From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Death of Canada (Was: Death of America)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:32:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.213802.7446@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>>
>>>Hey, I didn't put that tax in! (-;  Those socialist Tories took out 
>>>the Manufacturer's Tax, put in the GST ... there was a swap ... the
>>>two taxes were tied together ... with a clumsy, overnight change.
>>
>>thank you for changing your mind.  ... now you are trying
>>to distance yourself from it.
>
>Not at all!  Check it out" "there was a swap ... the two taxes were
>tied together".

oh right. was the swap made before or after you tried to defend
it two days ago? sheesh. would you like some more rope?

>>how can they not "pry it loose"? does brian have it sitting in a safe
>>at home? isn't this the same government that wrote the bloody bill?
>
>I haven't had a chance to check out the budget process yet; gotta
>get elected first! (-;  Then it's off to Dack's for a new pair of
>shoes ... without stopping off for gas on the way.

why Gary! you don't have to be elected! you just have to
tell us how you actually believe that the same government
which wrote a bill expropriating money could also not "pry it loose"!
are they morons? or are they lying? which is it Gary?

>[News Quiz: Can anyone explain what the two parts of at last sentence
>mean?]

boy, what next? am i going to have to tie your shoelaces for you?
you said they could not "pry it loose". i suggested that maybe
they couldn't pry it loose because mulroney took it home 
and put it in a safe. i thought humor was your strong point?

>>>David Stockman wrote something like that in his book about the time he
>>>had spent in the Office of Management and Budget.  Ronnie and the gang
>>>couldn't figure out what to cut but each made sure that their own ox
>>>wasn't gored ... they got out of that one by borrowing ... Dave quit.
>>
>>that you would quote those two proves my point, n'est-ce pas?
>>couldn't have said it better myself. you want me to write *you* 
>>in to take care of the deficit?
>
>Oh, that was the Reagan test ... when it was morning in America, they
>were going to go in with axes and swords and slash that pork ....

unlike pierre trudeau and brian mulroney, right?
(you don't know how it hurts to put them together, where they belong)
you *really* think you're fooling us. amazing.

>>>>so i tell you what. keep your precious universal health care.
>>>>but recognize the incredible price you are paying for living
>>>>in a socialist country.
>>>
>>>Fine, let's look at a sample of the federal socialist hit list ...
>>>Diefenbaker (Conservative), Pearson (Liberal), Trudeau (Liberal),
>>>Clark (Conservative), Mulroney (Conservative) ... and some longtime
>>>provincial premiers (3+ terms): Lougheed (Alberta, Conservative),
>>>Bourassa (Quebec, Liberal), Davis (Ontario, Conservative), ...
>>
>>or is your position "20 leading political figures can't be wrong"?
>>"4 out of 5 politicians recommend socialism?"
>>is that it? that's all ya got? what is this, a toothpaste commercial?
>>
>>leaving aside the obvious point that i never wrote that list, you did.
>>i never claimed all those people were socialists. 
>
>Yes, but you were declaring Canada's "socialism" and I wanted to
>illustrate who was influential in bringing about that "socialism".
>A lot of Americans and other non-Canadians landing in the middle of
>this are probably wondering if we did have 20 or more years of NDP
>("Labour") in Ottawa, Quebec City, Toronto, Victoria, etc.  This
>list of our most influential political figures suggests otherwise.

i am talking about the way it is now. my parents were at sock hops when
diefenbaker was PM. who cares? did *he* run up the deficit in 1957?

your argument is *still* nothing more than "we have had so
many leaders, they couldn't all be socialist". why not? because you
said so? couldn't just *some* have been more socialist than others?
couldn't 90% of them have been socialist and you threw in the extra
10% knowing full well that they were the exception, in another lame
attempt to default your way out of a losing argument?

>>>Omigod -- marxists marxists everywhere! (-; (-; (-;
>>and i never equated socialism and marxism. those are all *your* words.
>
>Okay, I didn't realize that you differentiated between the two ...
>usually the ultraconservative and libertarian wings don't so far as
>I've seen in the past in this forum and elsewheres ...

so tell us Gary, do you believe in "from each according to his ability
to each according to his need"?

>>>Northern Telecom has not pulled its bluff to move.  In fact, they have
>>>stopped making those noises altogether lately ... I never did think
>>>that they were serious, but I had my worries when I was working with
>>>them ...
>>
>>i didn't know about that.
>>
>>that they would even *hint* at it is dangerous enough. do you
>>have any idea how bad it would be if they did move? can't you
>>see a warning sign even when it smacks you right in the face?
>
>As an insider, we figured that the company was lobbying for tax breaks
>and concessions.  It's not unique, nor will they be the last ones ...
>It's just that with labs in the U.S. and Canada, and with Varity (it
>was formerly Massey-Ferguson) making moves and actually crossing the
>border (with less than favourable results, including a couple of key
>execs who couldn't get health insurance for themselves or because of
>a family member and had to quit), you had to wonder.

more deception for our american audience. how can you compare M-F/varity,
which has been in financial dire straits for years, with Northern 
Telecom, a pillar of canadian business and a major employer?

and tell me this.. what kind of society is it that a company
like NT has to threaten to leave the country to get tax breaks
(assuming you have your facts straight, which is giving you
more benefit of the doubt than you have earned). oh, right,
it's NT's fault, because the "canadian business establishment"
has the government by the balls, right? well if they have them
by the balls its probably because they are finally fed up and
are saying "if you keep it up, we're outta here" and the
government is getting scared. did you ever think that maybe
the tax rules were the problem?

>>that the canadian business council came down to harvard business school
>>this year to practically *beg* canadian business students to come back
>>to canada "because the country needs them", in true socialist fashion?
>
>The Canadian Business Council is socialist?  Then is the Chamber of
>Commerce? (-;

i was there, Gary, don't give me more of your crap. 
they paraded a whole bunch of top executives to talk about how
wonderful things were, and how "needed" young business grads were.
never *once* did they state any economic reasons why we should go
back. one student raised his hand and said "i want to start a 
manufacturing business. compared to ontario, upstate new york
is cheaper, labor costs are lower, housing costs are lower,
taxes are lower, labor laws are more favorable, on and on...
why should i set up shop in ontario?"
basically the same questions i am asking you.

and this "business leader" replies: "well, that's ok, if you want
to live in Buffalo" (chuckle chuckle).
well, Buffalo-bashing is a popular sport in toronto, but that's not much
of an answer, is it?
at least you have company.

am i still not making any points?

>>let's try some simple logic here. current canadian fiscal policy
>>is *grossly* irresponsible (i dare you to refute it). you are "not
>>for such drastic and sweeping changes" as me, when all i want is the
>>systematic elimination of the deficit, which *would* be fiscally
>>responsible. therefore, as far as i am concerned, you are NOT an
>>advocate of fiscal responsibility. simple as that. prove me wrong.
>
>Whoa!  Was I disagreeing with elimination of the deficit?  Not so!

well? exactly what "drastic and sweeping changes" are you not for then,
since you just *assumed* that you knew which ones *i* was for?

>>>for Charles, I'm just a socialist and that's that ...
>>
>>that's right. you've admitted as much.
>
>Okay, I'll be burning my Wall Street Journal after I finish with
>it ... (-;

what, Gary? more "proof by circumstantial evidence"?

if i read a copy of "Woman's Day", will i grow breasts?

is that your most cogent argument against my theory that
you are a socialist?

--
charles