kraychik

Michael Hardner has made a consistent effort to portray himself as an ultra-rationalist who is only driven by compelling evidence. The reality is, of course, that he uses this unsatisfiable demand for "scientific evidence" from "experts" or "authorities" which simply doesn't exist in order to shut down discussion. He's basically told us that is he is incapable of accepting or understanding anything until a Peter Mansbridge tells him to. Consider that in the thread about the ridiculous "no zeroes" policy implemented at some schools, he tried to tell everyone to shut up because apparently we all lack "sufficient expertise" in education. Can you imagine living in that world, where you can't learn or understand anything on your own? He is that caricature of a leftist who wants government managing his life from the cradle to the grave. He'd be a great cog in the machine of 1984.

The funny thing is that the leftists on this board actually think you're a conservative, when you express supremely anti-conservative perspectives such as this tripe. By this standard you're just presented, nobody is responsible for anything they become, because, as you say, we're all "products of our youth" (how philosophical of you!). I guess Bill Gates, Barack Obama, and Osama Bin Laden aren't responsible for themselves, either. After all, they're all "products of their youth", right? A cornerstone of conservative philosophy is personal responsibility, which you're just completed wiped away with your nonsense. No wonder the socialists on this board use you as a prop for their vision of conservatism, because you essentially see the world through the same lens as they do. In your mind, engaging in terrorism and murdering an American soldier is sufficiently punished by detention in Guantanamo and and imprisonment totalling about ten years. Nevermind the fact that is unrepentant and more committed to Islamism and the cause of terrorism than ever before. No wonder the leftists on this board love you.

Nah, they're just ultra-wise scientifically-oriented individuals who demand compelling evidence from Evan Solomon before they believe anything. When they're not perusing "data" from "authorities" like Avaaz and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, they're busy expanding their horizons by playing video games and talking about how great they are for choosing not to have kids (sincere thanks on the latter point, by the way).

You're right, every single policy decision we make should be determined by multi-million dollar "studies" carried out by "experts". We definitely need liberal arts professors ("immigration experts") telling us that bringing in diseased and senior relatives who don't speak English of new Canadian citizens in the name of "family reunification" isn't likely to be an economic boon for Canada. We also need "experts" to tell us that the future of the country will be determined by the composition of the electorate, which isn't well served by importing Islamists from Somalia. Maybe there's a way to scientifically measure "social cohesion" that's been agreed to by "experts" and "authorities" at universities in order to present this information in a clearly specificity manner so as to be palatable to a rationalist like yourself?

The jury recommended a forty year sentence, but somehow Khadr was given an eight year sentence. Some sort of plea deal or plea bargain? I don't understand all these legalities.

Translation of almost your entire post: "If a tree falls in the woods and Black Dog doesn't hear it, does it make a sound?" Answer - Not in Black Dog's world. You must live on the same island of delusion as Michael Hardner, where nothing exists until Peter Mansbridge tells you it does. The funny thing is this just reinforces my earlier point about the widespread omission of relevant stories by most of the Canadian media landscape, with the most recent example being the nearly complete burial of the story linked in the original post reported on by Sun News. Out of sight, out of mind!

Manny was the one suggesting that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a "natural response" to perceived transgressions, not I. Unlike most of the left, I don't hold humanity in contempt and believe that it needs to be coerced into perfection by mastermind bureaucrats ("experts", according to people like Michael Hardner) via a tyrannical government.

That's certainly not a natural desire. This is also not a natural desire, unless of course you're demented. There's something very wrong with you when you can lump the previous two examples of what you perceive as natural inclinations to the desire for consensual romance. You're just revealing the contempt the left has for humanity, which is how you justify tyrannical governments. This is exposed through your sincere belief that the desire to murder people who don't drive defensively is as "natural" as wanting to engage in consensual romance with one's girlfriend or boyfriend.

More anti-Semitism from bud. What you're sharing with us is essentially the newer iteration of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, remade for the 21st century. All we need to do is use the term "Zionists" as a euphemism for Jews, and parrot the ever durable narrative of conniving Jews conspiring to control all the "power" in the world. Apparently Harper, in your mind, is a puppet of the Jews Zionists.

There is no meaningful assimilation, that is a direct consequence of the suicidal "multiculturalism" policy that Canada adopted via Trudeau. Canadian identity is now whatever anyone wants it to be, and it's been intentionally watered down. There was a TDSB thread in the Provincial Politics section where a link to its curriculum was found. On that website was a section entitled "inclusive education". As you'd expect, it was packed with nonsense: "Afrocentric history", "Asian history", "Muslim heritage month", and other such nonsense. If we're lucky, there'll be a resurgence of Canadian identity in rejection of this failed social experiment. What Michael Hardner is essentially telling you to do is not to believe your lying eyes when you look around at the failures of Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver. Michael Hardner is just making things up. There is absolutely no consensus from "authorities" regarding the (imaginary) "successes" of contemporary immigration policies. We are not screening effectively for good immigration candidates, and as a consequence immigrants have been, on balance, net liabilities on our economy over recent decades. The entire premise that immigration is necessarily a boon for the economy only exists in a purely free market. This reality gets distorted with government welfare programs. For heaven's sake, foreign students in several provinces are eligible for public healthcare! We also treat illegal aliens. I agree, but you're being way too kind. Contemporary immigration and "multiculturalism" policies are a disaster. Michael Hardner pretty much labelled you as a bigot after these comments.

