I don’t get it. What exactly is the philosophy behind redistribution of wealth, which is really nothing more than legitimized racketeering?

Fundamentally, the redistribution of wealth is the Rosedale/Forest Hill/Baby Point/Yorkville/Mount Royal/Outrement socialists taking from us poorer folk to give to the downtrodden they hope will vote for them, while their million$ are stashed away, untouched, in their bank accounts because they have accountants who know all of the tax loopholes.

And, another thing: The Rosedale/Forest Hill/Baby Point/Yorkville/Mount Royal/Outrement socialists also get to hightail it out of town every weekend, to their cottages or ski chalets, while the rest of us deal with the entitled welfare recipients and druggies on the mean streets of our cities, who figure they’re owed a living.

The Rosedale/Forest Hill/Baby Point/Yorkville/Mount Royal/Outrement socialists get a warm, fuzzy feeling thinking about all the poor people they’ve helped, the poor people they’ve helped sit around with a warm, rosy, glow, watching their colour tvs, calling friends on their cell phones, and smoking various substances — woo-hoo, it’s all free! — while the hard-pressed, hard-working and responsible people, who are neither rich socialists nor the recipients of the rich socialists’ largess, watch their middle class place in society dwindle to penury. There won’t be much left to leave to their children or grandchildren.

Margaret Thatcher was right: “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Yeah. My money!

Addendum: I’m not voting for Yorkville Iggy, Baby Point Rae, Outrement Trudeau or for Jack Layton or Olivia Chow (who, between them “made” $1.2 million of the taxpayers’ “dime” last year, nor am I voting for Gilles Duceppe, because I don’t live in Quebec.

O/T
My comment will probably go into limbo because of one or two objectionable words, but I have to vent. I am incensed!

One of the items during tonight’s CTV newscast involved Stephen Harper supposedly bringing up Pierre Trudeau’s name by saying Liberal policies would bring Canada back to the 1970s, a decade noted for high spending and high taxes.

That report was FALSE. Mr. Harper’s mention of Trudeau’s name was in response to a question by CTV reporter Roger Smith, who asked Mr. Harper whether by bringing up the 70s Harper was comparing Ignatieff to Trudeau.

Mr. Harper recalled the conditions that prevailed during that decade and then declined to comment on personalities, particularly since Mr. Trudeau passed away a few years ago and he is not present to defend himself.

Saying that it was Harper who brought up Trudeau’s name was deceitful on CTV’s part. Shame on Sandie Rinaldo for reading that FALSE item, shame on the person who wrote that FALSE item for Rinaldo to read, and most of all shame on Roger Smith for continuing to ask the most inane questions during Mr. Harper’s campaign. He and the CBC’s Terry Milewski are reaching unparalleled pinnacles of journalistic idiocy.

I left the same message at the CTV “News” feedback site, but I doubt it will have any effect.

O/T
My comment will probably go into limbo because of one or two objectionable words, but I have to vent. I am incensed!

One of the items during tonight’s CTV newscast involved Stephen Harper supposedly bringing up Pierre Trudeau’s name by saying Liberal policies would bring Canada back to the 1970s, a decade noted for high spending and high taxes.

That report was FALSE. Mr. Harper’s mention of Trudeau’s name was in response to a question by CTV reporter Roger Smith, who asked Mr. Harper whether by bringing up the 70s Harper was comparing Ignatieff to Trudeau.

Mr. Harper recalled the conditions that prevailed during that decade and then declined to comment on personalities, particularly since Mr. Trudeau passed away a few years ago and he is not present to defend himself.

Saying that it was Harper who brought up Trudeau’s name was deceitful on CTV’s part. Shame on Sandie Rinaldo for reading that FALSE item, shame on the person who wrote that FALSE item for Rinaldo to read, and most of all shame on Roger Smith for continuing to ask the most inane questions during Mr. Harper’s campaign. He and the CBC’s Terry Milewski are reaching unparalleled pinnacles of journalistic idiocy.

I left the same message at the CTV “News” feedback site, but I doubt it will have any effect.

Gabby, I didn’t see the newscast but after reading your account of it I too am incensed.

How can we get to these trouble making jerks who call themselves journalists if their bosses are onside?

