Black Dog

Indeed. But nothing is keeping them from putting back into it now. As the first analysis states: If that is the case, then its hard to make the argument that the HTF is a true legacy built on solid fiscal know-how. It is, as I said, a piggy bank by another name. But at the current rate, they are only investing enough in the fund tio inflation proof it. Frankly, the whole purpose of the fund today seems to be primarily political: when confronted with criticism, it's nice to have $12 billion to point to, even if that money isn't actually doing anything (such as growing or contributing to the province). I'd like to see the government adopt a plan for that money and stick with it.

Certainly, a sweeping statement like "the silence on the left is deafening" deserves some examination: who is this "left" that's supposed to be speaking up, but isn't? (I like to think of my visits to rabble as a good way to take the pulse of the left: there, the mood is overwhelmingly negative towards the Muslim reaction to the cartoons). This is very interesting: link

Are you calling me a liar? Are you calling me a liar? Alright: there's this comparison between the AHTF and the Alaska Pemanent Fund. See the charts on page 15 and take note of this: And then there's this older analysis by the same authors which states: That last bit is from 1993, but I sincerly doubt that any contributions to the fund made since will have made up that lost ground.

Actually, it's not: There's no indication beyond the singular reference to "she was vocal" (a phrase wide open to interpretation) that Sheehan was yelling abuse at Bush, or indeed yelling anything at all. So while your Paula Jones example would fall under House rules prohibitions against "loud, threatening, or abusive language" and "disorderly or disruptive conduct...with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress...", it's Sheehan's stunt is not in the same ballpark.

We need to keep removing the dictators we formely supported. I don't think there's any evidence to show the new Iraq will eb a huge improvement in either living standards or human rights. Unless you expect great things from a semi-radical Islamic regime tied to Iran? As for Saddam's Iraq being a huge destabalizing force in the region: it wasn't. But Iraq today most definietely is.

There's no indication if she was being vocal in an attempt to dirsupt the speech or being vocal in response to being arrested. The former would justify her removal, yet even the Capitol Police didn't use that as their hook. That tells me you're reading this wrong. That would be a violation of the House rules, something the Capitol Cops now concede didn't hapen this week.

1. "Vocal" doesn't mean "screaming". Sorry, I'm not about to buy some "liberal media bias" rationale for the omission of that salient detail. 2. Sheehan was invited to the SOTU.

Dude: I think YA has been pretty explicit in his political orientation (liberatarian), nor do I think he was saying you support dictators.. I don't think labelling someone a right-wing reactionary because they disagree with you helps your cause. Self censorship is still censorship.

Aw, bullcrap. What's really sad to me is that we've handed anotehr cudgel to the mullahs, the dictators, the radicals and the other people who's power and very existence depends on the oppression and suppression of their people. That's not to say the cartoons were wrong, or that free speech should be censored in western countries in the name of tolerance, but, if bringing the Muslim world into the 21st Century is what we're after, this thing is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

If that's the case: where's my cocaine?

I didn't mean to imply you called them savages, but you do presuppose a certain helplessness on their part that's quite paternalistic. Well currently thay've got an insurgency-cum-civil war on their hands which is excrabated by the prescence of foreign troops and a governing authority that seems to have used the reconsruction as a pretext to line their own pockets.(For example.) Basically, the failure to establish order and provide for the basic needs of Iraqi society can be laid at the doorstep of the "coalition" that blundered its way through with no apparent plan of action. At this point, i don't see nay way of fixing this humpty-dumpty situation othe than stepping back and letting Iraqis sort things out among themselves until they get to the point where they can ask for our help. Well the first Gulf War only began because Saddam thought the U.S had no opinion on his dispute with Kuwait. And I don't think the argument "well everyone else is doing it" works in world affairs anymore than it does on the playground. If we want other countries to fllow our lead, we should lead by example. Well, there's several different sets of rules at work. Small, weak countries cannot invade othe rweak countries (Iraq v. Kuwait), but powerful countries can (U.S. in Iraq). I'm sure you'll agree that "humanitarian intervention" is a pretext: strangely, these interventions usually only occur in areas of startegic value to the powerful. My point here is that "the world" (meaning mostly western, industrialized countries) has set the rules for others to follow, but the game is rigged in their favour.

I've seen no reference to such an occurance in any of the accounts of the arrest. Where are you getting that information from? Also: if Congress is not an appropriate venue for protests or "demonstrations", does that apply to the President and members of Congress as well? They don't allow "demonstrations" which, as I have shown, does not include wearing T-Shirts. If it happened during Clinton (cite?) then it is just as wrong (but somehow, i suspect you're not giving us the whole story). Ok: So, to recap: those in "public office" should speak with "candor". But that duty does not extend to challenging any of the President's policies or assumptions.

Now you're not even making any sense. Well, in order to refute it, I'd have to have something to refute. So far, all you have offered is some gay groups arguing for the equalization of age of consent laws (a point you convienently ignored for most of the thread) and a single random quote from an article that uses the same dishonest tactics you are: that is using the select comments of a few members of a community to brand the whole community either as pedophiles or pedophile sympathizers. A similar tactic would be for me to trot out someone like James Kopp and ask why Christians aren't making a more serious effort to campaign against radical anti-abortion types. It's intellectually dishonest because it assumes the bulk of the responsibility for the actions of individuals falls on the collective, soley on the basis of select shared attributes. Of course the fact that you're completely out to lunch hasn't occured to you? Of course it hasn't: you have your agenda to promote, facts be damned. Throughout this thread, I simply thought you were a fool with poor logic and comprehension skills. While that is undoubtably true, it's obvious at this point that you are also focused on spreading your agenda, which is to equate homosexuality with pedophilia by continuing to mention a tiny fringe group and inflating it's importance within the gay community. Your singlemindedness makes you impervious to reason, logic or any facts that stand between you and your agenda of hate. I'll have no further discussion with you.

