Figleaf

Actually I am. If you campaign on a platform and are elected on it, you have an obligation to at least try and carry it out. It's a simple concept. If you campaign on a platform, presumably it reflects what you believe in.

1. Allegedly involved in terrorist activities. 2. Why do you single out Arab descent in particular? 3. Traitorous how? His alleged activities were carried out in Afghanistan, and affected nothing Canadian.

Thank you for your reply. The prospect you describe seems like a very sweeping and significant change for Afghanistan, even if the Taliban weren't part of the mix. Can it be achieved with current levels of action and expense? I'm not as sure as you are. But beyond that, I still question why it should be Canadian lives and money spent on this exercise.

Maybe I am just unwilling to roll over and accede to your agenda without saying my piece. I'm not a religious person but I don't tell those who are what they can stand for or what they can't do. I believe that all couples should have the same rights under the law. I don't much care if the 38 years since my wedding are called a union or a marriage but I do have a problem when governments arbitrarily change the meaning of words purely for perceived political correctness. The fact is, for all societies including Communist societies which are officially atheist, the traditional definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and a women, so it shouldn't be surprising that there is a lot of opposition to that change. It shouldn't take a genius to figure that out. Some would like to say that opposition is restricted entirely to fundamentalist Christians. Much of it is but the tactic of trying to pigeon hole a certain group as the sole obstruction and then discredit that group in order to advance an agenda is as old as the hills. A most extreme example of that tactic is the Nazi's vilification of the Jews. As far as I know the only religious institutions in the world carrying out same sex marriages are some Christian churches and maybe some Synagogues. Objections to the term "marriage" being used for same sex relationships are not confined to religious fundamentalists and range from the very emotional, all the way to, Geez! I don't really like this but don't we have more important things to do with our time? No one knows how many fit in the latter category and because of that, if this were put to a referendum no one knows how it would turn out, that is why neither side wants to go that way. But let's take it one step farther. As well as not allowing anyone to let their religious beliefs have anything to do with how they vote in Parliament, we should also stipulate that anyone who allows their religious views to influence them when they fill out a ballot should disqualify themselves from voting. Okay, you're obviously not paying attention to the actual discussion, so WHAT/EVER.

What specific comments are you so worked up about?

And right now they are 'united' by a common enemy and ceasing hostilities would end that? Is that what you mean? Anyway, my question was more about the inter-nation dynamic rather than the intra-Palestinian one. What could they expect on that end of things?

1) Stop providing the ways and means for terrorists to bomb falafel stands and murder old men and children 2) Civil war ... I don't understand your reply. You suggest that Palestinians should stop bombings in order that they can hold a civil war? How does that make any sense? (BTW, doesn't one need a country to have a civil war?) You should try reading and comprehending your own your questions better, to wit...... The outcome of one of the two groups pursuing peace will be civil war... I understand my questions just fine, but your response seems goofy. Why would civil war be the result of a cessation of hostilities? Why should they do what you suggest if the outcome would be civil war?

Please be specific, quoting the objectionable passage(s). ...She claimed to have been a Canadian soldier before. Must have been in another life:) And what do you know that proves otherwise, Einstein? Anyway, it seems like AG is running afoul of the forum rules with that sort of reference. Like what?

1. This is not a universal condition. Many band leaders are not rich. In some cases where there is a disparity, it's because the leaders engage in political corruption (not unlike other polities we could name). In other cases leaders are better off than their people because they are more educated or capable than their average constituent. 2. A mix of inadequate money being spent unwisely, in some cases on futile efforts. Plus, some problems arise from socio-cultural factors that money doesn't help address. 3. Because their society is being held hostage to the interests of Likudist expansionism. 4. See 2. 5. I don't know. 6 and 7. I don't know, but the principle behind Kyoto would be sound even if there were no climate change threat. An economic system is needed to restrain not just greenhouse gasses, but the imposition of negative pollution externalities in general. 8. It doesn't seem like Mugabes efforts are improving life in Zimbabwe at all. (Are you aware of anyone who is a Mugabe booster outside of his backyard?) 9. Chavez is pursuing a program ostensibly intended to reduce the sharp disparities between haves and have-nots in Venezuela. Whether his policies will be successful in this regard is an additional question.

