Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Infanteer]

From the data I have from the Public Accounts, going back to FY 61-62, these are the general patterns:
1961-1974: (2)
1975-1986: (1)
1987-1996: (2)
1997-2008: (3)

So, in other words, Canadian governments have for the last 50 years been quite poor fiscal managers.  Why is this so?  Ideology?  Poor political structure in Ottawa?  The nature of the beast?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Again, I have to ask, what do you think is the Conservative leadership's true opinion about climate change? Is it a serious issue that must be dealt with soon (their public position) or is it a scientifically unfounded and exaggerated scare that will soon blow over?

My opinion is that they either don't buy the assertion that current climate trends are overwhelmingly of anthropogenic origin, or that the alleged trends are a crock of sh!t, or that (consequence of the first possibility) that there is anything that can be realistically done to avert or mitigate trends.

But since I'm not them, my opinion is only informed by the actions they take - or do not take.

My own opinion on the matter is that the climate scientists haven't a f#cking clue, but have staked their positions where the funding money currently lies.  In the larger sphere, the debate is being pushed by the people who believe a crisis is a good opportunity to get things done that would not otherwise be possible.  (My thanks to Rahm Emanuel for bringing that turn of phrase and philosophy into the sunlight.)  And, of course, there is the that tiresome gang for which life would just have no meaning if there weren't some man-made global catastrophe imminent.  Fortunately, a new one can be found every decade or so as the previous one becomes increasingly discredited.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So, in other words, Canadian governments have for the last 50 years been quite poor fiscal managers.  Why is this so?  Ideology?  Poor political structure in Ottawa?  The nature of the beast?

Short answer: all three.

The overriding problem is that the intellectual elite - people gifted with raw intelligence horsepower, coupled with an extensive and rigorous education - are nowhere near as gifted and educated as they believe themselves to be.  And, in many cases, what measurable positive attributes exist are often corroded by mindlessness.  I tire of reading how well-educated are people such as Dion and Ignatieff, or even Harper the "Master's in Economics", because as soon as they open their mouths to utter the usual political half-truths and lies, I know how they really stand.  I have learned that it is very, very difficult for a person to set intelligence and education above base ambitions and emotions.  Therefore, when I hear the bullsh!t, I assume it is the dominant motivator.

In another thread, I made an observation to the effect that government is to the free market as bataille conduit is to manoeuvre warfare.  By that, I mean that the politicians and mandarins and lesser bureaucrats will never be able to outperform, or even to come within orders of magnitude of, the "decision cycle" of anything resembling a free society and economy.

There are no Hari Seldons; there is no discipline of psychohistory.  But there is no end of people who see flaws - of which I don't dispute the existence - and imagine themselves capable of resolving the problems.  There is also no end of people who follow the money/power.  Somewhere in there is a small minority of people who intend to do good, do not desire to enrich or empower themselves or their acquaintances, and understand their limitations.  I don't buy the line of apologists that there are many people in politics and government who fall into the latter category: if they existed in sufficient number and had the courage of their convictions to act, then they would be wielding a stiff broom and we would know it.

Getting back to the specifics, I don't believe ideology is the greatest problem.  If politicians cleaved heavily to ideology, there would be a greater distinction in governing behaviour between Conservatives/Liberals and Republicans/Democrats than we have recently observed.

Ottawa definitely has a poor political structure.  There is too much power concentrated in the PMO, and no real balance between the upper and lower houses.  I favour a Senate in which each province has an equal number of representatives - even PEI - who are appointed by provincial legislatures based on whatever criteria they see fit.  I favour it because I want the provinces to be able to yank Parliament and its First among Equals by a very strong chain.  There simply aren't that many social and economic issues on which I feel a desire to compromise with Quebec or Newfoundland, irrespective of their cultural and other trappings in which I delight.

The "nature of the beast" is the dominant issue.  The "nature" is the self-reinforcement of a system structured to accumulate power and authority.  The more power and authority government has, the more people it will attract who are drawn to power and authority.  The bigger the prize, the worse the catastrophe of losing it; hence, the more vicious and partisan the politics.

The centralized power structure can either be gutted and its teeth drawn peaceably, or it will ultimately happen with great bloodshed - which is usually the course.

