Black Dog

On an internet forum, I'm afraid your word is worth squat. Let me put it to you another way: I am a heterosexual white male as well, yet I don't feel oppressed or put upon in any way, shape or form by minorities. Why the gap in our respective experiences? I dug into my Redneck/English dictionary and translated this for the rest of you out there and here's what it says:

America is declining in that the handful of nuts I'm talking about are the ones running the whole show, or at least influencing the direction the country is heading. That's the problem. They are not the majority, even if they try to misrepresent the last election to show they are. The only people I'm trying to portray in a bad light are the individuals in question and the political culture in which they operate. I'd say things took a turn around the time Reagan got in. In fact, I've heard a lot of talk about a "culture war" down in the states. But it wasn't the left that declared it. Balls to that. I criticize repressive types from othe rpart sof the world all the time. I challenge you to find on instance where I've supported reactionary religious types of any affiliation. What's more is that I'm not living next door to the creeps in India, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, nor are they in a position to influence the political debate here. What I do see is ads from Focus on the Family in Canadian newspapers.

You were probably "entirely satisfied" Iraq had WMD. In fact, despite all evidence and reports to the contrary from the same people who wanted to find them, you probably still are. But like I said, if Iran is not trying to get nukes, they should be. If they've learned anything from Iraq, it's that the survival of their regime depends on their ability to deter the United States and the only way to deter the United States is with weapons of mass destruction, specifically nukes. No regime in history has made the conscious decision to destroy itself. These people did not get where they are by being suicidal. Even if the leadership itself feels they can survive, they still need a country to rule. How many Christian countries have been invaded, occupied or colonized by foreign invaders recently? Anyway, that's beside the point, which remains the actions of a few do not represent the tendancies of the whole.

Marine recruiters go above and beyond

Which is all the more reason to shore up the barriers between church (or mosque or temple) and state. Also: as of 2001, the Muslim, Hindu and Sihk populations made up 3.9 per cent of the population. Of that, we don't how many adhere to social conservative beliefs. The other fast growing group is "no religion". Let's put it another way: the trend in Canada and the rest of the western world (save the U.S.A.) is away from religion. Even with the growth of some so-con faiths, that prevailing winds are blowing away from religion.

So is there any, y'know, substance to your paranoid ranting? Or has your brain been melted into sludge by too much exposure to right-wing talk radio? 'cause i can't hlep noticing there's no actual examples given, no evidence presented...nuthin'. Just a lot of race-baiting, homophobia and "us white men are so hard done by" bullshit. I got news for you chumley: straight white men are not an endangered species. Staright white men run the whle goddamn show. And if you're feeling oppressed an alienated, why don't you look at teh straight white men who control the levers of power in the political and business worlds instread of succumbing to the divide and conquer tatics they use to keep people like you in line. Of course you wouldn't understand identity politics or why traditionally oppressed minorities find pride in their identities. Nor do you understand the difference between a minority group asserting themesleves and an oppressive majority seeking to maintain the traditional power imbalances and structural inequalities that favour them. To a black person or a queer person, every single day is "staright white pride" day. So basically, you're paranoid. I know lots of people who get like that, my advice to them is to lay off the weed if they can't handle it.

Wrong again. I've already posted stats breaking downthe population of Palestine (post-1922 partition) and Jews made up but 31 per cent of the people west of the Jordan River. But you said those links showed the "seizure of land from the rightful inhabitants", By my reckoning, the bigest land seziure was the partition which created Israel. Much of the Zionist claim to the holy land stems from the biblical record(I've seen reports of bands of Jewish settlers evicting Arabs from their homes while claiming the Torah gives them ownership over all property owned by non-jews). However, I think that's a ridiculous notion. Some connection with the land in question (beyond race or religion) should be demonstrated. It seems frankly insane to me to allow one group, whose members may be hundreds if not thousands of years removed from the land, free reign while denying those dispossesed of their land less than 60 years ago the right to return. As I've said all along: anyone dispossesed of property or territory is entitled to fair compensation. The key difference is that the Arab countries expelled the bulk of their Jewish populations a long time ago (a fact which does not justify the like-minded expulsion of Arabs from Palestine nor is in itself justifiable) while Israel continues its colonialist policies today.

Look again: As Netherlands pointed out as well, the web site did not conduct the poll, so I'll ask you again: what makes the EKOS poll I quoted, or any subsequent polls cited showing a majority in favour of SSM, "biased"? WTF does that mean?

Polls have constintly shown majority support for SSM. So answer the question: what make sthi spoll biased?

Wow, you copy and paste good. That doesn't change the fact that Sweal's point stands.

In Canada we have laws devoted to the protection of minority rights. Courts across Canada have determined that laws prohibiting SSM violate the "law of the land". So these judges are interpreting the laws to ensur ethey are constitutional. You mean homosexual marriage? 'Cause that's all the legislation will lead to. Pardon my French, but this is a crock of shit. You're telling me that the watering dowen of the Bill's language to appease anti-SSM supporters is a trick? What are you basing this on, exactly? It's clear you don't know how laws work. If the changes you mention make it into the law, then they cannot be reveresed on a whim. And if the changes cannot hold up against potential constituional challenges, they have no business being in the bill.

in other words: "A poll that tells me what I want to hear." What makes this poll biased?

Red Star columnist on why the Fraser is out to lunch again. I know Sweal, for you this is simply unacceptable. Perhaps if you got a job at the CBC you could lobby to work that number down to at least 25% neutral and 75% negative Textbook IMR stuff here, folks: his premise shot to pieces, he ralllies by reading his opponent's mind!

