Figleaf

WHITEWASH! With Day in charge of the investigation, what else could we expect? His staff probably drafted the letter. This is sooooo dirty I can barely imagine it. The RCMP gets a fax that pretty much declares someone paid Hart and they can't figure out that a benefit was paid?!?!? This is ridiculous. No wonder they can't keep track of their own pension money.

What if the parent doesn't teach that lesson, but instead inculcates a contempt for society/law? Is that parent being negligent? Should the state step in to ensure the child learns different?

The Harper government is unravelling at the seams. As just a quick roundup reveals -- -Afghanistan: caught in blatant fabrications to cover up Canadian exposure to complicity in torture -Investment trusts: broken promise cost investor hundreds of millions; and now a firesale is hollowing out corporate Canada -RCMP pension debacle -RCMP general debacle -Stockwell Day implicated in potential seat-buying crimes -a really stupid budget paying for a nice fat Quebec tax cut -first environmental policy ludicrous -second environmental policy leaked -Bushist foreign policy leading to loss of international credibility -sold out hardwood lumber (Via turncoat minister) -U.S. choking off border despite the above two points -paying out money for the Chinese head tax -Canadian rots unaided in Guantanamo -... all sorts of other things they've kept hidden.

What for? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If one goes back to the time of the Caananites (at about 1600BC) there's no Israel or Judea. If one goes back to 4000BC there's no Egypt. Yes, that is the generally thought history of the term. Not, of course that this is relevant in any way to the rights or wrongs of the modern conflict, but the picture is not nearly as clear on that point as your forumation suggests.

I discuss to seek truth, where the discussion reveals error, I confront it. No, it's pretty obvious ... so many people on this forum cannot stand to have their notions held up to scrutiny. It's hard not to 'sound like a know it all' when you know a lot more than others. Yes, I'm aware that sounds arrogant, but ... oh well. Since you made an assertion about the potential dangers of SSM 30 years down the line, and since you now won't support it with any sort of content, I am assuming you are unable to support it (your cheap dodge and malicious ad hominem notwithstanding).

Were you going to get around to answering my question about this in post #634? To refresh your memory, I asked: "How will the change to SSM affect society? If you forsee a danger, we need to understand what it is. Just so you know, I start from a liberal standpoint (what isn't harmful to society, society should not prohibit)."

Old news, Ruester! Greg in his wisdom has asked me not to tell people when I report them, so now it's all got to be done secretly, like the Stasi of East Germany. I've discussed this at lenght with other posters. I report people for rule violations, not for disagreements. And I am going to continue to report rule violations. The rules exist for a reason. I don't break them and I see no reason to silently tolerate others breaking them. I hope you remember this offensive comment, when I decide to compare you to the Nazis.

Could you show a map or something from that era showing a Palestine, who ruled it etc. etc. You could look at these, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:Israel_Byzantine_5c.jpg http://www.culturalresources.com/images/ma...omEmp117Big.jpg

Let's understand what we're each talking about ... by trashing, what level of damage and danger are you seeing? No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation. Cheap. More than necessary? Of course not. So, that means never having to approach a child from the front in a friendly 'hug'; you always approach from the back, and use whatever force is necessary, unless of course they've put on armour. That's not what it means to me. Alright, I'll concede that in rare cases involving super-powered children given to eternal tantrums perhaps the police, or Spider-man or someone should be called in. I admit I haven't tendered any evidence. Do you really think it would be hard for me to find cases of people being injured while being handcuffed? My guess is that the whole situation is twisted and out of hand, that the so-called professionals lost control of the situation from early on that day, drove a cranky kid into a tantrum, treated her like an animal, and ended up acting childish and cruel in their own ways. If that's how it was, that's certainly what they should have said. But I find it telling what they did say. Yes, where that exception applies, I concede it.

Earlier I asked you "Put another way, this suggests you feel a moral obligation to refuse equal protection of the law to homosexuals. Can you expand upon the source and scope of this 'morality'?" and I guess the above quote sort of begins to address that, but I remain curious in some respects. What philosophical and historical ruminations, asssessments and conclussions, specifically, inform your views on homosexuality? I don't ask idly -- if your preferences are to be taken up by others and brought into public policy fruition, a fulsome analysis will be instrumental.

Well, alright then ... this is a discussion I've asked SSM opponents to enter for a long time now. How will the change to SSM affect society? If you forsee a danger, we need to understand what it is. Just so you know, I start from a liberal standpoint (what isn't harmful to society, society should not prohibit).

One frequently cited parental purpose in the upbringing of children is to 'teach them respect for the law' or 'help them understand their obligations in society' or some other such formulation. But where does this leave a parent, child, and society when the parent comes to see a fundamental flaw in the law or in the social order? For example, on another thread recently, a poster/parent objected to same-sex marriage on the grounds it interfered with his childrens' 'moral' upbringing. I surmise that communist and libertarian parents may experience similar conflicts of principle, so I'm curious what people think of such situations. Please discuss the perspectives of the children and society as well as the parent's.

Sorry, no promises. I actually wish you had chosen another of my questions, rather that the least significant of them all. Don't bother with the one where I mention a new thread, but perhaps you could respond to this one instead: Put another way, this suggests you feel a moral obligation to refuse equal protection of the law to homosexuals. Can you expand upon the source and scope of this 'morality'?

I can believe Holland would react in such a disrespectful and childish way to an RCMP investigation. What's disrespectful about telling it like it is? What's childish about disrespecting bullshit?

Yes, we are trying to show you that your feelings in that regard are not very practical. Lawsuits are the means that society provides for people to obtain redress for economic damage. What's to despise about that? Why is it 'gutless' to simply do what society provides for in such situations?

Put another way, this suggests you feel a moral obligation to refuse equal protection of the law to homosexuals. Can you expand upon the source and scope of this 'morality'? My this is an intriguing post you've made... Tell me, does your 'morality' specify a decibel level at which homosexuals seeking acceptance would not be objectionable to you? Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you mean that because SSM is accepted by society's laws, it makes it difficult for you to both revile homosexuality and teach your kids respect for the law? So, I guess you feel similar in this regard to how communist or libertarian parents feel. (This may be an interesting line of discussion of a more general kind ... perhaps I'll start a thread.) Tolerate -- accept; what's in a word?

Gadzouks! don't encourage them. Let them promote their content-challenged manias and worthless $150 Fremen Kits somewhere else. And I'll bet you the crown did nothing with the pile of evidence of wrongdoing s/he had against this officer, am I right? Thanks for telling us about these matters. It's important that citizens maintain scrutiny over their governments and hearing this stuff reminds us of that.

Oh man! -- if we weren't in lockdown I'd [PAY SCOTT A NICE COMPLIMENT, OF COURSE]le.

Continued... Can't you PLEASE stop inventing shit that I haven't said? The number of men, the type of technology, and the way choices are made by the Occupier don't change the fact of occupation. I've never said any such thing. It would really go a long way toward bringing your posts up to a decent level of integrity if you avoided uttering scurrilous claptrap about other posters." Really Figleaf. Then put up right now of shut up. State right now ... YOU put up right now or shut up. Where did I say Israel must "do nothing while it's people are killed"? Where? Where did I say that? I didn't. It's simply another lie, like all the other dirty lies you've fired at me for months on this forum. It would not surprise me at all to learn that Palestinian terrorists have used that term that way.

I am so tired of your horrific lying that I may have to start bringint it to the attention of the Admin. I am NOT saying that Israel SHOULD Occupy the territories. I said that that since they ARE occupying the territories they have certain obligations. Is that another lie? When did I call it 'terrorism? Anyway, there is a BIG difference between supplying security and prosecuting a creeping annexation. I criticise the latter, not the former. Does Israel help prevent normal crimes in the West Bank? Do they investigate thefts of commercial goods, common frauds, domestic violence? That the Occupation has not ended. How many times must you be asked to support your assertions before you will actually deign to do so? !!! Where does it say that? Uh Figleaf, in the space at the bottom of the treaty or declaration that states who the signatories to the treating or declaration are-try read one before you ask such questions...you are embarassing yourself with such questions... Did that make sense to anyone? Again, Rue, please tell us ... where does it say that occupiers must sign on as occupiers? (Be specific, please... what treaty, what clause, where can we read it?) If you can prove me wrong, I invite you to provide the supporting documents, otherwise your objection there appears baseless. Yes, and under international law Israel is not permitted to occupy and deny self-determination to a people and carry out a creeping annexation on the premise of protecting itself. Figleaf you said yes and then completely contradicted yourself in the next sentence. Do you have trouble seeing the screen? I ask because there is simply no contradiction at there and it's really inexplicable how you could imagine one. They could (and should) be removed anyway. But in fact adding more settlements on the Occupied territories is government policy. It's impossible to see how that policy relates to securing Israels real borders, or how it coheres with a concept of admitting self-determination for Palestinians in the Occupied territory once peace is concluded. There is a word for the policy of settling on land one is supposedly to be giving back -- 'disingenuous'. Exactly, so their presense has nothing to do with security and must be about something else. Personally, I think it's perfectly okay if that's what Israel wants, except it should be built only on Israel's side of the Green Line.

Speaking for myself, when I criticise Israel I do so because I disagree with some policy or action it has taken. In fact, that's pretty much the same reason I criticise anyone. I think that sentence represents a profound misunderstanding of the situation. The problem with the disproportionateness of Israel's last cross-border military action was not that it was attacking Hezbollah, but that it was attacking Lebannon's infrastructure and the innocent civilians of that country. Well that's certainly a pipe-dream, given the vast disproportion in force available to the two respective sides.

A bit too late for that hope. It is a done deal. Count me amongst those who have walked away from this toxic forum. Ironically enough, several of those whom I consider to be the worst trolls are busy having their usual fun in this very thread. How typical. Goodbye. Welcome back Mad Michael! Perhaps Greg's recent announcement of a zero tolerance policy (q.v. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....0entry212191) will satisfy your demands for forum conditions that permit you to continue to participate. If not, it's always nice to hear your opinions anyway, even though you've left. ?

His account was accidentally removed awhile back. These posts predate his account removal. Ah I see, thank you.

See...I knew after some hot coco and a good cry you would feel better..... Do you have any comment on the substance of this discussion, or are incomprehensible sidebars all we can expect of you? If you'll recall the post immediately above yours, you'll remember I asked whether your critique of humanism applied under both of two views or only one.

RCMP: There are no zip codes in Canada. Do you think this is a game? H: Yes indeed. This is a bullshit effort by the Conservative party to distract people from the serious allegations I made. It is a sad and disgusting effort to intimidate and silence a critic of the government.