Originally Posted by reeves

Im sure there are many MPs that will work with their constituents during the time they have. However, history tells us that many will not. The speaker of the house isn't even in the country, so he sure as hell isn't doing anything work related.

To quote the article Danielle posted, "The session had been scheduled to resume Jan. 25 after the holiday break". Right there, that tells us the original break until the 25th is a holiday. I dont know what day it closed, but thats at least a 1 month holiday from Christmas Day (the earliest federally designated holiday this time of year). A month for Christmas and New years is ridiculous.

I'm not arguing about that but rather that this *short* month will go to waste particularly with the need to draft an entire legislative agenda.

Socialists, like C.Erl, rely on misinformation and manipulation. That is the only way that they can attract any support.

I think Mr. Erl's implication that Harper is Hitler and the Conservative Party of Canada is comparable to the NSDAP (commonly known as the Nazi Party) is offensive and over the line. As a conservative I am offended by Mr. Erl's comments.

I dont mean to attack you by saying this, but claiming to be offended is the last resort of someone without a logical or evidence driven point of view to retort with. It is a very weak statement that attempts to make you look like a victim who has been terribly wronged. Being "offended" is something that only a self-centered ignorant person can claim. To have such a severe emotional response to a comment made by someone else requires you to have no understanding of what their possible meaning could be, why they would think that way, what their goals were, what life experience led them to this point, etc. If you take the time to consider what others have said, you cannot feel "offended" because "understanding" negates that emotion.

The only people who have the right to feel offended are old southern movie characters who proceed to slap you in the face with a glove for insulting their honor and challenge you to a pistol duel. In our society, claiming to be offended is the equivalent of a southern belle fainting at the mention of anything shocking or unlady-like.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Meh.

And it was a typo. I meant NDP. But looking back now my typo is funnier.

And yes, from the information you provided me with -the mindless jab and the fact that you are the president of a lame student political group (no offence to the NDP, all the student groups are lame because you are useless tools-in-training, no offence), it was the logical conclusion, based on that information, to think you were a mindless tool. Observe > Hypothesize > test/observe > conclude. Sorry, but the scientific method agrees with me: you are a tool. No need to feel ashamed, everyone can change, there is always room to grow.


Oh yeah and democracy is useless junk. It is a system where issues of science are solved by business or religion, social issues are decided upon by people who have no connection or understanding of social issues, human rights are set back and ignorance is let reign supreme. Where slick silver tongued frauds are paid to feign interest and vote in ways that will get them re-elected. Or better yet, they vote against things just because their "opponents" support them!

The fact that you are the president of the student NDP shows that you dont understand the political system, unless it is some sort of ironic thing, in which case I apologize for making the assumption.

I dont mean to attack you by saying this, but claiming to be offended is the last resort of someone without a logical or evidence driven point of view to retort with. It is a very weak statement that attempts to make you look like a victim who has been terribly wronged. Being "offended" is something that only a self-centered ignorant person can claim. To have such a severe emotional response to a comment made by someone else requires you to have no understanding of what their possible meaning could be, why they would think that way, what their goals were, what life experience led them to this point, etc. If you take the time to consider what others have said, you cannot feel "offended" because "understanding" negates that emotion.

The only people who have the right to feel offended are old southern movie characters who proceed to slap you in the face with a glove for insulting their honor and challenge you to a pistol duel. In our society, claiming to be offended is the equivalent of a southern belle fainting at the mention of anything shocking or unlady-like.

I'm sorry if I don't take kindly to my political position being compared to that of a Gauleiter (I hold positions in the federal and provincial party riding associations).

I'm sorry if i'm INSULTED when someone compares my political views to that of the NSDAP. The party whose leaders ordered the cold blooded murder of 6 million + undesirables, the invasion of numerous countries and terror bombings and rocket attacks that could have killed both of my grandmothers and my father.

And I'm sorry if i'm OFFENDED when a clever partisan compares the party I am a member of, and volunteer for, to the party and system against which my grandfather and countless other Canadians (some of which i'm sure support the conservatives) fought in order to preserve our freedom

politics... pfff

The decree consisted of six articles. Article 1 suspended most of the civil liberties set forth in the Weimar Constitution — freedom of the person, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of free association and public assembly, the secrecy of the post and telephone, not to mention the protection of property and the home. Articles 2 and 3 allowed the Reich government to assume powers normally reserved to the federal states. Articles 4 and 5 established draconian penalties for certain offenses, including the death penalty for arson to public buildings. Article 6 simply stated that the decree took effect on the day of its proclamation.

