Ohio's method of conducting elections with electronic voting machines appears to have created a true privacy nightmare for state residents: revealing who voted for which candidates.

Two Ohio activists have discovered that e-voting machines made by Election Systems and Software and used across the country produce time-stamped paper trails that permit the reconstruction of an election's results--including allowing voter names to be matched to their actual votes.

http://news.com.com/E-voting+predicament+Not-so-secret+ballots/2100-1014_3-6203323.html

How did we get to Saturday (25th) so fast???

*
Two more Van Doos killed by a roadside IED.

Keep up the screaming about pulling out, Quebec...
that'll make those homicidal fanatics back it off.

*

Muldoon's old buddy, (Roch La Salle), 'bit the big one', the other day.
Imagine: La Salle- appearing before St. Peter-(because only catholics go to heaven), and St. Peter sez: "I can arrange for you to meet The Big Guy- but it's gonna cost you." Bwahahaha!

The Inconvenient Truth = The Big Lie; see this link.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf

Get ready for longer colder winters like we used to have in the late mid 60's & late 70's.

Just spitballing here...but what do you think will cause the biggest uproar.... two dead CF men or the two injured CBC imbeds?

With all due respect and reverence to all involved I must ask.

What happened to our collective spine?

Syncro

"How did we get to Saturday (25th) so fast???"

It was either those krauts playing around with the speed of light ... or ... it might have been AGW ... get John Cross to do the math on it.

Texas Canuck - Did you have time to get the lotto numbers?

"How did we get to Saturday (25th) so fast???"

I'll be away for the weekend and was saving posts to come up automatically while I'm gone. I hit the wrong button.

So, instead of deleting it, and your tips, I've just re-stamped it for tomorrow morning. Sorry for the confusion.

Kate,
I think the article posted above by JT deserves a blog entry of its own.

The author actually predicts 'global cooling' may be on its way, and the science in his paper looks quite solid. He sticks his neck out with a bold prediction: we'll see cooling just about now.

CEP Union claims about PM S Harper using agents to stir up violence - just saw the video. It appears to me that the police were protecting the three from being attacked by the CEP President and his masked goons. Dave Coles himself was using physical force to go after the three in question. If I were one of them I would consider requesting assault charges against Mr. Peaceful CEP President.

Another little note - The CEP represent the communications industry including TorStar, CTV etc (cep.ca/about/locals_e.html). Can we start our own insane accusations that the Press Gallery and their opponents of the Conservative Party are milking this for all its worth rather than asking serious questions about the violent reactions by the CEP President and his masked confrontationists?

"Those Darn Computer Models"
http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&blog=globalperspective
"An interesting side note on all of this is that the GFDL model was developed in the same place as some of the climate models that are used to support major global warming because of increased greenhouse gases. Just an observation....not necessarily an editorial comment!!!!!"

"Just spitballing here...but what do you think will cause the biggest uproar.... two dead CF men or the two injured CBC imbeds?"

You know, not being in the military (and very grateful to those who are), I always wonder if there are times like this when a journalist writing crap about the mission gets injured on the battlefield and the soldier doesn't feel like getting him/her to the hospital.

And then the soldier does it anyway.

I stumbled across this pseudonymous Russian blogger, "veryrussian", who give his take on world events and his country's politics. One humorous post addresses the Estonian's recent removal of a large statue or a Red Army soldier, as part of Estonia's ongoing campaign to remove symbols of foreign occupation.

Veryrussian points out to his neighbours that Estonia itself is a living testament to foreign oppression -- that Tallinn's name is old Danish for "Danish city" -- and that the infrastructure may have been built BY Estonians, but it was never built FOR Estonians, any more than the pyramids were built for the Nubian slaves, as he helpfully
puts it.

He proffers this kind advice: "The next thing to do is tear down your present capital city, Tallinn. Flatten it. Raze it to the ground. Leave a huge crater where it used to be."

http://www.veryrussian.net/open-letter-to-estonians-tear-down-tallinn.html

"Is it not a disgrace to make the torturehouse of
your forefathers a tourist attraction?"

A ho ho ho, a ha ha ha ha.

I see, Neo, that you watched the evening news, too.

If it was WWII we were fighting today, we'd have pulled out of Europe as soon as things got bad at Dieppe.

No doubt Harry, sometimes the right thing isn't always the easy thing.

the court challenges 'victory'; the other side of the coin:

http://dawn.thot.net/ccp_kr.html

aka 'deep pockets'. tqvm stevie wonder, from all those disabled folks.

Global warming is real: it has been ever since Al gore invented it.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=91916&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

...yeah 'step right up and get your Global Cooling credits right here'

Calgary's night low for today (Thursday) will be 4c.

With apology to Toronto for thinking the rest of the world will be the same.

Some construction projects for the 2010 Olympics are already going over-budget.

(In a twist of fate, it's the BC NDP that's calling the government on it.)

Also, it looks like Inuit are going to get self-government powers over a large chunk of that part of Quebec which was still part of Rupert's Land as of 1867.

As some may have already guessed, support for the Afghanistan mission is eroding in Quebec. Interestinly, the Anglos and the Francophones have largely squared off as groups with respect to support levels.

Those damn Americans are at it again. How dare they put billions and billions of dollars into Newfoundland's(read Canada)economy. We need some serious moonbat protesters up there on the rock ASAP. How can it be good for national unity if NFLD's standard of living surpasses Ontario? What will chimpy mcliar do? Can we shift the equalization formula so that Ontario receives money from NFLD? Oh, the tortured minefield that is national politics. Will this be the start of an exodus east(AB to NFLD, passing right over ON)?

Questions> If a member of the hells angels touches a pouch of medicinal tobacco, does it still retain it's magical properties? If a child smokes native tobacco, does a magical fairy keep the toxins out of said child's lungs? When the mob trades contraband tobacco for heroin, does the magical properties of that tobacco transfer to the heroin? Just asking.

A new AP-Ipsos poll finds that liberals read more books than conservatives. Some highlights from the poll:

– 34 percent of conservatives have not read a book within the past year, compared with 22 percent of liberals and moderates.

– Among those who had read at least one book, conservatives “typically read eight” books in the past year. Liberals read nine, moderates five.

– “By slightly wider margins, Democrats tended to read more books than Republicans and independents. There were no differences by political party in the percentage of those who said they had not read at least one book.”

h/t: farnwide.blogspot.com/2007/08/interesting.html

'Talk about provocateurs.

Anyone else catch Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) President Dave Coles on CPAC last night with Maude Barlow, both accusing the police of using pseudo-protesters at the Montebello Summit?

Something Dave Coles said, in an interview with CTV, doesn't quite make sense: "I accused them of being police, and every time I yelled at them that they were police, you could tell by their facial expressions that they were really troubled."

We know the three guys he accused of being police were masked, so how is it "you could tell by their facial expression" that they were cops and that they were guilty? This guy must have X-ray vision.

Another Superman or just another super predictable make-it-up-as-I-go-along-to-suit-my-vast-rightwing-conspiracy-theory leftie?

