BHS

I think that Howard Hampton is the only decent, honest political leader in Ontario. His statements from the above quote say it all. I have re-quoted him, and put the "really important parts" in bold letters: If you and your Conservative party think that we should just ignore the plight of our neighbours because it isn't "our responsibility", remind me not to vote for the party comprised of, and for selfish, ignorant rednecks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, Howard Hampton is more ignorant, opportunistic and selfish than every conservative in the Province combined. The only rednecks I see are the uneducated, selfish yokels voting "me first!" when they vote NDP. The entire province would be like that hellhole reserve if we put Howard and his merry band of self-centred, deluded fools in charge.

Not going to happen. And what do you mean, "Iran next noises"? I think you're remembering things that were never said.

I'm merely pointing out the illogic of someone being the "mother" of a movement that already existed before they joined. That Congress or any other group should decided to allow emotional attachment to redefine history to make her the inspiration for the civil rights movement (which, as I mentioned, she quickly distanced herself from once the Supreme Court had ruled against segregation) is their choice, but doesn't keep with the facts. Duh.

My mistake. It turns out Jefferey Lord Amherst did in fact distribute smallpox laden goods to Pontiac Indians in an attempt to "extirpate" them, though this happened in 1763, long after initial outbreaks of smallpox in the New World had begun killing Indians. Apparently, while the exact cause of smallpox was unknown but the link between the disease and innoculation by exposure to previously exposed material was known.

This is a proven fallacy. While whites did in fact infect natives with a variety of European diseases, there is no way to prove intent on their part to do so. The cause of diseases like smallpox was unknown to western science at the time the colonists were handing out infected blankets. The reason your biowarfare theory isn't taught in schools is because it's simply not true. The rest of your screed is entirely valid. The reserve system is a travesty, as is it's continued perpetuation by both national government and complicit band leadership. Here's hoping those poor beleaugered souls are never returned to the pseudo-communist nightmare situation from which they were rescued.

So PMPM baselessly accusing the opposition of preparing to force a Fall election is really an indication of his own plans to call a Spring election. Interesting, and entirely believable.

My reply was meant to call attention to your previous posts; that you denied any wrongdoing took place, and that you suggested Wilson himself was the source of the leak. Perhaps my comment is premature, as Rove has not been indicted (yet?), though Shady also has jumped the gun by trying to exonerate him before the information is on the table. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I denied that Rove would be indicted for outing a CIA operative, and so far he hasn't been. At the time I posted my earlier comments I'd never heard of Scooter Libby (at least not in the context of the scandal - I might have heard his name before, 'Scooter' being the kind of name you don't really forget) and I doubt you had either. In any case, Libby was indicted for lying about the timeline of who he talked to and when, not for devulging any national secrets. In other words, the substance of the scandal has thus far amounted to nothing. (And how was I to know, at a time when I wasn't even aware of his involvement, that Libby was committing perjury? I'm not omniscient.) And I'm sticking to the idea that Wilson was the first person to publicly confirm that his wife was indeed a covert operative. Up until that point she had only been refered to publicly as an 'operative', synonymous with 'agent' and not necessarily denoting covert or classified status. I'd say the people jumping the gun are still the anti-Bush hordes who assume that Libby's trial will somehow implicate Bush and Cheney in wrongdoing. Dream on, folks.

And what part of the text of the Constitution do you suggest that they want to stick to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The written parts.

I have thought, since September 12 2001, that the ban on potential weapons on airline flights, replacing metal cutlery with plastic, etc., etc., is a ridiculous response to the terrorist attacks. The attacks were successful because the passengers on board those flights were following the 1970's terrorism hostage roll, to remain calm, put up no fight, let the terrorists make their demands, and everything will turn out fine. No one thinks that way any more. I mean really, if there were a jet flying across the continent and four guys tried to take 280 people hostage with boxcutters they wouldn't make it three sentences past "Nobody move! We're taking this plane hostage!" before their heads were ripped off by the enraged mob. You couldn't take a plane hostage with an UZI. (Not that Islamic terrorists would carry Israeli weaponry, but you get my drift.) If a Sikh is allowed to carry a ceremonial weapon on his person walking down the sidewalk, he should be allowed to carry it on a plane or train. And give grandma back her nailclippers, for Christ's sake.