News is supposed to be the facts, as they happen. Newscasters should only be reporting those facts, not editing them to suit their agenda.

Smith and Milewski are a disgrace to journalism. There are some jurisdictions where they’d be considered enemies of the state.

“News is supposed to be the facts …”

Agreed, but Ignatieff would disagree with that statement, considering what he said this morning. During this morning’s presser he talked about “the true facts …” — I don’t recall the exact context — which means that maybe Ignatieff thinks there are “facts,” “true facts,” and “untrue facts.”

Geez, I’m getting a headache.

Gabby, I’ve written the CBC Ombudsman to ask that Terry Milewski be removed from PM Harper’s campaign. His utter contempt for the Prime Minister is appalling and incredibly unprofessional. I don’t care what Mr. Milewski says about Mr. Harper in private, but he sure as heck should be keeping his negative feelings to himself while reporting, not commenting on, what’s happening in the leadership campaign.

There’s an out-and-out pitched battle going on, to keep the CPC from gaining a majority on the part of the other parties and the media. It’s the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen in Canadian politics and I’m sick at heart about the depth to which journalists (the unelected opposition) and the NDP, Bloc, Greens, and LPC (the disloyal opposition, who show absolutely no concern for what the average Canadian cares about) will stoop in order to thwart the duly elected government of our country.

This is a moment of infamy in our country. We’re teetering on the brink of the destruction of our parliamentary democracy, (dis)courtesy of malignant forces who think that they know better than the electorate. As others have pointed out, other democracies my have coalition governments, but they always include the winning party. If the CPC get another minority, they will not be invited by the Three Amigos aka The Three Thugs to be a part of the coalition they’re planning.

Shame on the media heavies who are accomplices in this most undemocratic attempt at a coup. The whole thing stinks.

Have complaints to the CBC ombudsman ever translated into results? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for filing complaints – but has anything tangible ever happened from these complaints? Colour me skeptical, but if the CBC gets away with flouting Access to Information requests and ignoring court orders, I think you could dangle the ombudsman out of his office window without getting the CBC to change their behavior.

max, very good question. I’ve written the Ombudsman many times — or as a friend calls him, the Ombudstoadie — and, frankly, he usually covers the CBC’s butt every time. Once, when Vince Carlin was Ombudsman, he actually called me and we had a long conversation. Aside from his seeming to be a very nice guy, nothing positive happened, except that he heard an earful about the CBC’s left-lib-leaning bias and about how fed up many watchers/listeners with other political proclivities have become.

Heck, if the CBC wants to know why their market share’s down to about 6% of viewers and listeners, all they have to do is go into their Ombudsman archive; it’s all there in spades. As long, however, as they’re getting over $1-billion taxpayer dollars, in addition to being able to buy advertising, there are no incentives for them to change.

So, why do I bother? For the record. So I can look at myself in the mirror every morning. So it can’t be said that when the media was taking things badly south in Canada, I’m wasn’t one of the drones that stood on the sidelines saying “there’s no point in dong anything; nothing changes.” I believe in the power of one; I believe in speaking out and being counted. As Mother Teresa always said, “We’re not called to be successful but faithful.”

The Office of the Ombudsman at the CBC is another waste of our money, because s/he’s always a cheerleader for the Mother Corps. Vince Carlin, for crying out loud, was a former employee of the CBC; he told me when we had that phone conversation! How arms-length or “fair” do you think he was when he had to rule on colleagues’ unprofessional behaviour? Occasionally, he gave them a slap on the wrist, but that’s about all.

FIRE. THEM. ALL.

I mean sell advertising

I mean sell advertising

“… this most undemocratic attempt at a coup.”

Batb, true, the media is, generally speaking, acting like cheerleaders for the opposition parties, running interference for them. What you wrote brought me back to the events of late Nov. early Dec. 2008.

You know, the opposition parties express their outrage against the Conservative government, saying this is the first time ever that a government was defeated by a non-confidence vote based on a motion of contempt.
But they fail to mention that
1. only a minority government can suffer that fate, since the opposition has a majority in all committees, like the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on whose majority report Ignatieff based his non-confidence motion (March 25)
2. and in our British parliamentary system, the party that obtains the biggest plurality of seats gets to form the government. Yet the Liberals were willing to discard that firmly entrenched convention and have the party which had obtained almost half the number of seats wrest the reins of power from the party that had obtained a stronger mandate from the electorate.

