Black Dog

No where did he say that oppnnents of SSM think gays are not human (though there are no doubt many that think that way): he was saying that many SSM foes think gay relationships are less legitimate than hetero ones. If you look at their rhetoric, you'd see Thompson is onto something. Why else would so many SSM foes speak of how gay unions would somehow "devalue" straight people's marriages? If they believe that women can think with the same intensity as men and they don't really believe that women that have the same depth of intellect as men, then yes they are. Bigotry is unreasonable intolerance.

Well first, if the home belongs to a suicide bomber, then its safe to assume he or she is dead. Therefore the people being punished are people who quite possibly had no connection to the crime. That's the very definition of collective punishment: punishing one group of people for the actions of others. would you deny that these methods of "controlling the population" are designed to instill a measure of fear in order to assure compliance? I'm not willing to put my faith in any government arresting someone just on their own say so. Mass detention What about th epeople too old, too sick, too poor or otherwise unable to leave? Thousands of these people stayed. Furthermore, there's many eyewitness reports out of Fallujah of civilians being delibirately targeted. I've read of U.S. soldiers saying the streets of Falujah were like Grand Theft Auto: a shooting gallery where everything that moved was targetted. I have no doubt that the destructiion of Fallujah should be considered an act of terrorism. The question is "what is terrorism". In my opinion, many of the things you shrug off as being just part of war are terrorist acts. Let me put it another way: a insurgent suicde bomber that targets U.S. tropps but also claims civilian lives is no more or less a terrorist act than a U.S. bomb targetting insurgents in a civilian neighbourhood. As for the entire US Army not being to blame: well, it's not their country, is is?

Thing is, Harper's positive attributes (whatever they may be) are obscured by his total lack of charm. I won't say he's the devil, but he is a stuffy wonk, a backroom politician who lacks the human touch. It has nothing to do with hi sbeliefs either. Manning came off as a genuine man of the people and even Ralph Klein has a certain boorish charisma. Harper is non eof thos ethings. He just seems so....stiff. Consequntially, its hard to tell if he has any strength behind his stated convictions.

Military incursions into civilian areas, destruction of property (such as bulldozing homes and crops), checkpoints, curfews and arbitrary arrests are examples of collective punishment and are routine in the Occupied Territories. Even martial law has limitations: it's not a licence for free reign. The onus is on the invader to minimize civilian deaths. But the U.S. response across Iraq, and Fallujah in particular, has been excessive and heavy-handed. And it's also been ineffective. Despite bombing Fallujah to rubble, most reports say that the insurgents (who knew the assault was coming) melted away, rather than fight the U.S. forces toe-to-toe. Many non-coms also fled, but many remained behind. Read this summary of the destruction of Fallujah.

I know, first they celebrated black people with "the Jeffersons" and "Sanford and Son". What next? Muslims? By the way Argus, you're not a neocon if you don't like gays. Bigot, yes, neocon, no. In case anyone is wondering what the discussion is about here's the deal: On Global TV’s new six-episode reality series, My Fabulous Gay Wedding, sometimes there are two brides. Or two grooms. I think this quote from host Scott Thompson is bang on:

Then you'r enot loking hard enough. The IDF uses collective punishment, checkpoits curfews and, when necessary, violence to keep the population they occupy in check. As for the U.S. in Iraq (I speak specificaly of them because others-notably the British forces- have not resorted to the same heavy heandedness), I offer up the "pacification" of Fallujah, an operation that left hundreds of of civilians dead and thousands more homeless, as evidence of terrorism.

'zactly. Personally, I hate weddings, televised weddings moreso. Rob and Amber? Trista and Ryan? Blech. But here's what's awesome: I don't subject myself to it, nor would I begrudge those who find these things entertaining their moment of pleasure. Finally, I find it fascinating that the average TV viewer gets to witness countless acts of murder, violence, degredation and gore each and every night (hello? CSI?), yet the Values Brigade only gets their y-fronts in a knot over PG same same sex nuptuials. Prioritize much, fellas?

How is Monty able to type so much using only one hand?

Neocoms? Most of Monty's codswollop has been dealt with elsewhere, so I don't see why he cannot curb his masturbatory impulses and use some of the pre-existing threads to spew his garbage. Perhaps because most of those threads see our resident Bush-licker so thoroughly schooled that he doesn't want to revist them. Really, why bother? I'll stick with Ed Anger.

Moving right along.... Whereas Klein Air, deregulation, auto insurance, ATB loan scandals, phantom consultants etc etc are the work of eastern elites? The point, IMR, which you (surprise!) missed by a mile is that "western alienation" is exagerated in the west. It's a shell game. And you've been conned. (I mean, the NEP? Come on. That was 30 years ago, which is less time than the Tories have ruled Alberta) My job is awesome. But anyway, my point was here: Exhibit A: the Klein Tories. QUOTE 2004 election results: LIB 29.05% NDP 9.79% GRN 2.75% Total: 41.49 See, my understanding of "uniform political state" is that it's a state with a uniformity of governance. Apologies for not being clearer, but note I've been saying for a long time that Albertans' political differences are not accurately reflected by the electoral system. You don't appear to have a point. No on eof the people you cite are particularily progressive.

