Moderate Centrist

Morgan, This comes down opinions as we both know. I do not and never will take Ann Coulter seriously. She has nothing to offer me. Well that's fine but it really turns me off. I'm not interested in people who's sole reason for speaking is to pick fights with other people rather than offering something constructive. I want to hear from people who have serious arguments to make and present them maturely. Sure maybe her approach may be tongue and cheek. Which in my opinion is all the more reason not to listen to her. As for her comments on killing and Christian conversion it's not that far a stretch to call it hate speech. If it's not then what is? Regardless of what she meant there are many out there that took it that way. Let say it was not hate speech it's still ranting. It certainly is not an intelligent basis for foreign policy. President Bush, nor any leader, would never take such a position. I'm well aware that JKF was an anti-communist( a fact over-looked by conspiracy buffs). I merely hold that Kennedy was probably using McCarthy to get into power and had no personal loyalty to the man. Ann Coulter and her ilk are the best friends the left ever had. As for: Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Sandra Bernhard, David Clennon, Tom Cruise, Richard Gere, etc. etc. None of these people are serious thinkers, have anything insightful to say on foreign policy and lack any kind of serious credentials to intelligently speak on anything outside they're celebrity filled worlds. They're opinions , (I would say like Coulters') are not worth mentioning or listening to. I have no sympathy or use for Right Wingers ( I feel the same about left wingers) and Coulter fits that bill. Consider Richard Nixon’s comments on the John Birch Society taken from a September 7, 1983 interview with Frank Gannon: Source: http://www.libs.uga.edu/media/collections/.../nixonday9.htmlHere we see the essential problem with the Coulter’s, the Limbaugh’s, the Birchers and the McCarthy’s – sensationalism. In Coulter’s and Limbaugh’s case sensationalism with no purpose other than to be sensational. They shoot their mouths off non-stop and as a result any valid conservative critique is lost. All conservatives become painted with the same brush and the bulk of the population who doesn’t know the difference between conservative and liberal anyway is further turned off. I would say the same is true of people like Michael Moore who in trying to criticize the Bush Administration make jokes instead and render anything useful they may have to say on the subject invalid. Coulter maintains that Liberals lie about Everything, that they are All Bad and that they are Traitors. How could you expect me to take anyone seriously (maybe you don’t expect me to take her seriously?) who makes comments like that? The other thing to remember is that yes media bias exists and is not going away… period. People expect too much from the media, honesty, intelligence, presenting topics from their point of view. The very fact that people call for the media to have a point of view shows they aren’t concerned about bias itself but rather want bias to work for them. Fox news is the conservative flagship in the States. They are no more honest or have no more integrity than their left wing(if you want to call them that) counter parts.

I don't regularily watch Chris Mathews but do catch the show from time to time and am aware of his guests. Well I'm not left wing. Perhaps you are not right wing but more to the centre. MorganI'm well aware of Robert Kennedy's involvement I've seen the tapes. I doubt a man like JFK (who's team and even himself were known for hardball politics) did not condemn McCarthy for the reasons you stated. Possible but I doubt it. Well how about Coulter's quote on "killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity" do you agree with this sentiment? It could be interpretted as hate speech by some. What are you thoughts on it? Regardless of Coulter's arguements a lot of innocent people were harassed for no good reasons and a lot of time, money and resources were wasted. I don't want to see this kind of thinking invade American or Canadian culture today. I oppose any move that gives the government the ability to arbitrarily start suspecting the innocent. This was what happened during that era and some feel we are getting close to that again - hence the proposed Biometric Card for Canadians. Finally on Coulter: "Ann Coulter graduated cum laude from Harvard..." "A graduate of Cornell University and the University of Michigan Law School,..."

MorganWho said they had no substance? There is no doubt the Soviet Union was trying to plant spies in the American and many other western governments and some were sucessfully caught to prove it. This is not in dispute and I make no such claims to dispute it. I'm speaking specifically of McCarthy and his tactics. The man was a clown and accomplished little or nothing on his four year rampage. Although Nixon wouldn't come out and harshly condemn him the way many others had he made the point that McCarthy hurt the anti-communist cause as a whole because he went too far. MorganMy knowledge of historical fact is in pretty good shape. I'm not attacking the fact that the USSR was an expansive power using subversive means to achieve it's ends. If Coulter had come out and said the threat from Communist Russia was more serious than the left is led to belief I would have nothing to say on the matter. She did not do this. She's taking a man who has been throughly discredited for good reason and trying to make him sound like some kind of godsend. MorganI'm not telling you or anyone else who to listen to or that to like her is wrong. I'm saying Coulter is a joke, has the mentality of a two year old, is only on T.V. to feed its' ever growing need for sensationalism and that I have little or no use for her point of view. When someone asks me what I think of her I tell them not much. When someone says they consider Coulter to offer a balanced intelligent view of anything it makes me wonder. As for Chris Mathew, I don't think he's a genius and I would appreciate it if you and your buddies would quit putting words in people's mouths and quit expressing their points of view for them. If you want to know what I think of a subject ask me a direct question if it is not clear in the post. As for Skolnitsky, I did not say she wasn't capable of reviewing a book. I thought the quality of the review was in question. Quite Frankly I think Mathews with over 30 years experience might be a little more credible than a university student yes. And so what if she went to Harvard? I thought you Right Wing types didn't like the intellectual elite?