Federal transfers currently account for around 13 per cent of Alberta's budget. I'm not defending Martin here, and I don't know if this is part of a "screw Alberta" platform (which one would assume would be counterproductive to a "vote buying" strategy), but separation is a non-starter.

They are not "illegal" in the sense they were done in the abscene of law on the matter. But they were unjust. Please show me these links again, I went back and couldn't find which one's you specified. Either proprietary ownership or residency. The fact is, while the land may have changed hands in the sens eof who oversaw it (Ottoman Empire, Britain etc.). The Ottomans who ruled Palestine for four 400 years found the indigenous population to consist of the Bedaween, "Arabs of the Arabs" who live in tents and roam the deserts, the Fellahheen or agicultural peasantry who lived in villages, and were freehold owners of the soil which they cultivated, and the Belladeen; "Townsfolk," who lived from generation to generation, in cities, generally in their own freehold houses. All these groups shared common languages and customs and were, by the most basic definition, a national identity, despite the overlordship of the changing cast of imperial masters. I would say that the Palestinian people, most of whom can trace their lineage back to the land for the past 100 years have a far more solid claim than European Jews whose conection to the land is tenuous at best. Exactly my point. Colonial division was generally clumsy and usually ignorant of local tribal, sectarian and ethnic divisions. That's why the Middle East is so tumultuous today. Israel is a unique example in that it's founding entailed a massive transfer of the indiginous population to make troom for an immigrant population. From my point of view, the territory Jordan and Egypt captured in 1948 should never have been allotted to Israel in the first place. I said before, decisions made by the UN are not always right or always wrong. i think the decision to plunk several thousand DPs onto someonelse's land wa sthe wrong one. Uh...what? Let me reiterate: anyone forcibly removed from territory they were in lawful posession of is entitled to compensation for their loss. See above. You mean the 1948 war, right? Okay, look at it this way: Suppose the United Nations decided that Canada's aboriginal population has too long been deprived of their rightful homeland and have mandated, without the consent of the non-native population, to partition Canada accordingly. How would you react to the news that the land you have lived on for your entire life is being given to somebody else without your consent? What if, subsequentially, armed gangs of aboriginals started forcibly evicting you and your neighbours from the land and claimed it as their own? Would you be particularily tickled at the prospect? It's an imperfect analogy, I know, because Canada's aboriginals have a more solid claim to the land than Europes Jews do to Israel, but you get my drift.

In February, EKOS Marketing conducted a phone interview among 1,056 Canadian adults. The main question was: "Do you support or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry." Nationally, the results were: 42% were in favor of same-sex marriages. This is a rise from 36% in an EKOS poll of 2003-AUG. 40% were opposed. This is an decrease from 41% in August 2003. 17% were neither in favor nor opposed. 1% gave no answer. Opponents of SSM are on the losing side of social evolution.

Allow me: Well it's from the Western Standard, after all.

AG, I hate to say this after you've done so much homework, but your dealing in non sequiters. May I refer you back to what I consider my key points: 1) You clearly consider Israel's right to exists a categorical imperative; that is an absolute, unconditional requirement that is both required and justified as an end in itself. I do not. I believe the Jewish people are entitled to a homeland only if such territory is acquired in a just manner. I do not believe that to be the case with Israel, given the seizure of territory from the rightful inhabitants (that is: the original population dwelling there) and the ensuring population transfer and subsequent denial of compensation. 2) It's utterly misleading to talk of the division of the Palestine Mandate in 1922 in terms of the Arabs stealing land from the Jews. The Jewish population would only have claim to land they justly occupied, so the original partition by a foreign colonial power is unjustified. Again: the British foriegn minister did not own the land and therefore had no legal or moral authority to partition it out. You continue to ignore this point (see again my house-stealing analogy). 3) Again, I don't consider the Balfour Declaration or the UN partition plan to be valid as they were foisted upon the population, violating their right to self-determination. Neither of these can be called upon to demonstrate the rightfulness and legality of taking the land of Palestine from Arabs and giving it to Zionists from Europe and elsewhere.

/\

Utah Senator wants "divine design" taught in biology Next on the hitlist: that bullshit about "gravity".

So you're basically admitting that there was no backpedalling. I didn't say anything one way or the other about Iran's nuclear intentions. But feel free to continue to try and tell me what I think: it only makes you look foolish. For the record, if I were in Iran's shoes, I would be pursuing nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't I? Look, for the last time, there were no WMDs. Read the ISG final report, which unequivocably states that no WMD or active WMD programs existed. As to whether Bush lied or not, I believe the U.S. picked the intellegence they wanted to support what was a foregone conclusion (see: Downing Street memo).

Poor John Kerry. After folding like a cheap lawn chair in the election (his performance in which wAs no doubt affected by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush campaign), no he's having his intellect dispariged because of the sam edocuments the right-wing was demanding he release in the first place:

Boy, IMR, as attempts to burn a guy go, this is hands down one of the lamest I've ever seen. I've never denied the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. In fact, I've agreed that it exists. My only qualifier was over the nuclear weapons which they may or may not be pursuing. I've been wholly consistent on that point, so where's the backpeddle? (BTW, have you admitted your error with regard to Iraq's WMD?)

Actually, that statement meant that its not "news" in the sense that everybody paying attention already knows. Or was I the only one who saw 35 Liberals vote with the Cons against SSM?

You do have access to that thread. Here's a search of every thread with "Iran" in it where I've posted. Since I don't know what thread you're talking about, why don't you take it from here? Simpler still, why not search for threads with the keyword Iran where you've posted? ADDENDUM: Lookee! Here's what I said about Iran before: