YankAbroad

The whole war was based on a lie and a massive mistake. However, what's done is done. We're now there and have an obligation to leave it better than it is found. That said, Canada, and every other country in the world who wants the situation resolved well, should participate in reconstructing the country.

Risk of what? Catching the gay? I don't think Monty likes it when his pee pee gets hard watching it or something.

Why not talk about minding your own business? If you spend more time actually reaching out to troubled children, and less time trying to "protect" them through big government bureaucracy, you'd actually be helping people. But I get the idea it's less about protecting people for you, and more about getting people who you don't like under the guise of protecting others. You weren't even able to name a gay rights group in the whole country until tml12 provided you with a link to their web sites. So you're not exactly an expert, this much we've established. Thus, demanding that groups which you cannot even name prove they're doing something is a bit rich. You don't even know what groups you're making a demand of!

While I am absolutely not in favour of government broadcasters, I also wonder if your anger about the CBC grows not out of its "public status," but rather out of the content of its broadcasts. If it was a social conservative network, would you still be calling for its privatization? I'm not so sure.

Quite right, tml -- "neo-liberal" is a dirty word amongst the European left.

Oh, I'm aware that Canada, the UK, the USA and other countries try to assert overseas jurisdiction outside of their own territory. So do the Saudis, Iranians and others. Such assertions are illegal under international law, and more importantly, have no validity because the countries in question don't have the power to implement them. What, is Canada going to invade India to find the perps or something? People should take responsibility for themselves. When you leave Canada, you leave Canadian protection and jurisdiction. If you don't want to take that risk, don't leave Canada.

So then, assuming Canada elected an English-only PM who didn't speak French, you'd be OK with Quebec leaving the country? After all, at that point, being told the country isn't officially bilingual and even being overruled on the constitution, it would be pretty clear that Quebec's place in the existing federation isn't really a concern.

Even if they actually were "offensive," who cares? I see offensive stuff published about Americans, gays, libertarians, Quakers, etc. published every day. Do I have a right to attack the publishers and the embassies of their countries? Heck no. Satire and criticism is part of living in a free society. The biggest irony is that virtually none of the rioters in the various countries have even seen the cartoons in question. The one editor in Jordan who dared to print them was arrested by the government and his papers confiscated!

That's really why all these protests and attacks exhibit the weakness of the underlying doctrine itself -- if they honestly believe in a powerful and omnipotent god who will strike down his enemies, why do they need to go to bat for him? He can just twiddle his little finger and take care of his enemies. Unless, of course, that powerful and omnipotent god doesn't exist, or they have doubts about his power and omnipotence. . .

I have to snicker at the political cultures of the Tweedledum party here when it insists it's "under attack from the MSM." Go over to the Tweedledee party and you'll find a similar sentiment. They always insist the evil of the world is against them, the establishment is against them, the powers that be are against them. Except, without fail, they are the evil of the world, the establishment, the powers that be.

No he didn't. Just ask any of the Southern Republicans today who bitterly hate Lincoln and talk about "the real reasons for the War of Northern Aggression."

Assault is simply defined in both Canadian and US law as unwanted physical contact. If you physically block me, grab me, attack me, or push me, you've committed assault. All of those activities are common at clinics which perform abortions -- I know this because I encountered it personally when my sister sought prenatal care when she was pregnant with my oldest nephew. Hey, I support a "right" to deny medication -- if the pharmacist in question also supports the scrapping of the prescription regime and a full free market in medicine. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, the moralist lunatics insist on infiltrating a highly controlled government monopoly and preserving that monopoly whilst insisting they have a "right to moral freedom." Nope. If you create a free market in drugs, then you've got all the right in the world to turn away people you don't want to serve. But if you create a government-sanctioned monopoly for yourself which denies competition the right to serve an area, your "right to moral freedom" is denied by the same power which denies others the right to competition and free markets -- namely, the prescription legislation. No they're not. They're government agents who are licensed by government. Neither you nor I could open up a pharmacy without "pharma certification" issued by the government. It's an effective government monopoly, not a "private business." If pharma advocates of "moralising" were to also advocate for getting government out of the pharmacy business and opening it up to competition from anyone who wished to sell medications, then you'd have an argument I'd agree with. Of course, the moralisers don't WANT a free market or private business environment, because the market favours choice -- not "moral objections" limiting access to drugs. In a real free market, moralists would be drummed out of business in a couple of months, tops, by real free marketeers who would sell you anything you needed or wanted.