MorganWell that fact that she is trying to rehabilitate McCarthy again goes to show that 1) she knows how to pick a subject that will make her money 2) she has mush for brains. McCarthy is universally acknowledged as an alcoholic jackass who "couldn't find a communist in red square". He was detested by Eisenhower ( who was hesitant to take him on publically): Source:http://www.nps.gov/eise/5accomp4.htmRichard Nixon later sought to distance himself considerably from McCarthy in his later career as well. The man left a black mark on the republican party. And we all know how he ended up: source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McCarthy#Fall_of_McCarthyAnd how about this famous quote which sums up my, and millions of others thoughts about this goof: source:http://www.webcorp.com/mccarthy/mccarthypage.htmAnd back to Coulter: MorganAgain I'm laughing as I write this. I'm not sure if you guys are serious or just trying to get my goat. Anyway: Ann Coulter source:http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtmlThis is intelligent?!? The next thing you'll be praising the virtues of the John Birch society MorganLet me see if I understand you. Are you seriously suggesting that Chris Mathews of hardball is part of the liberal media? Is that what you're saying? And back to Mathews, if Coulter is so smart how come she couldn't get something as simple as George C. Scott's Oscar rejection right? As for her material - I took a stab at Treason... like I said mindless garbage. MorganWow what a hard hitting in depth book review. The democrats lost lost the cold war eh? If memory serves Cuba went communist under Eisenhower and Nixon, (whom is my pick as a real leader in Foreign Policy) withdrew from Vietnam. You and your reviewer seem to forget Nixon was the first US president to acknowledge China and pursue a policy of peace with the Communist world. One other thing on your "non-Mathews" reviewer... http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/coulter.htmlHer expertise in international relations and American Foreign policy certainly shine through. .

The point of exchange was to show she's a joke. I'm well aware of her writings. Mindless garbage. I'll never like her and you'll never turn on her so we're at a dead end. To each his own.

Craig, On many of my posts where I am trying to express an arguement I have provided links and sources for those who care to check. In most cases those sources have either been unanswered or brushed off as Left wing this or that. In this case I freely admit I am expressing an opinion, but one that is shared by many. In my OPINION, Ann Coulter is one of two things or maybe both: 1) a complete nut, lier and total bimbo 2) Someone who is out to make money and will say anything to get air time and sell books. She is dismissed by both the political right and left. There are many credible and intelligent conservative thinkers and it boggles the mind that you would site anything from this woman. Check this exchange from Hardball with Chris Mathews re Hollywood and in this case a discussion on the film Patton: source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3404637/ So here is a woman who is wrong about one of the most widely know stories in Hollywood. If she can't get something as simple as this right you expect me to believe she's credible on more complex subjects? I'm laughing as I write this. Ann Coulter... total joke.

Hi Farrius, I agree that moral guidence is important. Like many I just don't believe governments have much to offer in that regard. And with regards to America, I see little in their pop culture that speaks of morality.

MorganQuite frankly no. I do not buy into torture as the life and death issue that many make it out to be in saving lives. So this arguement doesn't sway me. MorganAgain no. As you yourself have said, MorganSo we're really gaining very little from using torture and politically losing quite a lot. To make that connection is a bit ridiculous. " MorganAgain no. As far as I'm concerned anyone who tosses around words like "post modern" and "left wing" as losely as they appear on this board isn't worth taking too seriously. I believe there are absolutes in morality but they are specific to each situation rather than one right and wrong for all situations. Morality can be relative in some cases as well. For example: I oppose the death penalty and would actively try to block it's reinstatement in Canadian law if that should come about. You support the death penalty. Which one of us is moral? Which one of us is immoral? Can we both be moral?

