Black Dog

Not for anything serious, but because they had the audacity to imply that other religions are less-than accepting of gays. U.S. networks reject church gay ad

I think you're taking "brothers" too literally. In this case, it refers to all humankind, just as "neighbours" doesn't just refer to the person next door.

Again: who do we need to be defended from? Hmmm. The U.S.'s large military was powerless to prevent 9-11 and is currently fighting a losing battle against the "terrorists" in Iraq. I fail to see the value for Canada in joining the American crusade. Of course, you'd be choking on your rage if the same thing happened to Harpo.

U.S. President George W. Bush suggested Canada should take a more active role in his "war on terrorism" in a speech he gave in Halifax on Wednesday. This is the enraging part: How were we drawn into war against Hitler again? Oh yeah: he attacked, without provocation, and occupied a soverign country, despit einternational opposition. Hey, that's just like you George! That sounds like a threat, George. So why is He punishing us?

Uh. No. The troops stationed there would be there for two years. The bases would be there in perpetuity. Or perhaps your own predjudices and appetite for right-wing rhetoric? Hey, they'll be just as happy to saw through your neck too, despite your "pro Arab" left wing rhetoric. Then I guess i better not invade thier counties then. Of course you've completely diregarded the FACT that large portions of the insurgency have rejected kidnaping and execution of noncombatants as a tactic. But I suppose you're consistent in rejecting any information taht doesn't conform to your pre-existing beliefs. I haven't seen any evidence of this here.

They signed NAFTA. Therefore, they agreed to defer such amters to a international trade panel. yet the consistently refuse to play by the rules they agreed to. So really, why should we waste our time playing nice with them?

Depends. Much of the current trade difficulties between the two countries have been percipitated or at least excrebated by U.S. business interests. That's why I find claims that "we need to rebuild our tattered relationship with the U.S." to be so disingeous : the U.S. will always act, first and foremost, in its own interest (which are the interests of the powerful U.S. corporate lobbies). Right now, those interests are opposed to free trade. There's not much we can do to change the situation one way or another.

Regardless, we should take a principled stand against it. If the U.S. wants to blow billions on a worthless weapons system to defend against imaginary threats, that's their perogative, but we should have nothing to do with it. Have they? Softwood lumber, the BSE ban, bans on perscription drugs: all happened on Bush's watch. Furthermore, I find the whole "screw the rest of the world: let's get ours" attitude to be unpalatable. I doubt Harper wa stight-lipped during his meeting. In fact I'm sure his mouth was wide open....

Wrong. In Canadian opinion polls, the majority generally favour SSM. Unlike the States. In any case, we are discussing two distinct cultures here. The only people who say otherwise are those who would rather Canada be more like the U.S. There are deep differences in values and in world views. American culture is rooted in isolationist nationalism and a culture of exceptionalism. Canadians give at least lip service to concepts like internationalism. I would attribute any American-eqsque leanings among Canadians to the steady deluge of American cultural products, as oppossed to some fundamental similarity between us. Canadian Americanophiles like to make light of "Canadian identityu" as being shallow, since so many Canadians identify themselves as "not American". Truth is, you'd be hard pressed to find another, better definition, given that this country was founded on and borne of oppossition to, the United States.

Because people were more interested in profound important issues that affect the nation: like who should be allowed to marry. The Missile Defence system doesn't work: that's really all the information we need.

Neither party made much of NMD during the campaign, so it wasn't an issue that was top of mind for most Canadians. And this is a good thing...why?

Given that we are geographically isolated, and lack America's predilication for trampling small, defenceless countries, we don't really need a large military. The dirty secret about our scientific edge is that it's largely produced by foreigners and immigrants. Americans don't do science Putting aside the arogant, high school jock braggadocio, the implication here is that Canada's past support on some issues should guarantee Canada's backing on everything until perpetuity. Which is certainly not the basis of sound national policy. Actually, I see Canada's increasing recitence to support the mad emperor as wholly consistent with our past fights against fascism. Americans can keep their arrogance, their self-absorbtion, their crazed "Christian" right, their far-reaching ignorance, their junk culture. And they can keep the obnoxious Aussies too. I'd be happy being Sweden.

I'm really of two minds here. On the one hand, I certainly don't buy the official version of events (Snopes or no Snopes): 757s are very large aircraft flown, in this case, by an inexperienced pilit. Yet that pilot was able to execute a sharp spiral dive, and bring the plane in at treetop height. Weird.

Proving once again that conservative's problem with the CBC is not it's (alleged) bias, but that it's the wrong bias.

That final statement simply defies logic. As I've said elsewhere, the number one purpose of all regimes is to maintain their hold on power. This is especially true of despotic or totalitarian regimes such as Iran's or North Korea. Indeed, there's no evidence to indicate that the leaders of these nations have any desire to compromise their grip on power, let alone commit wholesale suicide.

