Black Dog

Fuck that. It's hard for lefties to maintain any sembelance of credibility on issues like SSM or drugs, to name a pair, when there's those who think this is okay. I don't like religion, and I certainly don't believe it has a place in public policy, but you're advocating stifling freedom of speech, which no one should condone. Take the recent big anti-SSM protest in Edmonton, for example. I violently disagree with pretty much all the participants, but in now way believe they should be barred from making those views known. That's what freedom is all about (and besides, how can they make fools of themselves if you won't let them speak?)

Amen. There's nothing particularily "conservative" about the family values crowd. It's sad that this once-proud label has been usurped by reactionary forces, but ther eyou have it. Real conservatives (of the classical variety) would have little truck with the busy-bodys that make up the core of the current Con crop. But I don't think the Liberal party is the answer either. To me they've always represented the worst of all worlds: fiscal tight-wads one minute, free-spenders the next. I also hate how they've (successfully) branded themselves as the party most representative of Canadians' values. I 'd like to think we Canucks stand for more than opportunism. So, really the biggest losers are conservatives of the classical bent: they have no place to park their politics.

Well, the Palestinians aren't bulldozing their own homes. I can't agree to that because my argument is that the tactics you mention aren't security precautions, but are being used to subjugate the Palestinians while Israel gobbles up their land. Again: if there was no occupation, such "percautions" would be unecessary. Aside: if the, "fence" is a percaution, why is it not being built along Israel's recognized international borders? Many Palestinians can trace their origins to the very land they are being squeezed out of. How many Israelis can do the same (tenuous connections to 3,000 year old nomadic tribes aside)? The same way any other state. Trade, education etc etc. Why? Do you believe that Palestinians are congentially unable to function? Or-and here's a crazy notion- they could move towards developing a co-operative relationship with Palestine. Let';s not forget that Jews and Arabs lived and worked side by side for centuries in relative harmony. It wasn't until the Zionist experiment started (spurred by western imperialism and post-holocaust guilt) to run amuck that the conflicts got so out of hand. So, if nothing can stop someone determined to kill someone, why make their job easier with heavy-handed and aggressive tactics? Why provoke them further? getting better. Now ask why that is. Funny hw you can get in a tizzy over the propagandistic boasting of a few Arab leaders, but turn around and quote resources that demand Israel take over the whole middle east. The difference is, I don't assume the kooks who want an Eretz Yisrael stretching across the Middle East speak for all Israelis. Don't make me point out again that Saddam was a ally of the U.S. before 1990.... I see the U.S. invading a nation that did not threaten them, an act of naked aggression. I don't consider support of this to be a defensible stance. Ditto Israel's policies vis a vis the Occupied Territories.

How could they when the U.S. doesn't recognize the ICC? Yes there are charges being laid against the low level grunts (the "few bad apples" theory). But there's evidence that the authorization for the use of torture came from higher up (google up "Gonzalez" and "torture memo"). Where's the investigation into that? I don't believe torture is ever acceptable. I believe that any instances where use of torture can save lives (the "ticking time bomb") are so rare and, considering the unreliability of information extracted under torture, that to us eit as an excuse is, well, inexusable. The U.S. invaded. No invasion, no insurgency, no destruction of Fallujah. The question was "why"? Why the sudden concern with Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to anyone. I can't really imagine the situation is all the much better for Iraqis today. Probably not because 1,200 more took their place. What else is he going to say? "We're losing?" And yours aren't?

