Jump to content

BHS

Member
  • Posts

    1,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BHS

  1. Does anyone in this forum know anything about Northeastern BC? I'm considering a move there. Any help is appreciated.
  2. I read the article and I must admit to some confusion. Are sixteen-year-olds still legally allowed to drop out of school? That was the cut-off age when I was a lad. If it's still true, then all you have to do is formally drop out of school. You can't be charged with truancy if you aren't a student. This law has been amended so that it only applies to truants, according to the article.
  3. No. Rather, I'll ask you how far off Reagan's position (as indicated in your quote) was from reality. I remember acid rain being a big deal back in the 80's, with a lot of scary talk about dying lakes and forests. The worst of those predictions have proven hugely inaccurate. So, what happened?
  4. Let's take these charges one at a time: 'Renditioning' people for torture: Renditioning is a practice that predates Bush and is most likely carried out by the CIA, definitely NOT a wing of the "Bush regime" (see Plamegate). Doesn't make it right, of course. sexually abusing prisoners of war: Again, the Armed Forces are not a wing of the "Bush regime". And the prisoners at Abu Ghraib (I'm assuming this is what you're referring to) weren't POWs by defintion. starting wars on false pretenses: (I'm guessing you're talking about WMD.) Making sure that Saddam isn't capable of developing nukes isn't a false pretense, regardless of whether or not he actually possessed that capability at the time of the invasion. Preventing the merest possibility of a future nuclear-armed Uday Hussein regime is worthwhile in and of itself, as is deposing a tyrants with Saddam's credentials in any case. And, to be technically correct, the action taken in 1991 was never fullly resolved, so Bush wasn't really "starting" a war with Iraq. lying on the world stage: I'll give you this one. You can tell a politician is lying when his mouth moves. I challenge you to find me one example of a politician talking on the world stage who isn't lying. Start by crossing Kofi Annan, John Kerry and Jacques Chirac off the list. undermining prohibitions against torture: You're going to have to flesh this one out a bit. Are you referring to renditioning again? Or are you suggesting that Bushco authorized domestic torture as well as farming out torture to foreign governments? Which definition of torture are you going by, the universally understood definiton that involves causing extreme physical pain and/or permanent disability, or the McCain definition that boils down to anything that causes discomfort or shame? Further, it's a pretty twisted outlook that views America's efforts to catch or kill people who saw other people's heads off for propaganda purposes as being part and parcel to "undermining prohibitions against torture". Prohibitions are meaningless if they are universally applicable. I don't know why I bother with replying to this drecht. I honestly don't believe that you think America has been disgraced by Bush - to feel that way, you'd have to have seen some good in America at some point.
  5. Hmm. Stewart/Colbert - which one runs for which office? I can't see either man wanting to play second fiddle to the other. What do you like about Obama?
  6. No, only that there won't be any ice left on the North Pole.
  7. Instead a tornado hits London, England. And Continental ski hills are all snow-free. And the papers in England are predictably linking the unusual warm weather with global warming. Last year, when Eastern Europe saw some of the lowest sustained temperatures on record? Not a peep. The only thing predictable about the weather is that no matter what happens the eco-doom crowd will spin it to mean that mankind is the devil.
  8. What do you mean, "more accurately known as climate change"? This is something I've never fully understood: do the true believers think that climate change didn't occur before the Industrial Revolution? Were climatic conditions more or less static before humans appeared? If global warming=climate change, does that mean that the climate only changes unidirectionally? There's something vaguely Orwellian about the way the left grabs onto existing words and phrases, twists the meanings to their own uses, and expects everyone else to use their redefintions and toe the rhetorical line.
  9. Since no one in the forums has mentioned the Princess Di bugging story yet, I thought I'd create a post at least for posterity's sake. And where better to put it than append it to this old chestnut of a thread? kausfiles
  10. Woo! If you're going for premium redneck effect (such as Bush deserves) you need this.
  11. Just so. In a mature democracy, I think a militant anything would be the least appealing candidate in any race. If the unique circumstances presented themselves such that my only three choices for my local riding were the three militant types stated at the beginning of this thread, I would join the Marijuana Party, run as the local candicate and vote for myself.
