Figleaf

I think Mr. Justice Lamer has every right and every reason to speak up. He's a private citizen now and is free to express his views as he sees fit. It's not the judges' fault that Canadian voters have a traditional preference for Liberal governments.

As long as Hamas is influential and they continue claiming that Israel must be destroyed and all the Jews kicked out, then YES. Well, what are you really saying there? That as long as a party to the conflict refuses to make peace, there will be no peace. Can't disagree with you there. But isn't the issue really: What will it take to get the Palestinians and Israel to make peace, and can the parties be convinced to go there?

What's wrong with the Islamic world? Hmmm. The easiet way to answer is to change the question slightly: What would be wrong with the Islamic world, even if we don't count problems imposed by 'the West'? Bearing in mind that the Islamic world is quite diverse, here is my list of problems that appear prevalent among them: -over-emphasis on an archaic superstitious worldview in the form of religious faith; -inefficient socio-economic coordination and integration systems; -inefficient social rigidities (e.g. classism, low status of women); -inadequacy of built infrastructure and human capital; and -deficient governance and accountability.

If someone is capable of convincingly writing off C, then the choice between A and B is not so easy, IMO.

The ethics of the use of the atom bomb against Japan in 1945 is very complicated. I'm not sure it's as simple as Myata suggests. Let's say you are Truman. Your ethical challenge is the choice is between: a- the death of their civilians in the mid-hundreds of thousands; or b- an invasion that yields the deaths of your military and their civilians in the low hundreds of thousands; or c-an attrition/containment policy until the collapse of the Japanese regime. In the context of the rights and wrongs of WWII and his ethical obligation to protect his own people, it's not totally clear that Truman's choice of A over B was wrong. I think the challenge lies more in dismissing the appeal of C.

That't the most ridiculous nonsense I've heard in a long time. Jews being anti-semitic to one another???? Jews hating Jews because they are Jewish? It sure looks like some people around here are intent on destroying any possible meaning in the term 'anti-semitic'. Figleaf do you ever read what you write? Do you ever think about what you write? Yes and yes. Actually, if something makes no sense, it is often because it is senseless. Well, okay, I see what you mean there, but your examples gave me a different impression. A Russian Jew who hates Arab Jews is a racist, not an anti-semite. An Israeli lawyer who denounces the IDF is a political partisan, not an anti-semite.

Actually none of the options you posted were a right wing policy. Besides the helmet hair I guess. Actually, 1, 8, 11, and possibly 10 are rightwing flavored.

:angry: Sleazy Stevey, at it again.

Apparently, I have a far deeper understanding of both than you. This is abundantly clear from this thread, in which I have highlighted the myriad practical problems with attacking Iran, none of which you've bothered to address in a substantive manner. It's like you think the U.S. and the west can stop Iran's nuclear ambitions by sending pixie-dust powered Stealth bombers to drop cluster bombs full of good intentions that cause pretty ponys to spring from the earth where they land. And that will solve all our problems. In short: you're a very unserious person. Leafless, you've been PWNed!

And you being such a centrist and all... You wouldn't expect a centrist to buy into right wing policies, would you?

Many of the problems identified in this discussion can be viewed as market failures resulting from the central bank monopoly on currency. It is right for the government to provide for a common legal tender, but the laws that protect government tender from private competitive currency should be removed. Also, as long at Canada's banks are based on a public license to manufacture money, we shouldn't hestitate to regulate them in the public interest.

You can't see it That's right, but I can still work it. Then they're irrelevant Convenience is never irrelevant.

Technical question: how will recycling this money thru a tax regime help curb environmental emissions? Shouldn't the tax be applied to abatement programs?

So, all Buddhist's, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim's, Christian's, Jews, Confucianists, and Pagan's, are not fit to be lawyers or judges. CB, you need to expand your repertoire. You've become predictable -- leaping in with a hyperbolically exaggerated strawman fallacy only works the first 1000 times. You should try an ad hominem from time to time to keep things interesting.

That't the most ridiculous nonsense I've heard in a long time. Jews being anti-semitic to one another???? Jews hating Jews because they are Jewish? It sure looks like some people around here are intent on destroying any possible meaning in the term 'anti-semitic'.

Hahaha. The left used to be all about non-proliferation - my how times have changed. Ummmm... actually I'm not 'left'. I'm a classical liberal. So don't blame me for the left, or blame the left for me. There's no connection, so doing that would be totally fuc***g stupid. I'm not really promoting that, I'm just recognizing that non-proliferation has become a pipe-dream now that the 'great powers' have lost interest in adhering to international law and every tinpot regional bully like North Korea and Israel have nukes. I'm just being pragmatic. It's a dangerous world -- what do you do? Well, you protect yourself.

jbg, you hit the nail on the head. Israel has a counterpart for negotiations: the Palestinian Authority, and it shouldn't bother to take any notice of internal Palestinian politics. Hamas and Fatah are the palestinian authority. No, Hamas and Fatah are the main political parties holding seats in the legislature of the Palestinian authority. They no more 'are' the PA than the Republicans and Democrats 'are' the United States.

A reason? Like a reason not to waste band width with bad humour? That's all in the eye of the beholder, dear fellow! I've certainly chortled quite merrily over this poll several times now, and I'm very satisfied with its political-discussion message as well. Consider the image of all the armchair generals here on MLW pushing plastic Marine Corps figures into the map of Iran, peering Rumsfeldianly around the world for their next great strategic coup against ideological malefactors, and wetting their jeans at the thought of their own righteousness. :lol:

Do you need to use doublespeak? No-one can give the authorities the super-ability to stop terrorist attacks, so call this what it is. The ability for authorities to pre-emptively detain suspects, and compel witness testimony in investigations. Everyone sane should be concerned about three strikes style policies. Cluttering the prisons by mechanistically applying formulaic laws will not help anything.

Where are you getting all that from this thread so far? This is about assessing the government of the day, placing it's missteps in context with eachother. It's doesn't need to be acrimonious.

It seems you're thinking there should be some REASON in choosing to invade someone. That's like SO 20th century. Get with the times, muchacho!

I'm hard pressed to choose just one.

[Emphases added]What the heck? The NEW government? Is it the Government of Canada or not?

jbg, you hit the nail on the head. Israel has a counterpart for negotiations: the Palestinian Authority, and it shouldn't bother to take any notice of internal Palestinian politics.

Ya right, he is supposed to let politicians stick up for the military. That's how they got so run down in the first place. Fascistic impulses aside, folks, do you really not get why the military should stay out of government?