Have to agree with you, BD. Arrested Development is probably the best comedy ever written for TV. I'd watch the same episode of AD a hundred times in a row rather than subject myself to reality programming.

Frist. Or maybe it's a play on words. Anyway, Bill Frist didn't have anything to do with the Miers withdrawl. There's a big difference between internet pundits and newspaper columnists complaining about a nominee until she chooses to withdraw, and Democratic Senators using procedural tactics to block a vote. (At least, there is in the real world.) And what the right wants is a judicial conservative sticking to the text of the Constitution as written, not an activist. But other than that you were close. Oh, baby. Democratic heads exploding everywhere, like some kind of sick 4th of July celebration for Republicans.

Pardon?

When you say "this fall" do you mean now or 2006? Because I don't see an election happening now. The soonest it could take place would be two weeks before Christmas. If the Conservatives are too cowardly to force an election during the summer, do you really think they'd be stupid enough to force one during the run-up to the busiest social time of the year? Especially after they've let the Gomery advantage slip through their fingers?

I read an article yesterday, that their water treatment facility was located near to and downstream from a sewage lagoon, and that the water had been "the colour of beer" for the past 13 years. Mmmmmm, beer. Nobody forces anybody (adults, that is) to live on a reserve.

Sorry to piss on your parade, but Rosa Parks wasn't the mother of the civil rights movement. According to her Wiki biography she joined the civil rights movement in 1943, twelve years before her iconic stand against bus seating arrangements. Apparently this was not the first time she'd complained about the situation. Thought she spent the rest of her life as a living martyr for the civil rights movement, she broke with Dr. King et al not long after the SCOTUS found segregation laws unconstitutional. It's an interesting story. Rosa Parks She will be mourned.

An interesting aside: Iran is the world capital of sex change operations. I'm not kidding. Guardian article

Since when is the welfare of a community living on an Indian reserve the responsibility of the Provincial government? Can you point out the Ontario Government website where this responsibility is pointed out, because I sure as hell can't find it. Everything I read points back to the Feds. Thanks in advance. PS - Howard Hampton doesn't know his ass from a fishing hole full of tainted water.

Back to the original post: Why has it not occurred to you to also question why wealthy individuals from privileged backgrounds should want support socialist causes? Is this not also inherently illogical? Speaking for myself (and having little or no money, in terms of accumulated wealth) I support "conservative" causes because I believe in every man's right (wealthy or otherwise) to make a life for himself without worry that some cadre of mindless do-gooders will take it all away in the name of "progress" or "justice". It's interesting that those on the left would slander me as "selfish" for this belief, especially when the typical leftist view (like yours) is that someone in my position should support leftist causes because they tend to promote my own individual increase. Thus the philosophy of the left, while purporting to promote communal values, in fact promotes the basest example of selfishness, the self-centered man claiming to act on behalf the greater good. PS - Once again, eureka, you've managed to inject a thread with utter bollocks. Congratulations.

Regarding coffee: anyone who doesn't recognize the difference between Star Bucks and Tim Hortons clearly adulterates their beverage with unnecessary additives. If you drank coffee the way it was meant to be drunk, you'd know that Tim Horton's coffee tastes like burnt pond scum mixed with dishwasher detergent underneath all of that sickly sweet cream and sugar. I've had instant coffee in lukewarm tapwater that tasted better.