If you're comparing the poroguing of parliament for a month to this then you're nuts. Mr. Erl, as someone who IS pursuing a History and Political Science degree (although by no means does that make you an expert beyond reproach as you seem to think it does), you SHOULD know what a wildly inaccurate accusation you made against the government and all conservatives, and to me it appears your only purpose was to offend conservatives, and turn individuals who didn't know what the Reichstag Fire Decree entailed against conservatives making us pariahs. Your blogs, even when you were a conservative, quite frequently employed the same tactic against people you disagreed with, and quite frankly I could make comparisons to the tactics used by many different nefarious individuals to stifle dissent in the past.

In fact the part that most confounds me, is that in your explanation of your grossly inaccurate metaphor, the only facet of it which you compared Harper's actions too was freedom of expression which is only tangentially related to the topic of the thread. (If you had wanted to make a comparison with Nazi germany, the enabling act which rendered the reichstag powerless might have been a better but still way over the top comparison.) The examples of the restriction of freedom of expression you give are a bit loopy as well. Cutting off of funding to KAIROS? Well I might not agree with that decision, certainly you must agree that the government has a mandate from the taxpayers to determine where tax money is spent? Muzzling government MP's? Not only is this a practice employed by every party (and I do agree, Canada's high degree of party discipline compared to other Westminster System governments is a problem in general), but there is no suspension of the right to free speech. If a Catholic Priest claimed that jesus was a 6 winged flying elephant monkey from Mars, would you claim that the Church was violating his freedom of speech if they excommunicated him? Freedom of Association guarantees also the right to NOT include individuals in organizations who do not follow the internal rules, do not share the goals of the organization etc. So as you see, the threat of being kicked out of the party is an exercise of the right of those in the association, and not a suppression of that MP's rights.

Ok, maybe we could all lay off Chris here for a bit. While I'm sure he can handle people saying mean things over the internet, a lot of these posts are veering dangerously close to personal attacks against a member. MacInsiders is a nice, friendly place- even if people have different opinions.

Also, I am really tempted to join all the political groups on campus ironically now.

Originally Posted by arathbon

I think Mr. Erl's implication that Harper is Hitler and the Conservative Party of Canada is comparable to the NSDAP (commonly known as the Nazi Party) is offensive and over the line. As a conservative I am offended by Mr. Erl's comments...so-on and so-forth.

Okay brother, you wanna duke it out this way, lets drop.

If I wasn't offending you, I wouldn't be doing my job (which is generally known as party hack).

My "implication" is that Harper is acting like a dictator...dictators hide from opposition by circumventing democracy.

Assuming I've called you a Nazi, although very stereotypically Tory of you, was hardly in my original statements and is, therefore, utterly baseless.

To refresh, here's what I actually said:

Originally Posted by c.erl

Mr. Harper should call this "shutdown" what it really is.

His own little Reichstag Fire Decree.

Its a slippery slope, and if we've learned anything from history, we won't let it happen again.

His own little Reichstag Fire Decree. Not "It's exactly like the R.F.D.". Hell, its not even "wow hez hitler lolz".

It IS his own Fire Decree because he's using this constitutional opportunity to play partisan games and to stifle the opposition! Yeah, he's not locking up minorities and invading Poland, but he's shutting parliament down...

No more discussion on the detainee issue, bills dying on the table and an opportunity to tip the scales in the senate. Dictatorial, hands down.

My point is best described by Andrew Coyne of Macleans:

In what other democracy is it permissible for the government of the day to hide from the legislature for months at a time? To ignore explicit parliamentary votes demanding the production of documents? To stonewall independent inquiries? Perhaps the rules allow it elsewhere, but is it the practice? Does convention not still forbid it? Is it not viewed in other countries as dictatorial behaviour, and therefore, you know … not done?

...after which he writes...

Let those MPs who wish to do the people’s business convene on the usual timetable, and let those with other loyalties disport themselves as they may.

