cc_rider wrote:
 
No, that was using un-named/loosely affiliated figures to run a shadow foreign policy with the purpose of impacting a foreign government. Completely different. 



“Do you hear that extra beat at the end? That makes it different”
-Vanilla Ice

 rgio wrote:
 I don't have particulars at hand, but Iran-Contra springs to mind. Speaking of impeachable offenses...
c.

 cc_rider wrote:
 
Which deals in particular are you referring to?

 R_P wrote:
 
I don't have a huge problem with that deal. It is kind of swampy, but the guys are energy experts, and Perry is tasked with promoting U.S. companies. Even Ukraine said they had more technical expertise than their competitor. Whether that's true or not, I can't say.

I think it's a little shady, sure. But it doesn't look anywhere near as shady as other deals that've come down the pike.
c.

The Swamp(s) of Ukraine?

 R_P wrote:
 

"Oh No. Oh HELL NO!" — Madea

 Isabeau wrote:
 
That is what is great about functioning democracies ... in the liberal sense of the term.   

We all have the freedom and ability to sample all these perspectives.  We can hybridize, we can mix up, we can test against the historical record and we can cherry pick.    We can choose to be suffocatingly dogmatic or open to the perspectives of the other.

 kcar wrote:
 
Yes.

Labels. oh my. Aren't they nice and 'orderly' in their intent.

But Libertarian, Liberal or Liberaltarian ... anyway you slice it, the mating call of "its MY perspective is THE PANACEA."

*ahem* Not buyin it.

 kcar wrote:
 
WHOSE LIBERTIES would be honored in this hegemony? A rose by any other name... 

Wouldn't the discussion about libertarian parties, principles, and policies find better placement here?

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
Yes, I knew.  The LPC has been spectacularly unsuccessful in electing political representatives.  Interesting platform (probably had not looked in decades).  Here is the bit on socialized medicine.

HEALTHCARE

LOOSENING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S GRASP ON PROVINCIAL HEALTHCARE

Within the Canadian Constitution, it is stated that healthcare is within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but over the past decades, this has not been adhered to. In order to empower provinces to meet their unique interests in addressing healthcare issues, the Libertarian Party of Canada would repeal the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act impedes the relationship between the public and provincial governments, namely because it constrains provincial governments to uphold certain requirements in order to receive federal health transfers. A Libertarian government would repeal the Canada Health Act so that provincial governments could analyze and implement healthcare reforms that will best suit their interests, rather than following the mandates of federal bureaucrats and legislators.

UNLEASHING HEALTHCARE INNOVATION FOR THE 21^ST CENTURY

The Libertarian Party believes that the 21^st century will provide remarkable transformations in the healthcare sector, as well as the introduction of innovative life-saving technologies and treatments. Our party believes that the government should cut red tape and unnecessary regulations that hamper the arrival of these developments. Health technologies and treatments should be embraced and not treated with fear and resentment, like the current government treats it now. This would mean giving researchers more liberty to experiment with new health technology and treatments, resulting in greater access to effective and timely health services. This also means empowering patient-doctor relations to explore a greater diversity of treatments to meet unique needs, something that the current healthcare system neglects.

REDUCING THE BURDEN OF THE PUBLIC HEALTHCARE SECTOR

While the Libertarian Party would return provincial power to the healthcare sector, repealing the Canada Health Act would allow for legal access to private care. By legalizing choice in the healthcare market, there will be greater access to healthcare services for all Canadians, therefore reducing long wait times for referrals and operations. Furthermore, the legalization of private alternatives alleviates some of the fiscal burden placed on government, which is something that currently accounts for a significant amount of both federal and provincial spending.

 black321 wrote:
 

I do not see how that claim/defense has any factual legs.  

westslope wrote:

There is an actual Libertarian Party in Canada.

 westslope wrote: 

definitions are important and a lot of people have their own 

there's always nuanced views, maybe period specific

and this

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
From the first full sentence hyper-linked above:  "The Libertarian Socialist Caucus seeks to honor the principles of non-aggression, through recognizing that exploitation–especially economic exploitation–is aggressive and coercive, and should therefore be opposed by the Libertarian Party."

Oh boy.....    Marxist Libertarians?    Jeezus....   What an emotionally loaded, imprecise term.  Exploitation.    From the perspective that pretended to be scientific.  

Never thought about it too much but the People's Party  of Canada— the libertarian instrument of Max Bernier — if it had been successful, would never have campaigned to eliminate socialized medicine.  Perhaps add user fees and make more private choices available but medicare in Canada would stay.

Ukraine?

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Well, Agnes. She is very, very transparent.

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
"Ask me about my tax returns..."