Monday, May 18, 2009

Iggy’s morally contemptible words?


Macleans has a ridiculous piece by Mark Steyn that professes to be about ”Iggy’s morally contemptible words” concerning a passage in his book, True Patriot Love, commenting on the freezing deaths of the two children through the neglect of their father on the Yellow Quill reservation in Saskatchewan. The point being made by Mark Steyn is an absurd one, however the person who brought it to my attention asked me to respond, which I will now do, with this:

Harper’s morally contemptible words:

Showing passion on the matter of two young children on the Yellow Quill reservation in Saskatchewan is hardly contemptible, although no doubt Mark Steyn seeks to make it so, in his convoluted way.

What is truly morally contemptible is the actions and words of Stephen Harper, during the 2006 election where he proclaimed far and wide that: “You know where the Liberals stand on raiding senior nest eggs, whether it is death taxes or taxing income trusts, a new Conservative government will never let this happen.”

This is so morally contemptible I don’t know where to start.

Morally contemptible for the use of the words “seniors nest eggs” in order to be as evocative as possible.

Morally contemptible for the use of the words “death taxes”, since no such move by the Liberals had ever been contemplated, thereby Harper engaged in false invocation.

Morally contemptible for the fact that Harper implied he was more virtuous than the Liberals

Morally contemptible
for the fact that Harper implies that the Liberals were even intending to tax income trusts, rather than simply having engaged in a public consultation to better understand the issue and engage those potentially affected.

Morally contemptible for the fact that Harper reversed this solemn promise a mere nine months later.

Morally contemptible for the fact that Harper appointed two known critics of the income trust tax in the Goodale consultative round were appointed by him to government honoraria appointments on November 2, 2006, presumably in an effort to silence them, namely Peter Brown CEO of Canaccord Capital to VANOC (Vancouver Olympic Committee) and Margaret Lefebve, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Income Funds to the National Research Council, despite the absence of any background in science?

Morally contemptible for the fact that unlike the Liberals who Harper had berated, he did not consult with the public before breaking his promise.

Morally contemptible for the fact that many people had voted for Harper for the sole reason of this policy position, which was key in securing him a minority victory.

Morally contemptible
for the fact that many people only decided it was safe to enter the income trust market and/or add to their exposure because of Harper’s solemn promise.

Morally contemptible for that fact that Harper succumbed to the lobbying of corporate executives to kill the income trust market as described by the Globe on November 2, 2006:

High-profile directors and CEOs, meanwhile, had approached Mr. Flaherty personally to express their concerns: Many felt they were being pressed into trusts because of their duty to maximize shareholder value, despite their misgivings about the structure. Paul Desmarais Jr., the well-connected chairman of Power Corp. of Canada, even railed against trusts in a conversation with Prime Minister Stephen Harper during a trip to Mexico.

Morally contemptible
for the fact that Harper never consulted the public before breaking this solemn promise, but had lots of time to be lobbied by only those who stood to benefit from such a policy reversal betrayal.

Morally contemptible
for the manner in which Harper and members of his Conservative minority government sought to avoid holding Public Hearings on the income trust matter, and when forced to do so by the Liberal Party and the Bloc, Harper conducted it in the manner of a kangaroo court and in accordance with his 200 page manual on how to render Parliamentary Committees useless, including allowing conflicted parties to give blatantly false testimony while at the same time berating members of the public who were giving true testimony and turning a blind eye to clear evidence of attempted witness tampering and having a Committee Chairman, Brian Pallister, in a clear conflict of interest as he owns and runs an Insurance Company that sells competing products to income trusts, namely Pallister Insurance and Financial Services.

Morally contemptible for the fact that Harper was unwilling to confront the pension plans, so he gave them a special carve out whereby they could own income trusts and not pay the 31.5% tax

Morally contemptible
for the fact that Harper also introduced Pension Income Splitting for Seniors and another means to buy off the pensions, and carve out a benefits that only benefits 14% of seniors

Morally contemptible
for the fact that these measure represent the introduction of a two tiered pension system in Canada.

Morally contemptible for the fact that many people, myself included, warned from the very outset that this tax would lead to a rash of foreign dominated takeovers of devalued trusts by way of leveraged buyouts that would cause the loss of major tax revenue to Ottawa and introduce a large amount of unhealthy debt into our economy.