So … in my book, the opposition parties are the ones that showed utter contempt towards the Canadian electorate.

The LPC, Gabby, since Pierre Elliot Trudeau, have shown contempt for the Canadian electorate. They were interested only in certain special interest groups, which they entrenched and to whom they made sure most of their — well, our — money flowed (NAC/SOW, LEAF, KYOTO [Maurice Strong et al.], to name a few).

There’s a massive case of projection going on; the disloyal Opposition is accusing the CPC and Prime Minister Harper of exactly what they, themselves, are and have been guilty of.

I’m not saying the CPC is perfect. Of course, they’re not! But they’ve kept Canada on an even keel and steered a steady course through the financial shoals of the past few years, under the able tiller-hand of Prime Minster Harper. I sincerely hope that a majority of Canadians can see through the despicable pile-on of our duly elected government by the Opposition and the media and that the CPC gets that majority! Canada needs it. I shudder to think of Canada under the “leadership” (sic) of The Three Thugs (Amigos just doesn’t fill the bill now).

The Harper-bot who’s currently campaigning and who was wheeled out for last night’s debate is not going to earn a majority, nor does he deserve one.

And frankly, Canada doesn’t need it. If you think that things have been peachy-keen in the last few years, then you should have no fear of another Harper minority. And I’ll have the reassurance that the opposition can prevent Harper’s ideological excesses.

Also, this is clearly his last campaign. He’s losing the trust of Canadians, and it’s only the sad state of the Liberals that allow him to scrape out minority governments.

Yawn.

The Count totally bombed last night, attested to by journos who, you could tell, had really wanted him to be the Hahvahd debater he’d been heralded as.

It was only the sad state of the Conservatives after Mulroney and Campbell that allowed Chretien/Martin to enjoy — and take gross advantage of — majority governments. Oh yes, and let’s not forge the pass they got from the media who all but ignored the Lib$’ genuine scandals: the HRDC affair (where’s Jane these days?), Shawinigate, Adscam, (Sidewinder), etc., etc.. If not for Conrad Black and the National Post, the Librano$ would still be robbing us blind. Where’s that $40,000,000 of taxpayers’ dollars in brown paper bags the Liberal$ absconded with in order to get themselves re-elected? When will the AG be able to audit those “trust funds” the Liberal$ stashed away?

If you think Jack, Jill, and Iggy will make good leaders, take another look at their hysterical, ill-mannered pile-on of PM Harper last night. We got very little by way of what policies their governments would foist on Canadians. Jack was the most mild-mannered, but given that he had hernia treatment at a private clinic but would deny private health care to other Canadians, and that he and Olivia cost the taxpayers $1.2-million last year — aren’t they supposed to be concerned for “the little guy,” “the hard-working Canadian family”? — it turns out that he’s really just a phony: ‘talks a good line but doesn’t practise what he preaches, the usual for the socialist left.

Go ahead. Continue the pile-on of Prime Minister Harper, the best PM Canada’s had for a long time. I rather hope this is his last campaign. He doesn’t deserve the nasty, below-the-belt, mendacious opprobrium he’s been subjected to. In fact, I’m disgusted by the lack of professional courtesy of the other “leaders,” by their downright thuggish, bully behaviour which is totally unbecoming of anyone who calls themselves a leader. ‘Proof to me that Jack, Jill, and Iggy aren’t worthy of the “leader” label.

You seem to be in the know, kenn2, so could you tell me, please, what Iggy could possibly have meant when he said, last night, that PM Harper hadn’t “earned a minority”? Doesn’t Iggy trust the Canadian electorate? If his party had got the number of votes the CPC did, they would have formed the government. What the hell was Iggy talking about? ‘Seems to me he’s a little mixed up and doesn’t actually understand how our parliamentary democracy works up here in Canada: Accidental Politician, alright, but intentional pensioner.

given that he had hernia treatment at a private clinic but would deny private health care to other Canadians, and that he and Olivia cost the taxpayers $1.2-million last year — aren’t they supposed to be concerned for “the little guy,” “the hard-working Canadian family”? — it turns out that he’s really just a phony

That is just so much BULLSH!T. You, me, Layton, “the hard-working Canadian family”…even DougM, can all go to Shouldice or other private clinics. They are part of our health-care network, and they are paid-for by the health system.