Apologizing to the Missionaries-Left confronts a nightmare as tribesmen apologize for cannibalism.

Apologizing for the sins, real and contrived, of Western Civilization, is suffocatingly trendy among the West’s cultural elites. It fits their ideological assumption that the West and its religion have ceaselessly victimized benign indigenous cultures around the world.

But this fad was tossed topsy turvey, recently, when Papua New Guinea tribesmen apologized for their ancestors having cannibalized Methodist missionaries 129 years ago. Thousands of villagers attended the apology ceremony in East New Britain province and listened to words of praise for the English missionary who had brought the Gospel to their region.

The apologetic Papuans, led by the Governor General of Papua New Guinea, offered their apologies to the High Commissioner of Fiji. Four Fijian missionaries, under the command of Rev. George Brown of the London-based Wesleyan Missionary Society, had been slain and eaten in 1878 by Tolai tribesmen, directed by their warrior chief Taleli.

According to a later report from Rev. Brown, the slain Methodist Fijians were targeted by the cannibals not specifically because they were Christians but because they were foreigners on the orders of a local warrior chief, Taleli, and were then cooked and eaten. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884744/posts

Ted says, "A new AP-Ipsos poll finds that liberals read more books than conservatives." (Reading one more book a year is significant?)

Well, Ted, if there is any significance to this finding, it might have something to do with the dearth of books WORTH reading by conservatives. My husband and I were browsing the selections in Indigo the other night and had to laugh. There, front and centre, on the same shelf, were books by Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Deepak Chopra--hardly an invitation to fork out the big buck$ for a read before bed--or anytime.

In other words, our choice--that premium indicator for lib-lefties of a good life--is severely truncated in most book stores across North America.

Add to our lack of choice conservatives' insatiable capacity for hard work and there you have it: Most liberals would rather deal in theories with their noses in a book than in rolling up their sleeves to tackle real, honest-to-goodness problems head-on.

At least, that's my theory.

Don't discourage them, BATB. Overall, Republicans have higher levels of education in the US than Democrats.

Liberals are reading Harry Potter while Conservatives are reading America Alone.

Funny, Block, my leftie friends are constantly complaining about exactly the same thing as you.

In fact, I went to Indigo and then to World's Biggest Bookstore here in Toronto one time a year or so ago and, being a regular reader of conservative blogs and news, was surprised to see front and centre, right as you entered the front doors at the top of the pile the store was trying to promote the most, the following books/authors:

Bill O'Reilly's latest
Sean Hannity's latest
Ann Coulter's latest
Clinton's biography
Moore's last book

all right alonside the latest fiction mass-produced bestsellers, Harry Potter and Lemony Snickets.

I've had this argument about Indigo plenty of times: Indigo sells books that (a) have some reasonable assurance of selling well (meaning the author or subject matter is already fairly high profile), (b) can be mass produced (they want enough copies to put in all of their stores meaning only the big publishers are usually sold) and (c) can be purchased at huge discount rates (meaning again only the big presses who can afford the risk of the discount and the draconian returns policy Indigo forces upon them, and not the smaller or even medium size presses).

But don't worry about facts. That is Rule #1 about conspiracy theories, especially The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy Theory.

They also have a preference for books that start out in hardback (bigger profit margin) unless rules (a) and (b) apply even more (i.e. bigger name, bigger discount).

Citoyen Dion is Mao*?
...-

Stéphane Dion's long march forward

By LAWRENCE MARTIN
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070823/COMARTIN23/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/1/1/7/

The long march to mass murder

The authors offer a comprehensive demolition of the ''myth'' of the heroism of the Red Army's Long March to northern China in 1936, where Mao* spent the next ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/arts

Which is not to say that your theory about "book smart" vs. "real experience" is correct or wrong. You've provided no evidence and I have none to refute that.

As for evidence, the poll I thought was just interesting and posted the link. Kate, do you have a source for your comment that "Overall, Republicans have higher levels of education in the US than Democrats." That would seem to be inconsistent with BATB's theory.

#1 at 101 people screwing up Canada. I was sure it was going to be PET.

NEW STUDY DEBUNKS CARBON DIOXIDE AS A GHG

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.

He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.

"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added."

A dinner conversation

I tried, half-seriously and without much success, to convince a mathematician I was seated next to at a dinner-lecture last night to attempt a book on the "mathematics of predestination". The conversation inevitably wandered to the subject of free will, and I remarked that whether it existed or not, all human beings were faced with at least the simulation of choice. If we can do nothing else in life, we can bet. There is, for example, Pascal's Wager. "The Wager posits that it is a better 'bet' to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing." And we might as well bet because, I argued, one of life's jokes was whether or not we believed in God; and whether or not we were inclined to take up Pascal's Wager, circumstances inevitably force us into situations where we have to stake everything for an unknown payoff.

Consider, I said, the case of the Jerusalem security guard who chose to stop a suicide bomber from entering the supermarket he was watching in 2002. "Jerusalem's SuperSol supermarket was filled with last-minute shoppers stocking up for the Jewish Sabbath when the suicide bomber struck. ... One man, who arrived just after the explosion, described what he saw in an interview with Israel Radio. ... 'I understood that the guard did not let the terrorist in, and they were blown up together,' he said." How do you understand this tradeoff? It's an absurdity. What job could require a man to give up his life for a minimum wage? Yet the human condition often requires us to risk everything for the sake of ordinary things and people. In practice we are forced to behave as if everything depended on our choice. "We step out of the boat," I remarked to the mathematician, "in the midst of the storm just as if we were called out of it, and we don't know why we do it." ...-
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/08/dinner-conversation.html

Police provoking violence...watch the video yourself before making accusations against the union:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1nHvvkzvA

"That would seem to be inconsistent with BATB's theory"--that "...Republicans have higher levels of education in the US than Democrats."

Not really, Ted.

Maybe Republicans read smarter than Democrats. You know, maybe conservatives only need to read one book to turn out an A+ paper, whereas a liberal needs to read two books and a few blogs to turn out the same grade of paper.

'Don't know. But I'm sure Kate's right...in every way! ;-)

ted - you are making some false assumptions.

The most basic one - that reading a book is a sign of information-seeking or intelligence or what? The book could be a trivial thriller, a yet another gossip biography of Diana or pop fiction or..

And, you are ignoring that a great deal of information - information, not gossip- isn't from books but from journals, articles - which are readily available as well, on the internet.

You are ignoring that some of the smartest minds deal in finance, marketing, science etc - and they aren't 'into' books - but data sheets and professional articles.

So, to assume a correlation between 'reading a book' and 'intelligence' - is invalid. Try again.

What happened to our collective spine?

