Black Dog

So under my plan, we boost our domestic capabilities and cut our inolvement in foreign operations. Voila! No need for the U.S.!

Okay: where? The CPC doesn't seem to have a defense policy or a plan (at least not on their web site). And given his initial enthusiasm for the Iraq debacle and his continued support of the white elephant BMD program, I wouldn't trust Harper with the keys to the coffers. On the other hand, the NDP as a failry well articulated platform for national defence which includes:

I'd like to see soem real facts that show just how much the U.S. "props up" Canada. How much of the U.S. defense budget is directed into tasks that Canada *should* be doing? Without some kind of quantification, it's easy to see "Canada's alleged overreliance on the 'mericans as a empty canard.

Thing is, we can't just say "we need to spend more money on defense!" without knowing why and on what. That's like saying "we need to spend more money on home repair!" and then buying a new dishwasher while the ceiling caves in. Conservatives are always fond of saying you can't just throw money at a problem. Well, we can't just throw money at the military either. The DND needs a clear focus. In my opinion, that focus should be domestic defense, including divorcing ourselves from foreign influences.

NATO was formed to counter the Soviet Bloc in Europe. There is no Soviet threat anymore. Today, the greatest threat to security is in the form of extranational terrorism, which is countered best with good intelligence and old-fashioned police work, not military force. As for "keep(ing) the rest of the world in check", that seems to be the fetish of the current U.S. administration. I'd rather not get in on that ballgame. Realistically speaking, what countries currently threaten Canadian doemstic interests? Because then we might as well give up the whole idea of "Canada". The differecne is that there's plenty of Candians who want Canada to be a big bad boy on the world stage. I'm less concerned with our national self-image and more concerned with practical solutions to actual problems.

If we're going to sell out, we should sell out to the country that offers us the best deal. I say have an open call for contracts, best deal wins. I think the Chinese would probably be happy to ofer us a good price... No. Coast Guard and SAR should be doemstic duties. I don't know why they are currently under the DND anyway. I meant Switzerland in the sense of being a neutral country with little "influence".

Why? What's wrong with being a large Switzerland? There's existing threads on BMD over in canada/US relations. I'd be happy to discuss BMD with you there. I think that's debatable as well. But the point is that it's not our job to join in with the U.S. or anyone else on any old adventure. WWI was an imperial squabble that the infant Canada got pulled into because of our British ties. It was a war we should have stayed out of. In WW2, we faced a clear aggressor and a real threat to the world. However, the simple reality of U.S. dominance, and the advent of nuclear weapons means that such a threat is not likely to be seen again.

It was not "banned". See, the way it works is, cable and/or satellite companies that wish to carry foreign signals here must apply to do so. A prior application for by the Canadian Cable Telecommunications Association to bring Fox to Canada was rejected because Fox News U.S. and Winnipeg-based Global Television were already planning to create Fox News Canada, a digital hybrid of U.S. and Canadian news. Those plans were scrubbed by Fox U.S.A. and so the next application for FoxNews was approved. No ban. No socialist conspiracy. Just a lot of right-wing disinformation and hot air. The same decision which saw FoxNews get approved also gave the go-ahead to the NFL Network. Tell me: was the 24 hour football network also banned?

Uh..no. This was your "answer": So you avoided the question. And you're still avoiding it. I see: when proven wrong (again), just invoke "activist judges"!

Yeah, but it's liable to get worse. We've got pressure on to participate in BMD, pressure to start sending troops to Iraq... I don't buy that one bit. Who has the capacity to invade Canada? (Uh oh...)

Proove it.

So we're back to the segregationist logic "colored people can marry someone of their choosing, so long as they are the same color". You still haven't answered why thi sargument is any different from your gay marriage argument. Actually, gay marriage is already legal in Canada: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland/Labrador and the Yukon Territory all recognize gay unions. The Supreme Court Reference noted that these lower court decisions in these juridstictions effectively changed the law because the government had not appealed the rulings.

Why not? If you can trust your child's health to a private corporation, why not the whole country? And if they did switch sides, we could always sue for breach of contract. It's already happening. I say scrap it. Create new bodies that would oversee non military duties currently under the DND umbrella (ie. Coast guard, SAR) and maintain a small militia for domestic defense. Canada is lucky in that direct threats to our security and safety are few. But I see no need to go abroad in search of dragons to slay.

I have a solution that will solve everyone's problems: privatize the military. I mean, we hear all the time how the private sector is better when it come sto health care, education, energy, etc. etc. So why not get the government out of the military business? That way,, no more government waste or boondoggles like the Sea Kings or the submarines. No more expensive kickbacks to placel like Bombardier. And, at the same time, the government can then use the tax room to provide important doemstic programs. It's a win-win!