Or does your brainless “socialist” rant block out any recognition that there’s plenty of room for private health-care providers within our single-payer system? Layton’s not the hypocrite here.

“It’s just part of the system,” Layton said in an interview. “The doctor says, ‘Go there.’ You pay with your (Ontario health) card. It never occurred to me (it was) anything other than medicare, which it is.

“I can tell you now, if my doctor ever refers me anywhere, I’ll ask him that question. It never occurred to me at the time. It wasn’t a controversy at the time. It wasn’t something on one’s mind.”

Layton stressed that the Shouldice facility is a not-for-profit facility that has been part of the Ontario medical system for decades.

Where’s that $40,000,000 of taxpayers’ dollars in brown paper bags the Liberal$ absconded with in order to get themselves re-elected?

Apparently $50m has shown up in Tony Clement’s riding. Start there, maybe.

Ah, another faux scandal du jour.

Or, as one author sagely wrote: “Four legs go-o-od, two legs ba-a-a-ad!”

First, greed isn’t universal. It’s common as all get-out, but c’mon let’s give the other six vices their due as well. Sloth and lust are personal faves, especially on the weekend…

Here’s what’s truly fundamental about Stephen’s little encyclical:
- like most screeds of the new right, it’s oversimplified and polarized. The right loves to portray the fundamental differences as simple dichotomies. It’s tasty and easy to digest for the right-wing sheeple followers, and it’s Kryptonite against any kind of nuanced, rational counter-argument.
- it preaches the belief that unfettered private enterprise is the Grail, and monetary success is entirely self-made, completely ignoring the benefits entrepreneurs and their businesses have received from Canada, or the advantages of the stable, educated, healthy workforce AND market available to them here.
- It relies on the fiction that any political attention paid to social justice or promoting common interests is a step into “socialism” and is stealing their money, while completely oblivious to the “socialism” that supports and protects them- police, fire, healthcare, roads,parks, harbours, airports, military. Democracy itself is socialism – one man, one vote. Or maybe you actually feel that democracy is theft of privilege and influence from the affluent?
- and of course the myth that the Rich will Take Care Of Us better than government.

I’m most puzzled why someone as smart as Stephen would actually put his name to such a piece of mindless mush. To those who complained that the “MSM” was serving up Liberal pablum… grab your spoon, there’s plenty right here.

It happened, or it didn’t.

Difference between you and me is that I want to know the truth, you just wanna blame anybody but the CPC, whether it happened or not.

Well heck, you’ve convinced me. I never realized that “democracy itself” was socialism. Jack! gets my vote for sure now. Only Jack! is concerned about Social Justice

I know what I’ve lived and it has nothing to do with Kryptonite, wealth, or monetary success. Having worked hard all my life and looked out for the needs of others, I’m actually a part of the stable, educated, healthy workforce you talk about — after having brought my own children up (and half the neighbourhood’s, the children of fatherless homes who had nothing but an empty house to return to after school or when their moms were on the late shift).

And, don’t preach to me about “social justice,” sonny. I’ve been working, BTW, on a volunteer basis, for over 40 years to bring justice to many groups of people, whom I’ve actually got to know; I don’t just expect the gubment to be the Good Samaritan, using taxpayers’ dollars — or to pay me to be a do-gooder. FYI, faith-based groups deliver “charity” and social justice much more efficiently, cost-effectively, and compassionately than any government department. (I know, because I’ve also worked for the feds.)

Socialism’s one man, one vote? You’re kidding, right? Socialism’s one hard-working man’s tax dollar to support five to 10 others, many of whom, because the government’s willing to send them a cheque every week, don’t figure they have to be hard-working. We’re running out of money and Jack, Jill, and Iggy would have our children and grandchildren pay for all of the “social justice” for the next few generations while being deprived themselves. Take a look at the countries where full-blown socialism’s been operative for the past 50 years: bankrupt in every way imaginable. The money’s run out.

