Black Dog

With oil prices skyrocketing, production slowing and demand reaching a fever pitch, it seems ludicrous to continue to promote such an inefficient form of development, particularily one with such detrimental effects on the community as a whole. Why are esthetics and practicality mutually exclusive to you? I recently took a road trip down to southern Alberta and was struck by the increasing homogeny of so many communities. It was almost impossible to distinguish Camrose, Leduc, Red Deer, Wetaskawin from the big box "commons" complex's sprouting up across Edmonton and Calgary. It's disgusting. And if that makes me a snob, so be it. I am under no obligation to accept these blights on the landscape, these destroyers of farmland and propigators of the destructive car culture, simply becaus ethey are the choice of the working man.

Religious extremist promotes terrorism!

Uh...the point of the poll question's phrasing was to elicit a high positive response rate. Do you know anything about polls?

No, your formulation is nonsense. The occupation and refugee problem preceed the first suicide bombings by mor ethan 25 years. To argue that Israel's "solution" (land seizures and colonization) is a response to terrorism is to be utterly ignorant of the history. No, but Israel is the only country in the Middle East claiming to be a democracy. So the institutionalized anti-semetism of the western nations is to blame?

If you can't figure it out by now, I can't help you. It was, then as now, bullshit. It's possible to oppose terrorist attacks on civilians and the unsavoury ideology behind them while simultaneously opposing the militaristic, jingoistic garbage from the other side. Both are worth opposing because both are simply flip sides of the same coin. By the way, you're Canadian: Bush is not "us". Hate to burst your bubble, but I was on this forum and oppossing the same stuff I'm opposed to now before you came along. You just happen to be one of the more vocal right-wingers here. I think my stance is pretty clear. Well, if you see things in black and white where others see grey, don't expect to be unchallenged. So a government that opposses equal rights for women, and gays should get to wipe out another country for, uh, oppossing equal rights for women and gays? They'd settle down into a nice stable Islamic theocracy is what. That's the direction its going now.

Accepting the Second Amendment doesn't mean you can't regulate gun ownership. Legal precedent would seem to indicate the right to bear arms etc. under the Second Amendment is only a right held by the states against the federal government.

False dichotomy.

So you did: I thought it was B. Max. Alright. It's relevant in the context of the Zionist claim to the land, which they say was given to them by God several millenia ago. If the United States controlled all of Canada's borders, airspace, oceans, water, electricity, gas and fuel, could one reasonably argue that we were a pltically and economically independent entity? Which doesn't answer the original question of why they should. Again: its Irael's problem, Israel's responsibility. Nonsense. An end to the occupation and the extension to the Palestinian and Arab populations of the same rights enjoyed by Israel's Jews would, according to the Zionist interpretation, be tantamount to the destruction of Israel. Israel is, by nature, a country where one class of citizens enjoys more rights and privileges than the rest. Which plan was that? The one that gave the Jews a homeland or the one that promised the Arabs independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East? By the way, I'm well aware of the history of the region, thanks, even the little details like the fact that jews made up less than 12 per cent of the population of the Brituish Mandate at the time of partition.

I would have to ask what in blazes you're on about. Your "question" was a thinly veiled dig. If you have something to say, say it.

In the spirit of Greg's new rules, I'll refrain from responding in the way I normally would to such a slur, but will point out that personal attacks are verboten. I'll also point out that such attacks are usually indicative of a losing argument.

Your asking me to take a stand? On what? Choose sides? Why? I'm a progressive, social democrat with an arachistic streak, a solid distrust of the establishment and a dim view of balck and white world views. I can loathe the religious extremists of Iran without making common cause with their idealogical bretheren in the U.S.A. or Canada. I can distrust the power of the state and the free market alike. I'm an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

The 43 per cent figure has already been debunked as the product of a methodologically unsound push poll. As for talk-radio, I wouldn't put much stock in the views of the cranks who frequent the phone lines of shows like Rutherford. It's certainly no substitute for real evidence. Again: if spearation was such a hot commodity, surely the Separation Partyy would have garnered more than 5,000 votes in last November's election. Saskatchewan is a have province these days. Under the current federal/provincial agreement, federal aid for natural disasters kicks in after a certain provincial threshold is exceeded. I don't think that threshold has been reached.

