Black Dog

Proooove it, boyo. And that means a full citation.

Unlike you, Limbaugh did not equivocate when it came to drugs. Now he doesn't make a distinction between perscruption drugs like oxycontin ("hillbilly heroin") and street drugs, nor does he seem to care how someone got addicted. In other words, Limbaugh is a big fat hypocrite. And you are a dupe. Rush Limbaugh reportedly involved in pill investigation

Evidence and citations with dates please Black Dog. Ask and ye shall recieve: Limbaugh admits pill addiction That's not the issue, though. The issue is this: the CBC, a mainstream Canadian news outlet, did a story on the American media and, tangentially, about Fox News, an American mainstream media outlet. If the question is "can the media report on the media", the answer is "why not?" You'll note that Fox, in turn, took a swipe at the CBC. Fair play. Again: what's the problem? Guilty as charged.

What make m e chuckle is how many intellectual featherweights on the right like to tut tut Chomsky, yet no one's ever actually able to prove the man wrong. Maybe you should try actually reading him.

What's the meaning of 'freedom?'

Ah, gotcha. I thouht those were odd choices for examples of Communist regimes.

Er...Kai-Shek wasn't a Communist. Following his defeat at the hands of the Communists in 1949, Chiang and the remnants of his party and army fled to Taiwan where they established a developmentalist party-military dictatorship committed to the ultimate goal of retaking the mainland. In any case, there's no disputing Castro is not the snow-white do-gooder that some would make him out to be. Like so many others of his ilk his revolutionary ideals lasted only until he tasted the ambrosia of power. But let's not kid ourselves either as to what the post-Castro future holds.

So media issues are to be considered off-limits to mainstream media outlets, then? Shall Canadian programs like the Fifth Estate, like its American newsmagazine counterparts, concern themselves soley with celeberity reporting, sensational trials and superficial political analysis? If media are the watchdogs of society, who's supposed to be watching them?

aargh.

We've covered this already. As I pointed out earlier, the right-wing media is very quick to exploit the personal lives of those they oppose (ie. Bill Clinton) for political gain. Look at Rush Limbaugh: railed against drugs and drug users, yet was an addict himself. Bill O'Reilly deplored Clinton's sexual escapades, yet has himself been accused of sexual harrassment. Ditto Marsden. So for them to declare the (unsavoury) details of thier own personal lives off limits is hypocritical.

And that's just circular logic which, last I checked, was a fallacy. I'll ask again: why is the gender of the participants the single most important factor in defining marriage? You keep harping on the alleged differences between the genders but haven't once said why this matters.

From the Fifth Estate web site: Hmmm...it seems that the story was not about simply about FoxNews coming to Canada, but a wider look at the state of the U.S. media. So, in that broader context, the questions relating to Iraq WMD and Rachel Marsden are quite relevant.

A position you've yet to refute, given that your argument against it is based on flawed, circular logic. Just saying an argument i sinvalid isn't enough: you need to show why the argument saying that denying a certain segment of the population the same legal rights and privileges is not discriminatory or an equality issue. But how is that relevant? How does the genetic differences or similarities between genders have any bearing on the actual substance of marriage and the civil laws governing it? You're still basically saying "marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what marriage is". In other words: the gender of the participants the of paramount defining characteristic of marriage. But you haven't given any reason why that is beyond the self-evident fact that the genders are different. Well whop-dee-doo. That same lgic could also be applied to mixed-race marriages, but I doubt you'd call for an end to those. Therefore it seems your selection of gender (as oppossed to race, or hair colour) as the defining characteristic of marriage is completely arbitrary. The same book of the Bible most often cited as proof of the divine condemnation of homosexuality also forbids eating shellfish. Tell me, B. max, since thou art so holy, have you ever eaten a prawn?