Well we became trudeaupian socialists, also our sense of proportion is shot there will be more people killed in toronto this year than afghanistan but thats because of bad liberal laws so, they don't make the front page of MSM's.

dear ms/mr been block:

did you read or egad, *write* 'puttin on the spin for dummies'?

dont you know Ted, righties have lower reading levels seeing as theyre a bunch of know-it-alls. they write the books they expect others to read. the make the rules and the 'vlwc' is just a cover.

rules? you need proof? mosey over to Quebec where the 3 n. american business friendly leaders are cutting deals to give away our nation's resources for additional 'security'.

otoh, considering how the present rightie in the white house regularly mangles even the simplest colloquialisms "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice .... I wont get fooled again" (direct quote, GOOGLE IT), best for that end of the spectrum to steer clear of any arguements about 'education' levels.

ET, there's that reading comprehension problem again.

I'm really curious about this particular misunderstanding of yours ET. When someone does not write a single word at all about "intelligence", and only re-prints some poll results about how much certain groups are reading, how does your mind work that into a comment that some groups of people are more intelligent than others?

I mean, do you read what I write, go away from the computer, forget what I wrote, come back a few minutes later and just maddly type away about some argument you had with someone else in about a related matter and hope beyond hope that it might apply to my statements? or do actually not understand what I write? Or do you see the name "Ted" at the bottom of a post and conclude: "Must. Refute. What. He. Says. Must. Invent. His. Arguments. To. Better. Refute."???

The problem, iberia - is the need for proof.

I know that you consider an assertion by someone on the left as directly connected to a priori Truth and therefore, proof is unnecessary..but some of us insist that the esteemed union leader should provide proof.

Proof that the protesters who came with stones, tomatoes, bananas - were just carrying them to eat, not throw. These people had no intention of violence, the union leader said. I think we need proof that their 'artifacts' were not thrown. The fact is - they were thrown. So? Non-violence?

Then, we need proof that these 'three' were actually police plants. The statement by the union leader that 'you could see on their faces'..their concern when he yelled at them accusing them of such - is interesting. First, they were masked. Hmm.

Second - attributing a reaction to someone yelling at you as proof of the claim of that yell - is invalid. Remember how we 'proved' Stephen Truscott's 'guilt'? By saying that when questioned, his 'knuckles were clenched'.

Third - attributing an article of clothing as evidence of their membership in the police (they were wearing 'police boots') is invalid. Boots aren't confined to one set.

So- lberia or iberia or whatever communist hero's name you want for yourself - your, and your union leader's claim - is extremely weak. Rather than supposition - you have to provide, heck, data. Try to do so. Or do you live within a fictional world?

...the beat goes on:

WASHINGTON — An Ohio importer recalled nearly 250,000 SpongeBob SquarePants address books and journals manufactured in China because the bindings might contain hazardous levels of lead paint, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said Wednesday.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294166,00.html

Actually, ted, I'm probably making a false assumption about you. I'm assuming that your posts have some meaning, some point - and that they aren't pure random emptiness.

You see, if someone posts a claim contrasting two political ideologies - as evidenced by the members of those ideologies - I am assuming, Ted, that you are making some comparative point about the members of these two sets.

Your data base is 'reading a book'. Now - I am assuming, Ted, that you want us to derive some conclusion from this data comparison.

You are comparing book reading practices of Democrats and Republicans. What is the meaning?
Why are you providing this comparative data set?

Is it comparison one of Waste? Are you informing us that Democrats read more books - and waste more trees? Is that it?

Is the comparison one of Cost? Are you telling us that Democrats purchase more books? Now - is that good or bad for the economy? Are Democrats better for the economy? Is that what you are saying?

Or do they get them from the Library? Are you saying that Democrats are more supportive of our public institutions?

Is the comparison one of Time? Do Democrats spend more time reading than..doing what? Working?

Is the comparison one of ..well..I picked Intelligence, Ted. I guess I was wrong. You weren't using 'reading books' as a sign of intelligence.

So- you tell us, Ted - why did you provide this comparative data set? What were you comparing? What does 'reading books' mean?

Or- were you just being trivial and, like andrew, providing irrelevant and meaningless numbers.

As a fairly well read person I've found that material worth reading has become relatively scarce.

Re-reading classics is a lot more rewarding for me that suffering through the half baked work of often uninformed, misinformed and deluded modern authors.

If Other conservatives feel like I do about the state of affairs of non-fiction writing then I can understand why they would be reading less.
Reading more are getting less value for their time and money.

There is an art to learning how to be discerning.

In any case the real question about reading is why a person reads. Escapism or education, gratification or growth?

To gargle or drink from the fountain of knowledge??

Judging by the behaviour of liberals in general and the kinds of argument and reasoning offered by those that I see.... I'm inclined to think that the tendency of those "well read" liberal folks is to gargle a lot!

For all of your long-winded bluster, ET, you sure don't "get" things very easily.

>> "why did you provide this comparative data set?"

Because this is a "tips" post and, as I said, I found it interesting. Also, as I said, I don't know whether it supports or refutes BATB's claim that conservatives learn by doing and liberals learn by reading. But it's a tidbit of information that may foster some debate about that subject.

I will say this about intelligence, ET. Information, real facts, are neutral and it is a reflection of one's intelligence whether you take that information and apply it to theories and test other's preconceptions - as some have done here - or simply bluster on with a knee-jerk attack imputing evil intentions because you don't like the conveyor of that information, as you are wont to do.

I don't have the time for your silliness and your basic inability to read today, ET, so please walk away from the computer and don't fill up our screens with your misguided bluster.

No, ted, you are slithering again. YOU posted a comparative chart - and therefore, YOU had some opinion on the MEANING of the comparisons.

The 'fact' that you found it 'interesting' is not an answer, because you'd have to explain WHAT was interesting about it? One data set by itself might have no meaning, but, when applied to another variable - instantly, it becomes a comparative outline - and that implies meaning in that comparison. Basic statistical methodology.

So- you provided us with a data set of two variables: One- reading books. Two- political affiliation. And then, you went further and provided us with a comparative chart between TWO political filiations. So, what's your point?

You are, again, slithering, ted. You are saying that because this is a 'Tips thread', then, your post need not have any meaning. It's just raw data. Heh.

Not a comparative data set; it has meaning.

So- again, ted - what were you comparing? Waste of trees? Time spent reading rather than working? Intelligence? What?

ommag - I agree with you. Reading books isn't definitive of intelligence or a search for knowledge. You have to ask what type of book. And, a lot of books are 'filler'; the key points can be dealt with in 20 pages. Not 200. Articles are far better suited to provide information and analysis than many books. And the majority of people who work in intensive jobs - such as finance, industry, management, etc etc - don't have the time for books. They'll read articles that are filled with information..but not books.

Danny Williams announces billions of dollars of oil to be pumped from his province, yet nary a peep from Dion,Layton,Suzuki,etc.

Can't wait for the next time they say Conservatives are destroying the country with ghg emmissions from the Alberta oil industry.

I would assume Mark Holland will be planning a trip down east promptly to let the pople of Newfoundland and Labrador know that a Liberal government will reign in their economy to meet Kyoto.

Ted, as always you are so full of shit its laughable.

Not once have you ever answered a question when it is directed at you.