No, my position is not "pro-Palestinian" but pro rule of law. I can acknowledge the problem of Palestinian terrorism without blaming all Palestinians, just as I can recognize the actions of the Israeli state are not the fault of all Israelis or all Jews. I wish more of Israels supporters would adopt as balanced a worldview, as oppossed to the black-and-white, "uas against them" logic that only serve to increase the enimity between the two peoples. Israel's withdrawl has nothing to do with "turning the other cheek", but is simply the only logical course of action. A withdrawl would enhance Israel's own security by removing aprinciple grievance of the Palestinian and Arab world, not to mention removing the excessive and debilitating social, economic and political costs the occupation is placing on Israel. From my point of view Israel is sacrificing too much (including its humanity) in its quest to appease a faction of extremists trying to fulfill a crude vision of manifest destiny. Again with the Israel as the helpless victim crap. Israel enjoys total military and economic supremacy over the Palestinians. Israel has chosen to maintain the occupation and the policies of aggressive settlement and expansion. It can undo them as well. the ball is in their court. There are such maps. I've seen them. By the way, you do realize you just admitted there's an occupation? As for the "spoils of war" argument, international law specifies the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. "Occupation as a temporary status during which the occupier is obligated first to end the occupation as quickly as possible and second to safeguard the rights of the occupied population during the temporary period in which the occupation is maintained. Any move by the occupier to infringe of the rights of the occupied or change the status of the occupied land through, for example, annexation, confiscation of resources, population transfer, or destruction of civilian property is illegal under the Geneva Conventions."* *http://www.endtheoccupation.org/ Let's compare racist statements: See what I mean? With such racism present, why would I trust your sources? Your BBC link contains nothing that isn't common knowledge. In any case, I point out that Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel and that the PLO, as indicated, has recognized, opn paper, Israel's right to exist. Of course I am aware that anti-israel sentiment is widespread, but maintain that ending the occupation would be the first logical step in curbing that hatred. Moreover: are you aware that in this conflict the vast majority of violence is takling place within the occupied territories. Suicide bombings are dramatic and shocking events, but not part of the day to day. No I don't think the conflict is based on racism, but racism is a byproduct of the conflict. As for the Bible, Torah or Qu'ran, they are best left out of real debates over policy.

Armchair Provoceteur

Can you 100 per cent certainly tell me that in 100 per cent of cases, the families were aware? Furthermore, is destruction of property an appropriate punishment? In the western world, the onus is on the accussers to prove the guilt, not the accussed to prove their innocence. Bomber's family hits out at Islamic Jihad Demolishing Peace Sure if you can show me Israel on a map (pre 1948). In any case, nations are defined as much by the "facts on the ground" as there are lines on the map. for instance, there are many maps in Israel that annihalate any distinction between the territories occupied in 1967 and the territory granted Israel in 1947. The facts are Israel occupioed the west bank and gaza in 1967. Over time, this occupation transformed into a form of colonialism and suppressed and oppressed an entire people, preventing them from the exercise of their right to self-determination and the establishment of a state. People in Palestine, despite living under Israeli rule, have no rights as Israeli citizens and are deprived of basic human rights on a daily basis. There are two solutons: one is to create a viable Palestinian state, the other to absorb the OT into Israel and acord the people living therein all the rights enjoyed by all Israel's citizens. With all due respect, your links ar evile. From the second: This is pure, unadulterated racism. This also contains this gem: This is a call for naked aggression and imperialism based on a book of fairy tales. Your cause would be better served by not reaching into the depths of internet wingnuttery for information. For you: LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN: SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 there's a difference. You may not get it, but they are not the same thing at all. Anyone fighting for the Taliban (again: the de facto national government of Afghanistan at the time) should be accorded P.O.W. status. Intersting too that you mention they are still entitled to fair treatment and a fair trial. So why the continuing allegations of abuse and torture? When can we expect to see some actual charges laid against any of these people (many of whom have been languishing since 2001)? By the way, are you familiar with the practice of "rendering"? It's been common practice for the U.S. to send terror suspects to countries like Syria and Jordan, wher ethey can apply their own unique methods to gatrhering information. Does the name Arar ring a bell? With no power, water, sewage, medical facilities... A Return to Fallujah to See What Remains City of Ghosts Reconstructiom Why did the "job" need to be done exactly? Iraqi insurgency 'undiminished' : Joint Chiefs Chair An unchastened insurgency sowed devastation across Iraq Wednesday as experts here said the country is either on the verge of civil war or already in the middle of it. This war is costing the U.S. about $177 million per day. How long can they keep it up?