Morally contemptible for the fact that when that very outcome occurred , the morally contemptible Jim Flaherty said “Its not my fault”.

Morally contemptible
for the fact that all five of the five provisions of the Ways and Means motion are totally false and actually resort to the false invocation of the most vulnerable members of our society by way of the false claim that it would “strengthen Canada's social security system for pensioners and seniors”, when no strengthening was even remotely possible and meanwhile these are the very people who lost $35 billion of their life savings

Morally contemptible for the fact that Harper completely abused Canada’s democratic process by introducing and passing a bill that was based on the COMPLETE fraud argument that income trusts cause tax leakage, a result that only arises by the MORALLY CONTEMPTIBLE act of manufacturing tax leakage by leaving out the taxes paid on the 38% of trusts held in RRSPs

Morally contemptible for the fact that such an analysis has zero theoretical or practical rationale associated with it, given that the Budget is performed on a basis that included these deferred taxes.

Morally contemptible
for the fact that this income trust lie by Harper had caused damage to EVERY taxpaying Canadian as the $100 billion in takeovers caused by this policy means that Ottawa has lost over $1 billion in annual tax revenue, a number that will increase to $7.5 billion a year, unless Harper admits his contemptible error, the equivalent of a 1.5% GST increase.

Morally contemptible for the very fact that the broken promise of never raiding seniors nest eggs was based on a false and fraudulent premise.


Morally contemptible for the fact that Harper wrapped up all these deceits and gross inequities into a policy whose name was the Orwellian "Tax Fairness Plan", s deceit if morally contemptible proportions, if ever there were morally contemptible words uttered by a politician, let alone be legislated into law.


Morally contemptible
for the fact that Harper is incapable of admitting error. Harper is contemptible and without any redeeming qualities, that aren’t themselves deserving of Canadians’ utter contempt for Harper as a person and for Harper as a policy maker/enforcer.

Morally contemptible
for the fact that Canada's main stream media is too lame and incompetent and too closely held to the bosom of their corporate masters to ever report on these acts of Harper's total contempt for democracy and the private property of Canadians, after years of working and contributing to Canada, in a way that Harper never has or ever will. Someone whom I hold in total moral contempt.

59 comments:

Dr Mike said...

What frosts my balls more than anything here is that this can all be cleared-up so easily if the gov`t would just present it`s facts behind the trust tax.

if what they say is true , then present the facts.

If what they say is true , the tax is a good one & all of us old truster farts will just have to suck it up & then go on our way.

If they are wrong & if they have just tossed us the biggest shaft ever tossed in the history of the world`s financial market s, then the lot of them must be fired.

The unfortunate thing is that with the way our government now works there is absolutely no way to make these guys be accountable.

Soft opposition parties & compliant media has sealed the fate.

And man , do I ever hate frosted balls.

Dr Mike Popovich

Bruce Benson said...

Brent, your article is right on the money. Oh, I like frosted flakes, not frosted balls.

Anonymous said...

yeah, suck it up and go on your way. I am amazed to discover this website, and your obsessive need to find someway to link it to you whining.
Keep crying, bozos, it's music to my ears.

Kenny said...

C A I T I - O N L I N E = morally contemptible ... and a joke as well.

Thanks for the laughs.

Anonymous said...

So basically you just make a drive-by declaration that Steyn's article was "ridiculous" and "absurd" and then fail to refute or even address any of the points raised by the article.

Wow, you sure showed him.

Colonel Neville said...

Dear Strawman: Riiight. Er, you took a left turn right after you said you'd answer Mark Steyn on point. Sadly, you never focus on a single thing Mark says and never counter with a single piece of evidence. Bravo.

Is left liberalism naturally logical fallacy sodden and entirly cognitive dissonant? Hell yes. Carry on then.

You are here: Any P.J O'Rourke book. zombietimecom roadsassycom drsanityblogspotcom dissectleftblogspotcom thepeoplescubecom bestobamafacts com pajamasmedia ejectejecteject. colonelrobertnevilleblogspot com marksteyn com[Left] Liberal Fascism J.Goldberg. Death Of The Grown-Up Diana West.

While Europe Slept Bruce Bawer, America Alone & Lights Out M.Steyn. Green Hell S.Milloy. Death Aid D. Moyo, The Dumbest Generation Mark Bauerlein. Why They Hate B.Gabriel. The Case Against Obama D.Fredosso

All the best mass produced Reader of the Day. Colonel Robert Neville blogspot com

Anonymous said...

