Jump to content

Figleaf

Member
  • Posts

    3,298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Figleaf

  1. Are you secretly Conrad Black? I ask because a similar PSEUDO-intellectual quality pervades both your styles. I don't give a rat's ass about this sort of comment, so spare yourself the effort (or don't -- w/e). Sorry if my point was too succinct and acute for brontosaurian posters to follow. My comment is a correction to Geoffrey's comment, modifying his use of "merit" to my "comparative merit", with the implication that this change means the original argument Geofrey was criticising is actually sound. His unsupported assertion was simply wrong, so I pointed that out. Actually, of course, you are not. You are vapidly critiquing my posting style, and totally ignoring the arguments I made, as well as the whole topic of the thread. How long do you think it will be before you are banned again, on grounds of utter worthlessness?
  2. Luxembourg has a unilateral right to enforce the resolutions if the resolutions call for resumed hostilities and if Luxembourg thinks it's up to the task. The resolutions certainly do not authorize unilateral invasion, overthrow of government, and occupation. You have been challenged to provide material in support of your claims in this regard, but instead you have simply provided a more longwinded recitation of your assertions. The reason for that is that your claim is specious. Hooey. Bush sought Security Council authorization and did not obtain it.
  3. The problem was not mere wording. The ideas you expressed were the issue.
  4. 1. Normanchateau's references to homosexuality on this thread are carefully chosen counter-examples that make a strong point about Harper's courting of votes through inappropriate apologies. 2. Your complaint is inconsistent. You say he uses the 'same' subject consistently, and yet you then admit that it is really only 'usually'. I conclude on the basis of these two points that you are making a collateral attack on the poster since you find yourself unable to answer his argument.
  5. Well, you're obviously the fellow to fill us all in on Hitler's admirable qualities, sharing so many of them as you do.
  6. Indeed, such as your penchant for disrupting threads with juvenile idiocies. I would urge you to review the forum Rules and note particularly that posts are supposed to contribute to discussion. If you have a substantive rebuttal to make, please do so, if not, you are invited (and urged, and Ruled and Guided) to keep out of the way.
  7. You apply peculiar criteria to you political analyses! You are ready to laud presidents for pissing off fringe Canadians, no matter how much harm they visit on their own American citizenry. Odd.
  8. Interesting point. There is a frequent assumption that provincial powers end at the shoreline. However, upon looking at the Constitution, I saw nothing that specifies that. It seems equally plausible that the division of federal and provincial powers would continue to apply within Canadian territorial waters.
  9. This discussion, particularly the excellent contribution of normanchateau, serves to confirm one thing quite clearly: Harper's apologies are an other example of his willingness to sacrifice our institutions and honour for short-term political gains for the Conservative Party. I can't think of any other prime minister who has been as recklessly partisan as Steve. If this is how he conducts himself with a minority government, it's obvious that he can never be trusted with a free hand.
  10. Forced-childbirth advocates have mustered their troops to spam the process, that's all.
  11. How many FBI agents are there to 'watch' more than half a million people!?!?
  12. Japan could not win the Pacific war. I did not have the population, resources, nor industrial capacity to confront the United States in a long conflict, and certainly not to defend against Asian hordes at the same time. And the Japanese regime knew this -- the Pearl Harbor strategy was deliberately conceived as a plan not to conquer America, but to deter it, at least until Japanese hegemony was fully established in South Asia and those populations and production brought on stream. The strategy was a pipe-dream, but it was all they could think of.
  13. Reagan was a mediocre president who spoke in a way that made a whole lot of Americans feel really good. His rightwing stance on economics was slightly useful as an antidote for creeping statist inefficiencies, but overall was neither theoretically sound, nor pragmatically sustainable. His social policies were harmful and ineffective. His foreign policy was questionably motivated, but in the final result effective in forcing an end to the Cold War. Bush is a disastrous president whose policies have killed thousands of US servicepeople completely pointlessly and squandered billions and billions of dollars. He has acheived nothing but to alienate US allies and grow the strength of US enemies. And his domestic policies are foolish and feckless. He is (and will be remembered as) The Worst President In History.
  14. Please explain. The outcomes are not arbitrary. I don't see why its incorrect. Please explain. You don't appear to understand his argument. He is not saying Y is good. He is saying Y is troublesome, and X is catastrophic (and includes all the troube of Y plus more misery). Please explain. !!!! Of course it is!!!! Its the exact justification of another proposal. Comparative merit. Sure you can.
  15. So, why would you not want to save the world from asteroid colisions?
  16. What I can't figure out is how the geniuses behind the policies can stand themselves. Not ethically, but intellectually ... how can people make blunder after blunder without ever coming to think of themselves as stupid. (Particularly when their initial motivation is to be such clever-dicks.)
  17. Exactly. The evidence was ephemeral at best, and war proponents compensated by using malicious rhetoric against all who tried to speak about it. The Bushist regime led the band, but there are a whole whack of individual people who should look at themselves with shame for the way they jumped on a bandwagon that has lost so many lives and squandered so much wealth and goodwill.
  18. That wasn't my comment. I was pointing out that Israel could contentedly ignore this internal Palestinian conflict, if they were not responsible for protecting the civilians in territories they Occupy. But now that you mention it, yes, in a way Israel is partly responsible for this, by having thwarted the possible peace they could have had with Arafat, undermining the authority of the mainline PA, and advertently or inadvertently nurturing Hamas. Actually they have neither. Both those territories are under military occupation by Israel.
  19. It's this kind of apologetic doublespeak and splitting hairs that the mullahs are counting on from the west which blocks accountability. Right, so, Hamid Karzai's government, ally of Bush, is exporting opium worldwide. And Tony Blair is sending hoodlums to soccer games all over Europe.
  20. Mordechai Vanunu has been kidnapped, imprisoned, and put in solitary for 11 years by the government of Israel. After completing a sentence in 2004, he has still be subjected to restrictions on his freedom and remains politically persecuted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu Vanunu only wants now to leave Israel and go to a welcoming civilized country, but the government of Israel refuses to allow him to emigrate -- extending punishment past his formal sentence. Free Vanunu now!
  21. And none of that would be any concern for Israel if it were not the Occupying power with an obligation to protect civilians.
  22. The report said Iran was caught red handed. In fact, 'Iran' has not been caught at all. A few trucks allegedly carrying explosives are alleged to have driven from Iran. Likely these are Afghani or Iranian criminal elements involved in the drug trade, NOT the national governments. 1. Who do you mean by 'the Taliban' these days? 2. Iran is perfectly entitled to be 'hostile' as long as it doesn't harm us.
  23. What is anti-semitic about it? (Or for that matter, unjust?) So true. Starting wars and occupying neighboring territories is pretty bad.
  24. I think they are showing a lot of cunning in playing a weak hand to maximum advantage.
  25. What a grotesque appropriation of the Holocaust to defend the policies of modern Israel! The boycotts apply to Israel because of policies, not Jews because of race.
×
×
  • Create New...