 

[JBG]

I don't consider myself a Conservative cheerleader, but how strong are the claims pointing to current CPC policies when you consider that they have operated under a minority government the entire time.  The Liberals governed under over a decade with a solid minority and, as Brad Sallows pointed out, governed "good" but not "super".  The Conservatives have governed for a few years and, as a minority government, have been somewhat beholden to those Liberals that are so eager to point and sneer.  Should the Libs (and the NDP) be somewhat accountable for the accusations you lob at Harper's government seeing how they had a very real hand in actually put the budget through?

As far as the CPC being "somewhat beholden", I'll add that the LPC "had the option" (to quote Brian Mulroney in another context) to vote down the CPC budgets and chose not to do so. Now they wear it along with the CPC.

 

[Kirkhill]

Brad, the only quibble I have with you is on this:

Somewhere in there is a small minority of people who intend to do good, do not desire to enrich or empower themselves or their acquaintances, and understand their limitations.  I don't buy the line of apologists that there are many people in politics and government who fall into the latter category: if they existed in sufficient number and had the courage of their convictions to act, then they would be wielding a stiff broom and we would know it.

I think you have been hanging around soldiers over long.

I believe, in most folks life, principle plays second fiddle to family and as a consequence a lot of good men and women find themselves tending to do the easy thing rather than the right thing because the easy thing can be justified as not inflicting hardship on their family. 

And, as well, the laws of mean tendency and the reasonable man also play their role.  The easy solution is always to allow oneself to be eased back into the centre of the well travelled rut.

I believe that there are many people there with the best of intentions, but perhaps over many of them are over reasonable ........ then again do we want to be governed by unreasonable people.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have had plenty of time to observe the behaviour of people in organizations.  I have explained point-blank to people why something was unethical, and they have proceeded without contesting the validity of my argument.  I found that only the military has a high immunity, which I attribute to the general culture of self-sacrifice and merit, and also to the fact that there isn't much influence to peddle to enrich oneself or others.  As a general corollary, the smaller the stakes, the less the malfeasance.  But from experience, I stand by my belief that the selfless and ethical in positions of power and authority are emphatically a minority.

I find the "unreasonable man" to be the one who thinks I should tolerate his weakness, or his petty tyranny and busymindedness, or submit to his governance.  I don't expect politics to be entirely free of partisanship and factional self-serving, but I am particularly at an end to my patience with opposition politicians bleating for more and faster spending while their apologists weave myths about how things were or would be if they were in charge.  People can fabricate all the alleged motives and likelihoods and what-ifs they wish, but these two historical facts stand out:

1) Prior to December, the government message was reassurance and the prospect of a modest deficit (a few billion).

2) It is the opposition parties that started playing up imminent economic catastrophe and put the figurative gun to the government's head.

Now we have proposed budgets mirroring the opposition parties' wishes, and calls from them for more.  It would be best for their apologists not to besh!t themselves any more by trying to blame anyone except the opposition parties for the spending or the erosion of consumer confidence.

 

[a_majoor]

John Kerry (remember him?) suggests that tax cuts would confer too much freedom on the general population. Can't have than now, when "The One" is there to "organize" the American community:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/02/john_kerry_you_know_whats_the.asp

John Kerry: You Know What's the Problem With Stimulus Tax Cuts? All That Freedom.

Sen. John Kerry took to the Senate floor today to pace, rant, and raise his voice in a monotone simulation of human passion as he spoke up for the massive spending bill the Democrats want to pass today under the guise of "stimulus."

During his speech, he addressed the argument made by fellow senators and many economists that tax cuts might be more helpful to stimulating the economy than long-term government spending. The American people are also coming around to that view, according to a recent CBS poll, which found only 22 percent of them favor more government spending over tax cuts as stimulus.

His argument against tax cuts for Americans during these hard economic times was illuminating:

  I've supported many tax cuts over the years, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. But a tax cut is non-targeted.

    If you put a tax cut into the hands of a business or family, there's no guarantee that they're going to invest that or invest it in America.

    They're free to go invest anywhere that they want if they choose to invest.

Indeed, people with their own hard-earned money in their own pockets are free to spend, save, invest, or not wherever they please. Kerry betrays the fear that haunts every good liberal— that the American people won't spend their money on exactly what good liberals would spend it on. Good liberals must, therefore, advocate for forcibly relieving the American people of the better part of a trillion dollars of their own money to fund things like STD education, welfare programs, and water parks.

Senators like Kerry have placed their own ideological desires over the right of the American people to a clean stimulus bill without the long-term spending even Obama himself admits is in it.

