing in green technologies. Oh, but wait, I represent "greed and arrogance!" lol


Oh, no doubt that you see all kinds of ethanol from corn with plants powered by coal. That's not an alternative, it's a lie designed to keep the money flowing in. You might even see a tiny bit of wind and solar power. The reality is that this stuff should have been developed since the 1970s though. Your little greed factory failed to do that because you couldn't control the industry at that point.

Take your prospectus and shove it up your ass, little buddy. You pissed away 30 years.

Quote:
No, its silly to say that we have all the technology we need.


Which is why I didn't say that. When you were getting edumacated did they teach you how to read, or just supply you with a scribe?

Quote:
That's just silly. I could answer it, but 60 Minutes is on in 3 minutes. Besides, do you think you'd understand? Maybe later, "little buddy"


Another Dodge. Maybe this one's a Chrysler.

I'd understand just fine, little buddy. Your arrogance seems to be allowing you to deceive yourself into believing that not agreeing with your failed policies is somehow the same as not understanding them.

Quote:
Blair, we hire frickin' rocket scientists.


So? How does that make what you do science? I hire graphic artists pretty regularly, but that doesn't make me a graphic artist.

Quote:
Now, they are much smarter than I, but I do know "real science" when I see it.


So how can you claim (and you aren't the only one who understands science, so don't even try that) that money is more important than the environment or that we can't afford to deal with global warming when it's quite clear that we can't afford not to?

How do you justify wasting 20 years? How do you explain your political brethren on this board who still deny the science? How do you explain the matter of your political pals still denying Darwin's theory? How do you explain your president getting some gimball to edit scientific reports because they were politically inconvenient to them? How do you explain the Prime Minister you support cutting scientific funding across the board and putting religious yahoos on ethics committees?

You backed these people, Toro. You've argued in support of them. Now justify it. I could use another giggle


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:59 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
:roll:


How many ad hominem attacks in this post, Toro? How many dodges? How many attempts to twist words?

That's been your pattern since the first post of yours I ever saw, which is why I respond to you the way I do. You are an arrogant little prick, and maybe a quarter as smart as you think you are.


Trev! Rev's flaming again!

Quote:
Nah, you just came into the NDP section to bash the NDP. Tell me, El Toro Mierdre, would you have posted here at all if you didn't want to drag a thread about Harper's corruption off track?


Oh, oh, more flaming! Go see what "meidre" means in Spanish, moderators!

No, no, no Blair. I figured that some intelligent New Democrats would be willing to impart wisdom about why Canadians consistently choose corrupt parties like the Liberal and Conservative parties over and over and over again. That doesn't bother you?

I have said far more good things about the NDP in this thread than bad. In fact, I have barely said anything bad at all! I merely wondered why Canadians would choose the corrupt Conservatives over the NDP? You, on the other hand, chose to "not flame", instead displaying to the world your elocutory skills with classy depictions of pigs copulating.

Quote:
There's more to it than that though, and if you actually knew anything about politics, you'd understand that. I think I tried to explain it to you once, but you were too dim to understand. Perhaps it was somebody else. Funny thing about you guys...you all sound the same when you try to defend the indefensible.


Its tough when everyone's out to get you, eh Blair? All of us bad guys. Its hard keeping track of us all, eh?

Let me assure you, Blair, there is no one who sounds like you!

Quote:
Not where I'm from. Not where you're from either. You are misrepresenting the reality of Canadian politics though. Quebec has been tough for the NDP because there has always been a Quebec-based leftist party there. The generational voting patterns on the east coast cost us there. Alberta always goes conservative and if they get pissed off at one bunch of conservatives, they simply find another bunch of conservatives.


Doesn't matter. Can't win the majority of seats in Ontario. What's the excuse there?

Quote:
It's funny that you brought up BC politics and have to ask that question. Funny, but kind of sad.


I never lived in Fantasy Gardens, Blair. Instead, I live in a leafy neighborhood.

Quote:
Nice try at implying that I do.


Well, on forums, you cannot make any other conclusion but.

I've occasionally read your columns over at Vive though. I don't recall you calling anyone a "pig-fucker" over there. Perhaps you do, I don't know.

Quote:
You know so little about me that it's laughable.


Whew!

Quote:
You support his "greed is good" policies...the neo-conservative/neo-liberal myth that markets can solve problems.


Are you going to give me a Gordon Gecko speech now, Blair?

This is what I mean when I say "cartoonish"

Quote:
oh, you know exactly what I'm referring to. Now you've been caught in another lie.


I'm evil, I tell you! EEEEEVVVVVVIIIIIIIILLLLLLL!

Image

Quote:
What's really funny is your increasingly silly attempts to back away from positions you formerly took. If you wouldn't have supported Bush, his PNAC buddies, and their neo-conservative policies, you wouldn't have been tagged for doing so.


Look, I'll make it really clear for you Derry McKinney. If you live in a cartoonish world of black and white, where you are looking for enemies, where tolerance and magnanimity are utterly lacking, then those who are amused by such childish antics will play the part. You want "neocons"? Okay Blair, you've got neocons. Got that, Derry?