WOW!
Brent I feel this is the best summation of the horrendous consequences of Harper/Flaherty's incompetent, immoral mismanagement of their Leadership duties and the stewardship of all Canadians financial health.

If there ever was a case of breech of Fiduciary duties, Harper/Flaherty's actions must surely rank as one of the most deliberate destructions of Canadian Citizens wealth, of all time.
For the first time I can begin to comprehend the true magnitude of their thoroughly contemptible natures, but I can never understand why they acted as they did, with malice aforethought, and an utter disregard for the truth, or any shred of human decency.
Please forward this on to every journalist on your list Brent. I'm sure the shocking scale of Harper/Flaherty's contemptibility, clearly spelled out in your list, will surely engender a sense of loathing in every reader, who will then be motivated to do everything they personally can, to get these utterly contemptible individuals thrown out of office at the earliest possible moment.

Thank you for opening my eyes.

With kindest regards,
Paul Muser

CAITI said...

Anonymous said...

"yeah, suck it up and go on your way. I am amazed to discover this website, and your obsessive need to find someway to link it to you whining.
Keep crying, bozos, it's music to my ears"

AREN'T WE BRAVE? ANONYMOUS YET!

Having just discovered this website, how can you possible make the "obsessive" argument?

CAITI said...

Kenny said

"C A I T I - O N L I N E = morally contemptible ... and a joke as well. "


Do you have anything to back up such an empty argument?

Iggy sux said...

Back to the point:

Iggy's words were morally contemptible.

What- he just happened to omit the fact that the man was tanked to the gills, with his daughters dressed only in diapers and T shirts when he stumbled outside into minus 40 temperatures??

It's the most hollow-sounding concern (or "passion" as you call it) that I've heard expressed by a member of the progressive elite.

Shite blog- you are pathetic.

CAITI said...

Anonymous said"

"So basically you just make a drive-by declaration that Steyn's article was "ridiculous" and "absurd" and then fail to refute or even address any of the points raised by the article.

Wow, you sure showed him."

Who says that I have to refute his arguments. I'm happy to let his arguments stand.

Meanwhile I am onto the topic of Harper's morally contemptible words.....or did you not notice?

As for Mark Steyn, I've never heard of the guy before.

Meanwhile. since you are such a big fan of "refuting", perhaps you'd like to take a hand at refuting some of my points....or not.

Dr Mike said...

Why is it that trust people are articulate in their posting & present their ideas in a well thought-out manner.

Hell they even use their own names.

Clowns like anonymous , is that a first name or last , could not debate themselves let alone any of us.

Responding to those who refuse to use their own name is like kissing your sister.

Now that sucks.

Dr Mike Popovich

Ps--at least with Iggy sux we know who he is ---thank you Mr sux

Marcus said...

"As for Mark Steyn, I've never heard of the guy before."

Can't tell if you’re being facetious. Unlikely though, as progressives have no detectable sense of humor.

You're his "reader of the day"- enjoy your 15 minutes while it lasts.

http://www.steynonline.com/

Andrea said...

I started to read your article, but then realized that your so called response to Mark Steyn didn't even involve addressing the issues raised in his article.

Seriously, what were you thinking when you came up with this partisan diatribe? If you actually address the points made in Steyn's article, I would be happy to read it.

If you are going to accuse someone of writing a ridiculous article you should be prepared to defend your assessment of said article. Your lack of argument leaves the reader to conclude that your position is indefensible.

CAITI said...

Marcus:

I get my "fame" from more credible sources than some link from David Steyn's lame blog;

To wit:

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2009/april/20/fullard/

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?full_path=2009/may/11/fullard/&display=story

http://www.winnipegsun.com/comment/2009/04/07/9033436-sun.html

CAITI said...

Andrea said...

" I started to read your article, but then realized that your so called response to Mark Steyn didn't even involve addressing the issues raised in his article."

That's because it wasn't a response to Mark Steyn's article.....duh? \

Who really cares about the point that Mark Steyn was attempting to make, as microscopic and nitpicking as it was?

Anonymous said...

"I get my "fame" from more credible sources than some link from David Steyn's lame blog;"
--------------

You can't even get Mark Steyn's name right, let alone refute his argument.

