Black Dog

Oil's well that ends well for Ahmed.

Mb, I've gotten used to you being obtuse, but there's no excuse for wilful stupidity. You do realize, of course, that "eavesdropping on suspected terrorists" isn't the issue. That's a capability the government already had. The issue is spying on U.S. persons without a warrant in violation of standing federal law. I explained, in great detail, why the Clinton/Carter situatiouns are not analagous (shit: Clinton's X.O. dealt with physical searches, not eavesdropping, as you say). Clearly, it's still beyond your grasp. Should I try smaller words, maybe? Or perhaps act it out in a puppet show? Or could it be that you are being deliberately ignorant? Waiting for the latest marching orders/talking points from Drudge or LGF?

Hey, crazymf: you might want to bone up on that whole "consistency" thing. Yay democracy.

Uh...how is the threat of death by firing squad going to deter someone who leads a lifestyle in which they can probably expect to get shot over a dimebag or a pair of shoes?

Some people have ZOG. Some have the Illuminati and 12 foot lizards. Then there's those who believe all of the world's problems can be laid at the doorstep of the all-powerful "liberal media". What can you do?

Sneer if you want, but social and educational programs have been cut down drastically over the past couple of decades. Hell, the criminologist cited in the article you linked to said: "Law and order" arguments are easy because they are simple and quantifiable (ho wmany people did we lock up?), but there's no evidence that stiffer penalties or mandatory minimum sentences reduce crime. You can lock 'em up, you can deport 'em, you can throw them in work gangs, but if your only solution to the very real social and economic factors that lead to crime is to sneer, then you won't accomplish squat. I dunno about Europe, but I do know the second part of your statement is false. Link.

Well, you're as full of crap as ever. In addition to transmitting the lie about Carter and Clinton doing the same thing (they didn't, for reasons explained below), you rely on a poll that, again, asks a question that doesn't speak to the issue at hand. Considering the government already had the ability to do so under FISA, it's good that the public suports the existing, sensible legislation. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the substance of this issue, no matter how much spin you try to put on it and how many lies you peddle to muddy it up. Just to clear the air, I want to outline why the claim that Clinton and Carter authorized program's similar to Bush's domestic spying program is a lie. The Carter Claim: President Carter's Executive Order of May 23, 1979 authorized to electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order or warrant. Why It's a Lie: Carter's order only applied to communications where there was no substantial likelihood of any communication to which a United States person was a party being intercepted. Bush's program, on the other hand, has no such safeguards to protect U.S. persons from government eavesdropping. The Clinton Claim: In 1995, Clinton authorized physical searches, without a court order. Why It's a Lie: For starters, at the time FISA's warrant provisions did not apply to physical searches, a loophole which was subsequently closed by Clinton administration. Furthermore, Clinorn order also required the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Again, Bush's program doesn't appear to have any of the safeguards protecting U.S. persons from warrantless eavesdropping, which is, again, the heart of this matter.

Argus makes some good suggestions a few posts back (though I would disagree with mandatory minimum sentences), but stronger laws and enforcement won't stop kids from getting into gangs and shooting each other. I mean, when you are willing to shoot or be shot for something as minor as defending your rep, prison isn't much of a threat or deterrent. Anyone taking a pure law and order approach to the issue is missing half of the equation, the social/environmental factors. Oh and it's worth noting that T.O's crime rate is pretty low by North American standards and that there have been far fewer murders there this year than in any of the past four.

Sure. But the President personally authorized the program, which, if used to eavesdrop on U.S. persons, is a violation of a standing Congressional statute.

So sayeth the moonbat.... Really, for a "Canadian small business owner", you sure spend an inordinate amount of time cruising U.S. lefty web sites for fodder for your spittle-flecked screeds. Now, to the sane: Partially that and partially because of the systematic demonization of the term "liberal" (which itself mutated from its original meaning, which I'm sure you're familiar with). Back to the kook.. Freud had a term for this. It's called "projection". Yeah right. There's no evidence to indicate you are capable of rational discourse or actual discussion. And if you can't understand why people would be intoleratnt of some asshat coming into their community and tellling them what a bunch of terrorist-loving hatemongers they are, then you're even dumber than you come off (no mean feat, that).

Uh...for what alternative? The other pro-war party? Or could it be that elections are seldom decided on a single issue (even as that single issue cost Blair 47 seats and 5 per cent of the vote)? But then, I'm dealing with someone who's convinced that the last U.S. election (one of the tightest in history) was a landslide, thus I'm not dealing with someone well-versed in reality.

Shady= MB sock puppet?

Shady, Shady, Shady: do try and keep up. The difference between the Clinton and Carter executive orders and the current domestic surveillance program were already dealt with in this very thread (fyi: neither covered electronic surveillance of U.S. persons). Notwithstanding the fact that online polls are completely useless as a reliable means of guaging public opinion, I'm sure if the question was phrased in such a way that spoke to the issue (that is, if it asked if Bush was justified to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant, rather than the leading "Al Qaeda operatives") the results would be quite different.

Ah yes, my mistake. Still, the same principle applies. Given your inability to debunk any of my other points (or provide a source for your 46 per cent figure; which undoubtebly comes from the bogus Western standard poll that was discussed elsewhere a few months back), I can see you've got nothing. So what you're saying is B.C. and Alberta do not, in fact, speak as one.

