YankAbroad

If parties are so important then, why not eliminate individual candidates altogether? Just let people vote for parties, and then have the party assign the ridings it wins to whichever of its members it so chooses.

Why do you not enjoy the company of the same sex?

What if she decides she doesn't find marriage to be what she wants? What if she doesn't want kids or a husband? What if she's asexual or a lesbian? The reality is, the strait-jacket (pardon the pun) which you view marriage as isn't to make HER happy, per se, but to make YOU happy that she's living the adult life which you've engineered for her. You keep talking about what's "known or not known" in the "male gay community." How would you know? You're not a gay man. Neither are your lesbian pals. Your pronouncements on how gay men live, or what they want, are about as informed as my opinion on how to sexually satisfy a woman. "Proudly admit?" Seems like you're using some interesting wordplay here to support a contention which is questionable, at best. My experience is that, generally, heterosexuals are more promiscuous AND have more of an opportunity to be promiscuous than the average gay man. Heterosexuality is everywhere, and most of my straight friends -- including many who are married -- regularly indulge in "extracurricular activities." That's why I find this notion of the "gay sex fiends" versus the "saintly married heterosexuals" to be so amusing. I, more often than not, get far less sex than most of my heterosexual colleagues -- certainly with anonymous partners picked up in bars or clubs. I suppose that, given the extraordinary rates of promiscuity in the heterosexual community, they should lose their marriage rights as well. After all, it's clear to me (and many straight friends) that heterosexuals are all about sex, not commitment. Just look at all the pickup joints out there, sex on TV, sex in movies, etc. This heterosexual culture is all about sex -- none of them are into commitment!

Why is "crossing the floor" so dishonest? People elect representatives, not parties. Further, if crossing the floor is such a dishonest and misleading thing to do that it should result in an immediate byelection, shouldn't abandonment of major campaign planks or lying about policies as part of the campaign also result in a byelection? If that's the standard, there'd be a byelection every week. I agree with those who say the voters should decide in the next election.

Oh, how I wish that more people were as responsible a parent as you are!

Where in the Constitution does it mandate a two-party competition? Incidentally, the idea that getting enough votes will get you into the debates is a fallacy. The Reform Party received more votes under Ross Perot than Dukakis had received when he ran for president, but was still shut out of the presidential debates in 2000 and 2004. It's not about "competition." It's about control. You realise that the "debates" are carefully scripted and orchestrated, right? All questions are approved in advance, as are question-askers. Ask an "unapproved" question and they'll shut off your mic. The whole thing is a sham. So is the "political competition." Most of the time, the Republicans and Democrats have 80% to 95% overlap on policy issues, ranging from the Iraq War to growth of government spending. They accentuate the 20% to 5% differences in order to pretend they're worlds apart. . . but when push comes to shove on important issues, they all tow the party line. Don't believe me? Well then, answer me this: where was the debate over the Iraq War? There certainly wasn't one in Congress or the Senate, where the "opposition" not only refused to ask questions, but happily rubber-stamped what has proven to be a disastrous policy. They then had the chutzpah to campaign against their own policy later. That's the sort of thing a healthy Libertarian party will put an end to.

And what created urban street culture? A combination of racism ("white flight" from mixed neighbourhoods), coupled with socialism which created a dependent urban class.

Why shouldn't you be happy with a new government entitlement? Should I REALLY have to explain that to a "conservative?" I guess I should -- conservatives tend to campaign like fiscal libertarians but govern like socialists, after all.

All your "lesbian friends" are proving is that stupidity and generalising isn't exclusively a heterosexual trait. There are plenty of gay men who would retort with the old canard about "two weeks into the relationship, they hop in the U-Haul and move in together." The interesting thing is that all these so-called "experts" on gay male relationships aren't gay men, and ditto for lesbian relationships. Nothing amuses me more than having someone who is, more or less broadly clueless about gay life "explain" it to me and then complain about "painting with a broad brush." EDIT: Incidentally, I suspect that in queer company, your lesbian friends would have a good laugh about you and your relationship as well.

Here's a question from the libertarian quarter -- what are "conservatives" doing introducing new entitlement welfare programs in the first place?

