Black Dog

A quick seach through the threads revealed some of the following Argus tidbits re: Arabs That's a damn sight more evidence than you've ever produced of my allegged hatred of Jews. It is racist to make no distinction between the actions of individuals or nations and the race involved. It's never "anti-israel Arab governments" or "Hamas"; it's always "the Arabs". A simple test is to see if the same terminology would be considered racist if applied to another race: ie. "vicious Jews", "craze yarmulke-heads". Gee, why that would be anti-Semetism! No, you judge a race based on the behavior of individuals and nation-states. I judge Israel for its actions. You've never offered a shred of evidence to the contrary. See my previous point regarding Israel's occupation and its impact on Palestinian children. Article. Israel has also killed more than 500 children since September 2000 and keeps hundreds more imprisoned. Again, this is irrelevant, as no one is defending any of this, where as you are taking great pains to apologize for Israel's many crimes. Refresh my memory: who's occupying who, again? Rubbish. A false dichotomy if there ever was one. This is not a choice between "Israelis and Palestinians". One can reject the crimes of both. For instance, I can reject Israel's practices of extrajudicial murder, collective punishment and ethnic cleansing, while praising the work of Israelis like those in Gush Shalom or the IDF refusniks, Israelis who also stand for real values. Similarily, one can reject Palestinaian terror groups like Hamas whle recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security. Well, Israel's occupation began in 1967. What happened before that? Furthermore, your facts are wrong: most of Israel's foes have recognized its existence, including Egypty, Jordan and the PLO. Are any of these countries practicing race-based colonization of these areas, all the while claiming to be upholding democratic values? Waitaminute: your premise is crap. For one thing, there does exist a informal eminity towards Israel, based on current factors such as the occupation as well as historical ones. But there's no ongoing physical conflict between Israel and its neighbours, just a lot of propaganda. OK. Immigration Policies Huh? How did I insult Jews by acknowledging western antisemetism?

Accolades and degrees mean plenty: thing is, Lomborg is a statistician, not an environmental scientist or engineer. Not to mention the fact he's not even a good statistician. But hey, I'll leavethe debunking of Lomborg to the real scientists. You seem to be under the impression that the simple fact of having a doctorate is a guarantor of credibility. Crichton is a Medical Doctor and a pulp novelist. Suzukie an internationaly respected biologist (which would make him a little more qualified to talk about the biosphere). It's pretty obvious to me which one would have more crediblity on this issue. But again, I must point out that neither Chrichton's novel, nor Lomborg's book ever had to undergo the rigourours peer review process that the scientific findings they seek to refute did.

Bah. I find it interesting that climate change deniers (I wonder: what's Michael Chrichton's scientific background?), like their counterparts in "creation science" seldom put their findings up for peer review (Lomborg is a prime example). Indeed, the tendancy is to publish sensational books and watch the fat cheques roll in, even as the mainstream scientif community consistently repudiates their claims. As for "capitalizing on tragedy" I would expect that's something FOXNews knows plenty about (ahem911).