You are the quintessential liberal party hack….dodge, weave and deny…

OMMAG: As a fairly well read person I've found that material worth reading has become relatively scarce.

Re-reading classics is a lot more rewarding for me that suffering through the half baked work of often uninformed, misinformed and deluded modern authors.

If Other conservatives feel like I do about the state of affairs of non-fiction writing then I can understand why they would be reading less.
Reading more are getting less value for their time and money.

There is an art to learning how to be discerning.

Absolutely. In the rush to make a buck, writers and publishers and bookstores will push the big name, the controversial, the hyperbolic, the celebrity, the quick and more assured easy sale.

That's why the biggest selling political books are stupid books filled with superficial but vicious attacks, and no analysis, from the likes of Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter. These are the pop political equivalents of the pop psychology books.

It's like eating cotton candy. Colourful and maybe pretty to look at, maybe tasty on the tongue, but doesn't fill the stomach and rots your teath and fattens you up.

More Liberal bias in the MSM.

Recall the story a month or so ago (CTV I think) that talked about a supposed "loophole" in the Political donations laws the seemingly made it possible for people to break the law and donate small amounts to all ridings and thus exceed the donation limit? And how the story originally targeted on the Conservative Party?

Well this time the Ottawa Citizen is at it. And of course Cherniak is all over this claiming that the Conservative Party is in violation of campaign spending limits.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6588f443-ebe8-4a93-8d42-8c89dd725ef2

In the story Elections Canada says that 30% of ALL candidates expenses from the last election are under review. Yet the article headline and content solely targets the Conservative Party.

Do lieberals count comic books in the "Books I have Read" column?

OOOPS: Garth Turner's I'm angry as heck about Income Trusts lobbyist sponsored ego mania tour might be derailed by reality:

Canada income trusts seen strong for years
Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:58 PM EDT

TORONTO (Reuters) - Canadian income trusts, which were battered on the stock market late last year in the wake of a change to tax laws, will likely remain the country's highest-yielding, most tax-effective investment vehicles over the next few years, a fund manager said on Wednesday.

Guardian Group of Funds, a subsidiary of Bank of Montreal (BMO.TO: Quote), predicted income trusts will stay at the top of the investment heap for at least 3-1/2 years to come.

On October 31, 2006, the federal government announced that it would start to tax income-trust distributions to unitholders, effective 2011 for existing trusts. Previously, income trusts had avoided most corporate taxes by paying the bulk of their cash flow directly to investors.

"The performance of the income trust market has exceeded expectations" since the tax change, Guardian said.

"Yet many investors are still not taking advantage of this viable source of income," it said of the market, which makes up about 10 percent of the Canada's benchmark stock index.

Jack Layton is threatening to force election because Tories won't come up with Rodriguez Kyoto plan. Liberals aren't jumping on that bandwagon just yet. Quelle suprise! I would love to see Throne Speech defeated this summer, with late Oct or Nov 07 election, on Kyoto. Won't happen though, Libs are dead man walking, biding time for inevitable defeat with Dionsky as their leader, so he can be replaced tout de suite. If only something really bad could happen to Canadians somewhere, so Liberals could use misfortune to vie for power again. Tant pis; ain't gonna happen.

Thanks for the link about yet another example of Conservatives gaming the system, Reid.

So now we know that:

- Harper continues to refuse to tell us who his big financial backers were in his leadership race

- Harper and McKay continue to refuse to tell us who paid off McKay's loans in his leadership race

- Harper was caught red handed exceeding spending limits after refusing to provide Elections Canada with information about convention expenses (the money was returned)

- the Conservatives blocked efforts by Elections Canada to investigate the gaming of their convention expenses

- the Conservatives don't keep track of donations under $199 so Conservative donors could contribute over the $1100 limit by contributing $199 to 308 ridings, and they refuse to assist Elections Canada in investigating this and they deny there even is a loophole

- and now they are caught passing dollars around between ridings and the party in order to avoid spending limits

And THIS is the party that purports to be accountable and transparent to the Canadian public?

I got involved in politics to try to help clean up the Liberals and I'll stay involved to make sure these Conservative crooks don't get re-elected. Gawd. Imagine if they had a majority!

Ah Ted. Way to lie and spin.

I love this little jem of yours:

- the Conservatives don't keep track of donations under $199 so Conservative donors could contribute over the $1100 limit by contributing $199 to 308 ridings, and they refuse to assist Elections Canada in investigating this and they deny there even is a loophole No party keeps track of these as under the law (brought in by Liberals) no party has to.

And then this:

- and now they are caught passing dollars around between ridings and the party in order to avoid spending limits Way to ignore the point that 30% of ALL candidates are under investigations and that passing money between the National Party & the local campaigns is legal (again under law passed by Liberals) and that ALL parties do it.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good argument Ted.

"No party keeps track of these"

Wrong. The Liberals do and have provided this information to Elections Canada.

"30% of ALL candidates are under investigations and that passing money between the National Party & the local campaigns is legal

Wrong again. The activity is legal so long as it doesn't result in party advertising that would have put the party over the advertising spending limit. The Conservatives have passed party ad spending to the riding level.

So the Conservatives whine for years about Liberal spending, then break all spending records with their budget; whine for years about Liberal underestimating surpluses, then underestimate them by an even larger amount; whine about Liberal harming seniors by considering taxing income trusts, then break their own campaign promise and tax income trusts; whine for years about Liberal accountability, then refuse to hold press conferences, try to control who gets to ask questions; whine for years about Liberal campaign finance accountability, then refuse to tell us who Harper and McKay's big money backers are, refuse to co-operate with Elections Canada investigations, refuse to co-operate with the Ethics Commissioner, and are caught gaming the convention expenses rules, the advertising spending rules and the riding fundraising rules.

Again, how on earth can we have lost to these guys and how on earth can we still be in a virtual tie with them in polling?????

ACLU Says Black Americans are more likely to be caught with their pants down.

http://beingrightisnotwrong.com/2007/08/23/aclu-black-americans-more-likely-to-be-caught-with-their-pants-down/

Election fever! Now Gilles Duceppe has threatened to bring down the government in the Fall. So, Layton will try on Kyoto, Duceppe on Afghanistan. Libs, however, not wanting election, will have to back government. Sweet!

Actually, ted, yet again - you are wrong.

The Conservatives do keep track of donations; they have to; the donations come in in small amounts - 25.00, 50.00 - whatever, and the donor receives a tax deduction receipt. So Revenue Canada certainly knows it all.

By the way - with regard to income trusts - you are ignoring a basic requirement of reality. Context. When the big banks and trusts moved into income trusts as a means of evading taxation, the gov't had to move and tax income trusts. Why? Because with the loss of tax income from this move by the big corporations into trusts - the tax base would have had to be made up by INDIVIDUALS. That would have been an enormous load on the individual taxpayer. Context matters, ted - otherwise, your data is not 'information'. It's just junk noise.

You don't mean 'cooperating with Shapiro' do you? He was hardly an unbiased 'ethics commissioner'.
Again - you've left out context, ted.