It's funny then, that you're unable to actually refute him. Joke's on you. ZOOM! Hear that? That's the sound of the point whizzing over your head, as per usual. However, your utterly vacuous response betrays a (subconcious?) understanding of the situation, as indicated by your use of the qword "force". Apologist: "The Iraqi election was a success! The left wing was wrong! Ha ha!" Realist: "Actually, there are historic parralells to show that such elections are purely symbolic and not actually related to the formation of a democracy." Apologist: "How can you say that when the elections were such a success?" You need a clue, and fast. Violence flares after election; 50 Iraqi police killed 2 U.S troops, 21 Iraqis killed, mosque bombed Bodies of 8 kidnapped Iraqi police found Insurgents battle Iraqi security; 22 killed

That's not true: they also roasted her over the coals for her continuing belief in a Iarq/9-11 belief and WMD claims.

My impression from talking to members of the gay community on this issue is that equality, not respectability is the issue. They know they won't cahnge many minds and, while it would be nice if gay marriage led to greater tolerance for homosexuality, that's not the crux of the struggle. I think that P.O.V is reflecte din the legislation. eureka: I've addressed your points many times and you haven't responded. Wahssamatta? You chicken? In any case, the abovve statement is ludircrious as it assumes some measure of inmutability of human institutions that does not exist. It's plain wrong. Human institutions are subject to changes of human society. They are are our creations do do with as we please. In any case: seeing as how you are unable to address the fundamental logical fallacy behind your argument, I fail to see any reason to take you or your position seriously anymore. Fortunately, there's so many othe rlabels that apply in your case: bigot, asshole, ignoramus, throwback, knuckle-dragger...the list is extensive.

Re: CNN. Of course you neglect to mention what immediately follows the headlines: From story 1 and from the "biased" story. But hey, while we're talking CNN, let's talk about the liberal bias behind their decision to change exit poll results after the election to refelect the final results. Or how about this. At best, I think we can say that a network like CNN will change tack with the political winds. Again, you make it sound like they attacked them out of nowhere. There was a context there. How do you know it was questionable? He used the words "this government" which cvan be interpreted as you've done, to mean Bush. Or we can use the logical interpretation, which is that he is referring to the U.S. government. This is supported by Glick's statement (which sent O'Reilly over the edge) that: Furthermore, if you look a little closer, he ties the mujahadeen to Bush...Bush Sr., that is, who was head of the CIA during the Soviet/Afghan war. Anyway, I came back to this for a reason...

You're a funny one, eureka. On the one hand you boldly state that "there is no substance to the arguments" for same sex marriage, convieniently ignoring the Mack-truck sized logical flaws of your own argument. And now you're just flailing about wildly. I'll correct your factual errors, even though I know it won't make a dent: you'll just steam roll through, getting more and more hysterical and youir arguments more outrageous as you go (at this rate, by the time I come back next week, you'll have probably progressed to arguing that same sex marriage means putting hetero couples in homosexual reeducation camps.) The definition of marriage is not being changed to exlude anyone. Existing marriages will not be affected. According to the SSM bill introduced this week: You still haven't explained the fundamental logical fallacy behind your belief that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman.

You haven't demonstrated how the gender of the participants is essential for marriage to be amrriage. Basically, your argument is "if marriage is only between a man and a woman, then marriage is only between a man and a woman." There's no such thing as civil unions, not can there be. "Horse feathers" indeed. Thankfully, we don't live under the Taliban, but in a free society where all kinds of activities (some of which can be considered repugnant) are permitted so long as they do not interfere or harm anyone else. Gay marriag eis a great example of that: it doesn't affect you, so why do you care?

Izzat so? Is that why the U.S. used surrogates in the 1980's to torture and terroize the population of Latin America? Or why they launched seCret, illegal bombing campaigns against Camodia and Laos during the Vietnam War? Used chemical weapons in 'Nam, and DU in Iraq that has lasting affects to this day? Get over your myopia. The U.S. ain't much better than the rest. They just have loftier rhetoric. Anyway, getting back to the subject of Iraqi elections, there's still no official numbers for voter turnout and the original estimates (surprise!) may have been too generous. Click As for the Vietnam election parralells, there's other, more recent (and eeirie) ones to be found by looking at "demonstration elections" in El Salvador and Gutamala in the '80s. Sound familiar? This was cribbed from Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" but describes the situation in Iraq today to a tee.