I'm sure you were going to say something snarky about what I said because you couldn't attack the underlying principles of the constitution which underpin them. Too dangerous for you. Hence, attempting to tie my view to extremism is your only "weapon." Would you support a similar attack by a Senate Majority Leader Ted Kennedy on Republican efforts to block the appointment of Sheila Jackson-Lee to the Supreme Court? Of course you wouldn't, because suddenly such logic would turn against you since Jackson-Lee isn't your man (in any sense of the word). Would you support the same unconstitutional powers which are being handed to George W. Bush to have been handed to President Bill Clinton or a President Hillary Clinton? Of course you wouldn't, since the Clintons aren't "your man." The problem with such short-sighted partisan retardation as that which you represent is two-fold: 1) You always believe your guy will stay in power forever -- but he doesn't; 2) You undermine your own case for your liberties when you're in the minority by undermining others' liberties when you're in the majority. When the penduluum swings the other way -- as it always does -- you'll find your own arguments for your own rights being dismissed by the very arguments you mouthed on this forum in 2006. Unlike you and your opponents alike, I believe that the civil rights of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, and the apolitical alike should all be protected from the predations of both the Tweedledum party in power now and the Tweedledee party in opposition. That's why I oppose your efforts to emasculate Senator Kennedy's Senate duty to question and beat up on the president's nominee just as much as I'll oppose efforts to emasculate Senator Hatch's duty to question and beat up on a future Democratic president's nominee.

No it's not. The laws and activities of the Australian authorities have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to your effort to argue that such activities also take place in North America. Both Canada and the USA have strong laws against spousal abuse, and claims that multiculturalism undermine Canadian and American legal jurisprudence have absolutely, positively no relevance whatsoever when "proven" with an Australian example. The article you link to clearly shows a problem with Australia's legal system. Outside of that, it has no relevance to the North American community whatsoever (despite your wish that it did). Recent migrants who believe in higher birth rates are keeping things booming for the time being. Westerners don't have to be "Europeans" (i.e. whites) in order to be westerners and uphold the values and ideals of western society -- freedom of speech, conscience, religion, business, and personal liberty. Further, your assumption that "Europeans" only reproduce with other "Europeans" is rather silly, too. A lot of that booming birth rate in the US which you're so excited about involves mixed-race relationships -- something which makes the North American experience so invigorating and cool. North America isn't a "European" country -- or an Asian one, or African. We have our own distinct cultural heritage which is as a migrant society founded on unique principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and which welcomes everyone -- regardless of colour, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc. -- to enjoy those blessings in their own lives.

I don't know how good your parenting was, or how good a parent you are if you have kids. I know I wasn't "highly impressionable" at that age because my parents actually did their jobs, rather than running to government and the law all the time demanding "protection" for me. They taught me about right and wrong, taught me about people out there who didn't have my best interests at heart, etc. That was far more valuable to my healthy and successful development than laws which are implemented by breathless and idiotic moonbats who want to "save the children" from some nameless, faceless, baseless evil-which-has-no-form-but-must-exist-because-I-fear-it-does. I wouldn't hold my breath.

A PM should always be bilingual. Just think of it this way -- would you accept a PM who only spoke French? If not, why should Quebeckers accept a PM who only speaks English? Asking for a leader who speaks both official languages is not an unreasonable request. Insisting that it is only further underscores the case of sovereignists who say that the ROC doesn't care about Quebec's needs or even basic respect for Quebecois membership in confederation.