Well, if deterrence is the goal, it doesn't work. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between harsh punishments (even death) and decreasing crime rates. So its mostly about changing those who can be changed and punishing those who canot. I'm perfectly willing to admit there are some people (Clifford Olson, Cliffors Sleigh, Bernardo) who I don't think can be rehabilitated and who pose a danger to society. But for anyone to take these extreme examples and hold them up as evidence of the need for harsher prison sentences is specious reasoning. I don't think for a second that any feminist would argue that women are nicer then men. Feminsism is the polar opposite of drawing conclusions based on gender lines. The State is suppossed to set the example. For example, I oppose capital punishment because I think it's hypocritical for the state to tell us murder is wrong even while sanctioning it. The same goes with contracts. BTW, I think your reading of the budget is way off: there's no tax increases in it. It depends. What's the likliehood Homolka will re-offend? If it's low, then she should be allowed to live her life out in obscurity. If high, then people should be warned. I don't know enough about this case to make that call. That's baiting.

Way to prove Hugo's point. Cna you please articulate for me whjat the primary diferences were between the two partie's positions on Iraq? More specifically, did the democrats oppose the war or call for its immediate end? Ironic isn't it that you respond, not with evidence refuting my allegation the George Bush (a average to poor student, a failure in the business world etc.) is a lightweight, but with a personal attack.

I would say that's largey because party leaders in the U.S. don't have much say in party policy. It's hard to argue that a lightweight like George W. Bush is setting any agendas. So real leadership qualities become secondary to how telegenic a candidate is, or how well they project a folksy image. This raises the question of who's really setting the agendas.

That's a broad generalization and a highly suspect conclusion. And even you think you can prove the families were somehow involved, the proper course of action is arrest and trial, not collective punishment. You're advocating a disgusting policy based on very bad assumptions here. i don't what to say. This is repulsive. Of course there's an occupation. May I suggest you read a bit about it? That's nothing but garbage propaganda and certainly borders on racism (applying a single, neghative charateristic to entire group). Your generalizations (backed with not a shred of supporting evidence) are getting offensive. The Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel's right to exist. Well, your hypothesis falls apart when you take in to account the fact that the opccupation predates the terrorism. Israel is not fighting an insurgency but, basically, a gang war. The solution is very simple and I've already outlined it. No many of the arrests are arbitrary. Read what Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have to say on the subject. You're so wrong. Not all terror suspects in Gitmo are Taliban (and those that are are still entitled to P.O.W. status, as the Taliban was the de facto national government of Afghanistan). As for Iraq, note that CIA and Red Cross estimates are that between 70 and 90 per cent of detainees are innocent. The first offensive was cancelled because the U.S. didn't want to risk the PR nightmare. They essentiallyu turned the city over and then decided to go back and level it. You make it sound like the most powerful military in the world had their hand's ties and no choice but to destroy fallujah. Nope. They had options, but they've clusterfucked things so bad they cannot rely on popular support to curb the insurgencies power. remember: they are an invader. Is that why the insurgency is undiminished? Why the U.S.'s supply lines aere stretched because they can't use the roads? Why the Iraqi police and military have been penetrated by the insurgency? Why U.S soldiers continue to die? Tell me: doe syour unwavering truist in officialdom stem from your military background? it would seem to me that someone conditioned to accept and folloow orders may not be the best equipped to see both sides of the story...