MorganOn this you are about 99% right. I would never endorse torture (my main concern is physical or mental torture which permanently damages the prisoner) under any circumstances. If fighting a war we want to be able to hold our opponents to higher conduct. If we allow torture of prisoners then they will do the same. If we do not and they do we have a higher position and it's to our advantage. You are also quite right that torture is inefficient. In most cases it's used to get false confessions.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the use of torture on prisoners on either the international scene ex: Saddam or Bin Ladin if he's ever caught or on the domestic scene on Canadian prisoners. I don't support many rights for prisoners but the right to remain free from torture is one that must be upheld. For one thing torture doesn't guarantee a prisoner will give you the correct information. In fact many people will tell you whatever you want to hear they think you will stop. For another torture of prisoners degrades those who do it. It is sadistic. Torture is commonly used to extract confessions from innocent people and it is routinely used by corrupt regimes the world over. If we allow for its' use we are lowering ourselves to the level of the worst offenders. Any thoughts?

Hi Morgan, I have no problem with people opposing my point of view. I do have a problem when people attribute a position to me which I do not hold and have never stated. As I mentioned before if anyone wants to know what I think of a subject the best way to find out is to ask me directly. As for my stand on torture - I am oppossed to this kind of treatment of any prisoner regardless of who it is. From a personal standpoint if someone did great harm to my family I would want to hurt them back but these sentiments can not and must not enter into the law. As I've stated many times the West must take the moral high ground. We should not be a party to advocates of torture. Are you suggesting that opposing torture of prisoners is a low moral position? From your tone I could assume you advocate torture but I'll give you the courtesy of a direct question: What is your stance on the torture of prisoners?

MorganActually I didn't, like most people. Nor did I protest the war in Iraq although I didn't agree with it. My position at this point in time sways towards isolationism and non-intervention. Many people in the world live under conditions similar or worse that Saddam Hussein's regime. They can not all be liberated. Intervention in other countries can cause problems equal to or beyond what came before. I believe the fate of Saddam should be left to the Iraqis or the Americans. I have made no claims otherwise. I simply oppose the death penalty and thought I was free to express such an opinion. I fully understand revenge and what drives it. This does not mean I should endorse torture or capital punishment. MorganI do not claim moral high ground. I'll leave that to others. My point of view is legitmate and I have every right to express it.

CameronI wouldn't go this far. I don't think we have to assume God is an offense to everyone since most people regardless of faith believe in God - Christians, Jews and Muslims to name a few. The call to remove references to God is coming from athiests and not other religious groups. Having said that I don't need the government to guide my morality especially since most governments lack any. Morality and values must come at the local level - family, religion and schools in the community. If you look for it beyond that I doubt you'll find it. In the southern States Bible Belt there were many people who believed in God yet were firmly racist. How do you account for this? Mr. FarriusI think this is assuming a bit much. Perhaps the American government sees itself as moral but I'm sure the American people would differ a bit on this. Was Clinton's behavior moral or how about Richard Nixon's foul mouth. American society is amoung the most secular in the world and American pop culture is racing for the gutter. Governments only speak of morality to get votes. In practice they have very little use for it.

I just read the following article which I thought was quite interesting on its' own and for my wider thoughts on crime and crime control in general. http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2003/12/16...6/f212.raw.html The bottom line here is that the police (rightly) investigated hundreds of claims of sexual abuse and are now finding out that many of the claims are false and were filed by a From the article.My point is lives have been ruined and people's reputations permanently tarnished for nothing. I am not criticizing the RCMP here, who plan on turning the investigation back on the claimants, but rather pointing out how easy it is to get caught up in a witch hunt. I think it's important that the public understand that logic and reason and not revenge guide the administration of law in this country. I'd like to hear your thoughts on either the specific story or law enforcement in general - perhaps as it pertains to immigrants and suppossed terrorists.

Hello RT 1984, I don't really care for that name - Too bureaucratic. RT 1984Once again I'm forced to point out I'm not anti-American. I am well aware of the history of American and European foreign policy and if you will note from my posts did not address this issue at all here. The question was what should be done with Saddam. In my opinion, if I'm allowed to have one, he should be imprisoned for life. If other people have different ideas that's fine. RT 1984You are right that is what I'm going to say. It seems to be a common tactic on this discussion forum to attribute to people points of view they do not share. If you are interested in what I want to know on the above or any other topics the easiest way to find out is to ask me directly. To say that because someone opposses the death penalty they are anti-American or anti-Capitalism is ridiculous.

RT 1984This was the first comment on this post. I feel my position that Saddam should not be executed is reasonable. Obviously he will be but I do not agree. This is legitmate. I am not expressing negative comments against those who feel otherwise. I have always oppossed the death penalty for any and all reasons. However I do maintain that the west must maintain the moral high ground. I am bothered when I see people on this site advocating torture and then equating it with justice.

