YankAbroad

Sorry, I cannot hug someone who represents such a threat to our children and society at large. You don't work with children, do you? I am extremely concerned.

Well c'mon Betsy. Prove you're not a pedophile. Use facts, not opinions. We're waiting -- and the future of our children is at stake!

Hey, I can reverse this around to demonstrate its absurdity. Betsy, I think you and people like you are more likely to be pedophiles and shouldn't be near children. This is a strong suspicion I have, and I will link to a few web pages me and people like me have written to condemn you. Now I know nothing about you, but that doesn't matter. It's up to you to link to hundreds of web pages to prove that you're not planning to molest children and bring down civilisation. Well, get cracking. I'm concerned about our children and the threat that you represent to them! Prove you're not a pedophile and not going to become one, and also prove to me that my silly conjecture is false. Your opinion doesn't count right now -- I want facts! Lots of facts.

I love how betsy's blood libel is cloaked in phoney "concern for children." Someone who would use child welfare as a political club to attack their enemies is beneath contempt.

Lovely and romantic, but fiction. The revolution did not exist and was never televised.

Depends upon which business the government is "pro" for. I prefer a neutral government that stays out of everyone's way, business and individuals and everyone else.

Again, my religion recognizes and honours same sex marriage. If you're going to argue from that perspective, you cannot argue that SSM is a "violation of tradition" either.

Everything I've seen shows a majority of "hetro's" (sic) support equality under the law.

How are they forcing their will on the majority? Are gay marriage advocates forcing you to marry someone of the same gender?

A politically incorrect idea is one thing. A plain old fallacy is quite another.

Obviously you guys don't get it. When economic prosperity occurs when my party is in power, it's due to the hard work of the government in banishing the opposition's evil policies and the genius of the populace in supporting the government for as long as they did. When economic prosperity occurs when the other party is in power, it's not really prosperity because they're holding back even further growth which could occur and just riding the wave that my party created in the previous administration! In neither case does prosperity EVER grow out of the people in the economy -- leaders in business and commerce, natural resources, infrastructure, or plain old good luck. Ever.

No, he's simply applying your logic to other minority situations.

You see a black person, a gay person, a woman, a man, an American, a Canadian, a Briton, a liberal, a conservative, a poor person, a wealthy person. I see a friend, a colleague, a sister, a brother, a mother, a father, or a loved one. YMMV.

Then the wife packs up and leaves, just like you or I would in a similar situation. I'm hesitant to accept your observations when the simple presence of "ethnics" (sic) at the polls is enough to intimidate me. It suggests to me that minorities are not a part of your everyday life to a degree necessary in order to make detailed observations on culture and tradition.

Gorgeous George is busy self-destructing at the moment. His appearance on "Celebrity Big Brother" has his popularity in his district in freefall. Meanwhile, it looks increasingly likely that he's going to be nailed by UK authorities for not being 100% honest about his financial relationship with Hussein. Don't even get me started about the domestic terrorism that his "Respect" party represents, or the massive amounts of financial support that they receive from Muslim fundamentalist politicians and groups which are every bit as frightening as American Dominionist Christian groups.

Well, I'm not willing to endorse the screaming of the right wing, either. How many American neocons who are wringing their hands over the election results are willing to support asylum for people in the Palestinian territories who are oppressed regularly by the Hamas government and PLO? *chirping crickets*

While the war supporters' valiant efforts to explain away their Fearless Leader's blatant lies about WMDs are charming, they're not exactly convincing. There needs to be some accountability for this blatant act of mendacity on their part which has cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Yeah, I mean, everyone understands that terror doesn't grow out of hatred. . . Heck, based on the SPLC's definition of hate groups, the Liberal Party of Canada could have been classified as a hate group based on its recent campaign commercials.

Same-sex marriage and legal abortion are "Marxist" concepts? When did Marx write about either? Marxist was a statist -- he believed government knew best about how people should live their lives. So does Paul Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation. So in reality, both groups of statists -- Weyrich and Marx -- are closer to each other than freedom to marry or freedom over reproductive rights are. Both are inherently libertarian concepts (assuming that SSM isn't part of a heavily-regulated nanny state).

Ummm. . . last time I checked, it was the Danes and Russians who were busy planting their flags on Canadian islands. Utter nonsense. Cross border commerce, trade, and overall net crossings hit a record high this year and will hit a record high again next year. You wish. There are many of us, Americans and Canadians alike, who are libertarians and find the nationalist chest thumping of the Bible-thumping US neoconservatives and racist unilingual English Canadian nationalists alike to be boring, tedious and counterproductive. You guys are actually each other's best friends -- because without the sheeple being convinced they "need" you to "protect" them from the guys on the other side of the border, you'd be out of work. Well, we libertarians are working to help that process of understanding leading to joblessness for demogogues along.

Of course they wouldn't. They'd go and cite the charter which they have so much contempt for when it says people they don't like have the same rights that they do. Although such an effort would certainly charge up the Christian-rightwing-political machine's delusion of "persecution," which is central to their continued political viability. If they cannot convince people they're "persecuted," then they lose thier sense of purpose. It's hilarious -- they have all the power in Washington at the moment, and their enemies have virtually none -- and they still bellyache about how oppressed they are by the "establishment." Ummm. . . they ARE the establishment.

Regent "University" is Pat Robertson's bible college which offers only religious degrees in fundamentalist discipline. Its "research" is generally sponsored by Pat Robertson -- the guy who blamed the 9/11 attacks on gays and abortion rights leaders, who called for the assassination of Huge Chavez, and said that Sharon's stroke is due to God punishing him for negotiating peace with the Palestinians. So far, the only "research" supporting the contentions has been: 1) News postings from anti-gay web sites (CNS, CBN and "LifeSite"); 2) Analysis on gay stuff from an "art club" web site; 3) A "research paper" from Regent "University," a correspondence college from people who want a degree in religious wingnuttery. Now THERE are some quality sources. And still, even now, with Google, the people advancing the spurious argument that NAMBLA is all about gay rights cannot even name a single major gay rights group. I think it's safe to say that this "debate" is pretty much over, and it's not betsy and co. who have won!

Well, if the democratically-elected Hamas wages terror war with the Israelis, it undermines the argument that Palestinians are being unfairly targeted. They're endorsing an altogether different concept. As for what Bush thinks, lord knows he doesn't think very often, all the snarky "ah ha!s" from the left aren't going to resolve the situation either. The glorifying and romanticising of Palestinian terrorists by certain elements of the left in the west has done nothing but exacerbate the situation there as well.

Oh, no doubt. But I'm talking about people in government, not people who walk the streets and occasionally vote.

Nothing either. Of course, both Democrats and Republicans work hard to ensure that people with newer, better ideas cannot get access to the ballot, the electoral process, or the debates. Had our Libertarian presidential candidate been allowed into the highly scripted, phoney "debates" of the last presidential election, he'd have wiped the floor with both Dubya and Kerry. And in 2000, Harry Browne would have reduced Bush and Gore both to tears. Both would have won millions of votes and helped elect L's to the House. . . except that the Republicrats and Demopublicans ensure that nobody outside of their mutually ensured duopoly gets any time at all. The gerrymandering and ballot laws means that even in places where registered Libertarians outnumber registered Democrats, the Libs have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on ballot access which the Democrats get automatically. And no mainstream Republican leader would dare debate a Libertarian leader head-on, because the GOPer would have most of his "limited government" con-man's rhetoric blown to bits in the first ten seconds.