Seems to me you’re the one without nuance with this beaut, “the Rich will Take Care Of Us better than government.” Neither will take care of us. We take care of ourselves, relying on government to do what it does best: be responsible for the nation’s security, education, health care, and when people absolutely need it — not every day of every week — it provides a limited social safety net to get them over the worst of their dilemma, not provide them with cash for life, which socialists seem to think is OK. In fact, that could be the socialist’s slogan, “Cash for life: the Government will take care of you from cradle to grave.”

No thanks.

The government which governs best, governs least.

Socialism’s one hard-working man’s tax dollar to support five to 10 others, many of whom, because the government’s willing to send them a cheque every week, don’t figure they have to be hard-working.

You’ve been well-trained, grasshopper. Despite your oft-mentioned experience with the poor, you’ve embraced the conservative myth that most people are poor or destitute because they just aren’t trying hard enough. And despite the numbers being out there and proven, you apparently reject any evidence that shows how timely social assistance actually reduces the overall financial burden to a country. And clearly you accept that it’s OK for a wealthy country to allow its working-class citizens to suffer hardships and unemployment so that corporations can maximize profits on the stuff they sell/rent to us.

We take care of ourselves, relying on government to do what it does best: be responsible for the nation’s security, education, health care, and when people absolutely need it — not every day of every week — it provides a limited social safety net…

heh. Your view on socialism reminds me of the scene in Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’, where the Jewish underground are slagging the Roman occupation;

All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?

So.. roads and education and medicine and security AREN’T socialism…? OK whatever you think…

Socialism’s one man, one vote? You’re kidding, right?

What is “one man, one vote” but redistribution of power? The rich don’t want to share their precious lolly. Guess what – they’re also kinda pissed about sharing power too. The wealthy have essentially gained control over the US government by pulling the strings of both parties. They’re half-way through breaking the US union system. Up here, Harper’s busy dismantling the machinery that has helped Canada maintain a more open, equitable party system, so that the wealthy can better control our politics, and get on with removing all those pesky business regulations and dropping services so that they can pay less tax.

Take a look at the countries where full-blown socialism’s been operative for the past 50 years: bankrupt in every way imaginable.

What about social democracies? Germany, France, Sweden? Oh yeah, absolutely falling to bits…

In North America, the money hasn’t run out, it’s simply that the top 1% want MORE of it. And $1B in subsidies to the tarsands so that oil companies can make windfall profits?? $1B+ for G8/G20? Overpriced jets that are designed not to protect Canada but to help out in overseas sorties?

You’ve basically put your support behind the party most likely to pull the rug out from under you.

Socialism’s one hard-working man’s tax dollar to support five to 10 others, many of whom, because the government’s willing to send them a cheque every week, don’t figure they have to be hard-working.

You’ve been well-trained, grasshopper. Despite your oft-mentioned experience with the poor, you’ve embraced the conservative myth that most people are poor or destitute because they just aren’t trying hard enough. And despite the numbers being out there and proven, you apparently reject any evidence that shows how timely social assistance actually reduces the overall financial burden to a country. And clearly you accept that it’s OK for a wealthy country to allow its working-class citizens to suffer hardships and unemployment so that corporations can maximize profits on the stuff they sell/rent to us.

We take care of ourselves, relying on government to do what it does best: be responsible for the nation’s security, education, health care, and when people absolutely need it — not every day of every week — it provides a limited social safety net…

heh. Your view on socialism reminds me of the scene in Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’, where the Jewish underground are slagging the Roman occupation;

All right… all right… but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order… what have the Romans done for us?

So.. roads and education and medicine and security AREN’T socialism…? OK whatever you think…

Socialism’s one man, one vote? You’re kidding, right?

What is “one man, one vote” but redistribution of power? The rich don’t want to share their precious lolly. Guess what – they’re also kinda pissed about sharing power too. The wealthy have essentially gained control over the US government by pulling the strings of both parties. They’re half-way through breaking the US union system. Up here, Harper’s busy dismantling the machinery that has helped Canada maintain a more open, equitable party system, so that the wealthy can better control our politics, and get on with removing all those pesky business regulations and dropping services so that they can pay less tax.

