Figleaf

Noooo, it is I who is awaiting your response. You said: "There wasn't a place called Palestine on any map from 1967." and "It only became a sudden huge issue when the Israeli's kicked everyone's collective rear-ends in 1967 upsetting everyone's plans re: driving the Jews into the sea." I asked you to articulate what consequences you think flow from those observations. Do you intend to respond?

I hope they take you with them.

Nope. Are you sure? ... your sense of humor is so similar.

I'm in 100% agreement with Charles Anthony. What kind of regime are we fighting for? We have no business sending our soldiers to die to support one gang of torturers over another gang of torturers.

Couldn't agree with you more. So Michael Bluth is the name of the boss on 'The Office', is it?

So? Even if that were correct -- So?

On a yellow and black Parliament of Canada moving label. YES! My God, Bluth spoke the truth! I'm going to bookmark this post for posterity. MEANWHILE, you misrepresented the point we were discussing ... that its entirely likely that the Liberals didn't even notice the box, let alone the label, for a long while. I'm secretly Ricki Bobbi -- can't you tell by how fuc*ing stupid I am?

Well, it was well timed and devastatingly effective. On the other hand, it hardly involved any strategic or tactical virtuousity. Certainly not among the Palestinians and other Arab states that opposed the establishment of Israel in the first place. What? Who? Ummm... Not one single thing you have said changes the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in their territory.

Nonsense. It was black scrawl on a yellow and black printed label. It contain no markers other than a movers' code 332-0. It's ridiculous for you to suggest that this was a clear label. ANYWAY, nice second attempt at diversion. The the we are discussing is whether the boxes would be noticed at all, and your misrepresentation of my point. I await your reply. Figleaf doesn't hate anyone.

You failed to mention the fact that the boxes were clearly marked ... Why would I mention the abject falsehoods that you've been trying to perpetrate, rather disgracefully. The markings were anything but clear. Anyway, nice try on the diversion, but the markings have absolutely nothing to do with the point we are discussing which is whether the boxes were noticed at all. You misrepresented my point and I'm still waiting for your explanation. Confirm or deny, Ricki: the payor of your paychecks is the Conservative Party of Canada.

Now that we've established that no political party has any credibility on the environment -- the Liberals missed the targets and the Tories with this (presumably shows loss of credibility) -- what do we do? Vote NDP? Vote Green? God love us...how do we save the environment? Man, you said it! We're in a serious quandary about the environment. The Kyoto concept, if it could be applied without goring someone's ox, is actually quite sensible -- attaching the cost of external damage to the activity that causes it. If they ever get it up and running, BUY carbon credits. But more generally, we need to get smart about the environment. Voters would need to make it their primary voting criterion AND make their very best effort to pick the politicians who make most sense on the subject -- forget partisanship. The Greens, hopefully mean what they stand for, but if there's a good candidate from another party with a good environmental plan, don't waste a vote on a fringe party. Meanwhile, citizens have to enter the public discourse with their concerns, and common sense. We've got to do things that will work, that means, for example, applying regulations at the point where they make a difference rather than measures that just impose costs on non-poluters. Most programs that target individuals for new duties like recycling or the absurd 'one ton challenge' are disingenuously ineffective and arrogantly troublesome. We have market society, for phoque sake use it -- place the costs and apply the incentives at the point where MANAGEMENT is able have an impact the process.

Fair point. If another investigative body were appropriate and capable, it might be okay for Stock to stay in his portfolio. Yet, the situation is really pretty clearly within the criminal code arena rather than any other; if it were misuse of funds, the Auditor could look into it. I suppose the Ethics Commissioner could look into it -- OOOPS, Harper extirpated the Ethics Commisioner. Maybe the BC provincial police could look into it ... OOOPS that's the RCMP.

That's right. There's no evidence that the boxes left in the OLO by the Conservatives 14 months after they left the office were there the entire time. Are you deliberately misrepresenting my point, or do you suffer from some deficiency that excuses your misrepresentation of my point. " "

Amen!

Well, Scribby, good for you. You've made an argument that has some content regarding Holland. Theft by conversion... good try. Maybe the RCMP will even agree. (Of course if they charge him with Stock still at the helm there will certainly be a perception of bias. One more reason Stock should step aside. Those of you keen to nail Holland will see that to acheive that, Stock cannot lead the charge.) Whoa! There's no evidence they knew the boxes were even there for that long. There's no evidence they formed an intention to hold onto them at any specific point in time. There is no evidence that they even attempted 'conversion' at that is defined. It is POSSIBLE that they did, and so, maybe an investigation might be applicable, but it's totally without basis to reach conclusions at this point.

The lovely thing that this thread demonstrates in technicolor is the sheer vapidity of rightwing apologists. Here is a regime that has lied to the American people at the costs of hundreds of billions of dollars and multiple thousands of lives and still the apologists leap to its defence, but all they can muster is emptyheaded scolding. Not even sorry excuses anymore.

Because? Didn't you read the rest of that post? ... BECAUSE of the disturbing allegations of political corruption around how Day's seat became availalbe.

Well, I guess Stock will be stepping down something this week, finally. After all, how long can he contemptuously spurn parliamentary tradition in the face of these disturbing allegations? Surely even a man as smart as Day can see he can't stay on under these circumstances.

Reported.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/0...4114683-cp.html Oooops, there goes Tory credibility on the environment.

Point of Information, Mikedavid: the link to the Muslim site does not say that Muslims will overtake Christians in Canada. The chart that shows 2025 is for the whole world.

Despicable stereotyping.

To deny the fact of the Occupation is to deny that a group of people are being denied self-determination by another group, contrary to the rules of Human Rights, and seemingly for the purpose of adding conquered territory to the state of the Occupier. Whatever losses you wish to ascribe to the Arab League has nothing whatsoever to do with the right of Palestinians to self-determination. No. That is all irrelevant to the core point. Israel is conducting an illegal Occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. It is actively denying the Palestinians their human rights. This must stop. They have no obligation to do so.

I suspect he doesn't. He likely thinks he's brilliantly refuted not just the initial point, but ALL ideas left of Mussolini forever. Look for a tantrum when that particular bubble of self-regard pops. The surprising thing about many Bushites is the ideological pretzel-shapes they can take on to defend the regime for things it does that are contrary to traditional rightwing desires -- e.g. foreign interventionism, growth of government, intrusion in to individual lives, and MASSIVE deficit spending. I used to think there was at least a hard core of (albeit erroneous) principles on the Right, but it's clear now that expedience and cynicism are their true hallmarks.