Black Dog

Uh...western conservative support is pretty solid all along: I don't think the departure of a rich, female Easterner will make a difference to the Cons' base. What thi swill do is stall the Tories in Ontario where it really counts. this is an indictment of Harper's leadership and how the Cons unwillingness to bend on social issues will continue to work against them. Not that it matters to the Con bitter-enders: they'll continue to blame the voters for the fact that their party has squandered a golden opportunity. Any other party in the Cons' situation would have blown the Liberals away, but the Cons can still barely crack 30 per cent. Maybe its time for a little soul searching.

Bollocks. Why would Quebece split when they have such a sweet deal here? And seperatism is a non-starter in Alberta.

Link It should be noted that the Pentagon did not demand similar measures from the Philedelphia Inquirer and other news outlets that reported on similar allegations as far back as 2002. In this case, there was outright pressure from the Bush administration for Newseek to back pedal and they did: These kinds of tactics are more appropriate for a banana republic than the so calle dleader of the free world. It's interesting as well that, like "Rathergate" before it, the issue here was not about the substance of the allegations (which, again, have been reported on in the past and are wholly consistent with reports coming from former detainess and camp personnel about the absue of inmate's religion), but the reporting of them. And, like Bush's phantom ANG service, this story and subsequent dressing down of Newsweek will serve as a warning to the rest of the press not to step out of line. Chilling.

And what, pray tell, brought the scientific method to prominence? The Enlightenment and the assention of scientific inquiry over religious dogma as the path to truth. Religion is inherently antithetical to science and, while today's fundies may dress their beliefs up in pseudoscience, the two are incompatable. All religious belief is rooted in primitive thinking. The problem with Islam is that it has notyet experienced its enlightenmnet. This is not indicative of some fundamental flaw of the belief system, but of the political and social circumstances it exists in.

Except Newsweek hasn't admited the story is false. When is a correction not a correction? In other words, the source isn't denying the information exists, just that he's uncertain that it appeared in the specific document he originally cited. In any case, such stories have been in circulation as far back as 2002 and are quite consistent with other allegations made by former Gitmo inmates and others about interregators using detainee's faith as a tool. So, is there enough "hard" evidence to convict the U.S. of the crimes against Islam it is accussed of? Maybe not. But there's plenty of circumstancial evidence and, as Abu Ghirab showed to the Islamic world, U.S officialdom is not to be trusted. Haven't been paying much attention, have you? Kansas school board's evolution ruling angers science community When it comes to fundamentalisms, only the packaging changes. Oh and BTW, Warren Kinsella is a f**king moron.

I agree, which is why you'll never hear this NDP-booster talking of a hidden CPC agenda. Mainly because their agenda isn't that much different fromt he Liberal agenda, or the progressive Conservative agenda before them. They want power and there's no position they won't water down, no principle they won't abandon, and no empty platitude they won't mouth to acheive it.

August mentioend the relative quiet in places like Basra. I found this article this morning which discusses teh difference in tactics used by the brits in teh south and the U.S. everywhere else: "Trigger-happy US troops 'will keep us in Iraq for years'"

Funny, I don't see that in the NDP platform anywhere. It appears you made it up. It amazes me that peole can repeat this kind of bullshit with a straight face, yet get their knickers in a twist the second someone raises the spectre of a CPC "hidden agenda".

The Shiites are happy because they are getting the chance to flex their muscles after years of Sunni hegemony. The Kurds are happy becaus ethey get what amounts to veto power in the new government (but what they really want is an independant Kurdistan). Of course, the only thing keeping the whole hous eof cards that is the Iraqi government from falling apart is the prescnence of 100,000+ U.S troops. Still, though, these are broad strokes. One can no more penetrate the byzantine sectarian world of Iraq with easy generalizations. "Where the [expletive] are these guys?" Maj. Kei Braun exclaimed in frustration.

It is an honourable move by the NDP, in asmuch as such a thing exists. In case you didn't catch it, my earlier comment was not directed at the Conservatives themselves so much as Conservative supporters on this board who hammered on the ND's alleged lack of ethics in trying to get their priorities addressed in the budget. That, apparently, made them whores, while Harper's earlier cooperation on the budget made him...what? A stand-up guy? (Not that I come here expecting sober analysis or anything.... )

The Story. I would have thought a man of such upstanding moral character as Harper would be unwilling to accept charity from a bunch of "whores".

Link.

Well, it certainly appears that the Suni/Shiite bloodbath is underway with the U.S as spectator. The constant attacks and suicide bombings have taken on a sectarian tinge. It seems (to this observer) that there are actually two differnt conflicts going on simultaneosly in Iraq. One the one hand, the military resistance, which seems primarily designed to keep the U.S. bottled up and off-balance and on the other the cruder civil conflict between sects. There's undoubtedbly some overlap, but I find the marked difference in tactics (guerrilla fighting by the former versus the terror campaign, including the random bombings of civilians, that seem sto characterize the latter) worrth noting.

It seems the media is quite willing to ignore Iraq of their own volition.

What are the parameters of a U.S. "win" in Iraq? If one is to believe the rhetoric, the criteria for avictory would be an independant, secular, democratic state. Right away then, we can see that these conditions are unacheivable. Rathe rthan go on at length, suffice it to say that Iraq, divided as it is along religious, ethnic and sectarian lines does not seem to possess the preconditions necessary for such a success. I think peace would have a beter chance in an environment where one disregarded the arbitrary borders of Iraq and allowed the country to be carved up into autonomus states along those lines, possibly operating in a loose federation. But that option is not on the table. -It's pretty specious to compare the events of the Philippine-American War with Iraq today. The U.S was able to acheive success there due to overwhelming technical superiority and unflinching brutality. Iraq is a highly militarized society and it appears that the insurgency is not only undiminished since its start in 2003, but it is growing more sophisticated over time. -Time is not on the U.S.'s side. They need to acheive concrete results quickly. The U.S. opublic does not have the stomach (nor, given the war's cost of approximatel $1 billion per week, the money) for a long war and occupation. They simply don't have a decade to get the job done.

This is misleading, as you don't count those states (such as Georgia and Alabama) that take measures such as disclaimer stickers on biologu textbooks. This article casts doubts on the COMPAS findings. As this WaPo article on the Kansas situation notes, anti-evolutionists have changed their tack from fighting evolution one on one to trying to show horn Intelligent Design into cirricula. Evolution's preeminence within the scientific community is not in question. However, that's also not the issue. Creationist/ID advocates have made significant strides by bypassing the skeptical scientific community altogether and going straight to the public. Easpecially if you want to work to enshrine a permenant majority. Who needs checks and balances?

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed "No significant evidence tying Saddam's regime with Osama bin Laden's terrorist network." Reports undercut Iraq, al-Qaeda link Leaked British report rejects link AQ bigwigs deny connection C.I.A.questions Iraq/AQ connection

Greatest country? Compared to what? By what criteria? The problem with our political discourse is that evryone ha stheir own ideas of what makes "our" country "great". Some measure economic success. OIthers military might. Still others prefer to look at how as a society treat the less fortunate at home and abroad. I don't think rousing nationalist sentiment is a substitute for a rigorous policy debate. I expect the former from beer commercials and the latter from those who are suppossed to be governing.

Civil war?

So let me get this straight: invading and occupying Iraq (a country with no real connection to Al Q'aeda or Osama's brand of Wahhabist Islam) and creating a security environment where Al Q'aeda affiliates could operate with relative ease, not to mention further radicalizing the Islamic world against America and thus providing AQ with a steady supply of eager recruits are the worst things that could have happened to Osama? Jesus, what next? I know: why not give them weapons, maybe some nukes to use: that'll teach him! In case you're wondering, I am making fun of you. Your premise makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Your gasoline analogy is fairly acurate, actually. There's choice, but the product and price is always going to be more or less comprable. So is the choice meaningful? That's my point: choice alone itself is not enough. Green lights don't make the cras go, the coercive power of the state to enforce traffic laws makes cars go at the green signal.

So? Dwyer is but one voice amidst a chorus who have been saying al along that the invasion of Iraq will only increase the threat of terrorism. Michael Scheuer,, a CIA analyst writing as "Anonymous" in the book "Imperial Hubris" said: In other words, the U.S. has either bungled the war on terror nearly every step of the way so as to empower their enemies or something else is going on.

I don't really have a dog in this Liberal/Con fight (though I do hop ethe two simply wipe each other out), but I'm relally tired of hearing about the Conservatives' support for traditional marriage b.s., given the complete unteneablity of their position in light of decisions by the Supreme Court and lesser courts across Canada and the legalization of same sex marriage in most of the country. I understand why they are clinging to this position, but I wonder how they'll look when they sheepishly have to go ahead and either use the notwithstanding clause or pass the same sex marriage legislation. Denial must be a conservative value.

This goes back to a previous discussion we had wherein (IIRC) you argued that he simple reality of having a choice was more important than whethe rthat choice had any meaning. The thing about choice is you need to have distinct options to choose from and those choices have to make a difference. If you look at the history of democracy, in particular in North America, its hard to argue that the political choices of the populace have led to any significant changes, no matter what political partyy they picked. There's a good reason for that and that is because, in a democracy, true decision making power is consolidated beyond the reach of the masses. That's my point, though. the Cold war was about competeing tyrranies. the people who were repressed by anti-Communist regimes weren't much better off than their Communist bretheren. Elections are symbolic. They create the illusion of chocie and freedom, when in fact they are essentially meaningless. I remember when Saddam Hussein won his last "election". Western pundits and comics made light of the fact that the elections were a sham, not realizing that the main diference between their system and ours is that everyone there knows the system a sham. Tyrrany, as I've maintained all along, comes in different stripes. Democracy is simply not as overt a form of maintaining tyrrany as a dictatorship. Instead, there is an elaborate and complex system designed to, as I said, give citizens the llusion of choice, even though their voices and their interests are not considered. It's interesting that every democracy is designed with mechanisms to keep the power of the "rabble" in check; to ensure that political and economic power is kept in the hands of a few.

Dude, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're referring to the fact that I proved your statement ("every single one of your post for the last week, have been how, who, or what is in your opinion the problem with america") to be dead wrong, well, that's your problem. Obviously you don't read teh Canadian politics threads.