Take a look at the countries where full-blown socialism’s been operative for the past 50 years: bankrupt in every way imaginable.

What about social democracies? Germany, France, Sweden? Oh yeah, absolutely falling to bits…

In North America, the money hasn’t run out, it’s simply that the top 1% want MORE of it. And $1B in subsidies to the tarsands so that oil companies can make windfall profits?? $1B+ for G8/G20? Overpriced jets that are designed not to protect Canada but to help out in overseas sorties?

You’ve basically put your support behind the party most likely to pull the rug out from under you.

I never realized that “democracy itself” was socialism

Isn’t “one man, one vote” a social notion to redistribute power? Kings and czars and emperors weren’t keen on it. But our ancestors fought for it and finally won it, and now it’s pretty much held as a universal right. Doesn’t change the fact that it was once a progressive ideal. If it was up to conservatives, we’d still be serfs.

‘You want to live in Sweden where everything costs a fortune and where there are no-go zones as in Rosengård, Malmø where violent gangs of Muslim immigrants have taken over (http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,529910,00.html)? Sweden’s in trouble, France is in trouble, Germany’s not in as much trouble but is getting really riled at having to bail out all of the broke socialist wastelands; England’s in trouble and Portugal and Greece are totally bankrupt. In Greece, if you were a government worker before Greece’s financial collapse, you got 14 cheques a year, despite the fact that there are only 12 months in a year. That’s socialism for ya’.

The rich don’t want to share their precious lolly. Guess what – they’re also kinda pissed about sharing power too.

You can say that again. Just look at the Liberal$$$$ and Power Corporation. They’re pretty pissed all right about having to share power with the Conservatives. That’s what this nasty, bullying, pile-on of PM Harper and his party is all about.

Rich with lolly? Take a look at the LPC-supporting Desmarais family’s Power Corporation which held/holds sway with Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Mo Strong (Kyoto, Oil for Food Scandal, Cheri Car in China), Paul Martin and his Canadian Steam Lines (no taxes paid in Canada), Jean Chretien and his daughter, France, who’s married to Andre Desmarais, Bob Rae and his brother, John Rae, who’s an executive at Power Corp. God alone knows what Ignatieff’s connection is, but I’m sure there is one. He is a Liberal, after all.

Trying to tie the rich and greedy to the Conservative Party of Canada is a coy ploy but it doesn’t work.

Yeah, I know. Brian Mulroney was a Conservative but I figure that was just a beard to get another Power Corporation protege into power. It might look a little fishy to have a steady stream of Liberal PMs, so they figured it was a good idea to change it up a bit. Mulroney was a Red Tory and there wasn’t a whole lot to distinguish him from all the other Liberal fish in the sea.

Definition of protege: : one who is protected or trained or whose career is furthered by a person/corporation of experience, prominence, or influence

Tit for tat, kenn2: “Freedom or Socialism?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m95gGjFgODo&feature=player_embedded

Tit for tat, kenn2: “Freedom or Socialism?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m95gGjFgODo&feature=player_embedded

…in Sweden where everything costs a fortune and where there are no-go zones as in Rosengård, Malmø where violent gangs of Muslim immigrants have taken over. Sweden’s in trouble, France is in trouble, Germany’s not in as much trouble … England’s in trouble and Portugal and Greece are totally bankrupt. … That’s socialism for ya’.

No, actually that was capitalism.

Sorry I keep forgetting that you only get your news from right-wing blogs.

I couldn’t find ONE link to news reports mentioning Swedish cities “where there are no-go zones as in Rosengård, Malmø where violent gangs of Muslim immigrants have taken over”, in anything resembling journalism. You just can’t miss a chance however remote, of bashing Islam, can you? (btw there’s no-go zones in most major US cities; has that ever stopped you from traveling to the US?)

And, more than anything, the European economic troubles you mentioned were triggered by the recent economic meltdown, which was about as non-socialist as you can get (except of course for WallSt Socialism, where the US taxpayer bailed out the corporate kleptocrats who caused the house of cards to fall in the first place). And, as a keen student of European finance, you already know how having a common currency (also a non-socialist thing) has amplified the troubles of the Mediterranean countries. So, you’re missing a very large part of the European economic story. It’s not just their “socialism”.

there’s no-go zones in most major US cities: Are you taking an opportunity to bash blacks?