You're mistaken here, too. Gays don't really care what you think of our sex lives (or lack thereof as the case may be), and frankly don't give a bit whit about yours, either. In fact, most gay men and lesbians alike find the constant hand-wringing by supposed "concerned citizens" to be surreal -- the average homophobe, in my experience, spends more time thinking about anal sex than the average gay man. If anything, political homophobia grows out of an excessive interest in the sex lives of other people. If you'd mind your own business, you'd not have quite so much to worry about.

You've got to love the fascism endemic in such platitudes. "Oh, you're SEXUAL, eh?!? Well there are going to be CONSEQUENCES which I am going to impose upon you!" This sort of thing also amuses me. On one hand, homophobes claim they "don't want to know about what gays do," on the other hand, they advance constant bizarre theories. My last long term relationship, several years ago, lasted for several years. It was based on emotional intimacy, and lest Mr. "Sex without consequences" forgets, sexual intimacy is part of emotional intimacy. It brings two people closer together and is a healthy part of any romantic relationship. Incidentally, what we "did" with each other -- emotionally, sexually, etc. -- wasn't much different from what most married heterosexual couples "do" too. This weird homophobic notion that it's all about sex strikes me as very revealing. . . often, the individuals in question who make such pronouncements tend to view women as sexual objects and cannot understand real emotional intimacy with any gender. Further, they tend not to have close platonic relationships with other men. For them, everything orbits around sex, sex, sex -- constantly. How sad for them.

It depends. Perhaps I'll put the actual factory in India -- assuming I can get reliable electricity, transport, etc. and employees who are capable. In terms of design, and marketing, and engineering, and other value-added services, I will put it where it's necessary. Also, your example of manufacturing is rather piss-poor too because it ignores the transport and quality issues which are vital to manufacturing. Hyundai discovered this, and as a result, they've opened up a factory in Alabama -- thousands of miles away from their home-base of "low cost" Korea. Half their manufactured products will be built in the USA as a result. Absolutely I'm going to get hired. The more intelligent people who are in the market, the bigger the market is and the more opportunities I have. I suppose, as a libertarian, my focus is on hope and opportunity. I believe that when others get opportunity, I get opportunity. The political establishment of today trade in fear. They fear that when others get opportunity, they will lose what they have. They believe, therefore, that they must punish and impoverish others in order to keep what they have. However, history is on my side. If immigration, free markets and growth were evil things, the United States never would have been a superpower. Canada would be a poor backwater 3rd world nation. Australia would be a pathetic also-ran. The most powerful civilizations on earth would be immigration-restricted, closed societies like Bhutan. Not true. The average American and Canadian would benefit tremendously from the additional economic volume which immigration would support! It's how the US and Canada came up from nowhere to become two of the world's seven richest countries in under 100 years.

No, the age of consent law says NOTHING about adults. It talks about the age of consent. It's possible for two teens to violate the age of consent law and still not be adults -- such as two kids in a relationship which was legal until one of them turns 16, for instance. Again, NOTHING about adults was mentioned in the release. It's entirely imagined by betsy and yourself.

Someone should tell the Muslims to take their cultural imperalism and fuck off. I'm tired of their fuindamentalist loons murdering politicians, filmmakers, and publishers who dare to disagree with them, and I'm especially tired of misnamed "liberals" defending the murders as "sadly necessary" and supporting the idea that if someone disagrees with a Muslim fundie and makes it known, it's a "provocation which sadly must result in his death."

I wouldn't hail Bush's economy as all that healthy OR all that low-tax. Running huge deficits is just a hidden tax increase in two ways -- one, it raids supplies of borrowing which would otherwise go to businesses and individuals (an indirect tax), two, it increases the long-term tax rate since taxes have to stay high to pay interest and principal. In adddition, George W. Bush has run the most socialist and activist government in American history. Federal employment increased over 50%, he launched a new socialist drug program which will cost over $90 billion its first year, he launched a disastrous war which has cost over $400 billion, and he increased foreign aid by over eighteen times the prior high. A true libertarian committed to small government and low taxes, he is not. But then again, Republicans ALWAYS campaign like Libertarians and govern like socialists.