Of course, the "95 per cent" story is a lie. At no time did israel offer anthing mor ethan Israel never offered more than 88 percent, which in itself is dingeuous. Under Barak's offer, the Palestinian state on the West Bank was to consist of three chunks of territory, linked by land corridors, with control of these corridors, as well as of external borders, remaining in Israeli hands (thus keeping the Palestinian populace under the control of an occupying power on a day-to-day basis); 10 percent of the West Bank was to be annexed by Israel to accommodate its settlements, in exchange for which the Palestinians were to be compensated with a strip of desert; another 10-12 percent, comprising the Jordan Basin, would be leased to Israel for 100 years. Nor was Israel prepared to address the refugee problem or consider the status of East Jerusalem. I don't beleive past injustices committed upon one party is a license for that party to perpetuate injustice. I would love to see some measure og justice brought to th epeople whose land our ancestors stole, who were driven to the brink of extinction and, to this day, are treated as second class citizens in a nation that has consistently failed to honour its commitments. Candad's treatment of its Natives is a dark stain on our history, just as the Occupation will be a blemish on Israel. Yet Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of the largest sponsors of terrorism, have largely escaped America's wrath. Why? Wrong. There is no evidence Iraq had any WMD, or the cpacity to make them, only the vague desire to do so. Wrong again. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass told Haaretz that the purpose of the recent "disengagement" was to "freeze" the peace process. Weisglass said (and I quote): "And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda." There's no place for such filth on this board. I'll see you banned.

I have no doubt you are an avid reader of MEMRI's propaganda. The Arabic press serves 300 million people, so some content is bound to be extreme, just as one can find extreme, racist content in the Hebrew Israeli press, or on Fox News, for that matter.' But that doesn't support your statement in the slightest. From the perspective of the Halliburtons, Lockheed Martins, Rayethons, and General Electrics of the world (that is, those whose business is war), war is certainly a Good Thing. And while the impact of military spending is detrimental to the larger economy in that money spent on things like weapons systems or, say, permenant military bases on foreign soil, is money that is not going to social services. Your confusion, it seems, stems from a old-fashioned belief that the U.S. government and its accomplices in the private sector are genuinely interested in peaceful use of resources and are reluctant paricipants in the struggle for military supremacy (a "struggle" in which the U.S. outspend outspends all of its adversaries or potential adversaries combined, as well as all its allies). That is not the case. Those who reap the benefits of war and pay very little of the costs are now the ones crafting policy. I ANd it's unlikely they have much interest in tampering with a system that works so well for them.

I'll call this as I see it right off the bat: you're an idiot. "The Arabs" are by no means a homogenous monolith. to ascribe a singular motivaton to such a diverse set of nationalities, cultures and interests is ridiculous. War is certainly not bad for business, as the booming U.S. arms trade can attest. Furthermore, the fact is as long as the U.S. and Israel push for peace "on their terms" (terms unacceptable to the rest of the region), then the future will be on eof neverending war, strife and instability.

Also, pryvateer, if you believe the U.S. or Israel are truly interested in peace in the Mid East, then you are dreadfully naive.

International regard for the U.S. is at an all time low (and I happen to consider the billions of people who aren't statesmen or pundits to be the "people who matter"). Yes many people still buy into the ideal of the "American dream", yet many more are starting to see beyond the gloss and glitz and into the true heart of an America that has grown ever more corrupt, inward-looking, arrogant and greedy. Is that the kind of country we want Canada to be? Is that how we want to be viewed. It seems many here equate "respect" and "influnece" with our willingness and ability to project military power to maintain western political-economic dominance. Canada started its existence as an imperial vassal. I find it odd that there are those who would return to those days, albeit under a new master, out of some childish, immature need for status.

There's a very blarge differnce between life (in the strict biological sense) and personhoood (as a legal definition). Life does begin at conception. But then, ovums and spermatoza are also "alive" in the biological sense. The question is whether we can deem a foetus to be human.

That's it? That's the basis of your kooky little conspiracy? Oh brother. Surely if these people were the double agents you allege they are, they would have top-notch web sites for dissemenating their misinformation and to distract from the "demons in their midst". Geov Parish archive You also seem to be labouring under the impression that grassroots activist organizations must have piles of cash to use on establishing a web presence and stuff. Most of these organizations are small, funded mainly by donations and staffed by volunteers. they don't have a lot of money. It's apparent you have some sort of personal vendetta here, and a profound case of sour grapes:

How about, instyead of stigmatizing sex (and thus increasing its mystery and appeal), we normalize it through expanded education and honest depicitions. Sadly, we live in a society where people are more outraged by the display of a woman's breast (ie. janet Jacksonm) than they are by watching countless depictions of violence and death. Is that a recipe for a healthy society? People need to accept that sex is natural and give kids the knowledge and tools to make healthy choices. And, whemn mistakes are inevitavbly made, we need to ensure women still have the right to choose their reproductive destiny and are not punished for making mistakes. Sometimes its not a decision. Condoms break, birth control pills can fail. Accidents happen. Honestly, BBM, I think you'd sing a differnt tune if you were in a situation where you were facing a life sentence of having a child you didn't want and aren't able to care for.

How doe sthis contradict my point that there's no such thing as objectivity. Their slogan is "fair and balanced". Their coverage is not, which makes them hypocrites and liars. As for alternet, you don't see terms like "objective" and "balanced" on their web site because it is devoted to progressive viewpoints. Yet the quote you selected contradicts that very point. Odd.

I can't help noticing a total lack of evidence to support your claims, which simply beggar belief. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if you're the G.O.P operative.