Black Dog

What is it with your chronic inability to spell "women" correctly? I'm the last person to preach about spelling, but I can't help wonder if it's deliberate.

About 5 per cent of those charged with simple possession go to jail. Last year, there were 67,832 cananbis-related arrests. 48,052 were for possession. -StatsCan

You'd be amazed at what they can do with vinyl, latex and AA batteries these days. Yeah, feminism had nothing at all to do with the gross social inequalitie sbetween men and women. It was because some chicks couldn't find a man. I know: I don't know how many times I've seen a nice looking girl get a well-paying job and walk out of the office five minutes later looking like a hag. I have to leave this goofy-ass thread before my eyeballs roll right out of their sockets.

But, for the most part, it doesn't. And it's not. But no matter how much they believe in the cause, it's stil a lie. War is never about "making a better future". Excercises like this merely perpetuate the lies that convince men to lay down their lives for another's profit. A lie is no less a lie because somebody believes in it. Maybe they should pay more attention into why they fight and who is really benefiting from their sacrifice. I'm not saying they died for nothing. I'm saying they died for reasons other than the one's listedon the monuments. And in a sense, we are enjoying the fruits of their labours: for the western world got to where it is through the supremacy of its force of arms. No. Cannon fodder. A firefighter keeps people safe. Cops keep order (though also to the benefit of some more than others). Soldiers are there to catch bullets and deal death. Especially not as long as people keep believing that killing and dying is some kind of noble endeavour worthy of lionzation.

Sure. But that's not particularly relevant, is it? Throughout history, men have sacrificed life and limb for what they may have earnestly believed to be a good cause: but those lofty ideals and wonderful values mean jack shit to the people who send others to choke on mustard gas in the mud of Ypres, spill their guts on the beach at Dieppe or watch their friends get blown to pieces on soem Iraqi highway. What else would you call soemone who willingly signs up, risking everything for what is ultimately, someone else's gain? The game stops when the players stop showing up.

Your comment was a reply to the following In that context, your comment implies such associations are justified by the prescence of "radicals" in the NDP camp.

"Dear Soldier: Thank you for putting your life on the line for the elite interests of your nation, the same elites who will cut your health benefits, charge you for equipment lost in combat and deny you the necessary supports for readjusting to civilian life. Know that they are proud to put a "Support the trops" bumper sticker on their SUV, which is being run on gasoline produced by corporations who's economic well-being your sacrifice is safeguarding. Suckers."

So therefore the NDP is a radical, communist party? I guess that means we can judge all the parties based on their most extreme followers. Is that a road the CPC believers wants to go down?

The media, if you haven't noticed, is not the most self-critical profession around, so I wonder where you get the idea that if there was a right-wing bias, they would, essentailly, report themselves. Sounds to me like you're saying "the media is left wing so if there was any right wing content the left wing media would be all over it" which is circular reasoning. And you've completely ignored the larger point, which is that framing media bias as a left vs. right issue is overly simplistic, given the range of other considerations.

Whereas a vote for Paul Martin is a vote for Paul Martin. Which is just as bad as Harper. Gore lost because he ran a shitty campaign. Well, that and the Republicans cheated. But anyway.... You know, I dislike what the CPC base stands for as much of the next pinko, and I find Harper a charmless automaton, but let's stop pretending the Liberal love for "Canadian values" goes beyond lip service. Using your weed example, decriminalization has been on the table for at least two years. But the Liberals did nothing (Chretien killed the bill the first time out). The Liberals don't have any principles and they have no policy that can't be dropped or pushed aside in the interests of clinging on to power.

Gay folks, like everyone else, are individuals. Some are completely apolitical, some may see their sexuality as being more central to their identity than others. Some may even be in denial about the whole thing. So there's no way you ascribe an entire group the same motivations.

Ah yes: "they" have the power. "They" are out to corrupt our society...with parades. I forgot that's page 17 of the Gay Agenda. This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but there's no gay hive mind that issues orders to all gays dictating how to act, dress and answer Stats Can surveys.

No, I saw that. My point is, there's no universal definition of an of these terms, which means any survey relying on these terms (especially self-applied) will have some big gaps. It also doesn't count closest cases... Gives in to what?

I'd draw attention to the strawman, but, um, the whole screed reads like the ramblings of your average barromm philosopher in the queue for off sales. "These feminists, man, they blame us men for everything. But itsh really the Mushlims! And the fugging Liberalsh! Fugging gun registry....makesh me wanna RETCH! I don't have yer money, you baloney!" Steyn is a braying jackass.

Problem with any attempt to define sexuality is that, if you ar eoperating on the basis of a sexual bianary (gay/not gay) you are going to miss out on a helluva lot of people. What about bisexuals? Transgengered folks? Where woud you put a woman undergoing surgery to become a man who dates wmen? Or what about someone who considers themselves predominately straiht, but still fools around with members of the same sex? Sexuality is a continuum that can't accurately be measured by surveys like this. Besides: even if there were a grand total of 12 homosexuals in Canada, not allowing them the same rights as everyone else would still be wrong.