Drivel.

1) Stop providing the ways and means for terrorists to bomb falafel stands and murder old men and children 2) Civil war ... I don't understand your reply. You suggest that Palestinians should stop bombings in order that they can hold a civil war? How does that make any sense? (BTW, doesn't one need a country to have a civil war?)

I still say stupidity is the number one danger.

Speaking of thin, did you read the drivellous screed against them that scriblett linked to? A load of empty-headed vituperance if ever there was.

Is Tim Danson, ("lawyer for the French and Mahafy families") getting paid by the Legal Aid plan to shoot his mouth off every time the media takes notice of Karla Homulka? I sure hope not. And if the "families" are paying him I wonder what value they are getting from it. And if he's doing it pro bono, he should put his effort into something productive instead.

It my be a common tactic of both major political parties, but opportunistic pandering to Quebec has nothing to do with 'small l' liberalism.

1. Send money to the Republican Party. 2. Continue buying US bonds (until the endgame). 3. Encourage any third world military interventions the US wants to carry out (but not any involving substantial coalition groups). In particular, urge the US to put troops on the ground in Iran. 4. Keep building China's economy and military strength. 5. Improve education and innovation in China.

Doesn't matter if it was an election promise or not, the point is that making such a promise and then holding a vote was a step away from separation of church and state, as I said before. You don't get to tell people what they will be allowed to vote on. If a politician says he is going to do something during an election campaign and he gets elected, he has a mandate to do what he said he was going to do. You can't seem to accept that. There are people of many religions and those who are not religious at all who are on both sides of this issue. You've lost track of this discussion, Wilber. Harper's campaign promise to indulge the desire of some to remove rights from homosexuals demonstrated that he was interested in, or at least willing, to accede to the theocrat agenda.

What tangible rights would they lose? Please don't waste our time with peurile nonsense. The right to marry eachother, of course.

But where is there any evidence of this? What view specifically is now found among 'progressive intellectual communities' that is demonstrably anti-semitic? We continually hear this complaint, but when challenged, no content or examples ever seem to be forthcoming.

Thank you for your reply. I have taken the liberty of parsing your response to match the format of my questions. It appears then that in response to question 1, you recommend: And for question 2, you suggest this policy change will yield these outcomes: So, it seems like you recommend capitulation by the Palestinians, and the submersion and eradication of their cultural identity. Tell me, why would you expect them to accede to this program? BTW, the absurd impracticality, bizarre ahistoricality, and essential unethicalness (not to mention the violations of human rights and international law it implies) of the Elon "Peace" plan make it unworthy of comment.

A core value in 'the west' is that no-one should be imprisoned without due process and a fair trial. We should care about it because Guantanamo is a direct, deliberate, and clear violation of our Western civilization.

At our current state i think Afgan is still very winnable, I wish i could say, Bosina took over 16 years and this is far worst than that. to speed things up i really think NATO needs to step it up with more troops. Thats hard to say as well, maybe a year, the taliban are not that strong to pull that off right away, i think a major war or drug lord would step into that vaccuum. I'm afraid your answer isn't really very responsive to my questions. What results do you expect? That is, what does this 'win' you anticipate actually look like? When will it be acheived? How will it last after western forces leave? P.S. Why are you calling another poster "Poser"?

In the context of previous debates between Catchme and myself, that comment was hardly a non sequitur. The personal attacks aren't really needed though. What personal attacks?

There's no doubt that anti-semitism has and continues to exist in various places and forms. Your contention that this forms some pattern on 'the left', however, remains totally unsupported. Furthermore, it is unclear what you characterize as 'untrue'. I suspect there are several historical facts about the conflict that you would actually not acknowledge and you likely give prominence to other data points that don't actually make a difference in the overall analysis of the conflict. Moreover, characterizing criticism of Israel as somehow constructively 'anti-semitic' remains a problematic slippery slope.

Scriblett? Jbg? Argus? Hello?