When my family and I went to Detroit, which we used to do on occasion, we avoided some of those no-go zones. ‘Seemed a reasonable thing to do with young children.

Facts are facts, kenn2, so I wish you’d stop attributing “qualities” and “attributes” to me that in no way describe who I am.

Check out Bruce Bawer’s book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within and, his most recent one, Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom. They might enlighten you, seeing as the surrender-monkey media won’t.

Uh, check out this link to a news report by a decidedly un-right-wing blog — a rather well-known newspaper:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/europe/27sweden.html

Thank you for that link. Although I’m a bit surprised why you think it makes your point.

Sweden has a problem, and they seem to be handling it.

A few years ago, the fire and ambulance brigades would not even enter Rosengard without a police escort. Youths there threw rocks and set cars on fire. Police officials say things are much better now.

The article also stresses how much of the problem stems from a minority of xenophonic Swedes who openly or covertly discriminate against the immigrants. Ring any bells?

I fail to see how this suggests that Sweden is falling apart, or that this is some sort of failure of “socialism” as you define it.

Facts are facts…

Read Bawer’s books. The media are a huge part of the appeasement movement, the NYT being one of the worst: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, when it comes to certain groups … nothing here, folks, move along.

Talk to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn about their adventures with radical Islam and our very enlightened, jack-boot, kangaroo-court- HRCs. Steyn quoted an Imam in Scandinavia in his book America Alone which was excerpted in MacLean’s, for which he and the magazine were taken to the HRC by a Canadian Imam, an imam who stated in Toronto in 2004 that anyone in Israel over the age of 18 was a justifiable target of Palestinian attacks. Which was the more extreme, less tolerant attitude?

I’m not anti-Muslim. I am deeply concerned about radical Islam and the fact that although Muslims in Canada have made much more incendiary remarks than either Steyn or Levant, they somehow wear an invisibility cloak when it comes to being prosecuted. Not so their critics, even though Canada boasts freedom of expression for all. It seems that in this Deranged Dominion, only freedom of expression and freedom of religion rights are upheld for Muslims, via HRCs, where all of their expenses are paid for by the taxpayer and where truth is no defense for the accused who has to pay all of his/their own expenses, which often run into six figures.

I suppose you defend this travesty of justice.

If you’re serious, kenn2, about knowing what’s really going on vis a vis these matters, especially in Canada, read Levant’s Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights.

BTW, Bruce Bawer lives in Scandinavia and has for many years. He also knows whats really going on over there, far better than the occasional tourist/journalist who takes a flying trip for the NYT to Sweden. In/out.

Uh, you provided the NYT link…

Levant is a bit of a tool with an agenda, he’s deliberately provocative, so his stuff rarely cuts ice with me. Anyone who backs Ann Coulter as a cause celebre… nuff said there. I’m more sympathetic to Mark Steyn. Still, these authors know that trying to indite a race, a religion, an ‘ethnicity’ is dangerous and often unfair to the majority of that group.

I’ve worked with Canadians who are practicing Muslims for the past several years. Like any community they are diverse and cannot be classified with one adjective or motive. Promoting hate against a religion is not the way to solve wht problems are actually there. Sweden is going to get farther with their program of direct approach and contact with Islamic youth than any best-selling book attacking Muslims.

Sorry, got to go pick out something nice and ethnic in case I meet a Conservative.

Uh, you provided the NYT link…

Levant is a bit of a tool with an agenda, he’s deliberately provocative, so his stuff rarely cuts ice with me. Anyone who backs Ann Coulter as a cause celebre… nuff said there. I’m more sympathetic to Mark Steyn. Still, these authors know that trying to indite a race, a religion, an ‘ethnicity’ is dangerous and often unfair to the majority of that group.

I’ve worked with Canadians who are practicing Muslims for the past several years. Like any community they are diverse and cannot be classified with one adjective or motive. Promoting hate against a religion is not the way to solve wht problems are actually there. Sweden is going to get farther with their program of direct approach and contact with Islamic youth than any best-selling book attacking Muslims.

