Black Dog

No. Martin is not "imposing" anything. Tell me: under the new legislation, will heterosexauls be forced to marry people of the same sex? No? Then Martin is "imposing" nothing. As for "free votes or referendum": why should there be one? This is an issue that affects only a small percentage of Canadians: those in the gay community who want heir relationships recognized by the state. It doesn't affect the majority in the slightest. So why should they have a say? One thing that is especially interesting is that the Conservative Party does not have a policy on SSM. So Harper is, in effect, making a unilateral decree as to what the Conservative line is without consulting his own party's membership. Talk about undemocratic. Totally. The Conservatives have been stymied by their failure to break through in Quebec. How will this stunt play in the province that has the highest level of support for SSM in the country? It's nice to see that the HarperCons, Like Day's Alliance, isn't missing this opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Ads target ethnic groups Attack ads? I see the Republican operatives Harper hired are earning their paycheques. The ad.

It depends on the work they do. If, like the Red Cross, they simply provide aid services to those in need, I wouldn't consider them so much faith based as humanitarian orgianizations operating on religiou sprinciples of charity and kindness. However, there are groups that combine aid services with religious proselytizing. For instance there are numerous groups, such as including the Southern Baptists' International Mission Board, Gospel for Asia, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance, who use disasters like the recent tsunami to try and covert people, or spread religous teachings unde rthe guise of providing aid (like faith-based groups in Africa working on AIDS programs that preach anti-contraceptive stances). I find these groups to be distasteful. If you want to do the right thing, great, but can the evengelizing.

Yes and rightly so. Your comparison is nothing but hyperbole.

Heck, even "The Simpsons" touched on this years ago!

Pentagon contemplating Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq In other words "if you can't beat the terrorists, you might as well join 'em."

As today is Inaguration day, I thought it'd be interesting to look at some quotes from presidents past.

I've heard it said (on this very board, even) that Coulter's raison d'etre is to rile up "liberals" with her invective. Now, notwithstanding the fact that such petty vindictiveness is better suited to the playground than political discourse, I fail to see how having someone whose main debate ammunition are lies and personal attacks proves anything about the so-called liberal proclivity towards lies and personal attacks.

Yah. I'm looking forward to the day Ann Coulter blows her brains out on Colombian marching powder in the Green Room on the "O'Reilly Factor set". I like people, which is why I loathe that peroxide viper.

Uh...no. "Global warming" hasn't been the crux of the scientific debate for years. No kidding? Gee, I guess that's what I meant when I said Ah..the Canada Free Press: the online equivilant of the deranged homeless man ranting at unseen enemies on the street corner.

National Crime Victimization surveys conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that victims use guns against offenders just 65,000 times per year.

Fair point. There's no denying certain elements within the world community are less than exemplary global citizens. Many of these same nations have also been vocal critics of Israel (whether this is because, as some would argue, some cultural predisposition towards Jew hatred or the result of 60 plus years of history is another debate). But, by the same token, many other nations, nations that claim to be pro-democracy and human rights, defend antidemocratic and inhumane practices in places like Israel and elsewhere (for example, the United States is Israel's most ardent defender, a self-described champion of democray, but also has close ties with repressive regimes like Egypt.) So really, no one has their hands clean. That's why it's important to look at it from a more absolutist viewpoint. Does Israel do bad things? Unquestionably. Are their worse offenders? Certainly. But rather than excuse and make allowances for some crimes, we should be condemning them all. Israel's defenders only see the speck in other's eyes. Another good point: how many other human rights abusers play a key role in determining the regional policy of the world's main power?

No. The main debate is over whether the phenomenon of climate change is caused or facilitated by human activity. It's almost sad to see people trapped in the tiny bubble of economics (funny, too given that its the greatest junk science of all), people who can't see the big picture that exists beyond their wallets... ...I feel less sorry for those who would consign so much of nature to the rubbish heap, who put a small portion of humanity's desire for trinkets ahead of the needs of others., or who espouse the kind of fatalist, defeatist rhetoric as above. "Yeah, so what if we wipe out a few thousand species through our rapaciousness. They were hjust going to go extinct eventually anyway." It's short-sighted and self-centred, like the mentality of a two year old child. We can argue till the cows come home as to what impact human activity has on the climate and the biosphere. But from a common sense perspective, is it wise to carry on as we have been?

The military is pretty charged with homoeroticism as it is: I can't see what difference having genuine homosexuals in the ranks would make.

I'm not? I think common sense here would indicate that torture in China, mass slaughters in Kashmir, etc. are not things anyone would support. So why is there this need to condemn what is patently indefensible? Is it absolutely necessary to spell it out? (If that's the case, let me state that I condemn everything unless otherwise stated. ) Any argument where you make assumptions on someone else's motivatyions, and then use those assumptions as the basis of your argument is doomed to die a painful death. In this case, your argument is based on the assumption that Israel is the only target for condemnation. It's fallacious. In any case, you've misunderstood the argument. Israel is a target for criticism because of its human rights record. It's is a flashpoint for discussion because soem choose to defend that record, despite its incompatability with accepted practices.

