Figleaf

What does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread, Gore's book on American Politics. If you want to get on a rant, start a rant thread. Did you notice? ... Gore's book is called the 'Assault on Reason'.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm way too hairy to be a girl.

It's true that illegal attacks against Israeli civilians have been a dishonourable tactic for the Palestinians to use. But it's utterly ridiculous to imagine that the Palestinians would have made a single iota of progress against the zionist hawk elements of Israeli government by using passive resistance. The 'greater Israel' faction would simply laugh all the way to the River Jordan.

Allready have on several occasions, but to summarize again: - The 2004 presidential election was certainly legitimate, as was the USSC's constitutional ruling in 2000. - FDR interned American citizens by the thousands, and Lincoln suspended constitutional protections. - The Clinton "surplus" was a projection that never survived recession conditions underway before Bush ever took office. - America's standing was so great before Bush that ships, embassies, and the WTC were all attacked with great loss of life. - Religious "superstition" or the lack thereof, are enshrined in the Constitution. - Privacy and freedom were more restricted before Roe v Wade and the Civil Rights movement So, after two or three ludicrous posts, you have finally been provoked into attempting to actually discuss something. On a discussion board! Good for you. Unfortunately, your responses are merely contradictions of what was said, rather than rising to the level of refutation. 1. The USSC ruling in 2000 was certainly not legitimate. It's obvious if you read their decision that they are talking total nonsense to obtain the desired outcome. They cite the same principle at different points to arrive at two incompatible outcomes -- that the SC both can and cannot intervene in state electoral processes. Also, here is an analysis by one of America's foremost prosecutors: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi . The 2004 election was tainted by corrupt practices in the swing state of Ohio, in particular. 2. Your comments about FDR and Lincoln are complete non sequiturs that don't respond to any point raised. 3. You are simply wrong about the Clinton surplus as can be determined by anyone who wishes to look into the matter. 4. Your comment about attacks on the U.S. before Bush is not relevant to the fact that the U.S. has lost reputation among the nations of the world and the law abiding people of the world since the Bush disaster began. 5. Before Bush, the principle of separation of church and state were respected. Bush now openly declares that he makes choices based on his religious impulses. And Bush implemented a policy ('faith-based inititatives') of using taxes to fund prosletyzing. 6. It seems that you are not disputing that Bush has undermined freedom and privacy during his presidency. Good. Anyway, thanks for coming out.

Oh lord. Okay, if anyone really wants to know what the current account balace is, I suggest you not rely on any of these comments so far. You could, of course, Google the term. Anyway, briefly put, the current account balance compares the value of total imports into a country with the value of total exports out in a given period. The net of the two is the current account balance. So, if you have a current account balance of -$10,000,000 for 1999, that means you imported 10M more value than you exported.

Gore is really on to something here, I fear. And it's a bigger issue that just climate change or just GWBushes horrific dishonest Iraq debacle. There seems to be a concerted campaign in some quarters to destroy all concept of meaning and to make discourse impossible. Religious fanatics who try to equate the fabrications of 'intelligent design' with scientific inquiry are essentially saying scientific inquiry has no meaning. Religious fanatics who try to tell you that 'faith' and 'reason' are compatible are essentially saying that the meanings of those respective words are changeable at whim. Likewise those who try to tell you that 'fetus' and 'baby' are the same thing. (If they were the same there would be no need for a different word.) Israel apologists who try to paint simple critics as anti-semites are essentially working to destroy the meaning of the word anti-semite. And security enforcement officials who try to tell you that waterboarding, stress positions, and partial suffocation are not torture are working to remove meaning from the word 'torture'. These are just a few examples that come to mind, but there are more.

It may be a religious war in the eyes of the extremists, but I think it would be a sad mistake for us to adopt their faulty and counterproductive worldview. George Wealth-destroyer Bush has already blundered by calling this challenge a 'war'. It's not a war. It's the responsible states of the world acting against criminal nutbars. Calling it war gives them a level of credibility they don't deserve.

And what's wrong with that, may I ask???? You can't be serious. What's wrong is: 1. Satan doesn't exist. 2. If he did exist, he isn't some petty earthly warlord. 3. Demonizing the enemy with absurd mythological references puts blinders on your own ability to perceive and act correctly. The colonel was uttering purest crapshit, and seems to me to lack the desireable level of professionalism. IF his men believe in Satan and IF his men believe that Satan is a man who lives in Fallujah, then maybe he was motivating them to fight for their beliefs. If not, he was clouding their minds and sapping their motivations by inflicting his personal views.

