Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Oops, I stand corrected. Thank you for being so inclusive!

   

Er, I don't think the seat projection is accurate, Scape. Even if it is though, I'm wondering how losing two seats can be construed as a major loss?

   

Lies/statistics.

That pretty much sums up everything, doesn't it Burns?

You on the Left bleat on about global warming and how science is on your side, yet when the same statistical methodologies are shown to contradict your dogma, you call them "lies."

You're no better than the global warming deniers. Dogma and ideology are what matters to you, not empiricism. You'll take empiricism when it supports your ideological bent, but empiricism contradicts your worldview, its "lies". Belief systems, not scientific methodologies, are what matters. You and the creationists have more in common than you think.

Like I said, its no wonder Canadians don't trust the NDP in power.

EDIT - And as for my livelihood, I make a pretty good one because I understand the flaws in the statistics, something you seem unable to discern.

   

   

Here's some empiricism for you, Toro. The guys you support have consistently put policies into place that have hurt average people while helping the very wealthy and mega-corporations.

That was pretty clear in the numbers that Monte quoted, it's pretty clear in the failure of the policies of George Bush, it's pretty clear in the policy failures of the World Bank. We can look to South America, Africa, and Asia to see the failure of your ideology, Toro. We don't have to though, we can just look right here at home instead.

How many spin-off positions does creating yet another position as a rig pig create? Not counting crack dealers and guys who sell their urine to get others through the drug testing, I mean.

Now how many spin off jobs does a hi-tech R&D position create? A union manufacturing job building what R&D designs?

Okay, next question. What's the biggest single indicator of an individual's wealth? Why it's education. You'll notice that the Conservative government isn't big on education. In fact they love to denigrate the educated as being out of touch...egg-headed academics living in ivory towers.

.

   

Trying to link me with global warming deniers and creationists clearly demonstrates your irrational state of mind as well as the bankruptcy of your argument. Claiming that "Dogma and ideology are what matters to you, not empiricism", is a pathetic lie and can be clearly proved to be a lie by my many comments here and on Vive. I have posted may times on the subject of climate change and demonstrated not only my concern for science over dogma but my grasp of the science involved.


Don't try that sophomoric sophistry with me. I have no quarrel with statistical methodologies. That's a red herring, but typical of your fishy style of rhetoric.

I have a quarrel with the conclusions that you draw from the statistics that you choose to support your arguments. I also have a huge problem with your self-serving and heartless values.

Now wipe away the tears and find the number for Rageaholics Anonymous. They probably have meetings in your neighbourhood. Take advantage of them.

   

They don't, it's just that they are inundated with the untruths that people like Toro spread.

During most election campaigns, and I haven't seen it this time but it will likely happen, somebody runs a blind poll that lets people vote on policy without knowing which party that policy belongs too. The NDP come out on top pretty consistently, with the Liberals running second and the Conservatives at the bottom.

   

Screw the NDP, and screw unions. All unions do is protect lazy people. BTDT

   

You use the scientific method only when it supports your dogma and conveniently dismiss it when it contradicts it.

That makes you an ideologue first and an empiricist a distant second. The fact that you post articles on the statistics of global warming yet refute it in economics just reinforces that fact. If you have a problem with the statistics, then address that issue but not once have you.



Quit with your clueless and smarmy self-righteousness.

   

Clueless and smarmy self-righteousness? You belong to a cult built on the false premise that infinite growth can occur with limited space and resources, Toro. Worse yet, you pretend that economics is a science.

If economics was a science the core theory of the branch you worship has been disproved and must be discarded. You don't do that though. Instead, like a television preacher caught with his pants down, you shift and weave and dodge and evade.

You discard any data that you find inconvenient, Toro. Wage stagnation? Doesn't matter to you because it doesn't fit your ideology. Polarization of wealth? Doesn't matter as long as Toro gets his. Environmental destruction? Doesn't matter to you because acknowledging it might limit corporate profits. Child poverty? You don't care about that because you know that eventually you can turn them into low wage workers.

Now Monte has presented data that you cannot refute and you claim that it isn't valid. Why isn't valid? Well because it doesn't fit the religious tenets of Toro's little cult. Do you have a greater explanation? Well, not one that those who don't worship your greed god would understand.

What you push isn't economics, Toro, it's the religious worship of greed. It's doctrine is about as scientific and fact-based as Stockwell Day's understanding of evolutionary theory.

   

There are so many things and assumptions that are ignorant and wrong in that post Blair, I'm not even going to respond. Its too boring and exhausting dealing with you. At least Burns has an inkling.

As for Burns, go back to that thread he references where I discuss his mercantilist argument.

And as for the OP, it comes from a left-wing economist. So just keep erecting straw men.

   

Because they would then be doing worse than expected. Right now Jack is playing ads stating he is running to be PM. That has about as much feasibility as Dion being a rugged outdoors man or Harper being touchy/feely. The expectation has risen so much that the NDP are pulling even but polls are not elections. When the ballots are counted and the NDP does not replace the Liberals but loses more seats then they will have lost face with their base. To me that would be a major loss. Now Dion could still gaff it up and blow this and if so those votes will go to Jack but so far he hasn't done that.

   

Straight out of the Rove playbook! Mis-quote and mis-state the facts to make it appear that your opponent is being unreasonable.

Let me re-state: I do not have a problem with the statistics. I have a problem with your conclusions.



You need to work on your reading comprehension.

And, for the coup de grace, you know damn well I have posted buckets of statistics during our numerous duels on the issues of global/US/Canadian healthcare spending and, in fact, statistics on income in this very thread.

Thanks for giving me one more opportunity to post this one more time:

   

Your excuse, Toro, is what most people call 'running scared'

   

Er...I am the NDP base, Scape. We've assumed that our leader was running for PM since it was the CCF and wondered why they didn't say so. Oh, we knew we weren't going to win those elections, but the reason to head a national political party is to become PM. So whether Layton loses two seats or gains 200 (man that'd be cool), it won't change the amount of "face" he has with long-time supporters.




Running away already, Toro?

If your theory is correct, then the poor have been getting richer since 1980. That's not the case in Canada, that's not the case in the US, and it's not the case in the developing world.

The places in the developing world where average people have done better is where they've ignored the advice of your pals in the World Bank and acted on their own.

You now must discard your theory and create a new one that fits the existing data.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next