This is just another way to spin your extreme leftism into something more semantically palatable. In your mind, any public policy can be justified as long as there is sufficient public support behind it, because everything that's done in society, in one way or another, happens within and affects our community/society. It's straight out of the Communist Manifesto. You don't understand the need for limitations on government to protect the sovereignty of the individual (you demonstrate this lack of understanding regularly). More importantly, however, you completely missed the point, again, and think that everything is somehow your business because it happens in your community or broader society.

So you believe that natural human behaviour is wrong and immoral. This is unsurprising, coming from a leftist. This basic philosophical point of departure is form the foundation of your support for and justifications of massive government coercion of individuals: because human nature not only can be, but must be perfected. Truly frightening.

No. American military tribunals afford full habeus corpus. He wasn't adhering to any basic set of standards of morality or law with respect to his participation in armed conflict. I understand the "all's fair in love in war" phrase, and perhaps he should've been left to die on rather than being saved by an American army medic. Lastly, by the time he threw the grenade, he had waited long enough to lead the Americans to believe that hostilities had ceased, so there's not a strong case to be made for him acting in self-defence. More importantly, he was there of his own volition. You can ask the same pointless question about any murderer. If I had been in Eric Harris' or Dylan Klebold's shoes, perhaps you'd assert that I would've shot up Columbine High School, as well? It's a ridiculous question with the explicit intent to absolve a murderer or his crimes.

In case you hadn't yet noticed, the debate about abortion is about more than just the choice of the mother of the unborn child. At least recognise that reasonable people can disagree over this issue. I guess that's a bit too much as from you. You should change your screen name from Smallc to BigL.

Of course it's an important fact. Canada is one the extreme end of not granting rights to unborn children until they are completely detached from the mother. Although I find comparison to other states largely useless (as popularity is not an argument in favour of anything in international terms), Keepitsimple is demonstrating an obvious point that Canada has staked out an extreme position that is likely out-of-step with the majority of Canadians.

Good idea. We should use the approach of using the example of Pavlik Morovoz to reach our children to prioritise the state above all other issues, considering this flaw in human nature of having deep connections to one's family. None of that absolves him of responsibility for his crimes. One of his brothers, Abdurahman I think his name is, rejected the Islamist indoctrination. Although there's not really much point in discussing this with you, is there? You've already described Khadr as an "innocent victim".

He has been convicted of murder, and admitted to it. He's also never apologised for it or expressed any remorse for it. I guess somehow that defines him as an "innocent victim" in your leftist mind. Can you show me the law in the Criminal Code which prohibits "illegal indoctrination"? I'm not sure how you can charge someone with a non-existent offence.

Wanna have a contest to see who can name more? I'll even give you a helping hand - Jared Loughner and James Holmes. The problem is, of course, that there is no underlying ideological common denominator that unifies these mass murderers. So it's a sort of apples and oranges comparison, which is par for the course with socialists like you.

Nobody's forcing you to read my posts, let alone reply to me. Alternatively, there's a red 'x' in the top right corner of your browser screen which you can use at any time.

Hey man, you use your phone in my community, so I have a say in how's it's built and distributed. Same thing goes for the colours on your garage door, and political signs you put on your lawn. It's my community, dude. We are the 99%!

The funny thing is you don't realise how broad of a term "community standards" actually is. "Community standards" also determined the design of the iPhone, although that's something entirely different than the "community standards" you're invoking, in which non-stakeholders like yourself pretend to be stakeholders.

Exactly, like Omar Khadr. Or the 7/7 bombers? Or Nidal Hassan, Faisal Shezad, or Omar Abdulmutallab? Perhaps those who plotted terrorism in Toronto and Ottawa (including the pathologist who showed up on Canadian Idol)? Maybe you're thinking of Hasan Akbar? Or maybe the massacre at the Nord-Ost theatre in Moscow? Or perhaps the massacre at the school in Beslan? Maybe the 2004 Madrid train bombings? Or perhaps those freedom loving folks shown in the original video demanding the destruction of freedom of speech and expression? Maybe Anjem Chodhary? Or the folks at Revolution Muslim? Maybe those peaceful Muslims who recently called for death to all those who "insult the prophet" in Syndey? Maybe Mohamed Merah? Maybe John Allen Muhamad and Lee Boyd Malvo? Maybe Louis Farrakhan? Maybe Jason Abdo? Maybe Mohamad Elmasry from the Canadian Islamic Congress?

He's not a kid. He's 26 years old. Here's the family he'll move back in with, and hopefully his beautiful mother, sister, and brother will assist him with his ongoing reformation to prevent recidivism. Fast forward to 3:00, and then to 4:45 to meet his mother and sister who live in Toronto and are Canadian citizens. Get some insight into their attitudes.

Silly me, I thought we were having a discussion about contemporary politics and events.