If MPs are barred at the doors to Parliament — and wouldn’t that be an interesting scene — let them meet somewhere else. A tennis court would do nicely.

The Prime Minister...leader of YOUR party...is acting like a dictator. But rather than answer to this claim, you have latched to my statement and have made this debate into MY offending YOU and have tried desperately, in the course of three posts, to make yourself into some kind of martyr. Never once did I say the Conservative Party is like the NSDAP...in fact, I said the exact opposite.

Show me how this isn't the Prime Minister acting like a dictator. Citing former PMs proroguing Parliament doesn't count. If you're an active member of your Tory chapters, you should know the proper spin points.

But if you really, truly think that I'm actually comparing the CPC to the...how did you put it?..."to the party and system against which my grandfather and countless other Canadians (some of which i'm sure support the conservatives) fought in order to preserve our freedom", then this entire debate it done. To be insulted by my attack on the Prime Minister means you have let your passions get the best of you and logic will no longer play a role in this discussion.

Defend your leader, give me the points and show me how he's not acting like a dictator.

Oh, and btw:

Originally Posted by Rossclot

Oh yeah and democracy is useless junk. It is a system where issues of science are solved by business or religion, social issues are decided upon by people who have no connection or understanding of social issues, human rights are set back and ignorance is let reign supreme...etc.

That whole "anti-government" thing gets really boring after a while. If you really think you're completely powerless to change things, thats really, really sad. Cheer up, brother, its not as hopeless at it looks sometimes!

Originally Posted by c.erl

That whole "anti-government" thing gets really boring after a while. If you really think you're completely powerless to change things, thats really, really sad. Cheer up, brother, its not as hopeless at it looks sometimes!

To be fair, being anti-democracy and being anti-government are two entirely different things. You could have a non-democratic government, and possibly a democracy without government (depending on a few semantic things).

And Rossclot is bringing up a very valid problem with democracy, that does still exist today. Whether its things a democratically elected representative government does (Creationism still be taught in schools, global warming policies based on faulty science*), or things done by the people in a direct democracy setting (Prop 8, and the Swiss Minaret ban). Democracy has many problems, but we stick with it because the pros outway the cons. Or at least because the majority thinks they do

*That swings both ways, there is a lot of faulty science on both sides of the debate. Not supporting either side.

Originally Posted by c.erl

Okay brother, you wanna duke it out this way, lets drop.

If I wasn't offending you, I wouldn't be doing my job (which is generally known as party hack).

My "implication" is that Harper is acting like a dictator...dictators hide from opposition by circumventing democracy.

Assuming I've called you a Nazi, although very stereotypically Tory of you, was hardly in my original statements and is, therefore, utterly baseless.

So your job is to offend people, compare our government to dictators and use piss poor comparisons in an attempt to stifle debate. Congratulations, you're a part of the problem you're complaining about

To refresh, here's what I actually said:



His own little Reichstag Fire Decree. Not "It's exactly like the R.F.D.". Hell, its not even "wow hez hitler lolz".

It IS his own Fire Decree because he's using this constitutional opportunity to play partisan games and to stifle the opposition! Yeah, he's not locking up minorities and invading Poland, but he's shutting parliament down...

No more discussion on the detainee issue, bills dying on the table and an opportunity to tip the scales in the senate. Dictatorial, hands down.

How is poroguing parliament, which as I have mentioned is legal and normal acting like a dictator. If utilizing the law to your advantage is a dictatorship then Canada has been one since 1867.

"A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control) but, without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch."

Tell me, where is the law giving Harper the power to legislate by decree? Where is he legally preventing the MP's from leaving his party and causing a loss of confidence? The fact is, the government could end at any time pretty much, and proroguing for a month doesn't give the Prime Minister dictatorial powers, especially since there is a check on his power by the governor-general (this has been exercised in the past by both Canadian and other governor-generals)

My point is best described by Andrew Coyne of Macleans:



...after which he writes...

It's a pity you can't express your own arguments beyond resorting to NAZI comparisons, but I do not agree with Coyne's assessment. Quite frankly this isn't in anyway comparable to the English Civil war as he implies. If he is braking the law then we have an independent judiciary as well as the Governor-General to hold him to account. If he develops a pattern of ignoring both (where they rule within their jurisdiction, and I don't count appealing a ruling as ignoring the law either), then I would become concerned.

