Figleaf

You can't see it That's right, but I can still work it.

I sort of tried to group them by region, thinking that, you know, once the ball is rolling in one place it's easier just to keep going.

Chiefs of Staff are a lot more than "Civil Servants" ...there are also the chief lobbiest and supporters of the military. He should be the chief lobbyist, but not spokesperson. His political or policy views should never be heard, or even acknowledged or speculated on in the public sphere.

Whatever happened to the emoticon selection panel?

And yet you refer to yourself as a centrist? I don't get it. What did I write that is inconsistent with a rational centrist position?

Oh, certainly, Harper is a tool. But whether he personally believes the pathetically stupid and embarrassingly superstitious drivel of the fundamentalists or is merely catering to their dangerous and destructive beliefs for cynical political gain hardly matters that much. Either way, his objective, like the Republicans in the U.S., is to demolish the liberal underpinnings of our institutions.

Bring it on!

Presumably, then, you would agree that Israel should compensate the Caananites.

Why don't the "Palestinians" come up with some proposed productive activity for their future "state"? I have a sickening feeling that giving them land just give them a base from which to kill with impunity. Don't you have that feel? No. I have the feeling that that's just self-serving Israeli propaganda. I think most Palestinians would accomodate themselves to making a better life if there were a peace. Some fringe elements would stay militant and dangerous, and they would have to be treated like criminals for whatever misdeeds they carry out. No-one?

Yes, despite the fact that they are vocal in initiating threats to destroy a nation which has never struck them. That speaks to Iran's unfitness to have nuclear weapons, not to their 'right'. If I was Chavez, I'd certainly want them. It's a dangerous world. Canada should get a few too.

Newsmax? Oh yeah, they're reliable.

And these are the sort of ideas George Bush and Stephen Harper want to give a greater say in government. Wonderful.

Who the f... are you blithering about?

Speaking as a rational centrist, I would rather have our system than people going without health care or being bankrupted by serious illness.

Yes. My proof is that they were never found. Now, can you prove they exist? Free of what?????

Maybe we can finally get rid of the activist judges that the Liberals stacked the courts with. What bumf. The Liberals didn't choose judges for their "activism". How could they, since it's a meaningless concept.

If a modest budget of 2% GDP is maintained for the military, I wouldn't have as much to say about it, but that is not the case, and given the facts, I think the military should be a top priority for the government. My position on that does not translate into support for the Conservative party on every other issue, but naturally I'm more likely to support the party that is most likely to address what I consider to be most important. I agree. I would never support the Conservative party, but I do support proper funding for our military. One of the most unfortunate things Harper has done is abandon the Reform Party legacy in favor of old-style crony politics. I don't accept your premise. If any political party is completely wrong, being a centrist does not make you beholden to accept their nonsense out of some notion of 'balance' or whatever. As a centrist, I have no obligation to give credence to the Natural Law or Marxist Leninist parties, nor to the Conservative Party. However, FYI, as mentioned, I agree with proper funding for the military. I have agreed with Harper occasionally telling the Bush administration where they are mistaken. I have no problem with Harper not catering to the demands of the Ottawa media corps. So, MOST of what Harper is about is totally wrong, but not ALL of it.

Please tell me more. I read many newspapers, and have never heard anyone mention a willingness to expans Israel. Read wider. Again, peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will use it to "wipe Israel off the map". Well, if you want to believe the empty blustering of a nearly defeated people, go ahead. But it doesn't sound inherently plausible to me.

And they don't create any now pretexts to use it now? Iran creating its own pretexts provides in with much less persuasive power that if external forces give them those pretexts by attacking them. It would be a very narrow and questionable success. But more importantly, it wouldn't set them back that far. Surely, after the example of Iraq, they know Israel might try to bomb them at any time, so if they've got any wits at all, they have bunkered everything very heavily, and dispersed it to numerous sites.

Some Information on the relevant committee members is as follows: Det. Cst. Shelia Sullivan - Vancouver Police Missing Women Spokesperson http://www.missingpeople.net/joint_task_fo...dia_release.htm Dirk Laudan, Past President - Vancouver Centre Federal PC Association http://loisjohnson.ca/en/about/endorsements.html Dev Dley -- former commissioner of WHL and former president of Social Credit Party http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Dev+Dley%...CA&start=0&sa=N C. Kilburn, National Council for Crime-Free Canada http://www.dnd.ca/site/minister/eng/restru...ng/e-anx-e.html

WOW! There's a wild example of moral relativism if ever there was! Calling police 'pigs' is just as bad as filming child rape?!?!? CB, you need to get a sense of proportion!

Now THERE is a smear.

Why is it a 'smear' campaign to bring existing media reports to the attention of the board? It sounds like you are trying to silence Baylee and deprive hir of hir freedom of expression based solely on your own prejudices.

Don't know if you read my little opinion piece I just posted, but I genuinely believe there will be a pre-emptive air strike carried out by Israel once Netanyahu gets into power. And they will receive the "secretive" support from the Saudis. They have too much to lose if Iran goes nuclear. I hope you're wrong, since it's a recipe for disaster. No viable level of airstrikes is likely to prevent Iran from eventually acheiving the bomb. All air strikes will do is serve as a pretext for using it once they get it.

Well what percentage do they constitute? I don't know, but judging by the geo-political choices and the kind of media spin we see come from Israel, my impression is that they are not inconsequential. No, peace is impossible due to the hostilities of those who want the terrain. So peace is impossible because those who claim the terrain will fight for it?