Sorry, got to go pick out something nice and ethnic in case I meet a Conservative.

Radical Islamists are not diverse. They want to kill us.

End of story.

BTW, kenn2, you never comment on Power Corporation, the Desmarais family, and their intimate ties with the Liberal$. That’s a pretty big elephant in the room to step over.

There there, dear. Want someone to check under your bed, or in the closet?

Re Power Corp and elephants – I’m trying to stay focused on real issues.

Spoken like a true liberal sidewinder.

Elephant? What elephant?

Big business connected to the LPC? What big business connected to the LPC? (Only the CPC benefits from, pampers, and protects big business.)

Not a big issue? Uh huh …

I like what I hear, so far.

Should health care be a good business to profit from or should it be part of a people’s government system?

Why can’t it be both? I mean, in Canada it already is. The suppliers, and many of the service providers are for-profit corporations. But it’s been proven the world over that only government oversight, in the form of either a single-payer system (like us), or stringent guidelines and mandates (like France) can provide a high enough standard of universal care and at a reasonable overall cost.

Nine things the rich don’t want you to know about taxes.

What’s new besides Mansbridge doing a good job on Ignatieff instead of the other way around?

Anyone watching that interview should be convinced the Count is not the man to lead this country.

“Made” $1.2m ? Really? So you’ve never heard of the concept of “expenses”, then?

And of course your slander is devoid of any reference points, like what other MPs are claiming for expenses, and what they actually do for that money, besides sitting in a nice big room and pounding their desks occasionally.

Let’s just ignore his long record of service to Toronto. I feel confident in stating that Jack Layton gives more service to his constituents and to Canada per dollar of expenses than any Tory you can name.

If big bills offend you, why didn’t you ever speak up about the out-of-control cost of the G8/G20?

Honestly, I think you start going off-track by the end of your third line. “We” don’t make for others, especially those in business. They make for profit, which goes to the shareholders. By your fifth line, you’re stumble as well, you should have added “ourselves” to the end of that line rather than let people assume you meant “everyone” which is not the case.

The trouble is not production of wealth. The trouble is that the playing field is not even, the trouble is that the starting lines are not at the same place. Profit made isn’t necessarily moral nor is profit necessarily the end all and be all.

On the right, free markets are self-interest without a care for others.

In practice, philanthropy is a justification for profiteering. Rich people don’t save others, and when they do, it’s out of guilt or a need to look good. They save themselves and those they consider a part of them.

The trouble isn’t that governments aim to meddle in the affairs of men, the trouble is that the affairs of men take into account on themselves and not others. Industrialists and capitalists produce, but almost never for my personal benefit. They don’t care one whit about me, they care about their own bottom lines. Sadly, they have the resources to have the rules altered so they maintain their positions of power and wealth and influence. The cycle is recursive. Money for power, power for money.

Were markets perfect and laws just, I’d agree that wealth = ethics. But markets are imperfect, excesses need to be regulated for a society where people don’t starve and their children actually have a realistic shot at a middle-class life.

Personally, I’d be willing to pay higher taxes if I made enough money to not have to worry about providing a middle class lifestyle for my kids if it meant that my neighbour’s children had an equal chance at success as my own.

That’s not the case now, and I’d like for it to be. Your poem, while an interesting polemic and perhaps a romanticism approaching that of Ayn Rand for the industrialist, is not reality.

People are fundamentally selfish. Everyone seems willing to sacrifice the well-being of a stranger they possibly don’t like in order to give them and theirs a more comfortable life if there are no discernable consequences. It’s tragic that we don’t talk about the fact that it seems as though some of us are willing to risk the health and safety of Canadians we don’t know because we somehow feel that we deserve a steak every day or a MacBook every year or something we don’t need.

Philanthropy would be grand if it was an actual sacrifice, or people proactively gave portions of their pay to charitable and reputable organizations. But they don’t. Not enough people out there would elect to help out strangers when there are things they want to buy to make their lives more comfortable. Thus, mandatory taxes are better. They actually seem to help people to a larger degree than philanthropy ever would.

Ambition is good, it motivates the individual.
Greed is not good, it harms the community.