Black Dog

Tehnically it's a free vote, but Martin knows they don't have a leg to stand on. basically the governmenthas two options: legalize SSM, or use the notwithstanding clause. Most polls show a majority of Canadians in favour of SSM. But yeah, the only ones who care are gays who want equal treatment and religious groups who will be unaffected by SSM. But I don't care what you do with yours. See the difference? No, I believe religious belief has been declining in Canada as well as the rest of the developed world with the exception of the wacky USA. No. This issue comes down to whether or not some people have teh right to force their views upon others. That's what people oppossed to SSM on religious grounds are doing.

Pentagon documents released Monday disclosed that Iraqi prisoners had lodged dozens of abuse complaints against U.S. and Iraqi personnel who guarded them at a little-known palace in Baghdad converted to a U.S. prison. Among the allegations was that guards had sodomized a disabled man and killed his brother, whose dying body was tossed into a cell, atop his sister. Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.

Bush sharpens axe. The cuts will come on top of a tough fiscal 2005 budget that held government programs outside of homeland security and defense to an average 1 percent increase. Congress froze funding for grants to college students and reduced outlays for programs that help localities hire police officers and maintain sewer systems. The National Science Foundation incurred the largest budget cut in its history - $105 million below the fiscal 2004 level. Research grants and science education funding were slashed by $30 million. The Housing and Urban Development Department saw cuts in programs for maintaining public housing and providing down-payment assistance to low-income workers and aid to the homeless and people with AIDS. While the budget proposes significant cuts in domestic non-entitlement programs, the resulting savings would be small as a share of the budget because these programs make up only one-sixth of the overall federal budget.

So you're taking it on faith? I thaink that's where credibilit comes into play. Remember: these were also the people who cooked the intelligence on WMD to justify the invasion in the first place, so we know honesty is not their strong suit. Secondly, to accept the viewpoint that "frredom and democracy " are the real goals is to ignore the evidence that comes from the architects of Bush's new policy. It's there in the National Security Strategy, which lays out a plan for the Pax Americanan: an aggressive military and foreign policy embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies and ignoring international opinion if it is contrary to U.S. interests. The same people who helped pen this strategy were also behind the Project for the New American Century, which called for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern and made possible by a expansion of the U.S.'s global military presence. Many of the strategies recommended by this cabal (including ex Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Cheney's Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby) So on the one hand: a mountain of circumstantial and material evidence pointing to the invasion of Iraq as part of a broad imperialist strategy; on the other, the word of the same people who developed said strategy.

That's funny: Marsden's name is the first one that comes to my mind when I think of "unbalanced" too! The summary of Rachel's qualifications neglected to include "convicted stalker, known liar and kook who Photoshops her head onto Julia Roberts' body on her web site". Honestly: between Coulter, Marsden and the Free Press, is theer any wackjob the right wing won't accept with open arms? I mean, I'm sure there's some scizophrenic homeless people out there who have some opinions: why not quote them, since they have as much credibility on media bias as the rogue's gallery above? (Actually I take that back: I'd hate to insult the mentally disabled and homeless by comparing them to Ann Coulter.) In any case, only a complete naif would believe that here's no idealogical bleed betwen Fox's punditocracy and their "news" division. A cursory look at the number of Republican operatives and right wing think-tank advocates the populate FoxNews' excutive ranks should tell you that. It's a fact of lif ethat the media will always have a certain amount of balance. From the corporations who own the media, to the advertisers who pay th ebills, he editors who make the decisions on down to the reporters who prepare the copy a certain amount of bias is bound to seep in. What's sets Fox apart, however is that its bias is uniformly pro-Bush, pro-republican and anti-liberal.

How typically obtuse. Such a scenario isn't far fetched, not does it require any big conspiracy, just a bunch of nations doing what natuions do: allowing self-interest to trump ethical considerations. I see where this is going. If I acknowledge that an elected Iraqi government has the means to change their constituition, you wil simpy use it as "evidence that Iraq is democratic. As if what's written on paper and what's occurring in the real world are completely indepenent of one another. I'll just head this of fnow by once again pointing out that, yes, Iraq can amend it's constitution (indeed, the current constitution is a temporary one), but the real question is: is it possible for Iraq to set a course for itself? Suppose (hypothtically) a new Iraqi government came to power and decided it wanted U.S. troops out (including permenant bases), nationalized all major industries (including oil) and declared its neutrality in the war on terror. How would you see such a scenario playing out? What would the reaction be from the country that spent $200 billion and thousands of lives if they won the war but lost Iarq?

You know, I got a few good laughs at some of your posts (and not with them; at them) but I don't think it's all that funny anymore. It represents a branch of thinking (and I don't know how common it is) that would turn society away fromt the democratic egalitarian ideals of democracy and towards a backward-looking theocratic ideaology. You're entitled to your beliefs, of course. However, we are not living in a theocracy. Your beliefs carry no more weight than those of millions of other Candaians, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sihk, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist: we are all equals under the law. You might want to remember that the principles which gay marriage is based on are the same ones that allow you to practice your own faith freely. You should be thankul you liv ein such a society. It's funny too: I was watching some stuff on the Aushcwitz liberation and was struck by the outright inhumanity with which the snuffing of 10 milion souls could be conducted. When I read your posts and think about the cruelty of the gas chambers and ruthless efficiency of the incinerators, I have to wonder, what kind of malign thug of a God would allow such a thing to happen under his very eyes and would tolerate such hatred ,and yet deem the expression of love between two people to be a sin worthy of his wrath. No god worth worshipping, I can tell you that much.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

And who were those "other people"? Untermenchen?

