BHS

If the Democrats are pro-gay rights, why do they use homosexuality as a smear campaing weapon against the Republicans on a regular basis? Why didn't the feminist lobby dump on Clinton after his abuse of female staffers came to light? Politics makes for strange bedfellows and stranger tactics, especially for those pushing a minority agenda. What the separatists most fear is a Liberal rennaissance in Quebec after the Gomery inquiry has been swept under the carpet (in the tradition of sweeping all inquiries under the carpet - because that's what inquiries are for). At this point the separatists are at a zenith in popularity and they want to keep it that way by attacking Martin on any issue that makes the news. Outing the PM's pick for GG as a separatist may look self-destructive, but it serves the bigger picture of weakening the Liberal party and making it's leader look foolish.

Excellent comments. I totally agree. It is always the same. Those who don't like the GG's appointmernt have their own political agenda they are constantly trying to promote. One would think there would be more substatitive issues to get excited about! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Newbie: My problem is not the Jean is a Liberal appointment. I could care less. It's that our de facto head of state is appointed by anyone that rankles me. And as such, I really can't follow your advice about voting on the issue, since I can't to vote on that period, and constitutional reform is a less likely topic for parliament to consider than health care reform. You ****. mirror: You can be such a knob. Of all people. As if you were non-partisan. As if you don't push your political agenda every chance you get. Sheesh.

Did Novak refuse to devulge his source? That's the only reason anyone has gone to jail for in this matter, and I expect it's the only reason anyone ever will.

On a related note, I also think home distilling (of ethanol, for personal consumption or as a fuel additive) should be legalized. It's been legal in New Zealand since 1996. It's not as dangerous as it's been made out to be. A properly made batch of moonshine has less methanol in it than commercial whiskey, and apparently if you use molasses as your sugar base the final product is methanol-free.

I think it's undoubtable that Canada has a looser attitude towards drugs, and I fully expect to see pot legalized or at least decriminalized in my lifetime. I'm not particularly pleased with the status quo, where (as you've pointed out) possession is still illegal but only enforced if the authorities have a beef or some alterior motive. If I had my druthers pot would be sold in liquor stores and coke/heroin/meth possession would get you a year in solitary, minimum. They are not the same thing.

You seem to be suggesting by "get on with her life" that she's still a private person and that it's illegitimate for the public to question her motives or opinions. Not so. She's the designated to become highest ranking member of our government and the head of our armed forces.

Off the cuff thought on the matter: Perhaps our feds were letting him operate freely to poke a finger in the American governement's eye, and they're co-operating with the US now because it suits them to do so (for whatever reason) and they don't really care what happens to Marc.

I didn't mean "pure" (small in scale) communism, which I grudgingly respect from a libertarian standpoint. I meant the state-sized Soviet perversion. I'll add to your statement about novels revealing reality, that the works of humorists can cast a particularly revealing light on news and events. Humourists are allowed leeway that other commentators deny themselves, to dig into the unseemly details of a story that are often ignored or danced around by the others. It's part of the reason why comedian Jon Stewart does better interviews than a lot of the "real" news interviewers.

In New York or Geneva? Doesn't matter really, it's funny either way - discussing a global ban on private gun ownership in the two first world countries least likely to comply with the ban.

Okay then. Feudalism (and it's precursor, tribalism) is a good analog for fascism. Both tribalism and socialism adhere to the paradigm of the family, but I'm willing to let that go for the sake of coming to an agreement. I'm also willing to concede that Bush's actions post 911 fall under your description of fascism. He has increased (by means of the loathed Patriot Act, for instance) the powers of the state to interfere with individual liberty. Fine. You win. Bush is a fascist. Would a Democratic president have done any different? I don't think so. The implication of the 911 atrocity is that not enough was being done to prevent terrorism in America. Al Gore would have taken measures to increase the state's powers of investigation too, placed in the same circumstances. He would then also be a fascist, the difference being that people like you wouldn't mind it a bit.