BWAHAHAHA! Please: don't flatter yourself. At least Moore made his own money, unlike the Yale and Harvard educated scoin of East Coast old money, George W. Bush. Really: the conservative myopia on display is quite fascinating. Ah yes: Michael Weiner, the ultra racist, homophobic "shock jock". Another example of how conservatives have destroyed the political discourse in America. Well, there's the simple matter of history. I'm not really up for rehashing the entire history of the Zionist experiment, but the manner of Israel's creation and the subsequent support it recieved from western countries have long stuck in the craw of the Arab world. Add to that the fact that Israel makes a great scapegoat for certain elements in Arab society. I'm not sure I follow. But as for the point about Arab countries not facilitating a solution to the occupation, how would that be done when the Occupation is a problem of Israel's making? How is that relevant? So, basically, you can't back your arguments up and have to resort to this kind of childshness. Loser. Well, I'll take the comments of an racist like you for what they are worth: sweet F.A. Which would make you an anti-semite. "Semite" is not a race, but a term for peoples who speak Semitic languages. Zionism is based on the notion that Jews are a seperate racial and ethnic group. If you were actually aware of history instead of just vomiting up neocon talking points, you'd know that a big reason Israel was formed in the first place was because western nations (including the U.S.) were extremely reluctant to accept the tide of European Jewish refugees (U.S. immigration quotas had kept European Jews out of the United States since the 1920s). As well, Truman supposted Israel in order to prevent a mass exodus of Jewish voters from the Democratic party in the run up to a election. As Truman himself put it during a 1947 a meeting with U.S. ambassadors to the Middle East, according to William A. Eddy, the ambassador to Saudi Arabia, "I'm sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." Again, your historical ignorance shines through. Soviet influence in the region was limited at the time The dominant political force in the region was not Soviet Communism, but Arab nationalism. For instance, Egypt's Nasser spent most of the post-war period prior to the Suez crisis negotiating a neutral course between the two superpowers. If anything, U.S. support for Israel forced many Arab countries to seek Soviet aid. Putting aside the basic flaw in your premise (that being that being no one defends Palestinian terror and the corruption and despotism of many of the Arab/Muslim regimes), the contrortions of Israel's apologists, people who never miss a chance to excuse an atrocity, demands a response. First: your facts are wrong: Israel simply withdrew its resolution, citing "hostile amendments ". Certianly, there's no denying the existence of hostility towards Israel at the UN (though I fail to see what the above has to do with LLL's assertion that there's widespread antiIsrael sentiment in the western press). Of course the other way to look at is that Palestinian children suffer far more from the institutionalized oppression of the occupation than Israel's youngsters do from terrorism. How appalling. Israel flagrantly abuses human rights, perpetuates muilitary occupation and ethnic cleansing, but they get a free pass because they look more like us than their neighbours? Here's a crazy notion: why not come out on the side of peace, justice and the wonderful, humanist ideals of western civilization. That means recognizing and fighting against man's inhumanity to man in whatever form it takes. You mean the country that doesn't need to sacrifice people because it has high-tech weaponry to do its killing? The country that keeps millions imprisoned under martial law and deprived of most of the basic rights that their settler neighbours enjoy (all because of race?) That mercilessly exploits the memory of one of history's great human tragedies to fuel a brutish colonialism? That one?

Ann Coulter's intended hyperbole is apperently having it's desired effect. Pissing off the left. Evidently millions of inconsequential people enjoy her books which consistently make it to #1 the NY times. Along with the likes of Michael Moore. What's your point?

Oh come on Hugo: anecdotal evidence is the worst kind. In any case, it is not clear cut simply because sexuality is a continuum, not a bianary. Carry on.

Again: what are you basing this on? Surely to god, if this problem were so extensive, you'd have absolutely no trouble finding a citation. So pretty please with sugar on top, provide an example. If that is indeed the case, so what? Israelis do kill Palestinian children (at a far brisker clip than their Hamas counterparts). Or did you not read the article I posted about the Palestinian kids picking strawberries who were killed by an IDF tank shell? Is it the moral equivalence between the killings of innocents that bothers you? Or is it the fact that you don't like to see Israel's crimes brought into the light? Prove either of these statements. Perhaps you could explain the difference? Is it that the Palestinian kids had it coming? Ann Coulter is a raving idiot. Her books aren't worth the paper their printed on and no one of consequence considers her to be anything but a clown. The fact you cite her work as "the best" speaks volumes. That’s cute: you learned how to cut and paste. If you came to debate, please do so. But if you're simply going to regurgitate what I've written and not address the points I made, what are you doing here?

That would really depend on the nature of the settlement, wouldn't it? I think such speculation is too academic to be of any use. Well, I would expect the same one's who currently scapegoat the Zionists wold continue to do so. Sixty years of eminity and bad blood won't go away with an equitable solution to the occupation problem. However, that dosn't mean an equitable solution should not be a goal. Indeed, a viable, democratic Palestinian state would serve as example for the rest of the region and would give reformers some additional ammunition for their cause. However, just because Arab rulers like to blame Israel for all their problems, doesn't mean the true causes will end with the occupation. So long as the west supports corrupt and tyrranical regimes in the name of stability, the Arab/Muslim world will still have more than its share of problems.