I think the links I've posted here so far are pretty clear: libertarian, small government classical conservatives. or what I call "real" conservatives. Because there's nothing conservative about runaway government spending, and widespread government intervention. Why would the market rise with a Bush reelection? Because there's no such thing as a free market and stockholders know: Bush looks after his own kind. That doesn't make them conservatives, but plutocrats. Who are those conservatives that support Bush, and what makes them conservative? Yeah, but how many would describe themselves as tough, fiscal conservatives? That there are some governments that intervene heavily in the economy is not the issue: the issue is one's that do so under the banner of an idealogy based on small government. Define success. A well funded public healthcare system is better at ensuring people get the treatment they need regardles sof their socioeconomic status. hat's the point of a healthcare system, not profit No. I said military spending is a black hole in that it entails shovelling public money into the private sector with negligible return for the public. How many people could get health coverage or a college education for the cost of a single stealth bomber?

Obviously you didn't read the last link. If you had, you'd know that this is another voice from the disenfranchised right, the standard bearers of traditional conservativism, not the ugly chimera that passes for conservatives today. That's the problem: when in doubt, neocons reflexivly revert to dogma, never mind the facts. Nevermind that private health care has, without exception, faile dto live up to the promised ends. Nevermind that corporations, those bastions of free enterprise, nose up to the public trough with alarming frequency, even as they shed jobs and seek new ways to maximize shareholder profits at the public's expense. Nevermind that most defence spending is a black hole, the only benefit of which is to defence contracters dependant on government largesse. Maybe you should open your eyes and ears and see what proper conservatives are saying about Bush. That's why I started this thread.

The reality of red-state fascism.

I stand by my superior example. Israel is guilty of extrajudicial assassinations, collective punishment, unlawful detentions, restriction of movement, torture, excessive use of force etc etc etc. They are the Hell's Angels. The difference between Israel and the tyrranical, oppressive regimes it shares some of its more egregious practices with is that no one defends North Korea, China etc., whereas Israel's apologists and defenders will go to any length to defend its inhumane practices. Why is there no response to discussions of these other places? Because it would be an echo chamber of denunciation, where as denunciation of Israel's actions draws all kinds of ire. The question that raises is: why are Israel's defenders such hypocrites? It's also worth pointing out that many of the credible non-partisan human rights organizations responsible for raising what little awareness there is of atrocities in Asia, Africa etc are also the same ones documenting Israel's crimes.

Ah, but you've never made that distinction until I called you on it. Again, it's always "Arabs" this and "Arabs" that. Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arabs. So it's pretty clear you hate Arabs. More hypocricy, given your demands that one proove their credentials in terms of human rights, your demands for absolute condemnation of every single atrocity before one can even mention the word Israel, else be labelled a "Jew hater". You're defending yourself on the same grounds you attack others, which, to me, says your position is untenable. Nope. Sorry. You're still full of crap, given you've no proof of either racism or a lack of concern for human rights. Again: Hmm. That doesn't say anything about "Arab societies", but something ingrained, a cultural predisposition to anti-Semetism. So it's better that Palestinians be tortured and oppressed by Israel? Who's occupying whom, again? (edit) Funny how these things keep turning up... "Arab wackos"

I've been mulling over the oft-made argument that Israel is undeserving of the amount of criticism levelled against it, given there are much worse offenders out there. And the more I think about it, the more ludicrous it gets. Putting aside for a moment the evidence that Israel does, in fact, rank among he world's worst when it comes to human rights, the argument is still fallacious, simply because it does not address the realities of Israel's human rights record. It's a deflection, a cop-out, and a red-herring designed to shift the attention away from the accussed and onto the accuser. For instance: (Note: I left out the inevitable accussation of anti-semitism.) See how the argument used by #2 does not address any of the salient points made in #1? If #2 were to say "that's wrong. Israel has good reasons for all those things.", we'd have us a debate. But as it is, if you tried this in high school, you'd be booted off the debate team. So why does it come up so frequently? I can't speculate as to the motives of those who use this line, but the practical result is a diminishment and tacit approval of the crimes Israel is accussed of, simply because someone else might be worse. Imagine if this argument was applied elsewhere. Think it would stand up? Something to ponder. Essential background.

click

Why? I sMoore advocating that the rich in America give all their money away? No. So how i she being a hypocrite? He's not saying people shouldn't be rich. He's not saying people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labours. He's not demanding an end to capitalism. It's kind of underhanded to villify someone for not living up to standards that they never set for themselves.

Now you've done it. Now we're going to get inundated with bloviating about "Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire!" and some such (even though legal opinion is divided.)

I'm more or les sinclined to agree, but I'm not optimistic about he chances of mankind "outgrowing" religion anytime soon. After all, belief in a higher power(s) has persisted for millenia. And I think we nee dto ask why. On the one hand, there's the paternal angle you mentioned, as well as the need to explain the otherwise inexplicable or incomprehensible. Another is the self-aggrandizing aspect: people like to think that they as individuals or as part of a larger group, are special. What could be more special than a Supreme Being who favours your particular group above all others, or a Supreme Being that picked this one little planet for his pet project humanity. Belief in God is a way for people to feel better about themselves, excuses the diminishment of "infidels" and to make sense of the world. Thos eneeds will always be part of human nature and accounts for the persistance of religion. Even if religion were to fade away, something would take its place.