123 Replies to “Reader Tips”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!

  7. 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.

  8. “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?????

  10. 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!

  11. 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?

  12. “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.

  13. >> “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.

  14. 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:
    —————-
    http://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.
    ————–
    http://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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. “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.

  28. 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.

  30. “…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

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

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

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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?

  39. “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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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?

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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…
    –

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation