Black Dog

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's one thing to spend when you have a surplus in revenue. It's another to permenantly cut out a source of revenue. If they want to talk tax cuts, fine, but make sure there's a fall back (like an inheritance tax).

Nothing. In it's place. Just to be clear: has he described all Christians in that fashion? Or is he referring specifically to a certain subset of Christians?

The BQ have more in common (policy-wise) with the NDP. The only way they'll back Harper's Cons is if Harper can give them something.

This is patently false. The environmental movement (btw, you cpuld tyy being a little more specific) is a global movement which includes transnational organizations like Greenpeace, but also countless local, grassroots groups. You here more about North MAerican groups and their campaigns here beause it's happening here. Local environmental movements in other countries don't get much play in the world press (with some exceptions, such as Nigerians' anti-Shell campaigns). Well, if they did, they'd probably be arrested and likely disappeared.

What a bunch of crap. "Wahhh, you'r eintolerant of my intolerance!!" Just so you know, the prevailing view among small-l liberals is that people are entitled to their personal beliefs, but those beliefs should not be reflected in public policy.

That's well and good. But the vast majority of people referred to as Palestinians aren't from Syria or any otehr Arab state. They are decendents of those who fled the former Palestine mandate or are historical residents of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, which had been previously occupied by foreign Arab governments in Egypt and Jordan. A good chunk of the nearly 4 million Arab people in the West Bank and Gaza were born in the period when those territories were controlled by Israel. So, by your logic, they should be considered Israelis.

Did you mean: "Zahir Muhsein" ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. I meant Zuhayr Muhsin. Same guy.

I'm referring to the philosophy of Zionism in general, which is based on theological presumptions of racial privilege. Haw! Too bad you weren't around 58-odd years ago: apparently someone missed the memo about the longstanding enimity between Arabs and Jews and decided to stuff as many Jews as they could right in the middle of their arch-nemesises. I also find it a little odd that you think there should be a "cooling off period": why bother discussing such a thing at all when you're calling for the Palestinian population to be absorbed into whatever Arab state will take them, leaving Israel a de facto purely Jewish state?

Well, that's a strategy that makes sense, given the probability of the next government being a minority. Campaign promises are usually big "If I were in charge..." proclimations anyway (take Harper's SSM gambit: he knows he'd lose an SSM vote without a CPC majority, but he's operating on that assumption).

Of course the NDP would eliminate the GST altogether on essential family items, as well as cut income tax for low income earners...

PM PM is full of it. Consumption taxes like the GST are harder on lower income people because they spend a much greater percentage of their income.

I'm surprised Golda "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed" Meir could bring herself to acknowledge them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Didn't Arafat and his henchmen also aknowledge that "the Palestinian people does not exist." ? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/714278/posts <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did some digging and, after turning up nothing on the "PLO official" quoted (with the exception of pro-israel web sites repeating the same quotation), I discovered that Zuhayr Muhsin was the Secretary General of the Syrian Ba'athist group Sa`iqa which was established by the Syrian government in opposition to Arafat's Fatah. His membership of the PLO was due to pressure from Syria even though his pan-Arab position (i.e. the Syrian position) put him at constant conflict with the mainstream Palestinian nationalists. So the use of him as a "Palestinian" source is a bit disingenous (also keep in mind that pan-Arabism was the dominant poliitical philosophy of the Arab countries up until the early '70s).

The religious right makes the claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation. Indeed, the U.S. does have the highest rate of religious belief of any western nation. Plus, the furor over the use of the term "Holidays" is driven by the removal of the term "CHRISTmas". The tree itself isn't the issue, clearly. The name is. One the same note: Busted!

I'm surprised Golda "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed" Meir could bring herself to acknowledge them.

I'm still trying to figure out how an issue that affects one small group of people (that is: gay Canadians who wish to marry) has any effect on society as a whole. Here's where I start to get leery of this whole "vote the wishes of he constituents" thing. Any squeaky wheel (or big, well-funded lobby group) can influence individual politicians. And...? Yeah that's what keeps us up at night: finding ways to piss of the Yanks (who never seem to notice or care anyway).

Sure there is. "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination..." I assume "every individual" includes homosexuals. I don't think a law affecting a minority of Canadians can reasonably be considered a major change. Uh...I'd say the line is pretty clear. It's one thing to say "the Bible opposses homosexuality": that's an example of a argument in good faith. The opposite of good faith under this law would be soemthing along the lines of "the Bible opposses homosexuality, so we should stone us some queers." It's a clear difference. You also seem to be confusing the issue of hate speech with the issue of human rights tribunals.