Yeah like the liberal New York Times running all those stories hyping the administration's claims on Iraq WMDs. Or the media jumping all over Howard Dean for, well, everything. The reality is that the media is biased, but that bias is both natural (since there is no such thing as an objective point of view) and structural (in that questions of left or right are less important than considerations like selling ads or being he first with a story). To say the media (a broad term which today covers everything from cable news to weblogs) is biased is simplistic, to say the least.

Right when they pelted, er...passed around, er..distributed the cookies...which story was it again? Let it go: the cookie story is either a hoax or a overblown propaganda excersise aimed at gullible goofs. They got your number. By spewing anonymous tirades on an internet message board? Give 'em hell, tough guy! Story is no longer up. Based on the incongruity of the headline and the body copy, it looks like an error. But I guess right wing conspiracy nuts have never heard of Finagle's Law: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Fox is part of the "MSM".

Actually, they are. Read the bit I quoted from the CIA Wolrd Fact Bok on the affect of the occupation on the PA's economy. Uh...no infrastructure, no money, no economy? Plus, it's hard to build something nice when your olive groves are being bulldozed for settlements. Now I'm not going to deny there's a problem on the Palestinian side. there are too many groups willing to sell their people's hopes for peace down the river based on the unacheivable goal of destroying Israel. But, contrary to what posters here would say, most Palestinans oppose violence. However, I have to ask: has Israel's heavy handness made them any safer or brought peace any closer? Have their policies of collective punishment, the social and economic strangulation and the uprooting of people from the land they've lived on for generations discouraged the growth of radicalism? You're trying to tell me that Israel (the most powerful country in the region) is in danger of destruction by the rag-tag Palestinians?? Give your head a shake, man. See, I don't think the Israelis and Palestinans are all that different: in both cases, the vast majority of people want nothing more than to go abouit their lives in peace. But both people are held hostage by the radical forces within their midst (Islamic and Zionist militants), forces that drive the agenda and keep the cycle of violence turning for their own ends.

Iran's nuke capability will initially, be very small. Israel's capability is not (they have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons). And you can bet a lot of those are trained on Tehran right now. Well, Saddam didn''t stat the fight, did he? Another difference is Saddam saw himself as the regime. There's no such unity in Iran, as diffrent factions are continuously jockeying for position and power, meaning the chances of a single fanatic being able to force his agenda through are less than in a personality-driven regime like Baathist Iraq.

Well it's a good thing SSM doesn't change Christian beliefs: it's a civil institution. Yeah: gay parents will make kids gay, just like straight parents are so successful at making their gay kids straight. "Imposed on the majority"? Let me clear something up for you: same sex marriage doesn't require anyone to marry someone of the same sex. There's no imposition involved.

They were panellists on a round table show. Not reporters.

No. My personal belies ae irrelevant. I simply question whethe rthe leaders of a country wold be willing to act in a manner completely unprecedented in human history and invite the destruction of their country as a political entity. It doesn't matter if they personally survive. As I say they are motivated by power: to be a ruler, you have to have a country to rule. Right. Like they'd spend years and millions on building a nuke and then hand it off. If Iran gets a nuke and then, by mere coincidence, one goes off somewhere, who do you think would get blamed? AH. So they are actually still years away from a nuke. Sure they do. Denouncing the Gtreat Satan and pledging the destruction of it and the "Zionist entity" are par for the course for these guys going bak to Khomeni.

Obviously not right away. But such a development is completely impossible under the status quo. Actually, the regions principle aquifiers lie under the West Bank and there's lots of good agricultural land (other wise, why would Israel move thousands into such a barren hell-hole?) Due mostly to Israel's secuirty measures. But i would agree that a two-state solution is not necessarily the best choice. What a lovely dodge: again, most people in the territories were not born in any Arab state. they are descendants of the Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate or the children of the Israeli occupation. The territories have not been recognized as belonging to anyone since the Ottoman Empire.

Well, given that the West Bank is referred to by Israel as Judea and Samaria and considered part of "Greater Israel", and given the fact that more than 230,000 Israelis call the area home, I think it's safe to say that the area is considered a de facto part of Israel. I'd say the fact that the land is controlled by and settled by Israel is very much the point. Yeah, I'm sure any state with virtually no economy, no trade, no control of its borders, massive unemployment (not to mention the all-too frequent incursion by a hostile military) would have all its ducks in a row. The circular logic here is a bit hard to take. Palestinians are to blame for their miserable conditions because they won't stop terrorizing Israel. Those conditions make a civil society virtually impossible. The lack of a civil society breeds terrorism. And we're back to where we began (with Israel shouldering no responsibility for the situation.)

The mullahs of Iran are many things. Cruel, controlling and power mad? Yes. Crazy? No. Suicidal? No. Putting aside the demagogary and inflamatory rhetoric, is there any reason to believe people whose sole reason to exist is to extert control and weild power would willingly sacrifice themselves and their regime?