  12. Well said, Rue. On all points. I was going to jump in but you've said everything I was thinking.
  13. I've reviewed the statute briefly, and some of the articles that were written about it's passing back in October, and it's pretty clear to me that the intent of this legislation is to properly define the rights of the illegal combatants held in Gitmo who aren't already covered by the Geneva Conventions. Ironically, the intent appears to be to bring their status in line with what protections the Geneva Conventions do and do not provide for their legal counterparts, which is what Bushco's political opponents have been demanding since the camp began taking prisoners. This act would treat all American combat prisoners the same as far as habeous corpus is concerned, be they held under the Geneva Conventions or no. The chief problem with the legislation at this point appears to be that the definition of "enemy combatant" is too broad in it's scope. It should be narrowed by language indicating that the individual was taken into custody in the course of taking up arms against the US, and perhaps narrowed further to indicate the combatant was taken outside of US territory. (Of course, that would preclude holding enemy illegal combatants arrested during an invasion of the US, but that's a pretty far-fetched scenario. Nearly impossible, really.) The current language appears to have been written in such a way as to allow the arrest of sleeper agents within the US, and I agree that this is too broad of a definition for what an enemy combatant is. New, seperate legislation should be created and debated for dealing with enemy agents acting within the US. Or, they could just rely on criminal laws already in place. Despite what has been written elsewhere, the statute clearly states that American citizens can't have their habeous corpus rights denied by the provisions of the Act. The Act only applies to non-citizens held by the US who have been defined as enemy combatants.
  14. Let's say 1% of the population is gay. There are 435 seats in the House, but let's round that up to 500 just to be sporting. For proportional representation 5 of those seats should be held by gay Gongressmen. We know that before Foley resigned there were at least two gay Republicans in the House. I have to believe that the Democrats have a better chance of attracting gay political types, and this manifests itself as more gay Congressmen. So without doing any research I'm guessing that before the last election the Dems had at least three gay reps in their ranks. So there's your proportional representation for gays right there. Mission accomplished! If Dean genuinely has a problem with diminished homosexual representation in the House, then what was his position regarding the Foley witchhunt? After all, Foley didn't do anything more serious that what Gerry Studds had done before him, so what's the problem? Hypocrisy? Is it less hypocritical for Dean to call his party gay-friendly after their recent behaviour? I call this a typical Democrat whitewash - as long as you mouth the right words it doesn't matter what your actions are.
  15. Let's be fair. Preston Manning was elected to the House of commons repeatedly as an individual MP, so he did in fact win an election or two. Let's look at his accomplishments: Preston took a regional grievance movement from zero representation in the House to being the more viable contender for small c conservatism in Canada and the Official Opposition in 1997. His party may never have won an election under his leadership, but it did go from winning a single seat in 1989, to forming the dominant core of the governing party in 2005. And according to Wiki, Stephen Harper was Preston Manning's chief policy adviser and the architect of Reform's 1988 election strategy, so while it's fair to say that Harper has distanced himself from iron-fisted conservatism (which he undoubtedly has) it isn't fair to characterize the difference as Manning v. Harper. Actually, there are a number of bona fide reasons why the PCs lost the last Ontario election. Chiefly, these are: -Mike Harris retired from the Premiership in 2002, after which an un-retired Ernie Eves took control of the party and immediately began backtracking on a number of Common Sense Revolution initiatives. I'm not saying that the PCs would have won a third election, but by 2003 it was very clear that the Common Sense Revolution was over in Ontario. It's not accurate to call the 2003 election whupping a repudiation of Mike Harris and his policies, though many vested interests (see third point below) do. -voter fatigue is inevitable everywhere except, apparently, Alberta. -the PCs faced vigorous opposition throughout their two majority mandates from public sector unions, NGO political activists, and a traditionally anti-PC media. Combined with the first two points it's not surprising that the PCs lost. Hey, didn't Harper used to work for a think-tank? Imagine that. (Go ahead. Argue that think-tanks and lobby groups are two totally different concepts, except in that, um, they both aim to shape public policy.) That and, as you've noted, a Reform-based party had never had much electoral success east of Manitoba. A minority government was a predictable breakthrough. You have to crawl before you run. I think his poll numbers are falling because the electorate isn't paying attention to what little political theatre Ottawa is providing for entertainment at the moment. Call it voter fatigue.