This must have been the crassest non sequitur I've sighted in a long while, launching into a diatribe about money from an article on the moral blindness of liberals who blame society for the criminal negligence of a father responsible for the deaths of his two little daughters.

It reads like: "enough of two dead toddlers, the REAL moral imbecile is a Prime Minister who cost me money!"

The reason people sign as anonymous is that they don't want even their handle on such a morally benighted blog.

Ben Purcell said...

Gee- you you really are famous KATIE.

Much more so than "David" Steyn.

CAITI said...

Keep it coming anonymous....the entire universe can be explained by Mark Steyn's. David Steyn's whomever's rant about these two children who died their needless deaths on the Yellow Quill reservation in Saskatchewan and the nuances of how that tragic event was interpreted by Michael Ignatieff......huh?

Hey, on the larger point being made on this blog... it just occurred to me, there's a connection here...contemptible... conservatives...con artists.

Geoff said...

"Nuances" of the children's deaths??

It is you who is morally contemptible, CAITI.

I just feel dirty clicking on this link.

CAITI said...

Geoff:

That's right nuances....these two girls froze to death. There's nothing nuanced about that. Whether their father was drunk or stoned...that's the nuance that Iggu Sux seems to think this whole matters turns on when he pointed out this:

"What- he [Iggy] just happened to omit the fact that the man was tanked to the gills, with his daughters dressed only in diapers and T shirts when he stumbled outside into minus 40 temperatures??"

Sholto Douglas said...

This is pretty weak, Caiti. You start off by saying you will ‘respond’ to Steyn’s ‘ridiculous’ article, then go off on a complete non-sequitor about Harper and nest eggs - ¿Qué?
Steyn made a very good point about the ruinous effects of welfare and boredom on Aboriginal communities, something that Iggy conveniently overlooked. It’s exactly the same with our Aboriginal communities here in Australia – 40 odd years of welfare, supposedly so they could live apart and maintain their own culture, have merely completed their conversion to white low life culture. An act worthy of condemnation by Steyn or anyone else, and made worse by the insistence of the white chatterati that we continue these appalling policies.
Another point – I know many financial types myself, and none of them would espouse views like yours. Who do you represent? Sounds to me like you have hijacked a respectable sounding website and are using it to spout your nonsense. Nice work if you can get it, but are the other members of the association consulted about this?

Anonymous said...

"there's a connection here...contemptible... conservatives...con artists"

Yeah. That ad hominem "connection" is brought to you by the same "brain" that made a sordid connection between an article discussing the death of two little girls at the hands of their drunken father and the dent made in Caiti's wallet by a changed government policy.

So far it sounds more like free association than any connection. How does it work...CAiti, CAllous, CAviller?

Andrea said...

"That's because it wasn't a response to Mark Steyn's article.....duh? "

well if it wasn't intended as a response to Steyn's article perhaps you should consider omitting the first paragraph of your rant altogether. In my non-Orwellian worldview, I intend to take a person at their word when they say they are are going to reply to the "ridiculous" article published in Macleans.

And by the way, I have too much on the go right now, but I do recall speaking to a tax professor about a year and a half ago about the income trust thing. This was a non-partisan guy and he argued that the taxing of income trusts was in fact necessary.

I just may revisit this ridiculous sight in the future with more detail on that.

As an aside, how old are you?Because I kind of feel like I am communicating with an adolescent, and that makes me feel..well..kind of slimy.

CAITI said...

Sholto Douglas:

That's correct, "respond" as in respond in kind to what I consider Harper's morally contemptible words...which is what "the person who brought it to my attention asked me to respond"....but then you didn't hear what that person asked me to respond to, did you?

Meanwhile, concerning your dismissal of the points I am making as being "none of them would espouse views like yours".....maybe that's because being resident in Australia you have no idea what this income trust issue is about, or maybe you do but don't want to acknowledge it.

CAITI said...

Andrea:

I suggest you read the comment above to Sholto Douglas, which was:

That's correct, "respond" as in respond in kind to what I consider Harper's morally contemptible words...which is what "the person who brought it to my attention asked me to respond" to....but then you didn't hear what that person asked me to respond to, did you?

Sholto Douglas said...