1. Even if the majority of African Americans oppose gay marriage, that doesn't change the fact that not allwoing gays to marry is an equality issue. the tokenism comes from youi trotting out these black community people as though they a) speak for everyone in their constituency and their opinion is somehow more valid because of their skin colour. Can heterosexuals marry a person of their choosing? Yes. Can homosexuals? No. Then it's not a question of "special" rights. You don't understand anything about the law, do you? Polygamy, incest etc. are currently criminal offenses. That means they are universally prohibited activities. Everyone is equal because no one is allowed to engage in such activities. If the law allowed some people to have multiple spouses or marry their sisters, but forbade others, then it would be an equality issue. Inequality under the law can therefore be described as when state sanction is not uniformly applied. As is the case with the current definition of marriage. How (and this is another question all you gay marriage opponents have neglected to answer) does changing the definition of marriage from "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" to "the union of two people to the exclusion of all others" impact monogamy? Um, bisexuals are no more predisposed to polyamory than anyone else. Just because someone enjoys both men and women doesn't mean they want both at the same time.

It was banned. You're being obtuse again. No. Banned means "To prohibit, especially by official decree". If you'd read over the thread instead of barking like a trained seal, you'd see that was not the case.

Changing tacks...again?! Um....sexual orientation is analagous to race as both are immutable charateristics. If you don't believe me, why don't you try being gay for a while and tell me if it sticks. As for equal rights, if one group is allowed certain rights that otehrs are not, that's inequality. Right, because homosexuals have never been oppressed, nosiree. I could talk about certain other members of the black community who support gay rights, including equal marriage, but then, I'd be resorting to tokenism to prove a point, as you have attempted to do.

Not when I have you around to repeat lies like "Fox News was banned!" Naw, I just won't watch it. I mean why would I when I have definitive proof that long-term exposure to Fox news melts your brain: wanna see? Behold: A Case Study.

Interesting how none of the quotes you posted contained fallacies. Aside from showing your selective editing skills, what's your point? I told a poster who made a factually innacurate statement that they were wrong, then provided the citation to prove it. Then I took the same poster to task for using the Bible to denounce homosexuality by pointing out other, common practices that are also outlawed by the Bible. And I did so in a way that showed the utter contempt I have for such views. In any case, I see no point in being civil with someone like B. Max, who is allowed to spout off hateful nonsense without reproach from people like you who share his views. Uh...have you noticed who the biggest supporters of gay marriage are? Yes: they are gays! Gays who want to enjoy the same rights and privileges as anyone else and not be denied them because of who they are. Yeah, you're onto me: the gay community are mere puppets and I pull the strings. What a vapid, disengenous non-argument. This has absolutely nothing to do with diversity or recognizing differences. It's about equal treatment under the law. Indeed, under the law, our differences don't matter. In any case, I notice you completely failed to answer the question I put to you, which was to tell me how the argument saying "gay people can marry whomever they want, provided they are of the opposite sex" is any different from saying "colored people can marry whomever they want, provided they are the same color".

You haven't been reading the right threads.

Take a look at the list again: of all the nations with long-range ballistic missile programs, most are alllied with the U.S., while those that are not close have sufficient nuclear capability as to be able to bypass or overwhelm any missile shield. Only two (Iran and North Korea) would be affected by BMD, while only North Korea has both nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. All are detrrable through regular nuclear detrrence. So why the need for BMD?

Well, boy, the first step to proper debating is putting forward a position and defending it against arguments. So, simply saying "strawman" doesn't cut it. The argument that "gay people can marry whoever they want, provided tehy are of the opposite sex" is fundamentally the same as saying "colored people can marry whomever they want, provided they are the same color". For one, it's patronizing. For another it disregards the critical fact that choosing one's own mate is fundamental to civil marriage. In essence, you are asking gays to live a lie. I don't see that as being particularily supportive of the so-called "sanctity" of marriage. So, unless you can tell me how that argument is not fundamentally anti-gay, I see little reason to treat you any different than an obvious bigot like B. Max.

No. Really? Then tell me how the arguments are different. You obviously have no rebuttal or any logical argument, since the best you can manage is parrotting a troll like Jason Kinney, so why don't you just keep your trap shut, junior, and learn how to debate.

That's a bullshit interpretation, as marriage is completely meaningless unless you're allowed to choose your spouse. That's like supoporting anti-miscegination laws nby saying "colored people can marry whoever they want, provided they're the same color." This argument further demonstrates that this is not about preserving marriage, but of denying homosexuals rights. If it were about preserving marriage, conservatives wouldn't be advocating people enter into marriages under false pretenses, thus devaluing the institution.

Whatever, filthy shrimp eater. You've probably worn bleded fabrics and touched a woman during her menses, haven't you, you hellbound pervert?