Bump! Chalabi claims election fraud in wake of defeat

I'm sure there's a few seperatists in every province. But a handful of malcontents does not a political movement make. Also: there have been no reliable polls done on separation in Alberta, so it seems you've just pulled numbers out of your arse. The only reliable method for guaging public support for separation is the success of the political parties advocating such a course of action. In 2004, the Separation Party of Alberta ran 12 candidates and captured 0.5 per cent of the vote. To put that in perspective, the Communist party ran 2 candidates and garnered 0.1 per cent of the vote. As for B.C. and Alberta speaking as one, is that why there's an NDP government in BC and a Conservative one in Alberta?

Picking up where my erstwhile alter ego left off... August1991: the biggest problem with the "Roe Effect" as I see is it fails to account for social attitudes. That is to say: religion has been decreasing in importance and strength in all of the western world for generations, even in a place like the U.S. where religion is still strong (in that people profess to beleive in it). People seldom practice what they preach. I guess I don't because I have no idea what this means.

I highly doubt the military would get involved in a political dispute. You mean "Alberta", the only place where separation is ever bandied about as a solution and only by a tiny minority of malcontents.

He stalked Moore, followed him up the ice, and then punched him hard enough to knock him unconcious, then jumped on his back (Moore is 6' 1" and 210lbs; Bertuzzi 6'3" and 245) and drove him into the ice head first. It was calculated, it was cheap and it was viciously executed; that's what makes it one of the worst ever. We all saw the footage a million times. When Moore drops, he makes almost no effort to catch himself, or cushion his fall. The lack of the instinctive act of putting one's arms out in front would indicate the blow was a k.o. You are certainly a world class bullshitter. You can't prove it, so why say it? (In debates, this kind of thing is known as a "plea to authority" and it's completely fallacious). So why even have rules at all? Proof? here's the only coments I could find by Sackic: First, after the incident: and after Bertuzzi's re-instatement:

I'd put in the top 10, right up there with Clarke's disgusting slash on Kharmalov, McSorely's attack on Brashear, Hunter's cross-check of Pierre Turgeon, Eddie Shore's hit on Ace Bailey and Ted Green's stickfight with Wayne Maki. I've played and followed hockey my whole life and can say, without question, that the Vertuzzin incident was the worst I've ever seen. "Unlucky circumstances"? Yeah: Moore was unlucky enough to be on the ice with a nut like Bertuzzi. Have you played in the NHL? from the courts, maybe. But the NHL also gave him a slap on he wrist, which send sthe wrong message entirely. Moore had three broken vertebrae in his neck and a concussion. He never took responsibility. In his "apology" he said he was sorry "for what happened out there" (not "what I did") and claimed that he didn't intent to hurt Moore (I guess by punching Moore from behind and pile-driving him into the ice was bert's way of saying hello?). In other words: he's a big faker. Bullshit. How many people do you see wearing Svend Robinson jerseys? How many kids idolize politicians? Sports figures, especially high-profile ones like Bertuzzi, are role models in ways politicans can only dream of. That's the second strawman argument I've seen. A lot of Canucks fans around here, apparently. Word, BHS.

Nice try. But no. If ND's go Conservative, that increases the Cons chances of a majority. And no NDP supporter wants that. So my vote will stay with the NDs.

It's an unusual situation to have two political parties out of step with the people (especially when one party-Labour-is coming from a progressive tradition), but the facts are there. Public opinion polls before, during and after the war showed opposition There was: the Lib Dems made big gains on a anti-war platform. And Tony Blair's majority was sharply curtailed, largely because of anti-war sentiment (which, if you've ever read an opinion poll, is high).But again: Iraq was not the only issue.

Schmidt is confused, spending the bulk of his time trying to prove what is already known: that the President can authorize foreign intelligence survillance without a warrant. Yet he completely ducks the issue of whether the NSA's surveillance of U.S. persons is illegal. If the program is directed at or includes U.S. persons, then it is illegal. The fact that he cites Gorelick's testimony (which dealt with physical searches, which were, at the time, not covered by FISA's warrant provisions) and also falls back on the ridiculous defense that the 2001 Afghanistan resolution gave the executive branch expanded powers shows (which is dealt with by Tom Daschle (here shows he's reaching.

I am !!!. !!! is no more. Apologies for the confusion. Um... this may come as a bit of surprise, but the war was not the sole issue of the campaign. Few elections are decided on a single issue. Further complicating things was the fact that the other major party in the UK is also pro-war, leaving anti-war people with little to choose from. However, despite those factors, Blair still lost nearly 50 seats and his share of the vote dropped five per cent, while the pro war Conservatives picked up only a single seat and the anti-war Leb dems picked up 6 seats and a four per cent increase in their share of the vote. So while Blair was reelected, its clear he was punished for his Iraq stance. Seems to me your understanding of the situation is completely superficial.

The really hilarious thing about the NDP's rep as the party of special interests is that the same label applies to the Liberals and Conservatives. The differenc eis that the latter parties' "special interests" are corporations, banks, insurance companies and the rest of the "elite" who see mainstream middle-class Canada as a bunch of fat white cows they can milk to benefit their special interests and pay for all their tax cuts and shareholder bottom lines. The phenomenon of people voting against their economic interests is well documented down south: the virus seems to be spreading to Canada.