As an American who lives abroad, I accept, the moment I get on a plane leaving US soil, that my rights, freedoms and security from the US government largely disappear. Everyone else who gets on a plane, consciously or unconsciously, for a foreign destination accepts the same. I am not protected by the US constitution when I leave the USA. Canadians are not protected by the Canadian constitution when they leave Canada. While the murder was indeed tragic, it's not the role of the RCMP or Canadian government to attempt to "investigate" it or punish the perpetrator when the perpetrator did not commit the crime within their jurisdiction. The victim accepted this when she left Canadian territory.

The Vatican has stepped into the furor. Read this passage very carefully and consider the consequences: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/syria.cartoon.ap/ In its first official comments on the caricatures, the Vatican, while deploring violent protests, said certain forms of criticism represent an "unacceptable provocation." "The right to freedom of thought and expression ... cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers," the Vatican said in a statement. In other words, thought and expression which goes against "religious sentiment" should be illegal and illegitimate. That's right -- free THOUGHT "cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers." Orwell would be proud. And these are the people who want us to consider their views as public policy? HA! This entire event is being used by religious fascists to justify government policies which would destroy our freedom of thought, speech and debate in areas involving religion's undue influence on political environments.

Progressive is a term which socialists have taken after conservatives made "liberal" a dirty word. Of course, socialism isn't liberalism -- libertarianism is the original liberalism. Nothing is more "progressive" (i.e. enabling of progress) than allowing individuals to pursue their own dreams and life agendas without a socialist telling them that they should give up their money for the socialist to spend the way he believes, or a conservative telling them that they should give up their life choices for the conservative to make for them. A true, original liberal is one who tells the authoritarians of the right and the left alike to leave the people alone and manage their own lives rather than those of others. Unfortunately, conservative statists and socialist statists have created a political monopoly for themselves and transformed our political landscape into an elementary school playground filled with insults -- ("liberal!" "neocon!" "hate-filled leftist!" "rightist hatemonger!") instead of pursuing a healthy debate. They have done this because leftist policies and rightist policies alike are both failures and they know this. Discussion would only make that point clearer and threaten their power.

Speaking as one o' dem homos, I have to say that comparing even the most homophobic western country to the average Middle Eastern country is ridiculous. I'd much rather live in the deep south as a gay man than in the most cosmopolitan Saudi city as the same. As for "phrases often sound extreme when translated into English," someone should tell these guys that -- they're apparently translating their own phrases. These are some signs from the riot here in London yesterday: As a libertarian (and Libertarian), I'm supposed to stay silent when lunatics rampage through the streets calling for "freedom to go to hell" and demanding that people who disagree with them be executed? I don't think so. EDIT: Doesn't look like the image tag works. Try cutting and pasting those photos into your web browser to see the "rage" of the poor innocent people who were so put off by an editorial cartoon.

Well, the guy making the speech everyone's there to see gets a bit more leeway. It's part of the reward of winning the election.

They're words which explain the "logic" behind actions ranging from flying planes into skyscrapers to hanging gay men in public to blowing up school busses.

Some of the signs from the poor, peaceful, offended Muslim protestors in London today (which I saw on the BBC News a couple minutes ago): KILL THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM CUT OFF THEIR HEADS DEATH TO NORWAY EUROPE IS A CANCER, ISLAM IS THE ANSWER NOBODY WHO INSULTS THE PROPHET MAY LIVE JUSTICE FOR US OR BLOOD SHALL RUN IN THE STREETS Yes, sounds like a nice sentiment to me. Imagine if, every time the Iranians executed a gay man or a Muslim leader said something anti-gay, we gays marched in the street with similar placards expressing those awful views towards Muslims. Well, in Britain, it would get you arrested. Something to think about.

No it wouldn't. Jones's activity would be the same as Sheehan's -- only the content would be different.

I agree she shouldn't have been arrested. I do believe they were entirely appropriate in ejecting her from the gallery. No it wouldn't, it would be identical to what Sheehan was doing, just with a different issue and different president.