The Second Post visa vis Bill Bennets comments.

Jim_68

6:41 PM on July 14, 2010

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Jim_68. Show DetailsHide Details

to SilverSliver77: sounds like you and Bill belong to the same fan club: unclear but exceptionally determined.

Sweeping aside reasonable environmental controls might be good for your personal enterprise but not necessarily good for BC's long term future.

We'd like to stop people like you and Bill from trampling down our future.

SilverSliver77

Reasonable environmental controls was never the reason I wrote this. I wish you would read those posts again. Reasonable environmental controls are waaay different than another federal park. Which if you want to add reason to the equation are an eco-disaster.

No we just want the radical eco-agenda'd kooks to leave us alone out here. I wouldn't trade my peace and quiet for the thousands maybe millions of visitors a National Park brings to the area.

I take serious offense to that last comment. That was uncalled for. Never did I think fascist applied to you in this discussion. As reasonable people there was a discussion on reasonable grounds.
How dare you say I am trampling down your future?

People who don't like politicians because they don't tell the truth, get someone like Bill who is a straight shooter don't like it. You can't have it both ways Joe public. Unless you live out here you have nothing to say to me. The management profile and environmental standards are the highest in t

in the world. Over 38% of the land out here is tied up in parks of various sorts. Its getting ridiculous.

And finally, Jim, I have never called you down even though I debated with you. But when a person in a debate resorts to personal insults everyone knows they have lost. Because they have no logic left

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Energy+Minister+Bill+Bennett+sorry+calling+provincial+park+proponents+fascists/3273799/story.html#ixzz0thd7gemU

The first post of a debate about Bill Bennet's straight shooting.

Jim_68

I respect what your saying,
However you didn't include definitions that undermine your thesis.

Ie:Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements ; it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine; abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.[

Fascism can apply to a group that will go to any length to satisfy its myth and impose that myth even against the majority.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Energy+Minister+Bill+Bennett+sorry+calling+provincial+park+proponents+fascists/3273799/story.html#ixzz0tgpOWbyZ

My previous post (definition) was not my own, it was just from a quote. It is true fascism generally refers to a form nationalist governments, around the middle of the last century. That much is obvious.

Here is the root:

Etymologically, fascio and fasces form the word.
It was a term used first of all in ancient Rome to describe a bundle of sticks, and later to refer to guilds and groups.

So philosophically, the original sense the idea of fascism had to so with concept of a bundle of sticks in the form of strongmen. These strongmen could then propagate the myth of the movement, never give in, never back down, create total subjugation
if not ideologues and radicals.

But the nationalist lens obscures the core concept. If you use a narrow definition like he provided. The narrow definition applies to National governments.

But here is the rub:
Anon actually demonstrates that fascism is not bound by its purely political terms. Because Fascism in the political sense , was extremely anti-internationalist. Its core belief was in Stateism.
So your referencing it referring to the Corporate world, NAFTA and Tilma, is incorrect use of the term to point of fact you are actually more aligning yourself to fascism--without knowing it. Because the anti-globalist movement is Anti-internationalist, and implies Stateism (the sovereign power of the individual country) if not out right Anarchy,
Discounting the latter, another evidence is leaning towards fascism is that the anti-globalist movement is highly ideologically driven. And a few thousand at the G20, with the Black Bloc included seem to demonstrate their ideology ought to be imposed on the rest of society! The term you want is: Globalism.

That said Anon has a good point to make, IF you accept the philosophical idea behind the term. Globalism is a concerning thing. My argument case in point: It is the US who have influenced policy visa vis the Flathead. Nations influencing each other is globalism. Nations influencing public policy, commerce & industry especially when it removes fundamental rights, in that precede confederation...in another country... yeah that is globalism.
I don't like it either.

And Bill did no wrong calling this rabid mindless eco-cult out here fascist. I wish we could keep them out of the schools. Its pathetic. Young people with so much potential through the garberator.

I live next to the Flathead. I think his staffer was right.
There is a neo-fascist group out here who's fascism is based on there Eco-issues.
They work overtly and covertly to further thier agendas which is evangelization of the masses to their cause.
For instance, how come no one seems to know there are people living there? There was a federal boarder-crossing until floods washed out a bridge and part of a road.
Does anyone know that it is remote enough so as to get minimal hunting pressure? That for over 130 years it has been used by forestry&mining exploration? But managed in such a way these eco-nuts call it "pristine".
Does anyone know there has been a relentless pursuit of the YtoY initiative? A large park from Yellowstone to the Yukon? Does anyone know the US is driving this agenda on Sovereign Canadian soil?

