Figleaf

Mussolini was a man, Israel is a state. So let's compare apples to apples. Israel is currently illegally occupying some else's territory. Italy at the time I refered to was illegally occupying others' territory. So, in that respect, they are comparable.

Israel had no choice but to pull out of Gaza. The cost of defending a handful of settlers was horrendous, and even an idiot like Sharon had to recognize that Gaza is completely unmanageable. How many people have those rockets killed? Say compared to the constant extra-judicial helicopter gunship assassinations that Israel now carries out as an almost daily routine.... How many Jews do you think must be permitted to die before Israel takes action against Palestinian terrorists? Well, they could make peace.

Boo hoooooo! Argus doesn't like me. Yes, its called Israeli Occupation. Israel didn't give them a death cult to worship. They created that themselves. Oh yes? And what precipitated it? I'm glad you asked. It seems this Jew visited the Golden Temple, and this set off years of rioting and bloodshed called "The intifada", wherein the Palestinian terrorist groups killed every Jew they could lay their hands on. Needlss to say, this created all kinds of security problems for Israel, but it has managed to survive regardless. You think the conflict started then? You need to brush up on history, it seems. In any event, what do you understand to have been the objective of the (second) intifada? More importantly, Argus, on what premise do you propose that the Palestinians are unworthy of the right to self-determination?

Actually, I think my question could capture the idea of God never having 'revealed' itself.

That's a terrible survey. It fails consistently to capture all available options in any given category, and it lumps together concepts that one might have differences on. Furthermore, it is quite specific to U.S. policy issues and therefore doesn't capture Canadian attitudes accurately. There's another quiz out there that is better ... http://www.politicalcompass.org/

While I understand the impetus, I cannot agree with this proposal either in principle or in specifics.... I have a handful of degrees. My wife has not yet completed her first (she is a mature part-time student in a B.A. program). I certainly do not feel that her sense of right and wrong, her analysis of her interests, or the interests of society are any less worthy than mine (and I'm and arrogant SOB). Furthermore, I have met many military officers and while I respect them all, some-but-decidely-not-all of them demonstrate a better political grasp than the average high-school student. Foreign service is just another job. There's no reason they should get more votes than other people because they happen to have occupied a certain employment. What does raising a family tell you about someone's effort or ability to pay attention to politics? MANY parents are imbeciles. And why two kids? Why age 14? This idea makes no sense. The other points suffer from similar problems. And what about other claims to merit? Who's to say that the one's you've listed exhaust the categories of merit? I'd say you'd be better off disqualifying unfit people from voting rather than trying to make arbitrary selections as to who deserves more votes.

I'll bet you can guess how I voted!

[s.

The mystery here is what prompted the tories to cut their own throats. (Other than the obvious: they are tories.)

I agree. What should happen is everyone should just acknowledge that Peter Mackay is a dishonest person, unfit for public office, and move on.

Layton wants an election as soon as possible for a completely cynical reason: to prevent the new Liberal leader from having time to get his feet under him.

Opposition to publicly funded daycare or daycare in general. Once again I think you are confused about the policy. Do you prefer government to provide daycare, health services, social services, etc. All of which would be free, then your a liberal not a classical liberal. A classical liberal is in the same league as a libertarian, which I would assume what you believe you are. Opposition to publicly funded daycare may be because you oppose daycare because you think there should be a mother at home. It could also be because you don't want the public to spend money on it. I don't know whether Harper believes one or the other or both. I am describing a set or pattern of beliefs that fit Harper within social conservatism. I am not a libertarian. I am a classical liberal. I believe that the individual is the basic unit of society and that individuals may act collectively if it is in their individual interests to do so. Libertarians ideologically oppose the last part of that. As between classical liberal and the word you used 'liberal', I don't know what you mean by the latter.

Support the troops ... bring them home!

Who started which war? The facts of history might well surprise you. Hezbollah started the war. What would be right is demanding Israel obey international law and desist from oppressing the Palestinians. They are not oppressing the Palestinians. Actually, Israel has expressed willingness, but SHOWN unwillingness. The policy of illegal settlement outside its borders alone is sufficient to disprove any real willingness to achieve a negotiated settlement. Basically, it looks like Israel really wants the Palestinians to die quietly and be forgotten by history. Really, they completely pulled out of Gaza and got rocket attacks for thanks. Withdrawal from Gaza was not remotely sufficient to redress the causes of the conflict, and LO! the conflict continued. After Italy pulled out of Ethiopia, were the Allies wrong to invade Italy?

His comment was crass, but calling someone a bitch is merely a personal insult, not "sexist terminology." Then why did Spector acknowledge in his interview with Bill Good on CKNW that he would not use the word "bitch" in reference to a man? Actually, he cited a dictionary definition of bitch which confined its use to women.

Without faith you would not have a life. That's ludicrous. Not 'faith' of a religious kind. Scientists believe their methods will give correct information because science provides a method of generalizing from numerous specific cases and thereby determining probabilities. Science 'believes' it is probably right about things and is willing to be corrected. Religions believe they are right and are incapable of accepting correction. This is a fundamental qualitative difference.

[q

[

ll

..

..

The real choice your question amounts to is between men or men claiming gods' authority. Since the latter must be liars, I'd choose the former. my 1st qeustion is to the true power behind a church or religous orginization, the people, so is the faiths trying to get EVERYONE into their church, and is 1 of their tactics to take a small amount (or large) of control in our government. Some religions clearly want to have all people adhere to them, and some of them would like to use government control for their purposes. Some religions, however, don't have those drives.

Who started which war? The facts of history might well surprise you. What would be right is demanding Israel obey international law and desist from oppressing the Palestinians. Actually, Israel has expressed willingness, but SHOWN unwillingness. The policy of illegal settlement outside its borders alone is sufficient to disprove any real willingness to achieve a negotiated settlement. Basically, it looks like Israel really wants the Palestinians to die quietly and be forgotten by history.

Boo hoooooo! Argus doesn't like me. Yes, its called Israeli Occupation. Israel didn't give them a death cult to worship. They created that themselves. Oh yes? And what precipitated it?

No 'legitimate debate' remains, if there ever was any. No-one who opposes SSM has been able to formulate any sensible argument against it, despite months and months of complaining about it, and being asked what their beef was. I myself inquired endlessly at the time it was a current issue what harm the opponents feared, but none ever presented a single intelligible objection. What were offered were objections based on religion or prejudice.