Myrolie is a crackpot. No one with any knowledge of her work would take her seriously. Uh....there's no mention of any Iraq involvement in 9-11 in the 9-11 report. Presumably, the limited contact OBL had with Iraq in the 1990's was the end of it. There remains no credible evidence linking Iraq with 9-11. As for your own pull quote: are you dim? The quote refers to terrorist organizations, not government. I repeat: there remains no credible evidence linking Iraq with 9-11. There's no evidence they were moved before the war. Such an operaton would require a fleet of trucks each moving about ten tons of explosives. All this during was a time when the U.S. hasd total air superiority and, presumably, would have had a major installation like Al Qaqaa under surveillance for signs of WMD activity. As for the NBC report, the unit they were with stopped only briefly at the site. From the reporters interview with CNN: As a result, NBC, did not push that angle, and later backed off: Keep thos einoperative memes coming. You're a laff.

Well, you're wrong and here's why: everyone gor more votes this time. Kerry got more than any other presidential contender before. So the number of votes is meaningless. A better indicatior is the margin of victory, which was miniscule. So did I. That's because they were part of a campaign where in MoveOn solicited entries via the web from the public. They winning ads were to run on TV. The Hitler ads didn't run. Your right, Hugo. I won't waste my time anymore. I would say the differences are even more slight. Both parties were/are pro war (no party in the United States can afford not to be, given the tremendous power and influence of the Pentagon/military apparatus). The only differences were if they should kill brown people, but how they should go about doing it. This bears repeating:

Use your fugging brain. Either he's a Republican operative or the unluckiest (and most ubiquitous) Republican in the world. It's about credibility. Why should I beleive the guy who made the unlucky mr. Parlock's little girl cry was, in fact, a "union goon" and not a fellow Republican operative? the non-partisan Factcheck.org on the Swifties Read the rest: it's a giggle. Well, probably not for you... The ads didn't run. Period. MoveOn responds In '96 Clinton received 9 per cent larger share of the popular vote than rival Dole. He also took 379 electoral college votes to Dole's 159. In 2004, Kerry also received more votes than any candidate in any previous U.S. election, though not as many as Bush. Bush's margin of victory was the narrowest for an incumbent since Hoover. Keep 'em coming. I'm all too happy to keep taking you to school.

There's been absolutely no evidence of a solid connection between AQ and addam. None. Zip. Nada. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Staff Statement #15 I thought I was having a attack of deja vu, but then I realized we've been through this routine before. For your edification, that 's the same thread where you claimed: Whoops! Wrong again! You should change your name to Montgomery Burned. Coulter's quote: The clear implication is that soldiers from the Canadian armed forces fought in Vietnam. This is not the case. Mor ethan 10,000 Canadians fought in Vietnam as members of the United States' armed forces. Lie? The missing explosives story was confirmed by eyewitnesses from both the U.S. and Iraqi side. Hell, the 101st airborne was caught on tape checking out the stockpiles. So which is it?

Gross exaggerations? Hardly. I even provide examples, which is far more than you do. Right. So rather than attack the substance, you attack the messenger. So, not only do you fail to refute my hypothesis, you confirm it. When it comes to balance there's some good posters from the other side (the irregular, but thoughtful, postings of TokyoTakarazuka fer instance). But he's not an idealogue. If here's a partisan agenda there, it';s not coming across. Compare that to the shrill, half-baked, straight-outta Free Republic concotions Monty is serving up. If there's no "balanced discussion" you've only yourself to blame. It's a public forum, there's room for anyone willing to make a point and back it up. But you fellas don't do that. Don't whine to me because you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

NAGMT.* That would make a lot more sense if the two principles were currently at odds. They are not. Maybe not bigotry. But I have to confess to being a little taken aback by the sheer bullheadedness of these people in the face of the overwhelming odds against them. As I never cease tiring of pointing out, gay marriage is already an option for the majority of Canadians. Even if the federal bill is defeated, that won't change the reality of gay marriage in Canada. *Not Another Gay Marriage Thread