Virtual tie? Brainwashing for a generation has an effect - and a governing system that is 10-1 based on unaccountable patronage appointments - has an effect. You know the type of appointments I mean; the ones that dominate the perspective of the country. The CBC, the university funding system, university presidents, the entire judiciary, the Senate, the deputy ministers, the public corporations etc etc - all Liberal appointees and buddies of The Gang. All hiring clones of themselves - all members of The Club.

Oh- have you been able to clean up the Liberals? Has the millions they stole from the taxpayers to fund their Quebec election campaigns been returned yet? No? Ahhh, Ted. Heck - so what have you accomplished at cleaning up the Liberals?

"Again, how on earth can we have lost to these guys and how on earth can we still be in a virtual tie with them in polling?????"

Gee Ted, I think it's because the Liberal's were found to have,and admitted themselves,stolen millions in taxpayer dollars
to keep themselves in power,to steal more tax dollars.

How on earth the Liberal's can find anyone to vote for them,let alone not be locked up in jail is what amazes me.Conservative supporters grew tired of corruption under Mulroney and showed it in voting.Liberal voters know the party was and still is corrupt,and still vote for them.

>> "Gee Ted, I think it's because the Liberal's were found to have,and admitted themselves,stolen millions in taxpayer dollars
to keep themselves in power,to steal more tax dollars."

Fair point, Paulstuff. Fair point.

Don't forget Martin preferring to demonize any Canadian who didn't hold his point of view instead of coming up with, oh I don't know, a platform and an articulated vision. And the Liberals canibalizing themselves. And losing touch with ordinary Canadians.

No question, we lost and deservedly lost for a ton of reasons.

But when the Conservatives admit that they aren't keeping track across ridings of individuals who donate under $200, unlike the Liberals and I think the NDP, and other signs, and when Elections Canada doesn't have the ability to track these individual donors and the Cons refuse to close the loophole or help Elections Canada... yet another example of the Newish Boss looking a whole heck like the Old Boss.

ET, for gosh sake, keep up would you. If you are going to lambast people for not providing facts than make sure you have some yourself. Google - and reading comprehension - are your friends, Edwina.

This is old and public news:

----------------
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070801.wdonationsloophole01/BNStory/National:

OTTAWA — Any Canadian could exceed by more than $60,000 the legal donation to a political party under a loophole discovered by The Globe and Mail.

Elections Canada confirmed yesterday that an individual could theoretically contribute $199.99 to each of the party's 308 riding associations across the country - a total of $61,596.92 - without attracting anyone's attention.

That's because parties are required to inform Elections Canada only of individual donations of $200 or more. Smaller donations to riding associations are lumped together, with no breakdown for cross-checking.

Under the government's showpiece Accountability Act, passed last year, individuals can donate a maximum of $1,100 to a political party.

John Enright, a spokesman for Elections Canada, said the agency cannot keep track of donations below $200 because "we do not get the receipts" from the individual riding associations.

--------------

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070802.wdonations02/BNStory/National/home

OTTAWA, CHARLOTTETOWN — The Harper government rejected opposition calls yesterday to give Elections Canada new tools to detect multiple donations to a political party's riding associations that could cumulatively exceed the legal limit by more than $60,000.

"For God's sake, this loophole has to be plugged," New Democrat MP Pat Martin said. "We can't go into an election campaign with this kind of imbalance. It could be happening all over the place." [...]

The Liberal Party said it has internal controls in place to prevent a donor from breaking the Elections Act. It said it uses a centralized receipt system that tracks all donations, regardless of their amount or destination.

Where's Wendy Cukier and the gun control crowd now? The gun ban is working great in Great Britain.

"Briton, 11, shot dead returning from soccer"

"Government figures released this month said the number of youths prosecuted for firearms offenses increased 20 percent over the past five years."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070823/boy_shot_070823/20070823?hub=World&s_name=

ted - it's ET. Kindly observe blog rules and don't move out of decorum. You have no right to use my personal name. Only my blog name. OK?

Second - you are ignoring my point- which is that constraints on donations to political parties operates not simply at the party or political level but at the tax level.

Remembering that political donations are tax deductible - and if an individual contributes - then both the riding/party issues them a tax receipt. Such data would have to go to Revenue Canada. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any person has contributed more than the legal limit and no evidence that any individual contributed 60,000 dollars. And, those tax re ceipts are usually used by the individual to claim a refund.

Is the Globe claiming that there are people in Canada who have donated thousands to political parties - well over the legal limit - and as well, have hidden this by not claiming a refund? That's a different story and requires some proof rather than speculation.

Now- if Elections Canada claims that it doesn't get receipts from individual riding associations, I am presuming this is from ALL parties riding associations. So far - to me - it's a lot of alarmist talk.

The Non-Ouis; the Oui-Nons.

The Left-Socialists are divided, split; at war with each other.
Stand back.
...-

Government will fall if Afghan mission doesn't end in 2009, Bloc warns CBC Montreal

Liberals won't support Bloc call to bring down Tories over Afghanistan: Dion
680News

For maz2: regarding the apologies from the tribe in Papua New Guinea; does this confirm what nutritionist have been saying, white meat is more healthy than dark meat?

Rent-A-Hippy.
Rent your protesters here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,460449,00.html

"A German Web site has come up a novel niche market -- renting out demonstrators for public protests. Good-looking protestors can help an organization get its political message to the public for as little as €145 a day."

What do the ugly ones rent for?

Actually Kate, there are many polls that argue that those with higher levels of education vote Democrat. Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

Even the recently resigned Karl Rove seems to agree with me when he said,

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

I'll have to side with ET on this one, Ted. The likelihood of any significant number of Canadians failing to claim a tax receipt for political donations is fairly remote.

Elections Canada doesn't get access to your tax returns and Revenue Canada doesn't monitor your spending levels.

Like the Elections Canada official stated in those excerpts, they have no way to monitor donations at the riding level under $200. The parties have that information - which is why the Liberals offered to provide it if requested - but Elections Canada does not and don't have the ability to subpoena it.

So the more left wing you are the more likely you are to have read a book in the last year - according to a poll.

Hmmm I guess if you count Archie's Digest as a book the poll is probably correct.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/international_russia_arctic_tests_dc

soooooo what is harper's game plan here? anyone in ottawa ie parliament hill for the last 50 years?

when the blazes are the politicos of any and all stripes going to INVEST IN THE NATION'S FUTURE ENERGY AND RESOURCE NEEDS by building the vessels, training the people and setting up centres on the arctic shore to protect our interests in that forbidding region?

when?

when?

libs, cons, refoooooormers, socreds, ndp whoever has EVER expressed an agenda or voiced a demand in the HOC, when in gawds name are you going to get around to spending the money now to ensure our future citzens dont have to shell out half their income for energy needs???

ships have been navigating the nw passage for what, 2-3 hundred years now? and its even easier now seeing as the ice pack is disappearing!!!

what abominable shortsightedness.

theyre ALL guilty, and especially the harper gang since theyre calling the shots now.