I, as many others, dislike questions which are "leading". You state that the addict is "well known", but most often, people who are not involved with drugs are not aware who is or is not an addict. Is this question meant to stipulate that both of the potential donors were aware of the man's addiction??? If so, that is not made clear. #1: The addict killed himself (Unless it's a CSI show where someone may have held him and forceably injected) #2: This is a gray area because, as stated above, it was not stipulated that BOTH MEN were aware of the addiction. If they were, then it would partially depend on the amount handed to the addict. If the guy gave him $1.00 to buy a coffee, I would say that constitutes compassion. Likewise if he gave him $5.00 and pointed to a deli and said "Buy yourself a sandwich", or some such. (I would doubt that either man would hand over $50.00 and say "Go get wasted") Interesting side story in this vein. I was once accosted by a guy (won't mention race) near a liquor store. He reeked of booze. Asked for a buck for a coffee. I refused to give it to him. I did, however, walk over to the Tim Horton's next door, and returned with a coffee, which I handed to him. I got roundly cursed out. Obviously it was not coffee he wanted. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Once again, going back to the orginal story/question: 1) I think everyone agrees, at this point, that the junkie killed himself (though no doubt unintentionally). Suggesting that the fellow who gave him money killed him (the only other option, given the story outlined) is ridiculous, unless the fellow giving the money intended for the junkie to buy junk, and knew that the junk would kill him on this particular occasion. Intent is everything. It's like saying a father who buys his 16-year-old son/daughter a new car has killed his own child after an accident occurs, when the gift was clearly NOT intended to kill. Even junkies have legitimate needs for cash beyond purchasing junk, and so merely giving cash to a junkie (even if you KNOW they are addicted) cannot be considered tantamount to murder. It just doesn't wash. 2) Why can't both men be considered compassionate? The first man gave of his time and associated with the junkie on a personal level. The second man gave money to someone claiming a need. Are these not acts of compassion? Does compassion necessarily have a price tag, and involve material sacrifice? Is compassion defined by the act or outcome?

Economic: 2.50 Social: -2.97 I found the language of a good number of questions to be less than satisfactory, and in those cases I tended to enter DISAGREE simply because I couldn't determine what the point of the question was, or what the intended definition of a loaded word or phrase might be. I'm sure this necessarily skewed my results, though I'm more or less happy with my outcome based on the agreed upon definitinions for right/left/authoritarian/libertarian. I think it might be a worthwhile exercise to use the questions given as thread topics, if for no better reason than to discuss the problems with language and definitions I've mentioned above. BTW, the articles on the 2005 British elections are quite interesting and worth at least a cursory read. It doesn't surprise me that BD's result puts him in the neighbourhood of the Green Party, for reasons I feel no need to discuss. (Keeping in mind that my own result puts me in league with the Liberal Democrats. Shudder.)

It wouldn't be the worst thing she's ever heard me say. What do you mean, let's not forget? That's the only number anybody on the left has in their heads these days. Excellent point. And a predictable response. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you suggesting that perhaps the US should invade Sudan, Tibet, Myanmar and North Korea? And about the US doing "nothing" about the last case: America has been maintaining tens of thousands of troops on NK's southern border since the 1950s. In case you forgot.

By the standards of any war of conquest that preceded it, 2000 dead is paltry. Get over it. The people who fret about this are strictly being partisan, and ridiculously so.

Shut up, asshole.

Eureka, You're right that the US system is polarize between left and right wing. But what about our Supreme Court? It may not be polarized left or right. But after 12 years of Liberl rule it certainly has to have a Liberal slant... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" when applied to the American Supreme Court refer to judicial philosophy, not political philosophy. There's a big difference. A judicial conservative tends to rule strictly by the text of the Constitution, while a judicial liberal tends to view the Constitution as a "living document" that requires updated interpretation not strictly in keeping with the original text. By the by, it's not just 12 years of Liberal rule, but 32 out of 42 years (since Pearson in 1963) of Liberal rule that have created the slant not just in our judiciary, but in all of our political institutions as well. Especially if you consider (as I surely do) the old Progressive Conservative Party a cadre of Liberals in blue suits. I mean, "progressive conservative" is a friggin oxymoron fer cryin out loud.