Oh, I'm not disputing that, nor would I be the first to point out that even small farmers are not immune to bellying up to the trough. The big fuss over BSE bailouts wasn't that the government was handing out money, but that they were handing out money to the wrong people.

Hysterical, if you'll read the quote, was directed at B. Max. As for your question, millions of Palestinians have moved elsewhere. That aside, I've yet to see a reason why any Arab country should take in the Palestinians. After all, the majority of the Palestinians can trace their roots back to the land now called Israel. Very few Israelis can do the same. Furthermore, can you imagine the costs associated with absorbing more than 8.5 million people (many of whom with nothing to their name)? If it's easy for the host Arab countries to integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic and social structure, then why after three decades of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has Israel been unable to improve the lives of the Palestinian refugees under its direct control? If it's easy for other Arab countries to integrate the refugees (despite their limited resources), then surely it should be much easier for Israel to do so (of course such a solution, the "one-state" solution is directly opposed to the Zionist frameowk and wil never be accepted). In conclusion, I don't see why Arab states should be responsible for solving a problem Israel created.

Sounds liek Alberta where the Conservative government has given bilions to private industry in the form of loan guarantees, tax breaks, and bailouts (as in the case of the BSE relief program). The small farmer is a dying breed in Alberta and it's agribusiness and it's allies in government that are to blame.

Typical hysterical and ahistorical claptrap. Given that Israeli was founded by the Jews' driving tens of thousands of Arabs out of their homes and off of their land (the initial ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which left between 700,000 and 800,000 Arabs refugees), and the subsequent colonization of the West Bank and Gaza which has left millions politically disenfranchised and economically destitute, the Zionist experiment has been anything but "restrained".

Because they'll be dumping 1.3 million Palestinans into what amounts to a giant internment camp controlled by Israel. Not a recipe for good will. In the meantime, Israel's voracious apppetetie for land in the West Bank will ensure continued friction between Palestinians and settlers.

It's difficult to see how that could come to pass, given the fact Israel will retain control of Gaza's borders, airspace, sea access, and economy. By giving up gaza, Sharon wasn't giving up much. Only 7,300 settlers lived there, while the West Bank settlements that Israel would keep “in exchange” for its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza house tens of thousands of colonists and stretch many miles into Occupied Palestinian Territory. The withdrawl from Gaza will allow Israel to demographically, and permanently, entrench its presence in the West Bank. Therefore, the Gaza withdrawal plan has less to do with what Israel is giving up in Gaza and more to do with what Israel plans on taking from the West Bank. What Israel is doing is ensuring that the conflict will continue and perhaps intensify, which is precisely what the religious zealots and Zionist idealogues running the show have planned.

Heh. Of course, the surrender of Gaza is a strategic step for Sharon, one that allows him to escalate Israel's expansion into the West Bank. Gaza will be a camp for the Palestinians. Terrorism, Hamas, Hizbullah, have nothing to do witrh it. The issue is, as it has been from Day One, Israel's expansionism (as the above poster let's slip).

Can you ask a specific question?

All I can say is: consider the source.

Can't see why the U.S. would have such a beef with Iran. the differences between the mullahs there and teh religious right that constitutes the backbone of the Republican party are only one's of degrees. That the corrupt Iranian religious establishment is loathsome should go without saying. But given the costs of direct intervention are borne overwhelmingly by the general populace, and given the titanic failure that Iraq's regime change is shaping up to be (the new, "democratic" Iraq will bear a strong resemblance to Iran due to their mutual idealogy), one should be loathe to pursue such a strategy. Of course one must first assume that the "liberator" has the interests of the oppressed in mind. That's seldom the case. And if it happens, as in every other historical case, it will be cloaked in such high minded rhetroic to conceal the real political and economic motivations. Debunked. Your sympathy for the victims is truely heart warming. Thanks for backing up my initial statement. Bollocks. You're loathing for homosexuals has resonated loud and clear since you began posting.

Who cares?

In other words: might makes right.