Kerry went on to declare with frightening candor his indifference to the waste of as much as $50-100 billion taxpayer dollars— the amount by which moderate senators are negotiating to cut the controversial bill.

    “So frankly, you know, the difference between $50 billion on this bill or $100 billion -- let's get it moving. That is not going to make the difference to the economy.”

Kerry's priority is getting the bill moving, not quibbling over a $100 billion here or there. One wonders then why Kerry couldn't bring himself to support even one of the Republican amendments adding tax cuts to the bill. The Joint Tax Committee scored Sen. Jim Bunning's proposal to lower Social Security tax rates at a mere $14.4 billion, according to Bunning's office.

There was also Sen. John Cornyn's proposal to cut the income tax rate for the lowest bracket in half. Cornyn estimated in his floor speech that the cut could save married couples $500 each, and would help as many as 105 million Americans. Undoubtedly, he did not mean that each of 105 million Americans would save $500, but let's use that scenario, giving us a total that's undoubtedly higher than Cornyn's plan would require. In that case, the total is $52.5 billion.

Add just those two together, and we're nowhere near Kerry's paltry $100 billion figure, under which he believes all savings are negligible. Why then did he not support a couple Republican tax cuts up to the $100 billion mark in hopes of winning a couple Republicans to the "Yea" side? After all, it's about what gets this thing moving and what will get the economy going. Fifty or $100 billion in tax cuts should not stand in the way, right?

But for Kerry, the only time $50-100 billion in tax dollars is worth worrying about is when taxpayers might have the dangerous freedom (gasp!) to spend it as they wish. When he's spending it, don't worry your pretty little heads about it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Brad, I share your opinion of the military.  That's what I meant by my comment. Self-sacrifice and altruism are not as readily found outside the military.


Thucydides, who knows what mischief the masses might get up to without the guiding hand of the intellectual elite to order their thoughts.

 

[john10]

The false dilemma does not stand.  There is no "on the one/other hand"; you misunderstand what I thought was explained clearly: "if the purpose of taxation in excess of today's spending is not to pay for yesterday's spending, then a GST cut is better than no tax cut at all."

But there was no dilemma between a GST tax cut and not tax cut. They had a range of policy choices (debt reduction, income taxes, more spending, various other tax cuts), and they chose a sub-optimal one (and they raised income taxes too). And your reaction? "Economic and moral advantage"! That's what I mean when I say it's like arguing with shadows. On the one hand, you criticize the Liberals for not sufficiently pursuing the most optimal option (debt reduction), yet when the Conservatives are faced with the same policy choices and opt for a distinctly poor one, "economic and moral advantage" you proclaim! Which is particularly galling given that the Liberals were proposing equivalent tax relief but in income tax cuts IIRC correctly. But by going ahead with the GST cut, the Conservatives have the "economic and moral advantage"!

You have a gift for leaving out the details in order to state what you imagine to be "facts" or statements of argumentation. 

I don't imagine them to be facts, that's what they are. But they are facts that leave you uncomfortable – call it amateur-hour psychology if you want, why not. Why would you deny that when I state basic, simple truths like "The Conservatives raised income taxes." or  "The Liberals balanced the budget.", you don't like it.

If a government finds its budgets result in overtaxation, it has a moral obligation to return the excess to taxpayers.  It is also widely accepted - the CPC, LPC, and NDP all agree - that private spending in a free market economy is preferable to public spending when the publc agency doesn't have any particular - which is to say, at minimum planned and budgeted - purpose.  I haven't disputed that an income tax cut was preferable to a GST cut in the prevailing economic circumstances.  Had the Conservatives done so, it would only have increased the economic advantage.

The advantage over what? They were in government and made the choice to make a GST tax cut. Where is the economic and moral advantage in that? They could have cut the debt or made income taxes but they didn't. Where's the moral and economic advantage?

Since you don't occupy my mind, it would be safer for you to not claim to understand my emotional state - you will be less the fool than you currently are making yourself out to be.  It isn't the fact of the Conservatives being the highest spending federal government (in raw dollars) in history that disconcerts me; the superficial prating of morons, promulgating myths for other morons to cherish, does.  I have no problem bringing more complete truth to half-truths, and context to facile sophomorism.  If you're not bothered or uncomfortable or in any other distressed emotional state due to additional data and conclusions, then we are in agreement: both of us are "comfortable", and the discussion doesn't need to end with the last "fact" with which one person happens to be "comfortable", without the addition of other "facts" which make him "less comfortable".

