Figleaf

This comment shows a real lack of depth on many levels, which is why I ignored it previously. Such a lack of critical thinking and knee jerking does not help solve the issue. You're, what? the third rightwinger to pile in with a whinge (but little content) about that comment. I find that hilarious. Geoffrey's the only one who made a principled point and I suspect he's the only one of the three of you who doesn't directly benefit from tax breaks for breeding. Just to let you know, I posted that to be deliberately provocative of one of the responses I got. My interlocutor Martin Chriton (see posts 516 & 517) acknowledged that a tax policy that serves a socio-economic objective is a legitimate concept. I'm now awaiting his reply on whether he accepts the principle or distinguishes this particular case.

!URK! ...gasp.... :shudder: :deep breath: Sorry. The incongruity there, between the request and the requester, was practically heartstopping. Don't worry -- I'm okay now.

Sometimes I seem to have a special way about me.

What is LPOC?

Hearts and Minds, eh?

Okay. Reported. Also, I'll point out to you that your inability to formulate any articulation of what your beef is with my post demonstrates your shocking lack of the capabilities that would serve you in civilized discussion. My personal suggestion to you is to quit posting here, where you are so obviously and badly out of your depth.

So, I figure Stock will have to resign on Monday and let this investigation get along. Anyone know what kind of subpeona/extradition treaties does Canada have with Georgia?

I think you're on to something, kimmy ... just imagine if somehow a referendum forced honest names on them! The Liberals could be the Machiavellian Cyphers Party.

Sorry if my prose wasn't flowery enough. But most of your points have been thoroughly thrashed already on a number of historical threads, e.g.: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=7164

Bumf. Silly bumf at that. Irrelevant. Certainly. And what? Absolutely not. But how is this relevant? Bumf. Bumf. Bumf.

I apologize, I lost track of who I was answering. I answered someone else's unsupported assertions with some of my own. You chose to take me up on it because you prefer his unsupported assertions to my unsupported assertions, probably without any reasonable basis for that preference. Thanks. Watch me.

Pauvre August pitieux.

So ... let's summarize then. You'd agree that: -the unpopular are a bunch of fags, -the unorthodox are a bunch of fags, -the unchristian are a bunch of fags, and -the anticapitalists are a bunch of fags. Does that grasp your point correctly?

The Conservative Party of Canada should change its name. They may be right wing, but they are not conservative. Conservative as used among professionals such as accountants and engineers means a beneficial type of cautious mindset -- underestimate your resources and overestimate your needs, don't make choices that cannot be undone, preserve wealth, etc. Conservative in a political sense means skepticism about the benefits of change and appreciation of the importance and value of existing institutions. Steve's party is not 'conservative' in either sense. For simple truth in advertising, they should call themselves something different.

Reported. Wow, a self appointed hallway monitor. Nice work. I find this attitude quite curious. There are rules for the forum and one or two posters here are frequent and repeat offenders. There are three options, report them, respond in kind, or ignore them. The latter isn't viable because they will persist and the rest of us will suffer. Responding in kind is not what our host here wants, and would only make the problem worse. That leaves only the option of reporting them. Can you give me one good reason to indulge their abusive habits?

I simply replied to your unsupported assertions with a few of my own. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass tank, Sharky

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds? Children benefit the economy in the long run. Investing a little now for long term gains is good economics in my books. Ah. Well then, if the legislators determine that encouraging marriages is also economically beneficial, is there any reason not to do so?

Reported. Oh yes? So what for?

It's really great how you can joke about extra-judicial torture of U.S. citizens and the sexual abuse of minors. Class. That's what you've got -- Real class.

Ackowledging the tragedy is not synonymous with attributing the tragedy to our favorite scapegoats, the sons of pigs and apes. Wha-a-a-a-at??? Sure, politically they've made a couple of key strategic mistakes, but they've also been badly used by Israel, the post-war Western powers, and to a certain extent by neighboring Arab states. The key wrong done to them was the imposition of the state of Israel in their territory over their unequivocal opposition and in denial of their rights to self-determination. This harm precipitated the traumas that followed.

Yes, she does. No, she doesn't. She encourages it. That's true. For example, shameless rightwingers think it's funny to denigrate and lie about people, abuse their grief, and victimize them with words. No, she's not. Nope. Satire is a particular type of humor and Coulter doesn't use it.

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds?

True, though incomplete. The existence of a persistent spending deficit can be attributed to Trudeau's time. However it is important to remember (1) deficit spending had not yet proven to be the problem it later became and was endorsed to some extent by leading economists of the day; (2) Trudeau's deficit spending actually went to worthwhile things for the most part, such as Transcanada Hwy, accessible universities, medicare and some enhanced social justice; and (3) the deficit left by Trudeau was DOUBLED by Mulroney (with nothing to show for it and without the excuse that anyone thought it would be okay).

Because he used lies and trickery to get the nation to support a war that quickly turned into a disaster. I don't think the conspiracy would have had the legs it has if Gore was president at the time or if Bush had enough sense to stay out of Iraq. That is why I said the issue will disappear after Bush is gone. I would also point out that Bush surrounded himself with the 'New American Century' cabal whose website set out specifically how they thought their project would benefit from a disastrous surprise attack on the United States.

Presumably, then, you would have every heterosexual married couple fertility-tested to determine their proper tax status, and you would terminate any advantages to couples after the woman has passed menopause. Right? If not, why not? If you'll read the line you quoted, I said the possibility of adding to the population. Without this police state testing as you purpose, the male female couple has the possibility of offspring while the gay couple does not. You can't be serious. You believe that sterile couples have the possibility of producing offspring?!? Grab a biological clue, dude. STERILE means NO POSSIBILITY of procreation.