But then again, "Warren Buffett always was a moron", eh Derry.

Damn, I'll never forget that.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you not see the irony of complaining about "hillbillies" calling others names?


Just responding in kind. Funny thing though...Pat Martin got called onto the rug for calling Chuck Strahl "Il Duce" and pointing out, quite rightly, that Chuck acts like Mussolini. This while the Conservative benches toss insults regularly. Why is it that you conservative types don't like when the rest of respond to you in the same way you treat us?


Quote:
Do you not see the irony of complaining about "hillbillies" calling others names?


Quote:
Not at all. Your arrogance is showing again though.


"Redneck" "coward" "idiot" "pig-fucker" "bastards" "prick" "racist"

Did I forget anything, "Reverend?"

Quote:
The fact is that your education is severely lacking. It taught you what to think, not how to think.


Thank you for pointing that out. I should have gone to school where you went!

Quote:
Oh, no doubt that you see all kinds of ethanol from corn with plants powered by coal. That's not an alternative, it's a lie designed to keep the money flowing in. You might even see a tiny bit of wind and solar power. The reality is that this stuff should have been developed since the 1970s though. Your little greed factory failed to do that because you couldn't control the industry at that point.


Gee, thanks for telling me how the real world is, man. You're really "down" with "the system."

Quote:
Take your prospectus and shove it up your ass, little buddy. You pissed away 30 years.


I was saying we should have gone all nuclear, just like the French, but did they listen to me? No! I'm thinking about buying back my Cameco shares. Should I Blair? Tell me, I need to know!

Quote:
Quote:
No, its silly to say that we have all the technology we need.


Which is why I didn't say that. When you were getting edumacated did they teach you how to read, or just supply you with a scribe?


Rev_Blair wrote:
Can you name one time in the history of our species where technological change has not increased wealth? From pointed sticks to computers, shifts in technology have made more people richer. It isn't the introduction of new technology either, but the use of existing technology...look at the automobile or the computer. We already have most of the technology needed to deal with the problem, but it isn't controlled by the guys who back your politicians. So the claim that your politicians make, that meeting Kyoto would lead to economic ruin, is a lie. One that you help to perpetuate.


Oh, I'm so sorry. You said "most" of the technology we need. Actually, Blair, you should have stuck with the "all technology" thing, because we do have "all" the technology we need. We would be plunged back to the Stone Age though. The Big Lie is from the environmentalists who say that hitting the Kyoto targets in a few years time with little economic consequence. That's why the Liberals mouth all these squishy platitudes while doing little about the problem while in power. Chretien wasn't stupid.

Quote:
Another Dodge.


No, just getting bored.

Quote:
Maybe this one's a Chrysler.


God, I hope Frank buys Chrysler. Then maybe you can just STFU about the Canadian auto industry in the 1940s or whatever the hell you're always prattling on about.

Quote:
I'd understand just fine, little buddy. Your arrogance seems to be allowing you to deceive yourself into believing that not agreeing with your failed policies is somehow the same as not understanding them.


Thank you, Socrates.

Quote:
So? How does that make what you do science?


I don't do the science. We hire scientists who do the science. Late me explain to you, Blair. The high-level mathematics that Ph.D.s apply to build rockets, amongst other things, and push the bounds of technological innovation is used in financial engineering. That financial engineering is applied in a manner which has made the economy less volatile and more efficient. This lowers costs. This makes your mortgage - if you have a house - less expensive than it otherwise would be. This makes the interest you pay on any loan lower than it otherwise would be. That does not mean it is perfect, since modeling human behavior based on normal distribution curves is not applicable 100% of the time. In fact, the tails are fatter than the distribution curves imply, and are not symmetrical under all circumstances. (That's Statistics 101. I'm not talking over your head, am I?) The fallibility of human beings is impossible to model, at least at this moment. But to dismiss out of hand what they do as "not science" reveals ignorance. They are doing in financial markets what they did in universities, government agencies, etc., though in different scientific fields. Financial engineers are physicians who want to get rich.

Quote:
So how can you claim (and you aren't the only one who understands science, so don't even try that) that money is more important than the environment or that we can't afford to deal with global warming when it's quite clear that we can't afford not to?


Look, Blair, this is an argument that really doesn't interest me a whole lot, so I don't comment on it much. But I came to the conclusion that we should support the scientists in global warming because 90% of them (or so) say there is a problem. Now, 90% of economists say free trade is good, if not more. 90% of them support NAFTA. 90% of them support the WTO. Sure, you'll find some that oppose it, and sure you'll find those who support global free trade disagree about implementation and other issues. But when such an overwhelming majority of experts in the field agree on something, then I tend to defer to their judgment. But that doesn't mean all other facets of the argument should be ignored. So, on something like how global warming will effect the economy, I'm pretty confident commenting on that.

Quote:
How do you justify wasting 20 years?