I'm pretty sur eyou'r enot playing dumb (if so, you deserve an Oscar). Your statement indicated widespread and popular antisemetism in society at large. When questioned, you replied that this could be proven by "reading the newspaper", implying widespread antisemetism in the mainstream press. If you're now talking about UN resolutions, please refer me to the specific resolution containing the phrase "tsk tsk, oh well, those Jews brought it on themselves." Similarily, discussion of "root causes" is, more often than not, applied to give context to events, not excuse actions as you seem to be believe. If you can't back up your statement, then maybe you should refrain from making it in the first place instead of trying to squirm away. Ad hominem, not to mention a transparent plea to emotions (I certainly don't see you shedding any tears for the innumerable Palestinian children killed by the IDF). I was referring of course to the construction of your statement which, again, referred only to Jewish children being targeted in "ice cream parlors, discos, playgrounds etc" (one wonders what Israeli children are doing in discos in the first place). It's a transparent appeal to emotion. And it's misleading. How is the tsunami relevant? You're obfuscating. Well to begin, Yemen and Iran have never participated in any Arab-Israeli conflicts (Iranians not being Arabs and all). As for how the whle region is living in fear of the Israelis, I don't know if they are neccesarily. However, given the facts: Israel has the fourth-largest military in the world, the backing of the world's most powerful nation, is known to possess a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and, through its continued occupation and colonization of territories illegaly seized after the Six Day War (a war it began), has demonstratable territorial ambitions, who wouldn't be nervous? Easy: end the occupation. Dismantle the settlements, and work with the Palestinians to develop a viable palestinian state. However, that kind of peace is not in Israel's plans for the region.

Canada is being reasonably generous, but no one is ever as generous as the Americans. Their aid will be far, far higher. The money announced is mostly symbolic. Real aid will come from American Air Force cargo planes and the US Navy, and neither will be costed out. Land of the penny-pinchers

Don't you read a newspaper? I'm not pulling up sites for the obvious. Yes, I do read the newspapers. And I've never seen the sentiment you described expressed anywhere. So, unless you can provide some support for your statement (just to refresh your memory, that was: ), I'm forced to conclude you're either 1) Full of shit or 2) just ignorant.Which is it? (And I won't even get into the problematic nature of your statement's language and struture) No kidding. What's that got to do with the subject at hand?

If you hear it everywhere, it shouldn't be too hard to provide a citation or an example. I call bullshit on you. How about seven Palestinians killed, six wounded while picking strawberries

August, you weren't banned from that thread, but from this one for making a homophobic remark, which violated Babble policy. Hardly a free speech issue, so really: stow the martyr rouitine. Well, the struggle to measure up to unrealistic beauty standards is a centuries old one. But the mass media, advertising and the rise of celebrity culture has made it omnipresent. Today, it's largey about cold hard cash, but there's also an element of "keeping women in their place" present. Just watch the ads that air during a show like "Desperate Housewives" and take note of how many ads show women in the kitchen, scrubbing the bathroom etc.

The Occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the resulting the economic and political disparity between Israelis and the people they occupy is the primary source of conflict in the region today. End the occupation and the bulk of the violence will end with it. Argus' racism rears its ugly head again. Funny how someone can spout such bilge, and yet be so ready to play the race card against his opponents. Hypocrite. What's more, the above is also a stunning display of historical ignorance. The U.S.'s patronage of Israel did not arise out of the goodness of the American's hearts, but as a bulwark to Soviet influences and the rise of Arab nationalism. To imply otherwise is naive at best and dishonest at worst. I can understand this pathetic attempt to smear any oponnents of Israeli policy: after all, the arguments presented by its suporters are so weak that invoking the spectre of the Holocaust is the only trick they have. But really, Argus, if you're going to accuse people of anti-semetism, why not produce an example? After all, this isn't the first time you've dragged that particular straw man out without any supporting evidence: maybe now you'll actually step up and back it up?

They currently have more than 250,000 troops deployed in 156 countries as well as wold-reaching naval and air power prescnces. So, to answer your question: yes. Nuh uh. If the Iraq invasion taught us anything it's that the Bush agenda on intelligence is not geared towards building an apparatus that will keep America safe, but for providing selective intelligence to support a political ideaology. Don't be silly. Ask Cuba about the U.S.'s ability to flex its economic muscle. I mean political in the broader sense. The economic and military power of the States gives them the clout to get their way in political matters. Meh. the Constitution is only worthwhile so long as it is adhered to.