Hi Morgan, Before we get too far along on this death penalty thing you should know that I can not be convinced... ever. I am a death penalty opponent period. I would not support it even for the following: MorganAs for studies on it's value in deterence of crime, A it still doesn't convince me and B I can produce an equal number of studies refuting your claims. We can go back and forth like that for months if need be. Also remember murder makes up a very small amount of crime anyway. I personally am not scared of being murdered as the chances of it happening to me are slim to none. So even if the death penalty did deter murder it has no effect on crime unless you take the following into consideration: The easiest and fastest way to eliminate crime for those so concerned is to abandon civil rights, give the police and the law unlimited authority and institute the death penalty for all crimes regardless of severity. To give Israel any say in the punishment or trial in Iraq would be a Foreign Policy nightmare. Saddam's fate should be left to America, the Coalition and/or the Iraqis. They should reap the benefits of the war and occupation and accept the downfalls as well. "Be subjected at length to vengeance by his victims, namely, the Iraqi and Israeli peoples. This should all be done in the public spotlight, with medical oversight to ensure his most painful survival for the next phase."

Hi Morgan, MorganFirst I made no claims to values in my post - high brow or otherwise. Second - with regards to Saddam and criminals in general - I do not care how severe their crimes, I do not support the death penalty under any circumstances. Please note I have no negative opinions on those that do - again I merely do not. Third - I did not "want" Saddam to stay in power. I favored the status quo - the devil we know. The invasion of Iraq and the fall out has not settled yet. I oppossed the war because Saddam was little or no threat to the United States as was confirmed by their own intelligence: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06...7/sprj.irq.wmd/ Despite things having gone fairly well for the US so far I see no reason to change my position. Finally, MorganI find this a pretty amazing sentiment. Especially since the death penalty has no relation to crime deterence.

I opposed the war in Iraq from day one and still have seen no justification for it. However, Saddam's fate should be decided by the coalition or the Iraqis themselves. Since I oppose the death penalty Saddam should be imprisoned for life.

CraigSorry I have to put this one in again because I can't quite believe it: ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?Craig, Ann Coulter is a certified nut and lier. I don't dispute the CBC is open to criticism but that fact that you site her on media bias renders anything else you say on the matter irrelevent.

Hello Alliance, I've never heard of this woman until you mentioned her. From what I've seen she comes across like another pop psychologist to me. I was unable to find anything about her which suggest child abuse is OK. Your claim sounds a bit far fetched to me but I don't know enough about the woman to dispute it accurately. Perhaps it would be easier if you could provide us some quotes from her book to back up your claim.

Alliance FanaticI must challenge you on this. I have read the article and while I thought it was crap I must protest the above claim. No where in the article was it suggested that Judith Levine endorses or in anyway suggest child abuse is good for children. Alliance - as a bit of friendly advice I'd seriously consider rephrasing that claim.

Firstly, homosexuality should not be re-criminalized. Having said that the government should move on. This issue is completely trivial and it's a sad state of affairs that the governement has spent so much time addressing this. Homosexuals have all the rights that the rest of us have. As far as I'm concerned the issue is closed. Trudeau said the Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. However the reverse has not been held - the bedrooms of the nations have entered governement. What I would like to see from a conservative party is a move towards hard core political issues that affect the majority of Canadians: -Employment -Educations costs -National Defense -Foreign Policy -Poverty -National Unity -Protection of Natural Resources -Addressing problems facing our aging population -Dealing with Urban issues -Protecting our National Independence -Health Care -Maintaing the country's water quality The problem I have with the Alliance is not so much with what they think but rather what they say and how they say it. They are their own worst enemy in the PR department. A clear policy should be established regarding issues and communicated to the party at large. It seems this is just another case where they've put their foot in their mouth. Alliance - I read the article you mentioned which takes some shots at Europe - in many ways rightly so. However to portray America as a bastion of Christianity is a bit silly. We (Canada & USA) are every bit as decadent if not more. Let's see, Canadians and Americans regularily engage in idol worship (Celebrity obsession) and soft core pornography is widely available on cable T.V. in the US and Canada. One of the principles of Christianity is to be wary of materialism - yet in both Canada and the States there is very little of the spiritual left. America imports crap from Europe and then spreads it the world over - I'm speaking of reality T.V. here which has people degrading and prostituting themselves in every which way imaginable. If society is declining we need only look at ourselves for the cause.

CraigI think you would have an extremely difficult time doing this as the number of hetrosexual families would outnumber the number of homosexual families by a margin so large as to throw the numbers. The homosexual community has all the rights and privilages of everyone else. They are by far the most powerful minority group in history and have absolutely nothing to complain about as far as I can see.

ElderThis is 100% absolutely correct. You can not change religious views. Energy would be much better spent somewhere else.