Simple, the public didn't want it. You can point to poll after poll about how people support it in principal, but when confronted with the hard costs of dealing with a distant problem right now people defer. People always defer until there is a crisis or a crisis is imminent. Inertia is human nature.

Quote:
How do you explain your political brethren on this board who still deny the science?


Ask them.

Quote:
How do you explain the matter of your political pals still denying Darwin's theory?


Ask them.

I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian. Well, quasi-libertarian. And not the nutbar libertarians who think Bush had a hand in 9/11. You have a few of those on Lattitude, don't you Blair? How do you explain them?

Quote:
How do you explain your president getting some gimball to edit scientific reports because they were politically inconvenient to them?


Its terrible, isn't it?

But, like I said, I've never supported Bush.

Got that, Derry?

Quote:
How do you explain the Prime Minister you support cutting scientific funding across the board and putting religious yahoos on ethics committees?


Don't know anything about it.

Quote:
You backed these people, Toro. You've argued in support of them. Now justify it. I could use another giggle


Well, Blair, its been fun, sort of, but I've wasted too much time here talking to you today. Perhaps I'll be back in here, perhaps not. Considering the utterly hostile reception you gave me - one that no other New Democrat has, I'll point out - and how far we've gotten off topic, and how you seem to have a low tolerance towards free speech and dissenting ideas, I may be done here. We'll see, though. I tend to enjoy a good discussion with people whom I disagree. It sharpens the mind and gets the juices flowing. Though I usually do so with someone who doesn't label others as "pig-fuckers."

And no, Blair, I'm not ducking and weaving or anything which you like to accuse others when they get bored with you, or you don't understand the response. I'm just bored.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2756
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2007 10:23 pm
 


Rev_Blair wrote:
Toro:

A reminder that I've been to Prince Albert and know many people from there. You can try to hide behind whatever you wish, but your neck is as red as ever.

By the way, I'm on the right side of forty, and nobody from my side of of the political spectrum ever shot a man for being a little too red when they walked into his store.

Tell me, Toro, you fucking redneck, do you hate blacks as much as you hate Indians now that you're in Florida, and where do Cubans fit into that, or does it depend on the colour of their skin?

Okay, now give your, "I'm not a racist" whine, Toro. I need a giggle.


Were you the messed up guy on meth who stole my kid's bike, hung out with the hookers down by the cathedral and eviscerated the woman on top of 2nd Avenue Mall? Don't come back to P.A. ok. We've already got enough of your kind.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:42 am
 


Toro never the answered the question again. It's been a couple of years. He could have asked his rocket scientists, he's had time.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 6:37 am
 


Ah, now that I've had some coffee, I can answer some of Toro's more ridiculous points.

First, his models. He thinks that hiring rocket scientists to make them somehow legitimizes them. Those scientists just do the computer work though. The economic assumptions and the subsequent data that gets input is where the problem is.

We know that there's a problem because real wages keep on going down and poverty in the developing world keeps getting worse. A smaller and smaller percentage of people control a larger and larger percentage of the wealth. At the same time environmental degradation and social problems aren't figured in and the models don't take little things like terrorism and wars growing out of resource exploitation in the developing world.

The existing models, the ones that Toro is bragging about, are rigged. They are based on endless expansion garnered by the endless exploitation of resources. Of course the resources are finite and endless expansion is impossible. They don't like to talk about that on the nightly business report though. When you ask them questions about it, they get really mad.


Lemmee see...that was the only point that he actually made. Like everything else he's done since the very first day he appeared on the internet, the rest of his post is nothing but evasions and attacks on anybody who dares to point out that he's wrong.

He can't answer the questions, so now he claims that he's bored.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:49 am
 


Image

Blair, your worldview is more binary than software code.

Rev_Blair wrote:
He can't answer the questions, so now he claims that he's bored.


You accused me of being a troll earlier. Now you are baiting me to stay. Which is it, Mr. Binary?


Last edited by Toro on Mon May 14, 2007 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:50 am
 


:roll:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2926
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:53 am
 


EDIT - Have a good day, Blair!


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6675
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:43 am
 


I'm working right now as a matter of fact. Not too hard though...I made this morning's deadline, so now I can take it easy for a day or two. Nice try though.

How come you can't answer my questions, Toro? How come the wage gap keeps increasing? How come you don't factor environmental degradation into your equations? Do you have a model for child labour in the developing world making you rich? How about wars? Terrorism? How can the economy expand infinitley when resources are finite? What happens if the developing world gets wealthy enough that their birth rates drop and they stop supplying cheap labour for the rich countries, both through immigration and cheap labour?

Can you put any of that in your model?

Were the tortilla riots in Mexico in your model? Did you predict the effect that a combination of NAFTA and George Bush's ethanol program would have on poor people in the nation to the south of you?

How about the Afghan poppy crop and the shortage of morphine in the developing world? Is that in your model? What would doing the sane thing and using the poppies to address the morphine shortage cost the major pharmaceuticals?

How about generic AIDS drugs? What does your model say about that?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.