Figleaf

Maybe not, but as part of an overall so.con. profile, it's practically a requirement. Actually, liberalism is concerned with the freedom of individual people, not protoplasm. To pretend pro-forced-childbirth is a liberal position is fallacious. Opposition to daycare can be premised on a person's view that 'proper' families have a mother at home which is a social conservative position. I don't know what writings of Mill you refer to there, but it would be necessary to demonstrate some substantial level of harm inevitable harm resulting drug use to cause a true liberal to think the state should prohibit peaceable private use. The constitution already protects freedom of religion. The proposed act would provide a special privilege to religion that is not provided to others. 1. Branded? I thought they were happy to be social conservatives! 2. Social conservatism and liberalism are NOT the same thing at all, in the least.

I don't care what the movement's propaganda want to call it. And no, I won't provide 'evidence'. If you think Harper isn't pro-forced-childbirth, then say so. Well, their is a difference. Howard Dean brought forward civil unions in Vermont, but I don't think he's opposed to gays in general for that action. As well the argument for the anti-SSM side is also about the future of marriage laws which could change with reference to polygamy. After all they are all "consenting adults". In Canada, which we ARE talking about here, people who oppose SSM in effect oppose equal rights for homosexual couples. That's anti-gay, no matter what they want it called. Well, would you want your kids living in a society were people are free to do crystal meth, heroine, and cocaine. Yes. As a true liberal, I believe individuals should not be interfered with by the state in matters of personal choice. Harper does not fit this criterion. Do you mean Liberals, or liberals? Any 'liberal' who endorses drug prohibition is not truly liberal, at least to that extent. Yes, and? Yes, and? Isn't that to protect Religious groups from any possible complaints by groups screaming discrimination. Protecting religous liberty is a "liberal" trait. The law would exempt religious expression from laws that would otherwise apply if it weren't religious. Therefore it would create a special privilege for religion. I'm a classical liberal.

What does that mean, are you saying he's pro-life. 'Life' includes trees, frogs, fish, and dogs. Environmentalists are pro-'life'. I mean Harper favors laws that would require pregnant women to unwillingly undergo labor and childbirth. In which way, opposed to gay marriage, or gays in general. Same difference. Of course, many people liberal and conservative think crack, heroine, and ecstacy should remain illegal A true liberal would not want the state to dictate personal recreation or medication choices. ... Just because a person is a christian doesn't make them a So-con. In itself, no. But as part of an overall so.con. profile, it's practically a requirement. How so, ... The planned Defense of Religion law.

read my sig

Harper is definitely social conservative. He's: -pro-forced-childbirth; -anti-daycare; -anti-gay; -pro-drug prohibition; -a member of a traditionalist church; and -leader of a government that proposes to enshrine religious privileges. All that = So-Con.

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.

I don't understand that question. No. It is an opinion ABOUT religion. No. There is no neutral ground between faiths. "Should" is irrelevant. Certainly not. Religion is inherently unreasonable, and thus a bad way to make decisions.

Frequent Error 1: "He would rather eat fish then meat." The proper word is than, not 'then'. 'Then' indicates a time, 'than' is for comparisons. Frequent Error 2: "Fred is totally bias against the Conservative party." The proper usage is biased. You can HAVE a bias; you can BE biased. Frequent Error 3: "She was suppose to put the money in the bank." The proper usage is supposed. Frequent error 4: "She should of put the money in the bank." The correct word is have, or the contraction form should've. If we can all bear these in mind, it will improve things immensely.

You can't be a classical liberal and a social conservative.

That system would fail to generate sufficient revenue to meet program needs, and to capture optimal opportunities for public goods., The problem of free-ridership would make it collapse in short order. Good for you, Charles for passing on the same advice and encouragement I gave to you. It's good to know you're getting something out of our dicussions.

? I presume he meant what he said. And I note he hasn't disavowed it. I don't know what statement of mine you are refering to. Again, I'm mystified by what you are refering to in regards to anything I've ever posted. Most of your post seemed sensible, however.

I also urge you to give it a read, lengthy though it may be. I 'battled it out' with Hugo over this and a couple of other topics, so my urging may have a bit of 'self-serving egoism' to it, but Hugo was one of the most well-studied people I have ever encountered on the subject. Most of the veteran posters here would agree, he was a towering (if somewhat inflexible) intellect. Whatever Hugo's virtues may have been, he cannot have overcome the essential insurmountable fallacy of anarchism: that human society could succeed/continue without coordination & dispute resolution (i.e. government).

That is a sickeningly bigotted and basically depraved comment. If the rules of the forum did not prohibit it, I would say the same of you. Depraved? How can it possibly be "depraved"? Do you even know what the word is? I know exactly what it means and I used it quite appropriately. For YOUR information, here's a definition: It fits your situation perfectly. Yes, its called Israeli Occupation.

oo

//

Do you have no idea how silly that comment is?

Look at women's voting preference between end of Sept. and next week. I'll bet you it's the con party that will be sorry.

..

Let's not dance in the same circle we have for several pages of posts, ok? Yeah, I wondered why you went there.

Do you mean Liberal?

Anyone who examines Strauss or his followers will be hard pressed to distinguish that philosophy from fascism. The fact that such thinking has a high level of currency in the Bush administration fits perfectly with their antipathy to democracy and the demonstrated Republican campaign against the U.S. constitution. It's extremely troubling to see this crypto-fascism taking hold in Canada now.

So now Norman Spectre has gone on the radio and brayed that Belinda is a "bitch", and (get this) most MEN think she's a bitch because (get THIS) she wrecked Ti Dumi's marriage and (get this) broke up with Peterless Mackay! I'm a man, and I think Spectre is out to lunch. First, Domi, not Belinda, made and (allegedly) broke his marriage vows. Second, Mackay broke off the relationship, not Belinda. Norm Spectre should be ostracized henceforth by all media, for having exposed himself as a jackass.

l

Lie. No, he's quite right. Not that everyone who so zealously attacks Israel is into Jew bashing, of course. So it's a lie.