I suppose. It hardly makes sense to bust a guy for selling seeds in a city where drug addicts shoot up in a government-run facility designed for that very purpose.

eureka stated he was reading a novel, which is a form of fiction last time I checked. If you propose to murder a guy for his money, and I propose to murder him for his wife, then our distinctly different motivations somehow create different outcomes, even though the meat of the matter, his being murdered, is exactly the same. Is that the gist of your argument? Because that's what I'm reading. Always the same with the Left - style trumping substance, words and intentions replacing facts and deeds. Whether you're forced to join a union or barred from forming a union, the effect is same on your right of free association. Read the whole article here.

That's an interesting twist. So now the enforcement of law is "victimization" of the perpetrator.

That's not the point. Your examples illustrate situations of illegal activity that the police don't have the manpower to investigate properly. In my book, that doesn't make the activity any more legal, but Black Dog appears to be saying otherwise.

As Hugo would say "Read your Shirer". Fascism was an extreme right wing ideology rooted in nationalism, militarism and sprinkled with theories of racial superiority. Any resemblance to socialism or communism was purely superficial. Both place collective good oabove individual freedoms, but in fascist states, the indvidual's loyalty was to the State or the leader (the "fuherpriznip"). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ridiculous! Loyalty demanded by the state (by way of loyalty to your "comrades" or fellow citizens, who's lives are de facto owned by the state) is absolutely a feature of communism. The fact that both communism and fascism favour the collective over the individual is hardly superficial - it's the entire point of my argument. The fact is, it's your differentiations that are superficial in this argument. The policies produced by fascist and communist (read "leftist") states are nearly identical in their effects on individual liberty, no matter what fiction writers have to say on the matter. As for Hemmingway's war of choice, the fact that it was commies fighting fascists just means that the citizenry were screwed no matter who won, because you'd still have the government's fingers probing your orifices when the day was done.

You want to talk about weak. This is pathetic. You'd do well to read a dictionary before spouting off about your non-knowledge of a subject. Here's a handy list of definitions via Google for you to examine: fascism definitions Facism is in practice a form of heavy handed socialism. How you can equate facism with the "right wing" is beyond me. It's the "progessive thought" you espouse (progressing towards greater and greater government regulation of every aspect of human endeavour) that most closely resembles fascism in modern democratic politics.

So what then, the RCMP have the final say on Canadian law? Seems to me, that when law enforcement is given the authority to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, it the same as letting them write the law. If we allowed them to investigate their own actions (for instance, police shootings) with the same impunity, they would be de fact judges, juries and executioners. Are you really in favour of this? Or is your argument merely a ruse meant to gloss over and legitimize your dislike of a particular segment of the law?

Nothing says "Take my views seriously" like wielding a huge knife. Just kidding. I don't have the courage to post the worst picture of me ever taken.

Good work Toro.

I see you've changed your signature again, and I hadn't written the old one down. Your new signature ignores the fact that all "economics" is theoretical, so not only is Austrian economics similar to Creation "science" but so are all other forms of economics. Your advice was appreciated. It reminded me of some reading I have to catch up on.

Except that bullets are even easier to make at home than guns are.

1) go to the forum search utility 2) in the field for keywords enter "fascist" 3) in the members filter enter "Black Dog" 4) select the radio button for Show Results As Posts Voila. Numerous examples, due to the apparent appeal the word has for you. My personal favourite involves you declaring Bush's judicial nominations to be "crypto-fascists", whatever that means. I couldn't find a trustworthy definition online. "Crypto" is Greek for "hidden" so I gather they're fascists who practice their dark arts in secret. Somehow all the bug eaters know the truth of the matter, so I guess it isn't that secret.

I've been meaning to ask... what does your signature mean, when it refers to Austrians? I've never been able to figure it out, as it appears to be taken out of context.

Shady: Keep in mind, he's just relaying the message to us from outer space. Can't give him all the credit here.

So explain to me why updating our institutions to provide a broader range of democratic choices in federal government necessitates a swing to the right politically, because I'd love to see the logic underlying that conclusion. That's funny, coming from you. I've seen a few posts where your own comprehension of the word was questionable.