Thursday, July 29, 2010

Stephen vs Mike on Power and Politics

It was great to see two of my friends debate on Power and Politics even if if it was on the cbc.( watch at 13:49) It was a friendly debate, but I am more on side with Stephen, though Mike makes some good points.

Stephen and Mike from roy eappen on Vimeo.


tao_taier said...

Holy crap does he not get that the conservatives have been in minority with socialist parties?

He needs to drop the chip on his shoulder.

He doesn't even grasp that the Province and municipal levels of government handled the bulk of policing at the G20. And still tries to justifiy his misplace indignation.

The guy is worried about a "police" state during a few days in a small part of the country during an important event but doesn't see the bigger picture of what went on.

[blah blah blah warning]
The Conservatives aren't interested in creating a police state since any "need" for such a thing becomes obsolete when you attack crime at its source through introducing free market caplitism and enable an healthy buisness enviorment where legit buesinesses can employ more people and afford to pay them well. With the government getting in the way or reaching in to snatch up more cash through taxation. Forcing the people to want to work under the table amongst other things.

[butchered what I was trying to say with that wall of text in that last paragraph but I'm sure others who read this will be able to put the points together in their head well enough to make the best out of what I was trying to say.]

Given the history of this country and what the liberal party did to the provinces its more appropriate that the PM allow the province to govern itself as it isn't his jurisdiction and that he leave it up to the populace of the province to deal with such issues at the province's ballet box.

Why blame the PM when the voters of Toronto did it to themsevles in a double wammy of supporting both idiot (NDP) mayor Miller and the tax and spend/ban anything they can't control liberals?

I like how he tries to speak for all libertarians... It's very un-libertarian to divide things into "your either a conservative or one of us; which is it?" I'm pretty sure libertarians can think for themselves as to what policies are right for them and which aren't without pushing the whole group think.

You can't have a libertarian government over night, such things can cause too large of a massive jolt to the economy in a chaotic way.

When in government with little political capital you need to be pragmatic and calm headed. You also need to be more like Edmond Burke and less like the dough headed libertarian party leader who pushes a populist version of libertarianism rather then a pragmatic one.

I forgot to say that the Libertarian Party is a front group for the liberals and even went so-far-as to suggest joining up with the liberal party at one point.

When I heard it I wasn't one bit surprised. Totally naive and totally ignorant and probably isolationist like Ron Paul who is also a moron.

Sorry for the name calling, just fed up with dumb people.

been around the block said...

I thought this debate was supposed to be about the census ...

Why did neither Mike nor Stephen point out that the CPC isn't "scrapping" the long-form census but wants to make it voluntary, not mandatory with jail time a possible consequence if you refuse to complete it?

Both gents need to lessen the use of "I mean," "you know," "um," "kinda like."

Not a good debate, not well moderated by Rosemary Barton; this debate lost its focus and became a mini-treatise on libertarians and libertarianism.

I WAS glad that Stephen Taylor began to list the positive things the CPC have accomplished, interrupted immediately, OF COURSE, by Barton.

Mike Brock also brought his own, personal fight with what happened at the G-20 -- not the venue, IMO, for his remarks on this particular issue.

There are far more articulate "conservatives" that the CBC could have invited on to participate in this "debate." However, most of the verbally articulate conservatives have been deep-sixed by the CBC; they don't want attractive conservatives who make a lot of sense on their programs.

Mike Brock said...

I was completely on topic. I was told in the pre-interview that this was about whether or not the census issue would bring libertarians into the conservative fold again.

Everything I said, right to the end, was on topic in that regard.

I explained why us libertarians are not satisfied with this one token issue. And I laid out a case of why that is.

been around the block said...

Maybe it wasn't you, Mike, who was off topic then.

I distinctly recall that Rosemary Barton said that her guests were in the government camp on a voluntary long-form census. I've just checked what she said in the intro:

"The government's decision to make it voluntary has baffled and outraged many. So, who exactly does the idea appeal to anyway?"

So, I was baffled, Mike, when you used the interview to hype libertarians. See how the CBC so promiscuously throws their topics around? They tell you one thing and then frame the debate completely differently.

Perhaps that's why I was confused -- and, I suspect, a great many other viewers would be as well. Television isn't the best medium for engaging in a multi-layered debate on topics where the terminology has to be explained to the CBC talking head, the other person on camera, and viewers. Topics need to be simplified and easily accessible to those without the background the interviewees have.

Rosemary Barton and the CBC did neither you, Stephen Taylor, libertarians, nor c/Conservatives a favour. Your argument was too dense for most people watching -- and it definitely did not do what Barton had advertised -- explain why the idea of the voluntary census appealed to some.

At least, I was having difficulty finding out what exactly appealed to you.

I Support Lord Black