Personally I don't think the CPC (which has been a haven for religious SoCons since the Refooooooorm days) is being driven by the fundies. However, they are the party most in danger of a fundie take over precisely because of their willingness to harbour socon views. We know that they are capable of doing it: witness the G.O.P's dalliance with wingnutery down south (yes, SpongeDob: I'm talking 'bout you.) That's the fear, anyway.

I'll remember that next time I see someone talk about the "crooked Liberal party" or the "communist NDP". True, and I said as much. My point is people are jumpy when it come sto mixing religion and politics. And, while it's true that branding anyone with strong religious beliefs as a religious whacko is wrongheaded, I think you're either being incredibly naive as to the existence and strength of religiously-motivate dpolitical movements, or simply being disingenuous about their motives.

Yu know, I've been thinking about it and I've concluded that AG is right to label the Taliban terrorists. Basically they were a group that used violence and the threat of violence to instill fear and achieve political ends. Which is about as basic a definition of terrorism as you can get. Th ereason I like the basic version (as opposed to so many self-serving "official" definitions) is that it doesn't exclude states. For instance, under my EZ definition of terrorists, Stalin and the Soviet Communist party were terrorists. So were the Nazis. So are the IDF and occupation forces in Iraq. This definition is pretty broad, but then I don't actually see that as a problem, since I think the current popular notions of terrorism exclude so much. When does a soldier stiop being a soldier and start becoming a terrorist? Terrorists should be defined by their actions and not whether or not they wear a uniform.

Willy, willy, willy: I don't understand why you can't get your head around why this is troublesome. No one cares what personal beliefs politicians hold. It's when those personal views begin to influence public policy that people get a little antsy. Statements like: make in quite clear that their faith is a political issue. They are going in to politics for the express purpose of imposing their personal beliefs on public policy. Not all believers do so. But I've been watching the lines between church and state blur down south. I know damn well what groups like Focus on the Family are about. You can't for a second expect me or anyone else to believe "people of faith" up here haven't been keeping tabs on the succes of the Christian Right in the States (especially organizations like Focus on the Family) and aren't willing to learn their tactics and take money from their U.Sian bretehren to advance their agenda here. I think what we are seeing is the thin edge of the wedge. The Religious Right is bringing their mission to overturn democracy and enlightenment ideals to Canada. It may start as a trickle, but then, 20 years ago, the same people who are pulling stunts like "Save Terri", "Justice Sunday", who are blocking stem cell research, birth control, gay marriage and sex ed, etc etc. were laughed at. Today, they have access to the highest levels of power. We would do well to watch and guard against the same fate befalling us here. For crying out loud, the Taliban had strong opinions too. The question is: how are those opinions compatable with the democratic principles of our country?

You've Been Drafted: Uncle Sam Wants You for the War on Drugs

I stand corrected. Wel I guess the only way we can test the competing claims is a combat situation, which would be unplesant to say the least. I doubt they are. I think the point is to highlight the threats facing a U.S. "intervention" against Iran. For example, I've no doubt they Iranians are training troops for an Iraq-style insurgency, should teh U.S. atempt an invasion.

Keep the hateful language and bigotry coming, buddy. I love it when the CPC "base" comes out to play. I also love how you can bitch about "self-righteous pricks who think they are above actual labour", and thzn support a provincial government run by a man who's never lifted anything heavier than a two-six.

Okay, what about Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Uzbeckistan? All are grotesque regimes, yet our allies in the "war on terror". How does that jive with you?

Read the article. The Sunburn wasn't develope duntil after the Cold War. As for why not yet, why would anyone want to initiate a fight with the Americans? Iran can't risk be branded an aggressor. They just have to sit back and wait for the U.S. or their proxies to strike first. Again, read the article. the defensive weapons used by the USN are not built to deal with the threat of low-level supersonic cruise missiles.

You know, noob, if you're gonna run your yap, make sure you know what you're talking about. You clearly haven't read a thing Willy has ever posted. Obviously you don't since you didn't recognize it from the get go. RightWinger, you are to wits what Saddam Hussein is to WMD. Still digging, I see. As far as I know, you don't have the monopoly on the term "right winger". Put the shovel down, noob. Conservatives like you are the best friends the Liberals could ask for. I think I can speak for all when I say that homophobia is not acceptable. But I speak for myself when I say: GFY.

Way to shit on your own, moron. Willy's an ardent Conservative supporter. Here's a dictionary defintion you could use: Dumbass.

Anti-government protestors attacked in Cairo "I would say that President Mubarak has taken a very bold step," the first lady told reporters after touring the pyramids here. "You know that each step is a small step, that you can't be quick."

Whiners: see Conservative Party of Canada Sour Grapes: see above

Ed'snot even seeking re-election because he wants to spend time with his wife, who has cancer. I don't expect he'd be willing to take a Senate seat.

The NDP are not Liberals. Dippers have principles. It's one thing to us epolitical leverage to advanc eyour parties agenda, another thing entirely to sell out completely, which is what you are asking. A formal coalition should be out of the question. The ND view is that the Liberals, despite their tendancy to campaign from the left, are actually not much different from the Cons. Both are the parties of the boss-man.