Caiti, if I mistook what you were asked to respond to, it’s because your first paragraph was very unclear on the matter, misleading even. Read it again.
I readily admit that what I don’t know about Canadian income trusts could fill libraries, and I wasn’t commenting on your arguments there (although your logic elsewhere cannot but leave doubt). But why the irrelevant drive-by swipe at Steyn’s comments on a totally different matter? You might as well have taken a potshot at the Chelsea Flower Show, or overfishing of the Patagonian Toothfish.
However it was a pretty sharp move – this must be the biggest spike your blog has ever had. Make the most of it!

Anonymous said...

oh, CAITI has made the most of it alright, I think most folks who bothered to read the post have put CAITI-ONLINE on "ignore" status.

What juvenile tripe.

Dr Know said...

Someone was let out of the asylum for the long weekend.

That's nice.

Dr Mike said...

Anonymous said :

" The reason people sign as anonymous is that they don't want even their handle on such a morally benighted blog."

Sounds like a high level of lameness of ass & weakness of mind to me.

Someone who has no facts or is at least afraid to display them.

Someone who is but a white bed sheet & a burning cross away from my greatest fear.

I was a Con for over 36 years & I know from where you are coming.

Dr Mike Popovich

William said...

I'm sorry, but this post is totally bizarre. You say you "will respond" to Steyn's article, on which I am willing to be persuaded, but you then proceed to say not one single about it. What on earth do you think the word "respond" actually means? Also, if you think the obscure provincial newspaper you cite has greater name recognition than the internationally famous/infamous columnist and non-blogger Mark Steyn, I can only tell you that you're a lot less well informed than you seem to believe.

Dr Mike said...

Mark me as uninformed.

Who the hell is Mark Steyn??

I had not heard of him until this blog article & I have since checked-out his site which seems "ok" at best.

I will contact him & ask him the questions that Mr Fullard has posed re : income trusts.

I will be interested in what facts he will present to back-up his case.

Only thing I can be sure of right now , is that the there will probably be a few more than his "faithful" have presented here.

Dr Mike Popovich

CAITI said...

William:

I will respond in any fasion that I wish......sorry to have dashed yor hopes that I would respond to the points being made by Steyn in his piece of arcane nonsense in which he devotes an entire rant to what amounted to (what?) soem 12 words that Iggy spoke, the consequence of which was (what?) nothing?

Meanwhile I chose to respond by pointing out what I consider to be Harper's morally contemptible words, which is what the person who wrote to me asked me to do....after he read this piece by this guy.....Mark Steyn.....whomever the hell that is?.....or is it David Steyn?......maybe it's Phylis Steyn?

Dr Mike said...

A Philistine "demands that the rest of mankind should fashion its mode of existence after his own"

The PhiliSteve Party of Canada??????????

Dr Mike

Andrea said...

Well any chance you may have had on persuading anyone on the income trusts issue has been squandered.

What juvenile responses to well deserved criticisms. "I will respond any way I want" "duh"

Seriously I am surprised the person writing the blog is old enough to have any money to be concerned about.

Just a hint, it is a good idea to have your introdcutory paragraph related to the topic that you plan to discuss. It is supposed to introduce your topic.

As for "Dr Mike", why would you write to Mark Steyn about income trusts? To my knowledge, he hasn't ever written on the matter. It was CAITI that irrationally made any connection between the two.

CAITI said...

Andrea:

You are obviously one of Phylis Steyn's ardent phollowers:

From Wkipedia:

Philistinism is a derogatory term used to describe a particular attitude or set of values. A person called a Philistine (in the relevant sense), is said to despise or undervalue art, beauty, intellectual content, and/or spiritual values. Philistines are also said to be materialistic, to favor conventional social values unthinkingly, and to favour forms of art that have a cheap and easy appeal (e.g. kitsch).

Philistinism affords a contrast to Bohemianism, as the character of a smugly conventional bourgeois social group perceived to lack all the desirably soulful 'bohemian' characteristics, especially an artistic temperament and a broad cultural horizon open to the avant-garde. To the chosen few, the 'Philistines' embodied a smug, anti-intellectual threatening majority, in the 'culture wars' of the 19th century.

Goethe had several comments on the type. "The Philistine not only ignores all conditions of life which are not his own but also demands that the rest of mankind should fashion its mode of existence after his own", and "What is a philistine? A hollow gut, full of fear and hope that God will have mercy!"