Logical fallacy: affrimation of the consequent. No. The number of troops involved had nothing to do with the morality of what they were participating in. But since one nation planned, conducted and continues to shoulder the overwhelming burden of the war, this was a de facto unilateral war. Tell me, what country set up the provisional government? I was thinking the same of you, sunshine.

But, for reasons that have been already exhaustively outlined, the feds can't create civil unions. Harper is lying. But those traditions would continue. Churches that don't want to accept same sex marriages won't have to. Their traditions are secure. So you contradict yourself since, under the current definition of marriage, gays are not recieving equal treatment under the law. Here we go: "gay people have the right to mary someone of the opposite sex". Of course, such a right is meaningless: it would be like giving men the right to give birth or justifying racial discrimination by saying blacks have the right to be white. Furthermore, considering your opossition to gay marriage seems to stem from concern for society's well-being, I fail to see how advocating for people to live lies is beneficial to society. Marriage has, over time, evolved and undergone many serious changes. To suggest it has always followed the model of one man/one woman is false. Under one "traditional definition", marriage was a legally sanctified contract of mutual support between two consenting non-African-American adults of opposite gender. Elsewhere, polygamy was once a legitimate form of marriage. Marriage now has changed to a less gendered, less procreative model, so there is no rational reason to exclude homosexuals from it. The one man/one woman legal definition of marriage is totally arbitrary. The only reason one group has had "exclusive ownership" of the legal definition of marriage is because the law gave it to them. The law can be changed.

So we can dispense with all the busines of resolutions here and there: in the end it's an academic exercise of interpretation, your lawyer's words against others (and while you launch fallacious pleas to authority, you ignore the principle that legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because they're drafted in the adversarial mode of an advocate, often out of self-interest). The real issue then becomes the idea that "nothing is illegal as long as you don't get caught". The United Staes then, is the OJ Simpson of nations: guilty as hell, but off on a technicality because, for whatever reason, the UN hasn't called them to task on their actions. However, to seperate the letter of the law from the moral spirit upon which its based is disingenous, when it's clear the purpose of this exercise in legalese is to create a moral legitimacy for this action and those this might provide a precedent for. There's 152,000 U.S. troops are currently stationed in Iraq along with about 25,000 other foreign soldiers. For all intents and purposes, it was unilateral. Good question. Which is precisely why Bush's little adventure sets such a dangerous precedent. Touching? I think the word you're looking for is "carefully stage managed". For some reason, I was reminded of the Kuwati incubator babies story.

Utterly fatuous. How do you figure?So when IBM developed a computer punch card system that allowed the Nazis to efficiently keep track of death camp inmates, that's okay, 'cause they were just working with any old client? We'r etalkin about the clos eties between the upper echelons of U.S. business and the Nazi party. Henry Ford was a ardent Nazi sympathizer, gave money to the fascist cause and recieved the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle, the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German. But in your view, hey: that's just business.

This is a mischaracterization that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the roles of the Charter, Parliment and judiciary. The courts do not "make" the law, nor are changes to the laws (such as the redefinition of marriage) reccommended arbitrarily. The role of the courts is to evaluate a law’s rationality, workability, and constitutionality. In other words, to ensure the laws are consitent with the principles enshrined in the constitution (a document which is itself the end result of an arduopuis democratic process). It just so happens to that the law is not always a black and white subject, but open to evaluation and interpretation. This adaptability is vital in a society where social norms and values are fluid. In the case of minority rights, the Charter (and the judiciary charged with upholding it) serves as an important check on the power of the majority. A Charter would be unecessary if it could be guaranteed that the majority would always respect minority rights. Unfortunately, such is not the case. What about the U.S.A.? Their constitution was not subject to a public vote. Can you name some examples? As for "partisan politicians", you're saying the democratically elected governments of Canada and all provinces (except Quebec) were "partisan"? What's on that agenda? That's the great thing about a free society: you don't have to. But then, it's not really your business anyway.