Mao wanted to head this: The Great Rape Backward.
...-

The Great Leap Backward?
Elizabeth C. Economy
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2007

Summary: China's environmental woes are mounting, and the country is fast becoming one of the leading polluters in the world. The situation continues to deteriorate because even when Beijing sets ambitious targets to protect the environment, local officials generally ignore them, preferring to concentrate on further advancing economic growth. Really improving the environment in China will require revolutionary bottom-up political and economic reforms. ...-
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86503/elizabeth-c-economy/the-great-leap-backward.html

ted - revenue canada DOES monitor your political donations; there's a limit to how much you can spend and get credited for.

I think what is going on is the usual rabble rousing fear tactics. The G&M came up with an outline of what COULD be done. Imaginary scenarios are not identical to real situations. So, before accusing the Conservatives of actually having done something because it is technically possible to do it - professional reporting requires that one find such actual situations.

maz2 - Duceppe has to shriek about 'Quebec losses = means Mission must end' to show he is defending Quebec. But, is it the situation that soldiers from the ROC can die - and Canadians will continue to support the mission - while if any Quebecer dies, then, Quebec walks? I don't think Quebec is as 'cut and run' as these rabid politicians would like to think.

But, the political mice are starting to wake up from their summer naps. So, we have one mouse squeeking to the gov't that it must Follow Kyoto or Die. Is that Layton? Dion? And Duceppe: Leave Afghanistan or Die. Then, there's Dion:I know he came up with The Three Demands or Die for the Montebello meeting but I've forgotten what they were. Threats, threats, threats.

"there's a limit to how much you can spend and get credited for."

Obviously. But Canada Revenue will simply not allow the credit. They don't report back to Elections Canada so Election Canada can enforce its penalties (fines or jail time) or require the riding associations to return the money.

Check out this article:

http://www.thestar.com/Special/Afghanistan/article/249089

"The darkest fear for Quebec-based Conservatives is that opposition to the conflict could scotch their electoral hopes there."

Not a single Tory quoted in article. Evidence offered for "darkest fears" - Oh my God, newly appointed MND Peter McKay, gasp, went to, holy cow, Valcartier, to, yikes, talk to the troops. Imagine, the MND talking to the troops. Proof positive Tories shaking in their boots, eh?

My fondest wish is that Dionsky votes with Duceppe on non-confidence motion this fall. Then we can have an election. My prediction - Harper will get a majority and be the only federal political party leader remaining of the present bunch. Bring it on, allons y.

The natural end result of National Socialism: public housing, cockroaches, bribery.
One tenant has had the guts to complain.
...-

City [TO] probes bribery claim in public housing
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070822.HOUSING22/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

"...we need proof that these 'three' were actually police plants... and your union leader's claim - is extremely weak. Rather than supposition - you have to provide, heck, data. Try to do so. Or do you live within a fictional world?"

Posted by: ET at August 23, 2007 11:05 AM

ET, it seems that your utopian view of the world is, once again, proven wrong:

Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest:

3w.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html

harper lies lies and more lies.

a common theme amongst the HOC brass eh?

all this from Sun Media sources (oooo MSM !!! watch out !!! theyre sooooo BIASED !!!)

“protesters say ‘goons’ planted at montebello”

protesters yesterday presented what they say is evidence police ‘agents provocateur’ tried to incite violence at the world leaders summit in montebello.(gee, mustve taken a page out of j edgar hoovers op manual) ......the yellow markings and treads on the bottom of their boots ARE IDENTICAL TO THE OFFICERS ARRESTING THEM.

got that o harper sycophant? the protesters you mock could very well be COPS. planted to discredit the legitimate protesters.

further via the local MSM rag:

“promised cops missing”
“the HARPER conservatives have done little to fulfil AN ELECTION PLEDGE to hire 2,500 more officers.

got that harper bumboy? the cops you so quickly support are left holding the shitty end of the stick because harper feels the need to copycat the lieberals.
“harper delivered the pledge .. metres from the sidewalk where Jane Creba was killed in a boxing day cross fire. three months later then in power he repeated his pledge [which is now exposed as a LIE]”

and finally:
Mr Weston pipes up about the secret meeting within the secret meeting:
“harper and bush slip away to discuss canada’s role in afghanistan”
.... “what the big secret that harper and bush didnt want to share with ANYONE.”
(including ambassadors, press agents, organizers, cabinet ministers etc etc.)
read it yourself and feel free to spin spin spin. spin so fast the TRUTH flies off your sorry little asses.

lberia

There were undercover cops amongst the protesters, and you're upset because????????

Pesonally if there were no undercover cops in that crowd I'd say they weren't doing their job.

Me thinks you're playing silly boy again.

Don't be such a dolt. The police were trying to incite a riot, which by the way, happens to be against the law.

Given the history of the prostest movement simply showing up is inciting a riot. Good thing they weren't in uniform or there would have been a blood bath.

Obviously the inciting a riot didn't work so were the protesters aware that there were police in their midst or were they just such nice people violence never crossed their mind?

Since no riot occured I would say that the police strategy worked...unless you wanted a riot or at least a riot without police involvement.

It seems to me that since there was no riot the police did an excellent job. Maybe we could get them to police all these high level gabfests that seem to attract all the loons that want to destroy things.

Perhaps the idea of peaceful protest is beyond your grasp? In THIS case, it was the police who were doing the inciting...only idiots applaud this sort of behaviour because it is one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism as opposed to say ... Anarchy??? Give me a break. If the police were rioting we would have a problem. However the one participating in a riot is responsible for his actions not just the person "inciting" the riot. If no one participated then the police strategy worked.

I'll go through this slowly for you so that you will understand: The protesters were being peaceful at the time of the filming. The only one holding a rock was the undercover cop. If said undercover cop threw his rock at the riot cops, they would likely respond with tear gas or clubs. This is a strategy for preventing a riot???

It's nice to know that this is your idea of democracy...one that is no doubt shared by many right wingers. Ultimately this reflects on Harper. The public won't forget when the next election comes.

Since no riot occured I would say that the police strategy worked...unl"

uh, NO joe, the strategy FAILED. they WANTED a riot, thats why they went undercover and agitated for one, but the GENUINE protesters were not inclined to follow lock step; they were NOT there to riot, they were there to PROTEST conservative govt secrecy among other things.

spin spin spin spin. so whats the rpms up to now harper gang?

"If the police were rioting we would have a problem"

soooo joe, what is the caverous difference between them rioting and being the only ones to have a rock ready to launch at the riot police and start a street brawl???

seems we're on the cusp yet again of cops doing some really really dirty stuff. thats expected in a conservative run government. joe joe joe OPEN YOUR EYES BUDDY. the cops were clearly itching for a fight and didnt get one. maybe some of the protesters' parents from my generation warned them not to fall for the tactic. 'watch out for hostile unfamiliar individuals *they might be cops*.

such a worn out strategy you know; shows ho antiquated the attitudes and practices are in that 'profession'.

seems to me the entire sordid episode has completely backfired on the cop bosses. the dirty little truth took a day to come out instead of umpteen months like in the bad old 60s.