The party list element of all these variations is one of the most objectionable things. In effect it builds a kind of senate into the legislatures. The List Members are not accountable to anyone except their parties, and as long as they are powerbrokers in their party, they will have a guaranteed seat for their lifetimes.

... Oh yeah. Sure. M.Dancer knows more about the Taliban than Karzai's government does. M.Dancer knows all about Taliban negotiation objectives, Taliban internal governance, exactly who is an isn't Taliban, and the motivations of each of them. M.Dancer knows everything there is to know about the Taliban. Indeed, observe M.Dancer even briefly and it becomes clear ... M.Dancer knows everything about everything. Just ask M.Dancer.

These discussions are pointless. North American media never report the incidents of violence that lead Palestinian militants to respond. And they always manage to ignore the fact that the conflict began when one group of inhabitants' wishes were ignored and someone else's state was imposed on them. Or that the conflict persists with a country illegally occupying the territory earmarked for the state of another people. These are the elephants in the parlor, and any comments about the issue that don't reflect this reality are certainly pointless and probably propagandistic.

Wolfowitz displays the exact same attributes we see from most neo-cons when they get power: -a willingness to abuse office for personal or ideological reasons; -disdain for governance and institutional practices; -nepotism, cronyism and an overweening sense of entitlement; -self-righteous criticism of the wrongs of others when they oppose his own wrong-doing; -a presumption of exceptionalism -- the rules shouldn't apply to them; -foul-natured foul-language; and -a penchant for viciousness and bullying.

"You are a disrespectful insulting ass"! * * http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8917&st=24

There can be no question that the administration of GWBush is the worst in U.S. history. Any objective observer cannot overlook: -the illegitimacy of his taking power; -the lies perpetrated to ramp up war and violence; -the illegal attack on Iraq which as killed many thousands of Iraqis and several thousand Americans for nothing; -the shameful squandering of the Clinton surplus reversion to massive deficits; -the loss of face and respect among nations; -pissing away America's reputation as a law-abiding, decent country that doesn't abuse human rights; -the insidious infiltration of superstitious religious nonsense into government; and -the campaign against freedom and privacy his administration has supervised just to name a few. No other president has been so willfully harmful of America's interests as George W. Bush.

Well, obviously Planned Parenthood is ill-advised if they are allowing counsellors to skirt the law. However, there may be some understandable motivations at play, in particular, the possibility that if teen-girls know that they'll get tangled up with the law when they go to Planned Parenthood, it might discourage them from getting help and advice.

Damn straight they were wrong. And so was special permission to let Sikhs (or anyone) not wear the proper police uniforms. Neither religious nor ethnic traditions should be permitted to override the essential rules that the rest of us live by.

I guess that would also apply to the Order of Canada, Victoria Cross or any other award for service of valour. It's only worthless if the the people who hold it and their peers consider worthless. Any idea what a VC is worth on the open market these days? I don't consider the Order of Canada or the VC worthless. I do consider the notion of being designated as 'royal' to be worthless, because the concept of royalty is philosophically bankrupt.

It's amazing how badly the Conservative government has conducted themselves. They had every opportunity to be straight-forward, decent, honest, and respectful of our institutions. But at every critical point they seem to instinctively resort to deception, cover-up, spite, and reckless bull-headedness. What ails them?

Hey, here's an idea, why don't you ask God on that one! Great idea, what's his MySpace address?

Even back before it became clear to me that Christian doctrine is basically ridiculous, it always seemed ludicrous that God would run a 'sudden-death' salvation lottery. What would be the point?

Or bullshit.

Why not go over the contents of their message, not who they are? Because with some sources the contents are driven purely by who they are (or who they think they are, or what they want you to think), rather than about the truth or relevance of the content.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Bill Clinton too. Personally, I know fairly little about the cases you mentioned. But there's a saying you may have heard: two wrongs don't make a right.

"You are a disrespectful insulting ass!" * * http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8917&st=24 Underrated post of the week award! haha Thanks, It's nice to know someone got it.

"Stevie" isn't his name either. 'Stevie' is far too familiar to be counted as truly respectful. But 'Steve' on the other hand is an admiring reference to the close relationship he has built with President George Wilkes Bush.