Indeed. Look at the United States which is contending with massive revenue shortfalls in the wake of Bush's tax cuts. In fact, the United States is a shining example of why everything IMR stated is wrong. It's a country with the largest military budget in the world with an aggressive policy towards cutting taxes for the so-called "wealth creators", yet neither fact has produced much benefit for the population at large. Why? Because military spending goes straight into expensive R&D and is sucked up by corporate profits, which are in turn enjoyed by shareholders. That money tends to stagnate: unlike mid and low income people, high income people don't spend as much money on a day to day basis, so their profits don't stimulate the real economy.

Such is the price of freedom. To continue down Hugo's path, one of the leading causes of accidental death is the automobile. Since driving a car is unquestionably bad for the individual's health, as well as the health of those around them (not to mention that of the environment), then the automobile should also be banned. Come to think of it, those who participate in organized sports often run the risk of incurring injury, the costs of which are borne by our health care system, so we can scratch pee wee hockey. And so on...

Politically, economically, and militarily, the United States is the world's most powerful country. No other country has the ability to project its power around the globe in the way the U.S. is capable. Russia, even at it's peak Soviet-era power, was always several steps behind the U.S. in terms of economy and technology. The same holds true for China today, though it is rapidly modernizing. The EU is a collective body, not a single power and is only as strong as the will of its member states. Nuclear weapons are but one piece of the puzzle.

Does the straw man manufacturing business pick up much over the holidays? Who are these people "making kissy faces" with China? Is it the left? Or is it the corporations and governments who depend on China as a market for cheap goods, and a supplier of cheap labour? It was not the left who awarded China "favoured nation" trading status in the wake of Tianamen Square. Really: how can one talk about the "left" so much and yet completely fail to identify who they are? Why it's almost as if "the left" in this case is a mythical creation, a figment of someone's imagination...

Well, traditionally the term "superpowers" referred to either the U.S.A or the U.S.S.R. Since the latter doesn't exist anymore, I can't really see how one can quibble with the notion that the U.S. is the sole remaining superpower of the two. I also don't think China, the EU or Russia can be considered contenders for superpower status.

The changes in the Bush admin are not signs of an administration falling apart, but of one consolodating its grip on the levers of power and setting firm the course of U.S. policy towards idealogically-based aggression and militarism abroad. Heck, even conservatives are scared.

Re: 2000. The real issue (extreme irregularities in the vote count aside) was the dienfranchisement of millions of voters. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), produced a report in June 2001 titled "Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election." The report concluded, "Despite the closeness of the election, it was widespread voter disenfranchisement, not the dead-heat contest, that was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election. The disenfranchisement was not isolated or episodic." The USCCR found that African-American voters were at least ten times more likely to have their ballots rejected than other voters and that 83 of the 100 precincts with the most disqualified ballots had black majorities, black voters, of course, vote overwhelmingly Democrat. In 2004, the issue is the widespread use of electronic voting machines in key districts, machines which leave no paper trail and can be easily hacked. In many districts with electronic voting machines, the results did not match teh exit pols. When the same phenomenon occurred in Ukraine, it was considered evidence of vote fraud. The people at blackboxvoting.org are doing great work keeping an eye on this one.

I call B.S. Most incidents you cite are blown out of proportion or ouitright fabrications. Take the Denver float issue for example: the organizers had a a longstanding policy against overtly religious and political themes, so to characterize the issue as being about a religious-themed float being banned is a distortion. The whole "faithful versus secularists" is spin by the powerful lobby that is the religious right.

This is a human tragedy and disaster on an unparallelled scale: more than 70,000 dead and thousands more will surely perish from disease. So, to see this kind of callous disregard for humanity is chilling.

Looking back on my playing days I don't every remember doing drills where we jumpe don other players' backs and drove their heads into the ice. So to argue he was just playing the game "the way he was taught" is disingenous. The only way he could have gone further over the line is if he killed Moore. As it is, Moore's career is over. I think that's plenty of damage. Furthermore, obviously a deliberate attempt to injure would warrant greate rpunishment and censur ethan an accident. Again: this was not part of the game, but an premeditated assault. If the same thing had happened on the street, Bertuzzi would be looking at jail. Easy: Bertuzzi ended Moore's career (and furthermore, has yet to take any responsibility for his actions) so his career should be over as well. A lifetime suspension from the NHL and a ban from the IIHF.