Figleaf

Going by his own words. I took the initiative in creating the Internet Now who is lying. YOU are lying. You have asserted that Gore claims to have invented the internet, yet Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Gore's claim was: "... in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Which has nothing whatsoever to do with INVENTING. Ergo, you are lying when you say he claimed to invent it. You owe Al Gore an apology (but hey, so does half of America).

WTF? How does it show that exactly?

But the essential rules that the rest of us live by are not religious and/or ethic traditions? Or did we just make them up? Our laws are not merely arbitrary traditions, particularly in the last 100 years. We have a system of laws designed to deliver efficiency, predictability and objective fairness.

Because only Sikhs have a legitimate non-violent reason to carry one (i.e. their faith requires them to). Their reason is not non-violent. It is an edict based on the principle that their religion requires them to be ready for violence. Or to defend themselves against violence (like the Sikh religion specifies). Or to slice an apple.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Many people thought a few years ago that the shotgun marriage of the Alliance and the Tories was a union of desperation between two philosophically mismatched groups. What's amazing in the reverse-takeover quality. It first appeared the Alliance faction had the upper hand in the merger, but the resulting leadership (Steve, Tom Flanergan, etc.) have themselves turned pretty much into old style cater-to-privilege Tories.

The SCC allowed the daggers because there was zero evidence that a real risk existed. If daggers posed no risks, then why wouldn't every student be allowed to carry one? It seems like the SCC convinced themselves that Sikhs are less violence-prone than other people. I wonder what evidence was provided to support that notion? 100% right on, Geoffrey!

And now 19 more in just a few hours. I sure hope this high level of output is mated with high quality.

Alot of us won't show up to vote. There is growing sentiment here (at least in those I talk to) that we are truly powerless to do anything. Our boy, my MP, is the Prime Minister of Canada.... and we aren't being treated any better than when the Prime Minister was from Montreal. It doesn't work dobbin, it just doesn't work. What's the point in voting? The names of the winners may change but the real outcomes look very familiar. IMO, voters (all over the place) are like people who keep repeating their bad relationship scripts, continuing to make the same kinds of destructive choices about the kind of people they hook up with. In the specific case of Steve and the Alliance, I remember very clearly that the rhetoric supporters purveyed indicated an (unsupported but intimately held) assumption that Steve and his gang were somehow different in nature than prior politicians and other parties. Why did they delude themselves that way? Desperation for change? Ideation of 'one of their own'? I don't know.

Something is striking me as a little strange about the Afghan business. The Afghani fighters are renowned worldwide as tough, effective warriors. Our mission there stresses the dangers soldiers continually face from the 'enemy', and the seriousness with which their capabilities must be regarded. The Afghan government, it is said, needs NATO help to stand against irregular forces composed of determined Afghanis. And yet, for some strange reason, the moment an Afghani signs on the dotted line and gets his army uniform he suddenly becomes an ineffective third world loser who can't stand up to the 'Taliban' without paternalistic western armies to strengthen his spine. There is a disconnect here.

Wow. That's about the last thing Steve's political history would make me think. His record is a litany of bashing virtually everything Canadian, in favor of virtually anything American.

There is no point in cutting the GST. The problems with the GST have little to do with the percentage figure it rakes off, but rather with the administrative burden it places on businesses, the extra bureaucracy it requires to administer, and the distortion of purchase price it applies at the cash register. None of those problems is fixed by lowering the percentage rate.

Crikey! Michael Bluth is up to 1105 posts since joining MLW in March!

I'd be curious to know where you're hearing that and where I can find out more about it.

Go ahead, no-one (including Gore) thinks Gore created the internet. You're lying, plain and simple.

Such as ... ? You have been following along just like me. Yes, and that's why I'm mystified as to what examples you think support you view. How about instead of playing silly games, you actually point out specifically something you think supports your contention that 'fanatical atheists' are seeking to restrict religious rights.

For those who are wondering... Mu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)

Which did M.Dancer pick: A, B, C, or D?

Is a conservative hack the best source you can muster against all the knowledgeable people referenced above? I think that says it all. As opposed to this left wing hate Bush site. http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm I think on this subject I'll put these people up against your Mr. Allen any day:

??? If that is meant to suggest that you think liberalism is about controlling disagreement, then you labor under a profoundly mistaken grasp of that subject. I'm very well acquainted with what liberalism means, believe me. And it means nothing like what post-modern leftwing loonies who call themsleves liberals think it means. Your second sentence is correct, but there is no reason to think the first one is.

... The fucking crap some posters will spew is simply astounding. So I have a new question for you ... If someone uses false information to build an accusation of dishonesty, does that make him: A - a dirty liar; B - a stupid douche-bag; C - M.Dancer; or D - all of the above?

Since when did "w/e" become "namecalling"?

So, Steve and his gang are trying to fix it to give themselves more Parliament seats in Alberta whilst purposely shafting Ontario in terms of seats-per-voter. Apart from the naked corruption involved, doesn't it suggest they are giving up on making a breakthrough in Ontario? Does Steve not realize that his handful of Ontario MPs will be butchered like suckling piglets if he tries to ram this disgusting piece of legislation down our throats? Do CPC Ontario MPs think they can escape the righteous wrath that voters will visit upon their richly deserving hides? It's a poser, that's for sure.

Is a conservative hack the best source you can muster against all the knowledgeable people referenced above? I think that says it all.

Yes, someone with a small mind, or rather peculiar fantasies, seems to be beating that drum lately. (Not that I mind being mistaken for female on a web forum -- women are usually very articulate writers.)

??? If that is meant to suggest that you think liberalism is about controlling disagreement, then you labor under a profoundly mistaken grasp of that subject.