The Prime Minister...leader of YOUR party...is acting like a dictator. But rather than answer to this claim, you have latched to my statement and have made this debate into MY offending YOU and have tried desperately, in the course of three posts, to make yourself into some kind of martyr. Never once did I say the Conservative Party is like the NSDAP...in fact, I said the exact opposite.

Where did you say the exact opposite. YOU brought Hitler into this debate. YOU used over the top rhetoric that you are now too embarrassed to admit to. YOU followed in the steps of many internet trolls who attempt to stifle Conservative opinions by using ad hominem comparing conservatives to Nazi's.

Show me how this isn't the Prime Minister acting like a dictator.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware we had reached to promised communist society where we are guilty until proven innocent. Why don't you show me how you're not a murderer and a rapist? (Not suggesting you are, but this is my point, in a democracy, which you claim to support, you are innocent until proven guilty)

Citing former PMs proroguing Parliament doesn't count. If you're an active member of your Tory chapters, you should know the proper spin points.

Since when does precedence not count? Either I seriously overestimated your intelligence or overestimated how much they teach at mac. And just because I'm a tory and you're a dipper doesn't mean we're obligated to feed spin points. Unlike yourself, however, I think for myself.

But if you really, truly think that I'm actually comparing the CPC to the...how did you put it?..."to the party and system against which my grandfather and countless other Canadians (some of which i'm sure support the conservatives) fought in order to preserve our freedom", then this entire debate it done. To be insulted by my attack on the Prime Minister means you have let your passions get the best of you and logic will no longer play a role in this discussion.

I really just don't know how to reply to this statement. If I compared Jack Layton to Stalin and Mao, would you not be offended? The entire debate was done when you unnecessarily and inaccurately dragged a murderous madman into the debate and used it to malign our Prime Minister and by effect also his supporters and the party he leads. I indeed have not let my passions get the best of my logic, and if you read my replies you'd know that I have good reason to be offended, because unless you are extremely ignorant, you knew full well what your statement inaccurately applied, about myself, and several other good and honest people.

Chris Erl, why don't you crawl back into that whole you came out from, and stop trying to justify the fact that you hate conservatives and think we're all stupid. (No not in this conversation, but having read your blog, I know how much you seethe with contempt for anyone who doesn't accept socialism.)

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

Ok, maybe we could all lay off Chris here for a bit. While I'm sure he can handle people saying mean things over the internet, a lot of these posts are veering dangerously close to personal attacks against a member. MacInsiders is a nice, friendly place- even if people have different opinions.

Also, I am really tempted to join all the political groups on campus ironically now.

No I am not going to "lay off". If what I said is a personal attack then surely his implication that the CPC is comparable to the NSDAP is as well. He may be backtracking now, but the way his first post read, it was clearly implied that he was of that opinion. There was no need for him to draw Hitler into this debate, and in my opinion, pointing out that he is either doing this deliberately to malign conservatives and shut down debate, or is just ignorant of how tossing about Nazi references like they're candy can effect a debate. If speaking this truth is a personal attack that I will accept whatever punishment the moderators see fit to impose. But I will not retract that statement as it is important to point out that Mr. Erl has no credibility on this matter, either because he doesn't understand the implications of the words he chooses or because he understands them and is choosing them as a what he thinks is a clever way to insult those who support Prime Minister Harper.

In fact he openly admitted:

If I (Chris Erl) wasn't offending you, I wouldn't be doing my job.

So in fact, if anyone has malicious intent it is our friend Mr. Erl. As I have stated I am merely pointing out a relevant point to this debate, and unlike Mr. Erl I don't consider it my job to offend anyone.

Maybe for Mr. Erl politics means being offensive, but I prefer to speak what I believe to be the truth, rather than optimize my words to offend those with whom I disagree.

I am in no way anti-government. A well established government is required for the protection of the people. I am however, sick of these fraud politicians. I have been tempted from time to time to move towards politics. It would be easy to differentiate myself from other candidates because I cant lie convincingly so I just dont do it, and I hate bullshit and will call it out. It would be easy to stand out from the herd when you are the only candidate who isnt full of shit. The issue is, would people be ready for a politician who isnt a complete fraud?