Snide? Please, you've got the market cornered on stick-up-the-ass priggishness. Now that's a laugh. "It is so because I say it is so." If I refuse to admit it it is because the case you present is weak. It's one thing to point out that constitutional monarchies are nice places to live, quite another to ascribe that to the monarchy. For instance, many of the same countries are also liberal democracies with strong socialist tendancies. I expect those things have a far greater affect on the political landscape than any figurehead. You mean they couldn't agree on one. Which is a different thing altogether. Popular election is only one option for determing the President. The Queen isn't divisive? Quebec would beg to differ, I'm sure. Also, in a country that is increasingly culturally heterogeneous, I'd rather we look to homegrown unifying symbols than foreigners. The Queen isn't beholden to anyone at all. It's not like anyone can vote her out. But I maintain she and the GG is just as prone to influence as an elected figurehead would be (look at the events around the passage of the GST). A republican Canada with a president in place of the GG, wouldn't be much different. See, you're vastly overstating the worth and value of the monarchy, its unifying effects (a better term would be apathy: most people just don't care one way or another) and using the lack of consensus on an alternative as an endorsement of the status quo. Far be it from me to try and convince a diehard royalist of anything. Like most normal Canadians, this isn't a subject I care all that deeply about. To me the argument is prety basic: its hypocritical for a society that espouses values of equality to cling to a symbol of hereditary privildge. "It embodies the triumph of inheritance over merit, of blood over brains, of mindless ritual over innovation. The monarchy reminds us to defer to authority and remember our place." -Marget Wente

Forgetting of course, that the judgment of individuals and the narrow focus of humans is what created so many environmental problems in the first place. You're misconstruing my belief in the validity of human-caused global warming with a belief in Kyoto. That's just wrong.

Incorrect. The proposed legislative amendments state that "No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) if... in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text."

Uh uh. Involving ourselves in missile defense means letting another country set our defense priorities for us. That's giving up soverignty. That's not an answer, nor is it logical. That's like saying, "I sleep with a garland of garlic around my neck to protect me from vampires. I have not been bitten by vampires, ergo, the garlic works." AG: that link should work now.

Well it's nice to see the Christian States of America defending pagan symbols like the Christmas tree. Citaton? Iraqis favour immediate U.S. pullout more

The point is the day to day risks to the lives and limb of Iraqis are completey disregarded in this comparison, which shows the comparison to be completely facile. Well here you and I will just have to disagree. Who and how? Rhetoric aside, what has the U.S. actualy done to curb the "threat" posed by these nations? The Cold War was never about ideologies. To believe the mythology is like believing that the longstanding rivalry between England and Spain was motivated by Protestantism versus Catholicism. And if you think the friendly dictator is a thing of the past, you're wrong. Ah yes, the old "rogue state" line. We'r enot talking psychopaths here. Meglomaniacal sociopaths, yes, but not irrational crazys. Regimes like North Korea are self-limiting: their primary interest is in self-preservation. To be a ruler, you have to have a country to rule. If you cross the line and invite retaliation upon yourself, you're dead, and your country is destroyed as a going political entity. Not even Kim Jong Il is that crazy.

Missile Defence (which Canada is deeply involved with, despite the "official" position to the contrary) is a perfect example of the type of militarily useless and financially wasteful project that has led Canada's armed force sto such a sorry state. The only poissible winners are the aerospace companies and other military contracters whose bottom lines are subsidized by such a white elephant. It's the 21st Centiry equivalent of the Ross rifle. From who?

As I said, perverts will be perverts whether their prey is 14 or 16. And there will always be 14 year olds who think they are mature enouh to have sex. Not much will change that. Frankly, the more I look at this, the more I start to think this "moral" outrage is a red herring. F'r instance, I'm willing to bet the same people who want the AoC upped are alos opposed to comprehensive sex ed in schools (I'm looking at you, Focus on the Family). The issue isn't about perverts (I'd be interested to know just how much of an issue the proverbial codger/teenybopper coupling really is) as much as it is about sex itself.

That doesn't indicate to me that it's a top priority, though. That just tells me that, if asked, people tend to believe that Canada's forces are an underfunded shambles. But I've yet to see a poll that puts military funding in the top 10. For example... The vast majority of people worry about health care, education and the economy because those things have a real affect on their daily lives in ways in ways the military does not. That's all I'm getting at. You're taking umbrage here without disproving my point. You complained that the military is not a priority. I'm just telling you why that is. Again, all I'm saying is that its no wonder the military is in disarray when it seems like no one has any idea what its mandate and needs actually are. Cool down. I'm sure you are aware that the politicization of the DND is part of the problem, right? There's a lack of leadership from all levels. By the way, when was the last White Paper? 1994? Which is exactly what I was saying. Jeez. Here's an interesting (but partisan) look at defence: Breaking Rank. The segement on wasteful spending and white elephant programs is pretty illuminating.