A deportation to India would be fantastic, since they have the death penalty. But it's unlikely, because they have the death penalty, and the current en vogue trend seems to be to value the life of the killer (but not his victims).

You still haven't demonstrated how EGALE is calling for "adults to have sex with children." And you've completely ignored the point brought up many times now about kids separated by a less than two years of age who would be penalized and imprisoned under this law. Talk about "twisting and turning." You're patently dishonest (surprise, surprise).

Social conservatives LOVE government spending on their special programs. Just look at school vouchers, government funded home-schooling, or religious broadcasting for examples of that. Government funded broadcasters shouldn't exist. However, as I suspected, it appears your problem isn't with the government funding so much as it is with the content. If the CBC was broadcasting Christian Bible Hour and anti-gay documentaries talking about how awful gay marriage is, I suspect you'd be all for it and blasting people calling for privatisation as "cultural liberals against the majority." Actually, I have yet to see a case for why the government SHOULD be funding a TV network.

Why are you calling 17 year olds "adults," betsy. EGALE's press release is clearly with regard to teens in relationships, such as a 15 year old and 16 year old, where the 16 year old turns 17 and suddenly becomes "illegal." The only person talking about "adults" is you.

Betsy Goes Online Betsy: "Gays are all about pedophilia!" tml12: "No they aren't." YankAbroad: "Name a major gay group!" Betsy: *posts art web site* "Here you are!" Everyone: *hearty laughter at betsy's stupidity* tml12: "Here's EGALE, the largest gay group in Canada." Betsy: "Oh well I'm not an expert." *goes to EGALE and searches for 'age of consent'* Betsy: *finds article which she doesn't read* "Ah HA! They want kids to have sex with 45 year olds! Gays are all about pedophilia!" Everyone: "No they aren't." Betsy: "Gays are pedophiles and I don't understand why you'd personally attack me, you pedophile!" Everyone: *sigh*

Oh, it's one thing to not like the content. It's another thing to call for privatization. But it's my experience that most social conservatives who want something privatized only want it privatized when they disagree with the content. Once they get in power, they're all about government funding for their own content -- whether or not certain taxpayers agree with it or not.

Betsy didn't even know who EGALE was until tml12 pointed them out. Now, she's an "expert" on them. How funny.

I see that the Republican advocates are good on their smear campaign. Most of what you've said about Badnarik is sheer old good-fashioned lies. It IS true that Badnarik was arrested on the campaign trail -- you forgot to mention why. Both Badnarik and the Green Party candidate were arrested at the national debates after the Republicrats refused to allow them to participate in the debates and ordered them to leave or face arrest. There's NOTHING the Tweedledum and Tweedledee parties hate more than the idea of an open debate. Badnarik, while not perfect, would have crushed Bush and Kerry both in the debates -- this is why he was excluded. Harry Browne, our candidate in 2000 and 1996, was even more articulate and would have made mincemeat of the GOP and Dims alike. One reason why the Tweedle parties NEVER discuss issues in attacking Libertarians is because they know they're wrong -- they cannot win in policy arguments. One reason why Libertarians didn't get more votes in the election is because you shut us out of the debates. The other is your ballot access laws which make us spend millions to get on the ballots even in districts where we outpace one of the two Tweedle parties. And finally, the Reform party received millions of votes in prior elections and you didn't let them in the debates either. The real reason you resist including the third largest party in the debates is fear. You're afraid we'll show the American people that your "small government" rhetoric is all bullshit as you've grown the government faster and larger than any other party in history. It is funny though that you're suddenly concerned about the popular vote now -- your Tweedledum party wasn't so concerned with the popular vote in election 2000, was it? But I guess whatever argument works at the time should be employed, right? After all, hopefully nobody will notice the inconsistencies. Ah, but we're noticing. And we keep doing better and better in every election. Eventually, we'll start costing you seats in close elections. Then we'll replace you as the primary opposition in a couple of others, and send folks to Washington. Then, your worst nightmare begins!

Total and absolute popycock. Otherwise, the First Amendment would only apply to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to censor your speech and religion; the Second Amendment would apply only to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to seize all firearms; etc., etc., etc.