Your original statement was: If you're going to backpedal, be careful you don't trip. How exactly was the Fifth Estate's program "bashing" or a "smear"? I didn't see it, so what exatlcy was the problem? It's probably safe to say the majority of Canadians don't like Bush and his government's policies, they don't like U.S.-style politics, they don't like militarism and find vulgar expressions of nationalism to be rather tacky. But to say "most Canadians don't like Americans" when they are our biggest trading partner, when Candians are hooked on U.S culture (such as it is), when you'd not find many who'd have bad things to say about indivudal Americans, well, it's a stupid thing to say. Me, I've travelled into the States a fair bit and like Americans and I like what America stands for. It's just dissapointing to see a country fail to live up to its potential and get hijacked in the worst way.

PR, you're messing up the coding by adding the name of the poster you're quoting. On to business: There's a first. Bull. When one group of sceity is entitled to a set of legal privileges and another is denied the same privilages on an arbitrary basis, it's a rights issue. The same arguments could be applied for other civil rights issues. For instance: why did blacks in the pre-civil rights South want to use common water fountains? They had their own water fountains, so they had the same right to drink water as white people did. What was the big deal? No. Civil marriage has nothing to do with sex and less to do with love. It's a legal contract. Anything deeper is between the couple involved, not society. I know someone who was born female, initially identified as lesbian, but, as a transexual, now identifies as a man. He has had top surgery and hormone treatments to rid himself of some of his female physical charateristics, but still has female reporductive parts and, at the base genetic level, will always be a female. Now, if he and his girlfriend decide they want to marry, can they?

Yes. Beats me. You'd have to ask them. I suspect they didn't want to antagonize the U.S. further, so they opted to get out of the way in hopes that they could still get a piece of the Iraq pie afterwards (especially Russia and France). Wouldn't it have been more consistent with the principles of democracy to wait until there was an Iraqi-chosen government in place and allow them to draft their own constitution?

Generic brands tend to be cheaper than brand names. Get what I'm saying? The only possible reason for maintaing the distiction between hetero and gay unions is to maintain the stigma that gay relationships are somehow lesser. (Not ot mention practicle considerations such as portability of civil unions and the big one, their unconstitutionality.) I have a question for ya: does the gender of the participants have any bearing on the benefits tehy recieve through marriage? Because if civil marriag eis simply a contract betwen two individual sto share assets and liabilities and so forth, then it doesn't really matter if the individuals entering into the contract both have penises or vaginas or any combination thereof. Yes. Flip the tables. Suppose gay marriage was the only option and straight people were barred from participating. How would you feel if somone trivialized the obvious inequality by saying "Well, you have the right to marry a man, what are you complaining about?" Maybe you should try looking at things from another point of view for a change. Perhaps then you'd see how ridiculous and offensive such things are.

God has been helping Israel? What happened, did he sleep through the whole Holocaust thing? Exceleent post, PocketRocket. Bang on.

The Pope? Archbishop of Canterbury? Benny Hinn?

Thankfully, though, we don't live in a theocracy, but in a democracy that respects the rights of all citizens. Even kooky religious ones. As for God's wrath, well, given the amount of pain, misery, death and destruction he tolerates, it seems a little absurd for him to get worked up over a lil' nothing like gay marriage. You know, I'm not gonna hold my breath on this one.

Turner doesn't own CNN anymore (hasn't for years). AOL Time Warner does. I thought you said you'd been watching FoxNews.

Our Hitler? Gee Digby, what about abortion for non-christian, non-English speakers? Would that be okay by you? 'cause from the tone of your post, that would seem to be the direction you're heading.

But the verse I quoted (and others just like it) make no reference to the punishments for adultery, fornication etc. being administered by god. No, they are direct instructions to the faithful. So if you were truly a believer in the Bible, you would be advocating the death penalty for adulterers, homosexuals, and others. Of course if one goes by the alternative interpretation that the death penalty is to be administered from on high, it then seems God has been quite negligent in carrying out his smiting duties. Jesus was quite mum on the subject of homosexuality. What he was big on was justice, love, and human dignity. In other words you think the Bible is god's opinion because the Bible tells you so?

Who's "they"?

That's a tenuous interpretation at best. Resolution 678 only covered Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 687 set out the terms of the ceasefire. but contained no provision of to link Iraq's obligation to destroy all weapons of mass destruction to the authorisation to use force set out in resolution 678. The final paragraph of resolution 687 gives the Security Council the power to decide "such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area", implying further Security Council consideration would be required before any action is to be taken by its members. In other words, any action undertaken as a response to a breach of the 1991 ceasefire would have required the consent of all member states. 1441 did not represent the necessary consent. France, China and Russia stated they voted for 1441 precisely because it contained no "automaticity" in the use of force. This interpretation was reflected in the United States's and Britain's formal explanation of their votes. So, in other words, none of the resolutions in question gave any individual UNSC member the right to respond to violations of the 1991 ceasefire . So a new Iraqi government can change the laws decreed by the CPA. But will they? I happen to have a hard time beliving that G.W. and his corporate cronies are going to spend $300 billion on this war (not to mention thousands of lives), only to walk away when Iraqis elect a new government. Considering Iraq's sizeable debt and the cost of reconstruction, I expect that post-election Iraq will be subject to the same reforms as countless other developing countries, reforms that demand unrestricted access for foreign investment and ownership.

I actually have a lot of respect for true conservative like our very own Hugo, people who esposue a classical liberal laissez faire philosophy. But what I can't stand are lying, power-mad warmongers like the Republican Party, their shrill, fawning disciples in the corporate media who would probably condemn Christ as a "tax and spend socialist" if he were around today. Well, given that we're living next door to a country where fascism is on the rise, I think it's time we brought the word back into its proper context.

So your saying the people who's country was invaded on false pretenses deserve death more than the invaders? I'd call that vile. In fact, I don't know if vile quite cover sit. What WMD?