Black Dog is just upset that he can't control all of the topics in the "US Politics" section of the forum and degenerate it into Anti-American hate spewing like the rest of the topics in the section. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You sure got me there. Wow, I could I ever hope to parry such a devastating and precise rhetorical thrust? Oh yeah: This does bring up an interesting angle, though. There tends to be a lot of talk on this board about the differences between left and right. Mostly, these differences are gross exaggerations and sweeping generalizations that serve only to denigrate the side opposite that of the individual making the observation. However, upon reading through this section, I came across an interesting phenomenon: the individuals who most vocally support the right, specifically the Republicans, the "war on terror" and the Bush Administration, are also the most prone to triumphalist displays. For instance, there's this classic: Bush Wins!, Let the weeping and wailing begin. And of course, there's this thread, where immumerable, well-worn and trite G.O.P talking points and slogans have been recycled into one gelatinous mess of self-congratulatory pablum. The unspoken, yet self-evident, truth behind this dispaly is that "neocoms" (an abstract term created by the post's authour to represent, essentially, anyone who disagrees with his own stated positions) are losers, Republicans are winners and the authour, by virtue of his belief in and support of the Republican cause, is a winner too. These threads highlight this facet of the Republican psyche (I use Republican to describe anyone who supports the persons and policies of the current U.S. political leadership, whether they are American or not so as to distinguish them from conservatives in general), which stems from the tendancy of Republicans to equate the success of their political party with their own personal self-worth. You see this when Monty beats his...chest, or a Fox News anchor uses the personal pronoun "we" to refer to the Republicans, or a Rush Limbaugh listener self-applies the term "dittohead". The enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem, is a phenomenon not without historical antecedents. Maoists, Stalinists and other post-Marxist groups relied heavily upon such devotion to the party, as did the fascists of the 1940's. But the blatant paradox inherent in the exhortations of the current crop of "anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-big government individualists" and the realities of the party they support (see: Hugo) is worth noting. And keeping an eye on.

There's blind faith and there's reasonable assumptions supported by evidence and rigorous inquiry and questioning. Religious belief is an example of the former, evolution the latter. Only those so-calle dChrsitians who want to shove their lifestyle down our throats by upholding the ban on gay marriage, placing limitations on a woman's right to choose, etc. etc.

No. Just because, on they appear similar on the surface, doesn't mean they are compatiable. The NDP are moderate social democrats. The Green's are old Progressive Conservatives on a Mother Earth kick. That's not to say I agree with the Dippers on all fronts (I don't care much for Kyoto, but then I'm the first to admit to not knowing the real story for all the propaganda), but my gut tels me the Greens are a front.

It's nice to know that, in an uncertain world, we can always count on Argus' rabid hatred of Muslims. Yeah, when will these bleeding hearts in the media stop their senseless championing of human rights and equality unde rthe law? Bastards! What is this "gay agenda" I keep hearing about, anyway? Have you read it? If so, maybe you can fill us in as to what it contains. Taking notes, people? Don't settle for bargain-basement strawmen: go with the best. Contact Argus c/o Mapleleafweb for all your strawman needs. Big shrug. You can believe whatever hateful, ignorant, back-ass-wards, superstisious gobbilty-gook you want. The issue is really a simple one of equality under the law, a right we are all guaranteed yet is being systematically denied to some. Fortunmately, for the vast majority of Canadians, gay marriage is a fact of life. The sky has not fallen, the ground has not opened beneath the 7 provinces and two territories with gay marriage. It's an issue that afects a small minority (gays who wish to marry) yet another vocal gropu has decided to stick their noses in where it doesn't belong. It's kinda funny (but not in a ha-ha way) that it's people like Argus-that is "conservatives"-who are the one's advocating for more government interference in individual's lives. Where'd you nick that from? In surveys of gay men, between 40% and 60% of the men questioned were currently involved in a steady relationship (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Harry, 1993; Jay & Young, 1997; Peplau & Cochran, 1981; Spada, 1979). In studies of lesbians, between 45% and 80% of women surveyed were currently in a steady relationship. Another set of studies (Binson 1985, Dolcini 1993), showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years and that "homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate." In studies* of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. In a parallel study, of a random sample of primarily straight men, the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals. *J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60; R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348 Most other studies show that the discrepancy between the mean and median is indicative of a small sub-population of gay males who tend towards high rates of sexual partners, skewing the mean, while the majority of gay men tend to have rates about the same as heterosexual males. You are correct: people have every right to be uncomfortable with the things that make them uncomfortable (like my thing with Stephen Harper's hair). But the proposed gay marriage legislation doesn't say ANYTHING about having to like homosexuality, only that gay relationships be accorded the same legal recognition as everyone else's. You don't have to like it. But it really doesn't affect you, so why worry? It's nice outside: get out and enjoy the weather!