Jonathan Swift applied the term to a gruff bailiff in a lawsuit, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan applied the term to one of his characters, 'that bloodthirsty Philistine, Sir Lucius O'Trigger,' in The Rivals, 1775, but 'Philistine' really came to have its modern English secondary meaning, of a person deficient in the culture of the Liberal Arts beginning in the 1820s.

Matthew Arnold was the champion of Victorian 'high culture' countering the forces of the Philistines. In his Essays in Criticism (1865) he pointed out (in his essay on the German poet Heinrich Heine) that "'Philistine' must have originally meant, in the mind of those who invented the nickname, a strong, dogged, unenlightened opponent of the children of the light." In fact German students applied it to the long-suffering townspeople of university towns. In another context Arnold wrote, 'The people who believe most that our greatness and welfare are proved by our being very rich... are just the very people whom we call the Philistines.' From his example, 'Philistine' passed into the enlightened liberal's armament of cultural scorn.

Philistines can be described and defined from both positive and negative viewpoints.

Dr Mike said...

Andrea

Mark Steyn seems to be a knowledgeable guy on many diverse subjects & as such I would value his opinion re: income trust tax as it relates to the Tax Fairness Plan & "tax leakage".

Just because he has not written on the subject does not mean that he would not have a valuable opinion as this subject affects everyone in this country & not just those who invested directly.

I am sure you must have an opinion.

Please let us know what it is & give proof to back-up your points.

I am anxious to hear your response.

Dr Mike Popovich

Anonymous said...

"Someone who has no facts or is at least afraid to display them.

Someone who is but a white bed sheet & a burning cross away from my greatest fear.

I was a Con for over 36 years & I know from where you are coming.

Dr Mike Popovich"

"Dr" (let's hope that's not true) Mike may have been a Con as in convict or con-artist but he certainly was not remotely a conservative unless it was purely fiscal. No one abandons decades of common sense to start jumping from an innocuous comment to burning crosses. Is that you Hedy Fry? That kind of racist paranoia where everything including the weather is related to race dwells on the left.

That's the second bizarre non sequitur on this thread. Abandon logic, all who enter here.

Dr Mike said...

Anonymous

Let`s clear this up once & for all--who are you & what do you want.

You are the one who lives in fear of the truth or you would leave your real name.

This blog is neither Conservative or Liberal , Dipper or Green--we are here to fight for the rights of the trust investor--that`s it , nada thing else.

Do you support the trust tax & why.

You sound like you may have all the facts , so let`s hear them.

Our simple effort is only to remove the trust tax because we have the proof that it was all a scam & a lie based upon what we now know to be a false premise.

Show your stuff---let us know your name---show us the way.

Dr Mike Popovich (retired--yes it is really true)
Rodney Ont

R Clarkson said...

This CAITI post is, quite simply, morally contemptible. The cynical manipulation of the tragic death of these children in order to inexplicably segue into a diatribe of picayune complaints against Harper for making their wallet thinner is beneath contempt.

As for Dr Mike Popovich, who wrote:
"Who the hell is Mark Steyn??
I had not heard of him until this blog article & I have since checked-out his site which seems "ok" at best.
I will contact him & ask him the questions that Mr Fullard has posed re : income trusts.
I will be interested in what facts he will present to back-up his case."

I fervently hope that the good doctor is not in the medical field. It would appear from his postings that, were he to require a consult for a patient's kidney disorder he would likely call Dr. Dawg.

"Someone who is but a white bed sheet & a burning cross away from my greatest fear."

Then again, I suspect that the "doctor" also lays claim to the title Napoleon when he's off his meds.

Robert Clarkson

Dr Mike said...

Hey Robert

Thanks for using your name---that pisses me off to no end when people do not have the cojones to back themselves.

Our goal is the abolition of the trust tax---nothing else.

We have had no luck convincing the gov`t otherwise as they will not listen to reason.

Since it`s imposition the country is losing over a billion a year in tax revenue---this will climb to over 7 billion per year in 2011---all because of the trust tax.

Seniors cannot adequately fund their retirements because of the loss of revenue because of this tax.

Our assets are being sold-off to foreign & private interests as a direct result of this tax.

It is a bad tax.

Now prove me wrong.

Dr Mike Popovich

Bruce Benson said...

Wow, where did all these assholes come from? Fresh out of the asylum I suspect. Brent I am surprised you even took the time to respond to these idiots who are clearly out of their element. Brain dead and nothing to back up any of their lame arguments. Amazing eh!

R clarkson said...

Gentlemen,

Dissenting commenters are not, repeat not, commenting in any way, shape or form on income trusts. They do not take issue or sides with income trusts. They are commenting only on the inexplicable link of income trusts with the tragic deaths, some would say murder, of innocent children.

I have no dog in the income trust fight. I have little interest in the income trust issue. I have no interest in debating the merits, pro or con, of the income trust issue.

Debate the income trust issue to your heart's content. Write letters to your member of parliament about income trusts. Present facts to your heart's content about income trusts. Organize a rally and block the Gardiner Expressway to protest the income trust decision. Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper about income trusts. Organize a local chapter of Income Trust Anonymous. Worry about income trust dissenters wearing white sheets and burning crosses on your lawn if it pleases you. Buy billboards to express your discontent with income trust legislation. In short, feel free to make income trust legislation the defining issue in your life if you wish. Some or many of the posters here may even agree with your position on income trusts.

Just have the decency not to use the deaths of innocent children as the vehicle for expressing your discontent.

CAITI said...

Anonymous R clarkson said...

"Just have the decency not to use the deaths of innocent children as the vehicle for expressing your discontent."

And just who is doing that, apart from the Apostle Mark Steyn, David Steyn. Phylis Steyn or whatever his/he name is?

CAITI said...

Anonymous the anonymous wimp said:

"
That's the second bizarre non sequitur on this thread. Abandon logic, all who enter here."

So now I am responsible for the readers' comments as well as the readers' false hopes that I had any intention of debating the merits of Steyn's diatribe on Ignatieff, despite the fact that wasn't what I was tasked to do by the person who brought Steyn's rant to my attention?

You people are pathetic, and a bunch of die hard philistines, but you sure put up lame arguments that are easily dispensed with, as you are the one's who have abandoned all logic.

tdotTim said...

I curse Mark Steyn for leading me to blogs that fail in such epic proportions...although it does often have the comedic value of watching a good Christopher Guest character.

boredblogger said...

Message to Mark Steyn, if you read this:

Can we PLEASE have a new reader of the day?

This one is a dumb, self-absorbed philistine. Boring too.

As someone pointed out- let out of the mental home for the weekend.

Thanks.

CAITI said...

tdotTIm:

You're right. This Steyn guy seems like a master at failed expectations.

CAITI said...

Boredblogger:

Are you sure your handle shouldn't be confusedblogger, as you are the philistines in this crowd, as in phylis steyn's, which is the point I made a long. long time ago, when this Steyn person led all his phollowers to this site.

The locusts that you all are.

Re: "Can we PLEASE have a new reader of the day?"

Yes indeed....PLEASE!

Why don't you leave by mutual consent, and ask your leader to get a new "whatever of the day", so he can direct your vitriol somewhere else where it has the hope of serving some end purpose?

boredblogger said...

Oh, I do so like that I pissed you off.

Goodbye.

William said...

You waved around your contributions to the Winnipeg Sun and the Hill Times (neither of which I've heard of, not being Canadian) in the apparent expectation that people are going to be impressed. Which I suppose is fair enough, up to your own point. However, it behoves you to extend the same courtesy to Mark Steyn. He's written not only for Macleans, but for the Times of London, The Daily Telegraph, The Spectator, The National Review, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post and The Australian, just going off the top of my head. It doesn't follow that you have to admire his work, but you should realise that your ignorance of him is just that - ignorance. It's in your own interests to recognise that this "whomever the hell that is" stuff, coming from someone as obscure as yourself, just makes you look stupid - and not just to the more obnoxious members of Mark Steyn's cheer squad.

CAITI said...

William:

I case you didn't know this, a truly ignorant person is one who does not admit to what they don't know. A good example would be PM Stephen Harper or FM Jim Flaherty when it comes to financial matters.

Sorry you feel the prurient need to vilify me because I haven't heard of this Mark Steyn (your deity) dude.

In case you didnt know it, there are 6 billion people on this planet engaged in many walks of life.

Not knowing who Mark Steyn is, my FIRST reaction was to find out more. Upon reading Wikipedia I realized I hadnt missed out on much and that Mark Steyn would probably be one of the last one hundred thousand of six billion people on this earth that I would want to know or talk to or learn of his opinions on what constitutes contemptible versus non-contemptible.