OK, communist lberia - now the facts have supplanted supposition. The three were, factually, police officers.

Now - you have to prove that they were anything other than undercover, i.e., that - as you and tsktsk hypothesize - that

-they were there to incite a riot.

Prove it.

tsktsk and lberia. Provide proof that these three were 'the only ones with rocks'. Prove it.

The information I've read is that the activists, bused up to complain, were already 'armed' with rocks, tomatoes and bananas. Yes yes - I know they were, as vegetarians, planning to eat the tomatoes and bananas. Prove it.

Prove that they were 'clearly itching for a fight'. Prove it. Otherwise - you are writing a fictional text with yourself as author.

You two are living in the clouds.

What? The conspiracy about the police that the pea brained leftards are attempting to come up with, versus

Chretien captured on camera actually strangling a protester?

As usual, iberia, tsktsk (limp wrist I guess) and the nation of moonbats would overlook an actual picture of one of their own commiting a crime, but mount a myth in their minds about the 'right' that they'll convince themselves is the truth.

It's also telling to see the leftards attempting to uncreatively appropriate words that describe their own filthy politics. As hard as they try to spin it, 'totalitarianism' and 'utopianism' will only describe their sick and twisted point of view. With all the horrors in history as proof.

ET:

Why don't you stop being a melon head and watch the video before you continue with your demands for proof. It is quite clear that the undercover cops were there to do more than observe.

irwin:

Chretien was/is an asshole and he should have been charged with assault for that incident. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting to see any high ranking politician in this country charged with anything.

Since you bring up the horrors of history, the tactics used remind me of what the Okhrana used to do on behalf of the Tsar. And we all know what that led to.

lberia - I don't see that the police were trying to incite a riot. The genuine protesters were of two types - the so-called 'family friendly' types and the 'anarchists', who were engaged in:

-non-stop pushing and taunting the police who were trying to get them to move away from the main road
- burning the US flag - I think I saw a video of that
-throwing rocks, sticks and plastic water bottle
-refusing to move

So- if you could show me how those three were actually doing anything to 'incite a riot' - I'd be interested. Were they throwing anything? Were they burning anything? Were they taunting the police? Well?

ET:

Why carry a rock around if you are not planning on throwing it? Moreover, how many other protests have turned violent because of police provocation? Is this type of behaviour by the police something you endorse?

In the past, police have been accused of turning peaceful protests into riots. Now we have video proof that this type of thing does go on, in Canada, and not just in third world dictatorships. Stop being such an apologist for police tyranny.

lberia

- provide proof that an undercover policeman, who is carrying a rock as part of his disguise, actually throws it. This one didn't.

-provide statistics and specific cases of the number of protests that have turned violent because of police provocation

- the fact that police have been ACCUSED of turning peaceful protests into riots doesn't mean that this actually happened. All that happened was the accusation. Provide proof that the police actually transformed the peaceful protest to a riot.

- the video showed no such thing; the protest did not turn into a riot; the policemen did not lift a finger in violence; they did not throw the rock; they did not push or act aggressively towards the protesters. Therefore - your claim that 'this is proof of turning a peaceful protest to a riot' is total and complete nonsense.

-where is the evidence of police tyranny in this video, in this incident or elsewhere in Canada?

Kindly provide specific factual data - I don't accept your words because, as you have shown by your interpretation of the video and event - your words have no factual relation to reality.

And while you are at it, iberia, PROVE to us that the world is not flat, PROVE to us that the sun will rise tomorrow morning AND the day after that, PROVE to us that Harper did not steal the last election, PROVE to us that .... oh, never mind.

Rather rich having someone who never provides proof, only platitutes and knee-jerk reactions before ever clicking on provided links or references, demanding that you prove all and everything right here and know.

If only there were more conservatives like ET. If only.

well, ted - as usual - you are being illogical.

You see, lberia's assertions that:

- the police were there to start a riot
- the police have, in the past, deliberately started riots
- prove that the police did, in fact, turn a peaceful protest into a riot
- and that we live within 'police tyranny'

These are all conclusions. Just like your assertions that 'the world is not flat'; the 'sun will rise tomorrow'; Harper stole the last election'. These are all your conclusions.

A conclusion, Ted, requires factual premises that enable one to come to those conclusions. Just voicing a conclusion - is nonsense.

I can also, like you and lberia, come up with lots of conclusions:
- aliens populated the earth
- the sky is falling
- chickens are the ghosts of our ancestors

See? It's easy. But, they are all nonsense. Until and unless I can provide some factual and logical evidence for them.

Now - that's a basic lesson in logical and scientific methods, ted. You can't just mouth off about anything; you have to provide some proof.

The sky is falling, the sky is...
-

Thank you, Ted. Yes, conservatives, liberals, others can disagree and argue vigorously, without the idiocy and illogical analysis of lberia and Tsk types.

BTW, I am a bit uncomfortable with undercover police acting in a provocative manner. Funny, though, how they are accused of inciting a riot (which apparently never happened), while there are many examples of rowdies and anarchists disrupting and causing disturbances at peaceful protests.

Our fathers and grandfathers fought for our right to protest, and this must be preserved, it is not a matter of whether we agree with them or not. Kinda like the old saying (John Paul Jones?) that, while one may disagree with another, they will fight for their right to express themselves peacefully.

ET:

Asking for proof is pretty rich coming from you. You have never provided proof for any of your assertions, ever, in any of our discussions in the past. I don't have to prove anything. The evidence is obvious if you would care to watch the video.

As for the conclusions you wish to draw, perhaps in your mind these three strapping young men with short hair (who by coincidence were cops)were actually rock collectors, and they had to cover their faces because their skin is sensitive to the suns rays. These unfortunate rock collectors with a skin condition were set upon by a 60+ year old man, who by asking them to leave, frightened them so badly they ran to the police for protection.

Shamrock:

What illogical analysis would that be? That the only protesters who were masked and carrying rocks were undercover cops that might have been trying to instigate something? Observing and gathering information on protestors is legitimate business for the police; wearing masks and carrying rocks is very questionable.

Oh. My. Gawd!

Now I've read and seen it all here at SDA.

ET, how can you say aliens populated the earth, the sky is falling and chickens are the ghosts of our ancestors. Please provide proof of you assertions. I can't believe you believe that. No wonder you never make any sense.

Oh. My. Gawd!

Now I've read and seen it all here at SDA.

ET, how can you say aliens populated the earth, the sky is falling and chickens are the ghosts of our ancestors. Please provide proof of you assertions. I can't believe you believe that. No wonder you never make any sense.

Oh. My. Gawd!

Now I've read and seen it all here at SDA.

ET, how can you say aliens populated the earth, the sky is falling and chickens are the ghosts of our ancestors. Please provide proof of you assertions. I can't believe you believe that. No wonder you never make any sense.

Oh. My. Gawd!

Now I've read and seen it all here at SDA.