What myths? The notion that the Liberals balanced the budget? That the Conservatives raised income taxes?

Your contributions of figures have been great --- where have I complained about them? You're the one who isn't comfortable with me stating simple facts.

I realize the Liberals balanced the budget.  For those unclear: the Liberals balanced the budget; the Liberals balanced the budget; the Liberals balanced the budget.

Well, that's good, because just a few posts ago, you were denying precisely that fact. See, this is what I mean when I say some facts make you uncomfortable. The notion that Liberals balanced the budget is an indisputable, incontrovertible fact. Yet, your initial reaction was to deny it.

Nothing in me stating these basic simple truths should stop us from being able to discuss their value and larger meaning (such as the circumstances of the occurrence, the respective role of Conservatives and Liberals, the great fiscal framework left in place by Mulroney, etc.).

And with the announcement of recent job loss figures, I see the Liberals are now whining that even more should be spent, and it should have been spent sooner.  You can forget about deflecting me from my opinion that the Liberals are doing anything more productive than whining about what should or could be done; it is all electioneering.

I'm not trying to deflect you from your opinion, I want you to specify what whining of Ignatieff and Brison's it is that you find so objectionable.

 

[john10]

I don't consider myself a Conservative cheerleader, but how strong are the claims pointing to current CPC policies when you consider that they have operated under a minority government the entire time. 

They are very strong. The Conservatives have been in government for three years now. The fiscal vision they have shown is dispiriting after the work done in the Mulroney and Chrétien years.

My specific claims are utterly irrelevant to the question of majority or minority governments. They chose to raise income taxes and cut the GST. Nothing stopped them from doing the opposite. Similarly, they've been throwing tax credits around like confetti for silly infra-marginal items (sports registration fees, diesel, etc.).

 

[john10]

>Again, I have to ask, what do you think is the Conservative leadership's true opinion about climate change? Is it a serious issue that must be dealt with soon (their public position) or is it a scientifically unfounded and exaggerated scare that will soon blow over?

My opinion is that they either don't buy the assertion that current climate trends are overwhelmingly of anthropogenic origin, or that the alleged trends are a crock of sh!t, or that (consequence of the first possibility) that there is anything that can be realistically done to avert or mitigate trends.

But since I'm not them, my opinion is only informed by the actions they take - or do not take.

My own opinion on the matter is that the climate scientists haven't a f#cking clue, but have staked their positions where the funding money currently lies.  In the larger sphere, the debate is being pushed by the people who believe a crisis is a good opportunity to get things done that would not otherwise be possible.  (My thanks to Rahm Emanuel for bringing that turn of phrase and philosophy into the sunlight.)  And, of course, there is the that tiresome gang for which life would just have no meaning if there weren't some man-made global catastrophe imminent.  Fortunately, a new one can be found every decade or so as the previous one becomes increasingly discredited.

So when do you think they're going to come out with their real view instead of carrying on with the charade? In a year? Five years? Never?

What is their advantage in continuing to go along with something they don't believe in? What kind of leadership does it indicate if they're just going along with it because that's the popular thing to do, knowing full well that it's a complete crock that will cost a lot?

 

[john10]

I find the "unreasonable man" to be the one who thinks I should tolerate his weakness, or his petty tyranny and busymindedness, or submit to his governance.  I don't expect politics to be entirely free of partisanship and factional self-serving, but I am particularly at an end to my patience with opposition politicians bleating for more and faster spending while their apologists weave myths about how things were or would be if they were in charge.  People can fabricate all the alleged motives and likelihoods and what-ifs they wish, but these two historical facts stand out:

1) Prior to December, the government message was reassurance and the prospect of a modest deficit (a few billion).

2) It is the opposition parties that started playing up imminent economic catastrophe and put the figurative gun to the government's head.

Now we have proposed budgets mirroring the opposition parties' wishes, and calls from them for more.  It would be best for their apologists not to besh!t themselves any more by trying to blame anyone except the opposition parties for the spending or the erosion of consumer confidence.

How about the party that is in government and delivered the budget?

If the Conservatives believed that the best way to deal with the situation was fiscal prudence, then why didn't they make the case to Canadians, explain that the recession won't affect Canada as badly as the US, and that the most responsible, optimal solution is in continuing with the November fiscal update? Aren't they the ones who were elected to govern?