  16. SWEET!!! I've just updated my signature.
  17. ...the most painful television-watching experience of my entire life. Barely considered Liberal platitudes vs. barely understood Conservative platitudes. Sentences beginning with, "As my father once said...". The horror. I'm becoming nauseous justing thinking about it.
  18. Here's a quote of something I wrote in an old thread called "'Hit The Road' Jack!": I'm standing by this prediction, and updating it by noting that the traditional media appear to have gotten their act together vis-a-vis heavy reportage of trivial matters that make the Harper government look bad (ie. the over-reporting of the moronic "fossil of the day" awards that under the Liberals were never reported on at all). Stephen Harper appears to be staying low-key, but that's probably because high drama isn't in his repertoire more than his having taken my advice. Now it's up to the Liberals to get their leadership issues straightened out. Note: if they pick Bob Rae (doubtful, they're not fools) they will lose. He's got the stink of inept government all over him (especially in Liberal-friendly Ontario), and nothing washes that off. Ignatief may be a darling of the Liberal establishment but he clearly lacks the kind of public charisma that would enable him to fill the shoes of Trudeau. Liberals lose under Ignatief as well for that very reason - he was brought on board to be something he clearly isn't, and it will turn voters off. I agree that Dion would be a good pick, but only because he's got good name recognition and not a lot of obvious baggage from his stint under Chretien and Martin. I still don't see any issue being big enough to force a confidence vote until late 2007 at the earliest, meaning a spring 2008 election at the earliest. As of this writing there's still plenty of wiggle room for the Tories to keep the minority alive until Spring 2010, especially if Harper continues to keep his head down, which for him isn't a problem. My election prediction: Spring 2008 at the very earliest, but the most likely scenario is a full four year term. I don't think August's dire prediction at the end of his post will hold, for the same reason that I don't see a return Liberal Majority as the end of the world. People will see it as a return to the old-school two party politics that held sway before the 1992 PC meltdown. I predict that most people will shrug and flip the channel over to whatever reality tv show has taken a grip on the public consciousness of 2010.
  19. To impeach a president would take two years of hearings by the time it is all done. Cheney is not interested in becoming President. Perhaps the Democrats can impeach Bush, take maybe a year and a half, and then Cheney can be President for six months. Then when the Democrats elect a President, he/she will have a bulls eye painted on their back. If it is not real, it can be setup. You do realize that impeachment isn't the same thing as removal from office, yes? Clinton was impeached and it didn't slow him down a bit. It's a frivolous waste of legislative time, taxpayer dollars and voter goodwill.
  20. First Amendment ring any bells? But you're right in that free speech rights don't protect you from being fired for something you said in the workplace that goes against company policy. That's funny.
  21. I'm looking forward to the Democrats turning that trend around. You're going to have to refresh my memory here. I don't recall that happening in the US. I seem to recall some disagreement as to whether American Constitutional rights extended to everbody in the whole world, no matter what their location, though. As I recall, the Republican dominated congress won that fight by banning techniques that in no way would have been considered torture twenty years ago, let alone when the Geneva conventions were signed. So I guess the rule of law, um, rules. So why weren't her wishes observed in the eight years between her accident and the time her husband decided to find another wife? Didn't that extended period of vegetative status quo have something to do with nullifying her wishes long before Congress got involved? As to the family values aspect, I recall that the Republicans were siding with Terri's blood relatives as opposed to her bigamist pseudo-husband. Again, looking forward to Nancy Pelosi's special brand of fundraising-be-damned decision making skills put to the ethical test. Backing one of the biggest pork-barrel earmarkers in the House for Majority Leader is a good start. Whatever. Painting the Republicans as uniformly religious is unfounded, as is claiming the Democrats don't have any issues in the area of trying to codify their unfounded beliefs into law. And the Dems use for or against religion as the occasion suits them, so they're hardly trustworthy critics on the issue.
  22. Scrappleface gets in on the action: link
×
×
  • Create New...