Do you really think they will turn the land from Yellowstone National park to the Canadian Boarder into a park? There would be gunfire and insurrection.

But not here in Canada.

Journalists come, check it out and see for yourself. Look at the difference on each side of the boarder... yeah go down there and see what happens on the Flathead on their side of the boarder: US suburbia, including coal mining happens all down the Flathead *after* it crosses the boarder.

Perhaps CSIS was referring to this issue last week when it dropped the bomb-shell:Premiers and MLAs under the sway of foreign powers. THIS IS IT!

It is well known the Montana governor who became buddy buddy with Campbell, admittedly was behind Campbell closing the area to mining. That is US actions influencing a Canadian premier and probably a mines minister before Bill. (Because Bill wouldn't stand for this nonsense.)

Now you might think that the mining moratorium ought to satisfy these guys... but NO! They won't stop until the Flathead is a National Park. Now for my urban friends, who think glowing thoughts about Banff and Jasper, are you aware that now that it is a park there are millions of humans there?

I doubt that the Flathead sees 500 people per year.


Jim_68,

I respect what your saying,
However you didn't include definitions that undermine your thesis.

Ie:Fascists view egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism as failed elements ; it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine; abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.[

Facism can apply to a group that will go to any length to satisfy its myth and impose that myth even against the majorityJim_68 definition.




http://www.vancouversun.com/Energy+Minister+Bill+Bennett+sorry+calling+park+proponents+fascists/3273799/story.html#comments#ixzz0tfuXGGsZ

On Questions of Coalitions

Hammer Tim said:
"Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
______________________

Ok, here's another cut and paste. If you read this, you will notice, "you could be asked by the prime minister to dissolve..." What is important to understand, is that the Prime Minister in a Minority government can choose to ask for a **dissolution**. This is an elective event. It is not the government fails a confidence motion and there-by falls.

That the Liberals keep posting this, shows they don't think Canadians are smart enough to figure it out. They seem to think that the reader cannot tell the difference between this letter, which preceeded the Prime Minister's discretion, and the nonesense that happened early 2008.
At that time, the 3 oppositon parties having just lost the election, got together with a plan to bring down the government and form their own--effectivly performing a coupe.

In any event, in both instances the GG at her discretion chose to do otherwise. Coalitions of all losing parties may form a government, IF the winning party is unable to do so.
It is a particularly special case,sensitive to circumstance.

IF the NDP,BQ and Libs want to form a coalition, and they ran as one, and if the numbers of the house are as they are today, they would be given the majority: Because Canadians voted for a coalition.

Or, if the winning party takes a 1/3 of the seats in parliament--pretend its the NDP, if they reached out to the BQ and Liberals to seat 50%+1, they would be asked to form the government.

So to conclude and stress, coalitions are fine if you run as one. Or if the winning party makes a deal with other parties for form the majority. The GG has shown: NOT LOSERS.

Mr. Ignatieff and Liberal wisdom.

Re: Mr Ignatieff's education & Career,

Being educated in Harvard, Oxford or Cambridge as well as Canadian universities has not been at issue.
(Did Iggy ever study in Canada?)

What is at issue is that Mr. Ignatieff chose to become a citizen of the US. In order to do so, and as part of the vow you must take, he had to renounce citizenship to any other country. Few people actually know that.

So carrying on teaching at Harvard, he comes out swinging on TV in favor of the Iraqi war, at which point he says (to US citizens) "This country is as much your country as it is my country."

I am sorry, but I think most Canadians would be concerned about a US citizen running for Prime Minister.

Its either ironic or hypocritical ( you choose) that those parties which historically have been anti USA, are coming along side this candidate. I like Ignatieff alot. But he is a LAME DUCK. And those party mandarins that chose him should go away and let the party renew itself.

More critique of Hunter Tim in Globe and Mail comments

Hunter tim says:
"the party that excels at pork barrelling, with G8 spending, having pumped $100 million into Tony Clement’s riding, a riding he only won by 26 votes. And now, according to Kevin Page, adding $200+ million to the cost of the G8 & 20 by having it split between two locations!"

Ok, I am trying to figure out where is the beef on several levels:
So are you saying that more money should be spent if the MP wins by a greater margin or by a greater % of the vote? If that were so, the Calgary riding Mr. Harper won would be getting billions with his 73% or Jason Kenny with 74%. As would the East Kootenays under Jim Abbott who got 60% of the popular vote. Spending numbers by Province and city are readily available. The riding in question got a park and .. a gazebo it didn't need for the G8 summit that got a lot of press. Every riding in Canada, every city every province was invited to gain stimulus funds. Most did.

I wouldn't be surprised if Conservative ridings ended up with more money on average. That is typical of Canadian politics since... forever. It gives rise to strategic voting in some instances. People like to have their MP in government. Those MPs tend to be on the bit when it comes to applying for program funding on behalf of their constituents.

Is that what is really bothering you Tim?

Same old rant... same old response...

Hammer Tim, thank you for the Lib/Ndp mantra. Your rant was so long, I have to split into parts to respond:

Why the Neo-Con-Reformers
**What a tired label borrowed from the USA and its politic. Anyone else notice the irony?**

will never get a majority; because they’re the party of...

- budgetary incompetence, the party that goes from surplus to deficit.

**this statement relies on collective amnesia. All opposition parties demanded stimulus spending despite any deficit it might accrue; then so to hypocritically turn around and complain about it doesn't fool anyone. To use this tired old argument says these parties think Canadians are too stupid to remember.**

The party that goes from denying a deficit is imminent, to running the biggest deficit in Canadian history!

**It is true the deficit was record high. But the US deficit was 100 times larger. And when you consider the deficit compared to gdp, ours was the lowest in the western world.
Then question is, was it the appropriate response to such a crisis?**

- the party with the threat of having 10 MPs disqualified from holding office because of the in and out scandal... including Ministers Baird, Prentice and others...

**Yawn, every MP is under threat like this. The question is, how does the government respond to wrong doing? Guergis is a prime example... your outta there baby.
Compare that to other parties covering up their scandalous MPs... Seriously folks, we aren't talking about MP's stealing diamond rings on camera here (A certain other party comes to mind) ooo they hate it when I say that.***

- the party of the bogus infrastructure cheques, with CPC LOGOS, MP's signatures... that got their hands slapped for...

***Again another yawner. I can remember similar cheques with a great big red L on them. If I were the Conservatives, I wouldn't have stopped doing it. But they did...dang it.***

A rant about Eco fees.

http://www.thestar.com/business/money911/article/834144#article


Hard on the heels of Copenhagen's climate conference, climate change and ecology are on most people's minds.

What a great time to implement eco-fees! We are told none of those fees make it to government pockets. Okay, where are all those fees going?? Well, first of all there is the bureaucracy of the program, including advertisements and all sorts of administrative personnel. Then there are the large multi-national companies that have quietly bought up positions so they are first in line for the money generated. Years ago they bought recycling and garbage facilities saying " there is gold in garbage." Yeah, our gold by eco-fee.


Already many people have been pointing out, these fees really do nothing to impact buying habits unless you are really poor. Many times the eco-fees are larger than the gst/hst. New tires are a must on a regular basis, new batteries same way. Retailers charge for paints, anti-freeze, de-icers & plastics, (I wonder if Magna pays eco-fees on its plastics).

The people most hurt by eco-fees are the poor. Case in point: A family struggling to survive, both parents work but are not paid much beyond minimum wage. Need new tires, they wait until they are thread-bare have a blow out and because of the accident people are killed, but "worse" oil and antifreeze is spilled on the highway, and the acrid burning of tire and car and flesh creates terrible black, noxious cloud. Another case: the battery really should be changed. It isn't holding a charge in the winter and has to be jumped a few times. Car stalls on a rural road at 40 below zero, they couldn't afford deicer. In both cases the eco fees make these purchases out of reach.

The Eco-fees are really taxes--of the worst kind. Not only do they fall disproportionally on the poor, they never reach government coffers. If we have to pay taxes, they should at least go towards the already exorbitant taxes the middle class is expected to pay.

Finally, there is the inflationary pressure they create in the economy. Some eco fees add 5% or more to the cost of an item. The eco-fee system is expanding and will inevitably include: "All products in their individual impacts on the environment"
Of course the strategy is to implement it slowly. Eco fees have existed on Tires and Batteries and Paint for some time. Now the list is expanding. We will suffer the effects of incrimentalism and gradualism until everything has the new tax. For what thing do we buy that doesn't have an impact on the environment in some way? If the stated goal is to make a direct cost between the consumer and the environment, where will the limit ultimately be?

In any event, the inflationary costs will be noticed by the Bank of Canada, and may push inflation over 4%. which will in turn cause higher interest rates. Which if the poor have managed to buy a home by the skin of their teeth will mean they lose it.
The sooner Canadians put their foot down on this the better.