How can someone with no science background be expected to make decisions that concern science? It is like a dentist kicking open my front door and asking my opinion on a set of X-rays he has. If it makes no sense when it comes to the health of one person(the dentist asking me), then why does it make sense when the decision affects an entire municipality, province/territory, or country? These politicians arent elected because they are qualified, they are elected because they win a popularity contest and are affiliated with a certain party.


I meant no personal attack by calling anyone a tool. If you feel shame for being a tool that is your own responsibility. All I was saying is that the student political groups are a joke. Like the system itself is a joke, but then the student groups are the otaku fan clubs for the frauds in politics. It is the equivalent of being the president of the "Miley Cyrus is the most technically skilled musician ever club". It just shows a large disconnect with reality.



And the style of arguing where you shove freedom and the sacrifices of soldiers past into peoples' faces as your argument base only works when you are arguing with really dumb people. It almost never has anything to do with your argument, and usually it is just a big distracting flag that is waived around where people assume that if they disagree with you, then they must disagree with freedom and hate people who have had to fight to maintain some form of justice on the planet. In a group of intelligent people, as we have here, using those types of arguments only makes it look like you are holding soldiers hostage if we dont agree with you. Sadly, this style of arguing is not only popular, but hideously effective down in the USA, it is starting to become a defining aspect of their culture. If this topic interests you, you should study rhetoric a bit, fun stuff.

Originally Posted by Rossclot

All I was saying is that the student political groups are a joke. Like the system itself is a joke, but then the student groups are the otaku fan clubs for the frauds in politics. It is the equivalent of being the president of the "Miley Cyrus is the most technically skilled musician ever club". It just shows a large disconnect with reality.

For the record (and due to Chris Erl's assertions about my involvement in Tory circles) if feel I should clarify that I am not associated with the Campus Conservatives, although I hold positions in the actual (non-youth) riding associations where I live.

And the style of arguing where you shove freedom and the sacrifices of soldiers past into peoples' faces as your argument base only works when you are arguing with really dumb people. It almost never has anything to do with your argument, and usually it is just a big distracting flag that is waived around where people assume that if they disagree with you, then they must disagree with freedom and hate people who have had to fight to maintain some form of justice on the planet. In a group of intelligent people, as we have here, using those types of arguments only makes it look like you are holding soldiers hostage if we dont agree with you. Sadly, this style of arguing is not only popular, but hideously effective down in the USA, it is starting to become a defining aspect of their culture. If this topic interests you, you should study rhetoric a bit, fun stuff.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me. But i'll have a go at it. I am not implying Mr. Erl is wrong on the basis of anything to do with the soldiers. Merely I was pointing out that a Nazi comparison, that serves no other purpose than to link our current government to that regime ( Mr. Erl admitted himself that there is very little, if any direct parallel between the current situation and the fire decree other than that they were both issued by leaders he considers to be dictatorial), is offensive to those who support the government, precisely because it implies that we are betraying the sacrifice that was made, fighting the Nazi menace. In other words, I see nazi comparisons as a form of the rhetoric you mention. ie. "So and So is like the Nazi's. The nazi's are bad. (Our soldiers fought and died, he exterminated 6 million people, he terror bombed cities etc. etc.) How can you support someone who is like that?" In other words, my post re: why it was offensive, was just that. A post explaining that I thought his comparison was in very bad taste precisely because it implies as much. If Chris Erl had posted the arguments he had used later as his first post, I would not have been offended, despite my disagreement with his opinion. However, he attempted to short circuit debate and only later, upon realizing that this didn't work, did he attempt to argue his point in an intelligent manner.

up the punx lolol they should go on holiday forever amirite?

or at least stop torturing people.

Hi everyone,

I would like to remind users of the MacInsiders Code Of Conduct that we uphold in he MI community, especially sections 2, 5, and 6. While we welcome constructive debate here, users have different opinions and stances on government affairs and posting to cause offense to fellow MI members is not the purpose of this forum nor this thread. Keep discussion within the Code Of Conduct or the thread will be closed.

Thanks.