In World War 1, the German army responded to resistance activities in Belgium by holding entire towns and villages responsible, summarily executing large numbers of innocents. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, such collective punishments were deemed a war crime. Article 33 of the Fourth Convention states: “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed,” and “collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” Israel, however, does not accept that the Fourth Geneva Convention or the Additional Protocols apply to the West Bank de jure. In other words, Israel's practice of collective punishment is against international law and thus, an act of terrorism. As for, "what course of action is left", that's easy: get out. End the occupation dismantle the settlements that are the primary motivator of Palestinian terror and help build a viable Palestinian state. But the occupied territories are not a war zone. An dthere's absolutely no disputing the primary targets of such operations are civilian non combatants. It seems you are arguing that because an activity is standard practice is is teh right way to go. I disagree and am certain that precision intel work is not only possible, but essential to any counterinsurgency. Arbitrary arrest and detention, braod "terror sweeps" serve mainly to terrorize the population and incite further hatred. The reason Abu Ghriab incited such hatred was because most of the prisoners were innocents. Sure it can. In Fallujah's case, what strategic value did destroying the city have? It was termed an insurgent stronghold, but the nature of any insurgency is that it is fluid. Just week's after the end of U..S operations in Fallujah, insurgent activity skyrocketed in nearby sectors because the same insurgents the Yanks were gunning for split town for greener pastures wher ethey could continue to operate. now, wither the U.S. is so woefully ignorant about the insurgency and counterinsurgeny tactics in general to the point that they actuallybelieved they could get the insurgents to face them one on one, or the destruction of Fallujah was a calculated act of terrorism, a message to otehr Iraqis about the price of supporting the resistance (which brings us back to the earlier example of the Germans). All the more reason why the standard tactics are miserable failures. The U.S. is using brute force to squash a popular insurgency, which is like using a shotgun to kill a mosquito in a crowded elevator.

Nope. Families with two or more people with a total annual income of $12,620 pay full premiums. Premiums are on a sliding scale for incomes below that.

Like I said, why bother? Your "facts" are non existent. For instance your rehashing of the incident where Deomcrat supporters "grabbed and tore up a Bush/Cheney sign that a 4 y/o girl was holding (making her cry)", despite the fact the incident was a stunt cooked up by her father, who is a known G.O.P operative. Or your repetition of the spurious claims made by the Swift Boaters (a group with close ties to the Republican Party appparatus), none of whom served with Kerry and who's claims were angrily refuted many of Kerry's own boat comrades. Or how about the claim that the Kerry campaign "ran 2 ads comparing Bush to Hitler"? In fact it the ads were submitted to the PAC moveon.org by the grassroots and never actually ran. Or your claim that "an overwhelming amount of Americans came out and voted for Bush", which ignores the basic fact that 2004 was one of the worst election performances by an incumbent president in U.S. history. Really, I could go on, but that would require delving further into the fevered, fetid swamp that is the mind of a smug, delusional, paranoid FOX-aholic neocon puppet. And frankly, I can't be bothered.

Uh...buddy wasn't talking equalization. He wa s talking about how Albertans are getting a lot of money in their pockets because of Klein, which I think is a pretty narrow outlook. You're tripping over yourself. On the one hand, you say everything is hunky dory in the Alberta health care system. Then on the other, the system is in "disarray". Which is it? You sound like the Tories, who go on about how great things are, but also harp on the urgent need for reform.