ET, how can you say aliens populated the earth, the sky is falling and chickens are the ghosts of our ancestors. Please provide proof of you assertions. I can't believe you believe that. No wonder you never make any sense.

Iberia you're right of course, undercover police shouldn't dress like the protesters. Watched Donny Brasco last week, couldn't understand why he dressed and acted like the mafia types he infiltrated. If you don't think referring to police tyranny in Canada is illogical, then never mind.

As for voters not forgetting, we will see, that is when opposition actually backs up their threats and force election. I have a few other items that I will ensure the voters not forget either. Bring on the election anytime.

Sorry about the multiple posts. I have no idea why that happened.

Shamrock:

Just to clarify, I believe that this particular incident is an example of police tyranny. I'm not refering to the overall state of policing in Canada.

We'll probably have an election this fall...the Cons won't get a majority.

lberia - how are three police, dressed as protesters, but not doing anything - how is that an example of 'police tyranny'? Do you know what 'tyranny' means?

By the way - I did watch the video. Not a shred of proof in that video for any single one of your assertions. Others, by the way, were masked in the protest. Not just those three. Others in the protesters threw rocks, sticks and plastic water bottles. No riot ensued.

By the way - you DO have to provide proof of your claims. Otherwise - they are empty verbiage.

Your statement that you don't have to provide proof because I don't provide proof (of what?) is illogical. After all, if you object to my not providing proof, then, you as an upright and correct individual - ought not to behave like me - whom you disdain.

Your claims, again, were:

-the police were there to start a riot
- the police have started riots in the past
-this behaviour (police in the crowd) is 'one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism'

Now - prove it. Otherwise - you are just 'spouting it off' -ie..babble rabble.

Ted - I knew it, I knew it. You are an alien. What's my proof? That when you press a computer link, your alien electromagnetic genes flow through the plastic - yes, that's right - right through the plastic like melting steel..and your post repeats four times. Oh - and in addition - your post is utter babble. That's the sign of an alien.
-

lberia
"this particular incident is an example of police tyranny"

Huh? How does an udercover cop carrying a rock indicate tyranny? A cop I know went undercover at college to get drugs out of that college environment. He did not show up in red serge. He even drank a beer at the various parties where drugs were being consumed. In the end he found out who the drug dealers were and uniformed officers went in and made the arrests.

Everyone on campus suspected he was undercover and tried to keep him from finding the drug dealers except he was a better cop than they were drug dealers.

In this incident being discussed here the protesters made the police right away and did nothing destructive. In other words the cops plan worked. There was no riot.

Unfortunately you only seem to fear tyranny and absolve those who promote anarchy. Tyranny and anarchy are both poison to a civil society.

ET:

Provide proof that the police were there not to cause trouble. You can't, can you? No more than I can provide "proof" that they were to incite trouble, without having copies of written orders, etc. The video evidence is is enough to prove to me (and others who aren't trying to be obtuse) that the reasons for undercover police presence was more than just collecting information.

lberia, you're kidding right? On one hand, you want police to prove they're innocent (that's not where burden of proof lies, you should know that). Then you say video evidence is enough to prove their guilt to you; and you accuse them of "tyranny." Think about it.

If, after proper investigation, it can be shown police acted inappropriately, then there must be consequences. That's how it works.

It is not "obtuse" to expect accusers to prove their case, rather than accused having to prove their innocence.

Shamrock:

If you found someone behind your garage with an open can of barbeque fluid and a lighter you wouldn't assume this person is an arsonist, would you? Maybe he was just planning a weenie roast.

It's highly unlikely that an investigation will prove police wrong doing, anymore than investigating Adscam proved Chretien and his cabinet ministers did anything illegal. But that doesn't stop you from calling the Liberals crooks. Double standard?

Spare me your equivalence fallacy BS. You are being relativist; your example is irrelevant. Double standard my a**. You have said what I consider disloyal things about our troops. I guess that proves you are a treasonous b*****d. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

There have been charges laid and convictions in Adscam case. I don't recall anyone assuming Chretien is a criminal, though they may suspect it. Suspicion is not proof. That's the point you refuse to acknowledge.

What have I said about the troops? YOU are being irrelevant.

How typical of your type: when cornered by your own hypocrisy you lash out with bluster.

Whatever. Who cares what you think.

You haven't badmouthed our troops? Yeah right.

Whatever, who cares what a moonbat thinks. You don't elect anybody, you positions are inane, you make bigotted remarks and call others the same.

Have a nice weekend. Enjoy the freedom others fought to provide for you.

lberia - the video didn't show any action by the police. None. None. None. So- the fact that you say that it provided 'proof' that they were there for 'more than gathering information'.

Oh - and your 'appeal to others who aren't obtuse' is a fallacious argumentative tactic. Your argument has to stand on its own merit or fall for lack of merit. No 'appeals to others who aren't obtuse'.

Your argument fails. No merit. That's because the video doesn't show any action by those police. None. No inciting to riot. No throwing of anything. Nothing. So?

Actually, the reason why many of us call the Liberals crooks is because the Audit and Investigation showed that the gov't had paid enormous sums of taxpayer money for no work done. These sums were paid to ad firms who worked on Liberal election campaigns. The taxpayer has the right to get work - for their tax dollar. So, the evidence, lberia, isn't amorphous. The Liberals were and are - crooks. But - you choose to suppor them. Oh well. Wait - I forgot- you don't; you are a communist....

As a former military member, I would never bad mouth our troops. I think you're coming unhinged, Shamrock.

Spin it any way you want, ET. It doesn't matter what you think, it's how the public perceives it.

lberia - Just a question. How do you perceive that the public perceives acts of sabotage, when say the Telus union employees go strike? On strike - hub wires being cut ... off strike, not.

Not saying that your brave, brave comrades had anything to do with it.

ural:

First, if you recall, Telus workers were locked out. They were not on strike.

Second, if it can be proven that union members were sabotaging hub wires, then they should be prosecuted.

Finally, the difference between allegations that locked out workers were causing sabotage and cops that were acting as provocateurs is video evidence.

Oh, and to answer your question about perception, organized labour rarely gets a break from the media. They wasted no time in raising suspicions that the union might have had something to do with it...even though it wasn't captured on tape.(Despite right wingers claims that the media has a left wing bias, I would argue that it actually has a corporatist/Liberal bias.)

Judging by how this particular incident is playing out, it's not implausible that Telus sabotaged it's own line to make the union look bad.

"Judging by how this particular incident is playing out, it's not implausible that Telus sabotaged it's own line to make the union look bad."

Iberia: Are you off your meds again? Back away from your computer and call your favorite shrink ASAP. For your sake. Please?

Hahaha. Joe, you are the one claiming that the cops with rocks planned to get caught trying to start a riot in order to prevent the protesters from starting a riot. Hmmm. I get the feeling your are intimately aquainted with shrinks and meds.

Whatever. Who cares what you think.

Posted by: Shamrock at August 24, 2007 4:12 PM

Game...set...match! You just got your ass owned!
Nice one lberia!