As for you, have a nice day:

From Wikipedia:

"Steyn's writing draws supporters and detractors for content. His style was described by Robert Fulford as “bring[ing] to public affairs the dark comedy developed in the Theatre of the Absurd."[4] Longtime editor and admirer Fulford also wrote, "Steyn, a self-styled 'right-wing bastard,' violates everyone's sense of good taste."[4] According to Simon Mann, Steyn “gives succour to the maxim the pen is mightier than the sword, though he is not averse to employing the former to advocate use of the latter."[3]

Susan Catto in Time noted his interest in controversy, "Instead of shying away from the appearance of conflict, Steyn positively revels in it."[5] Canadian journalist Steve Burgess wrote "Steyn wields his rhetorical rapier with genuine skill" and that national disasters tended to cause Steyn "to display his inner wingnut."[6] Lionel Shriver wrote, "I love Mark Steyn ...however you may deplore his opinions, Steyn is funny." [7]

Others have been less approving. For instance, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic wrote that Steyn was, "...long on colorful rhetoric but short on dry facts."[8] British journalist Johann Hari wrote in the New Statesman: "Steyn's prose has a jangling musicality; like Ann Coulter, he writes in a demonic demotic that makes you chuckle even as you retch."[9]"

CAITI said...

boredblogger said...

" Oh, I do so like that I pissed you off."

I guess that makes you an irritating idiot, just like your deity Phylis Steyn.....the goal of whom is apparemtly to piss off others.

Quite the goal in life to have? Keep up the good work. Not.

William said...

Okay. You don't know who the most famous columnist in your own country is, you don't know what "respond" means, you don't what "vilify" means, and you describe a person who I have made it very clear I'm ambivalent about as my "deity". You know, apparently, about income trusts and nothing else, and I don't have high hopes for your conclusions even on this subjects. You are, in short, a fucking idiot (okay, NOW I've vilified you).

CAITI said...

William:

No it is you who do not understand the meaning of the word "respond". I will respond in any manner that I wish and not simply on the basis that was falsely created in your mind by "most famous columnist in your own country is".

By the way, how can someone qualify as "most famous columnist in your own country is", when the residents of MY COUNTRY have never heard of this guy before?

What else do you want to tell me about a country that I was borne in, that I would never dare or deign to tell you about your country of Australia.

You people are a bunch of Mark Steyn Phylis Steyn's.

As for your sad comment and claimn that all I know about is income trusts, is just further proof of your philistine mindset (an argument in terms).

William said...

"I case you didn't know this, a truly ignorant person is one who does not admit to what they don't know."

The reason I didn't know that is that it isn't true. Add that to my list of words you don't know the meaning of. The Oxford English Dictionary, which is rather more authoritative than Wikipedia, defines "ignorant" as "lacking knowledge; uninformed". You in a nutshell.

CAITI said...

William:

I repeat:

"In case you didn't know this, a truly ignorant person is one who does not admit to what they don't know."

In that case, your ingorance is boundless.

CAITI said...

it was this statement by Steyn that prompted me to bring up the Income Trust Tax issue with Brent

"…. this may be the most morally contemptible statement by a Canadian party leader since Confederation. (I’d be interested in alternative bids for that title, if you know of any. ….)"

Remove that statement and you are quite right; there is absolutely no connection between Steyn's column and the IT tax issue. However, he did make the statement, and I found it just as offensive as Steyn claims to find Ignatieff's. Iggy's statement is a single paragraph of no particular prominence out of a book, and it's impact will be somewhere between zero and trivial. Harper's statement was a significant commitment made repeatedly and emphatically, subsequently shown to have been made without any real commitment, and he knew (or ought to have known) that his failure to follow through on that commitment would cause substantial economic damage to many people, as in fact it did. Iggy's statement is a pimple, Harper's was a tumor.

As for Chretien and his GST promise, I would make a couple of distinctions. Chretien promised to do something and didn't do it whereas Harper promised not to do something and then did it. And personally I never believed Chretien would scrap the GST, while I did believe (to my cost) that Harper would keep his word. But these are quibbles. I agree that Chretien can also be judged as making a morally contemptible statement, and one far worse than Iggy's.

But nowhere near as bad as Harper's.

TeRoth

Dr Mike said...

TeRoth

Two thumbs up & 5 gold stars.

That should be that!!!!!!!!!!

Goodbye jerks.

Dr Mike