It's comical how you are trying to blame the opposition parties solely when the Conservatives have become vocal advocates of stimulus spending.

 

[john10]

Thucydides, I will infer from your refusal to address my points and questions that you have seen the light and now recognize that Paul Martin was a great finance minister and was not involved in ADSCAM, and have renounced the previous garbage you spouted about him. 

 

[a_majoor]

Kirkhill has it right, I think, in pointing out the motives of people are generally to follow the paths of least effort and to maximize their personal and familial benefits. In more traditional societies that are based on clan and tribal structures, power and influence flows along family/clan/tribal lines. In modern societies, the blood ties are replaced by ties of mutual interest represented by fraternal societies, political parties, Facebook social networking groups and other self selecting organizations.

The growth of State power amplifies the negative influences that Brad and Kirkhill have indicated, the temptation to help yourself for the benefit of yourself and your family becomes quite large when you have the ability to ( for example) make tax exemptions to the company you own or make non arm's length sales to your immediate family while still exerting a position of public influence and trust. In the United States, the Generational Wealth Transfer Bill (AKA the Stimulus Package) has only about 5% of the $800 billion plus actually identified as fiscal stimulus, while much of the remainder is being showered as "gifts" to the supporters of the current political elites (such as ACORN, Unions, lower tier politicians etc.)

As Edward Campbell pointed out in different threads, cutting the GST was a politically astute move, since unlike most other taxes it is not easily returned to previous rates, so government is permanently constrained by reduced incomes, with the long term potential of reducing State power. (One can suggest the imposition of a $30 billion dollar Canadian "stimulus" package under threat is an attempt to increase State power through the side door, circumventing the effects of the GST tax cut).

Obviously, so long as the Progressive movement has the ability to grasp and manipulate the levers of State power, our rights and freedoms are at risk. The unencumbered use of property is most directly threatened by the antics of municipal governments, while freedom of speech is under attack by groups like the CHRC. Politicizing institutions like the US Census is another step in the wrong direction. Freedom loving people have a lot of work ahead of them.

 

[Kirkhill]

So when do you think they're going to come out with their real view instead of carrying on with the charade? In a year? Five years? Never?

What is their advantage in continuing to go along with something they don't believe in? What kind of leadership does it indicate if they're just going along with it because that's the popular thing to do, knowing full well that it's a complete crock that will cost a lot?

I'm regretting this as I type it.

John,  I note that you are applying for a commission.  I trust that you find the art of leading at some point in the not to distant future.

You cannot lead where they will not follow.  Ralph Klein recognized that and exploited it to his advantage "find which way the parade is going and get out in front of it". 

Leading where your troops will not go will make for a very uncomfortable, and short, career.  If you choose to stand on principle then you throw away all chance of influencing the course of events.

Military Maxim repeated:  Never give an order you don't expect to be obeyed.

 

[JBG]

Thucydides, I will infer from your refusal to address my points and questions that you have seen the light and now recognize that Paul Martin was a great finance minister and was not involved in ADSCAM, and have renounced the previous garbage you spouted about him. 

If Paul Martin knew about ADSCAM he was responsible; if he didn't know about ADSCAM he was irresponsible.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>But there was no dilemma between a GST tax cut and not tax cut.
>Where's the moral and economic advantage?

I don't claim that there was such a (false) dilemma.  You misunderstand the difference between "better" and "best".  All I claim is that the GST cut was better than retaining the revenue and casting about for ways to spend it.  "Debt reduction" would have been "best".  The "advantage" is relative with respect to Liberal actions, not absolute.  What the Liberals promised should not be galling to anyone; we can only judge governments by their actions.  It is foolish to attach any value to election promises, for which the track record of all parties is extremely poor.  The Liberals had several years of majority government to select a post-deficit fiscal path and chose a poor one.  Promises during an election campaign can not be weighed.

>Well, that's good, because just a few posts ago, you were denying precisely that fact.

No.  My point is still that the Liberals took the final step in a chain of events: they were not giants, they merely stood on the shoulders of circumstances and the achievements of others.  It is simple to understand: one looks at the deficit at its peak and follows its evolution; one observes the respective changes due to increases in revenue, falling interest rates, balanced operating budgets, restrained spending growth, and spending cuts.  One does not, save that one is a fool or a shill, attribute the change to only the final item except as a trivial observation.  So understand: when I write "the Liberals balanced the budget", I do so in mockery of anyone so shallow-minded as to believe it represents either truth or fact.  If the spending cuts had been made in the same amounts a few years earlier, the same fool would be led to observe at the instant of shift from deficit to surplus that a combination of increasing revenues and falling interest rates balanced the budget.