I notice you ignored my point that the vaunted fund was worth more in real dollars in the mid '80s than it is today. That is not "leaps and bounds" by any stretch of the imagination, especially given the incredible growth in revenues the province has seen over the past few years. If the porivnce was serious about building the fund a s alegacy, they'd rededicate a set percentage of royalty revenue to the fund instead of using it as the government's piggy bank.

Even if this were the case (which I don't think it is: obviously inefficiency and some degree of corruption are going to be present in any herierarchal, bureaucratic system, but to dismiss the potential good is throwing th baby out with the bathwater), at the end of the day, which system is more destructive? Or, put it another way: your money or your life?

If you're talking about the return. Sure. But implying the Heritage Fund is growing at 8 per cnet is also false, because teh fund itself only sees a portion of that return...just above inflation. If it's growing only at the pace of inflation, it's not really "growing" at all. Adjusted for inflation, the fund is still smaller now than it was 20 years ago. Whoop-dee-doo. Put another way: as it stands right now, that mighty legacy is about half of what the government spends in one fiscal year. As far as legacy's go, that's kind of a waste. (Sure, it's better than nothing, but how much money has this government blown on "prosperity bonus"? Deregulation?)

Um...my math isn't so shit hot, but isn't $300 million roughly 3 per cent of $1 billion? If so, then IMT is correct: the fund is "growing" just above the pace of inflation because the bulk of its return is being funnelled into general revenues. Because they keep pilfering the frigging thing to top up the general revenues?

Why not? Up until relatively recently, Iraq was one of the most advanced, best educated countries in the region. They aren't ignorant savages requiring our benevolant guidance: I think they deserve the chance to make a go of it. It's interesting: even when "we" were against Saddam, we were helping him, whether it was oil-for-food scams or facilitating smuggling that financed the regime (again, in the interests of "stability"). Hell, a simple "no" from Shwarzkopf in 1991 (when Saddam requested U.S permission to deploy gunships against the Shiite uprising that would likely have brought him down) would have been "enough". The point here is taht, one way or another, scumbags like him depend on us to stay in power: the less involved we are, the more isolated and powerless they become. But he question goes back to: who empowered him. the U.S. supllied Iraq during their war with Iran: they even helped precipitate the invasion by feeding Iraq intelligence about Iran's military. The lesson is that as long as we approach other people's problems through our lense (because neither he decision to support Saddam nor the decision to depose him were made with the Iraqi people in mind), we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. But we can't just go around deciding who's worthy of "liberating" and who is not. It's not our place. Like any other policy, intervention carries with it consequenses that cannot be forseen and beyond what is intended. There's no guarantee our efforts to rebuild Iraq would be anymore successful than the efforts to date, or indeed any other effort designed to re-shape the world in our image. The very fact of our belief that we know best guarantees our efforts will fail.

I agree (I just agreed with Thatcher! *shudder*). But from a practical standpoint, this kind of thing seems like an uneccesary provication. Really though, I think this says it best: link

Here 'tis Shakey. Police make secret deal with gay bars

Are we capable of helping them is a better question. To answer yours: I don't know if tehy are. But I'd lke to give them the chance. I'll agree that Saddam Hussein was an inhumane monster and a thug. But whether he "had" to be stopped and whether doing so was our responsibility is another issue altogether. Bad as he was, Saddam was a symptom of a larger problem which is the continued meddling by foreign powers with economic, political and military interests in the region. When you consider the role the west (though perhaps north would be more accurate, given the Soviet's machinations in the region) had in shaping the modern day Mid East (by supporting certain nations and certain rulers at certain times and others at others) intervention, even to rid the world of a bad guy, starts looking like more of the same old. Again, I find your confidence in our ability to fix a mess we created to be misplaced. Let's put it this way: if the Iraqis want peace, there will be peace. If they ask for our help, we should provide it. But for God's sake, we need to stop acting as though we have know what's best for them and have all the answers. The whole Iraq situation is a glaring example of the folly of that belief.

Well sir, if furthering the human race means more folks like you, then I can see a definite upside to its end. I also find your apparent fascination with the mechanics of anal intercourse to be pretty interesting. Methinks thou dost protest too much. You an expert Black Dog? Why? Are you cruising?

The difference, of course, is consent. Regardless of the gender of the victim or offender, a sexual relationship conducted without the consent of both partners is dead wrong. So your right-wing writer (who can't resist dredging up NAMBLA) is mistaken to characterize these people as homosexuals first and foremost. They are predators who used their auhority to engage in nonconsensual sex. EGALE's position:

I've been through this before and I'm not gonna get into it again. Sufice it to say, I think patriotism is a scam designed to give people a reason to die, even as their sacrifice benefits the very people who sent them. to their deaths "Die so that others can profit" just doesn't make for good recruitment slogans.

Well sir, if furthering the human race means more folks like you, then I can see a definite upside to its end. I also find your apparent fascination with the mechanics of anal intercourse to be pretty interesting. Methinks thou dost protest too much.