>My specific claims are utterly irrelevant to the question of majority or minority governments.

Every significant action taken by a minority government is in consideration and respect of the reality of the division of seats in Parliament, to say nothing of the tidal pull of election campaigns and the run-up to an expected election call.  To claim "utterly irrelevant" is to dream in a frictionless political universe.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If the Conservatives believed that the best way to deal with the situation was fiscal prudence, then why didn't they make the case to Canadians, explain that the recession won't affect Canada as badly as the US, and that the most responsible, optimal solution is in continuing with the November fiscal update?

They did make that case.  But the political reality is that the Opposition parties agreed to replace the Conservative government given an opportunity and to spend approximately $30 billion, so the Conservative government prorogued the opportunity and proposed - in general outline - the Opposition's budget, in order to remain the governing party.  The Liberal fraction of the Opposition is satisfied that enough of its demands have been met, so this Parliament continues.

 

[a_majoor]

Back to the issue at hand: looking at the nature and meaning of Progressiveism. This article goes about it in reverse, since Progressives notionally "love" the poor, disadvantaged and opressed, but want the State to actually do something about it. The writer makes the point that Love is personal, and the sort of abstract "love of the people" is disconnected from real people, hence real solutions as well:

http://jwherring.com/TOWM/2009/02/21/love-doesnt-scale/

Love Doesn’t Scale
Filed under: politics — Joshua @ 8:59 pm

I’m always on the lookout for neat aphorisms that nicely encapsulate important points of Libertarian thought. This is because I think Libertarianism argues from a weak position in modern society. There aren’t very many of us to begin with, and our views are rarely, if ever, given a fair hearing in the public forum, so anything that can get the point across sucintly is helpful.

Today I came across a true gem - from hacker Eric S. Raymond via the EconTalk Podcast.

Love doesn’t scale.
What a great way to put it!

Raymond was saying this as a reaction to one of Walter Williams’ favorite rhetorical questions, which goes something like this. We live in the city, and we have to eat, but we can’t produce our own food on the limited space we have in the city, so we absolutely depend on farmers to keep us fed. Do you want to bet your survival on the farmer who brings you chickens because he “loves mankind,” or do you want to bet your survival on the guy who brings you chickens out of a profit motive? Obviously, the guy who does it for money is more reliable: your future is solid with Capitalism.

The reason I like the way Eric Raymond puts it a lot better than Walter Williams’ already useful analogy - aside from how beautifully concise it is, I mean - is that Raymond’s version makes it clear that the issue isn’t a defect in love but a problem of perspective. If the guy bringing you the chickens is your dad, then love is probably a lot more reliable than money. You can’t always count on employment, but you can damn well count on your dad to care about your survival. So it isn’t that there’s anything wrong with love per se, it’s just that there’s something wrong with love on a large scale. We classical liberals get a bad rap for being heartless - but it’s just because we understand this and everyone else doesn’t. Washington doesn’t love me, Washington can’t love me, Washington shouldn’t love me, and you know what? I don’t even want it to try. I don’t give two figs about any politician’s professed “concern” for “the people” or any of that jazz because I know that love doesn’t work that way. It’s piss poor motivation for keeping the trains running (pace The Doobie Brothers), and it just isn’t the kind of thing that any person can feel for millions of people.

I think a lot of political confusion can be traced to the mistaken idea that love scales. It doesn’t.

 

[2 Cdo]

Thucydides, I will infer from your refusal to address my points and questions that you have seen the light and now recognize that Paul Martin was a great finance minister and was not involved in ADSCAM, and have renounced the previous garbage you spouted about him. 

John I will leave you with my final reply to anything you post here. Ref. Liberal balancing the budget, you ignore the FACT (which you like to brag of) that the budget was balanced a big extent to the elimination of a large portion of federal transfer payments to the provinces. Again, easy to balance a bidget if you have someone else pay for it.

Your idea of FACTS is to support the portion that agrees with you and ignore the FACTS that shows your argument is false.

Lastly, your selective memory in regards to facts and the idea of you becoming an infantry officer make me glad I am retired and would never have the "pleasure" of serving under your command. Assuming you actually do intend to join and if you make it through your phase training