Black Dog

I must have missed that period where the NDP held power in Ottawa....

Nor is the an election in any way meaningful simply by the fact of its occurance. I wouldn't expect you to be aware of, or even interested in, the changes made by the CPA and the interim government which permenantly keep important decisions about Iraq's economic, and political future out of the hands of future Iraqi governments. Well, there's no way they'll be maintaing 180,000 troop sin Iraq after the "elections". But they are most definitely staying. Long-term military presence planned Or perhaps your own predjudices and appetite for right-wing rhetoric?

I didn't say "I won", only that it's been shown that your case is weak. Ahem: the questionis "How evil is George W. Bush." which implies an objective standard of evil. For instance: is he Hitler evil, or just Pol Pot evil? How about Sadam evil? Or Charles Manson evil? But, since we can say that no such standard exists and that evil, more or less, is in the eye of the beholder, your question is meaningless. Which neatly illustrates my point as to the futility of resorting to abstract terms like good and evil. Binary: Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold. ie. good and evil. You getting this yet? ?? Finally, even if we were able, somehow, to conclude that Bush is, in fact, evil: so f--king what? Does that give us some new weapon to use in policiy debates? "Well, the biggest problem with Bush's tax cuts is not that it disproporinately benefits the rich at the expense of the middle class, but that he is evil." "The situation in Iraq cannot be resolved by greater global cooperation or withdrawl of American forces, only by recognition of Bush's evilness." Shall I dust off my pitchfork and light up some torches so we can go storm Castle Bush?

You're basing this on....? See that's the difference: we can conclude, based on their historical performances, that right-of-centre political parties almost inevitably lead to more corruption and waste, greater burdens on the working classes and greater victimization of the marginalized. Your jabs at the NDP, on the other hand, are based soley on talking pouints from the CPC playbook.

Mind you, the biggest freeloaders of all are the one's who never seem to earn the ire of the faux-conservative set: the rich who sequester their wealth in tax havens, who use money politics to move mor enad mor eof the tax burden onto middle and lower income Canadians, the corporations who demand and recieve tax breaks, royalty holidays and handouts from government. No, these tough pseudo-conservatives would rather pick on the weak, and the downtrodden of society to inflate their own paltry sense of self. Unfortunately, these same bullies in blue are usually too ignorant to realize that "conservative" governments in western democracies have time and time again sold out the working class and the "regular" folks. So in effect, they shoot themselves in the foot. I have a job. I pay a good-sized chunk of my earnings in taxes, both income and in hidden taxes like the GST. Yet I never complain because I know that, if it were not for this thing called society (which, incidentally, operates on tax dolalrs) I wouldn't have got where I am today. So yuour solution is to bring in even more crooked politicians? Brilliant. Honestly, if you think the Conservatives are thje answer to your woes, you're sadly mistaken. Actually, that is pretty much the definition of selfishness. Indeed you needn't have posted such an extended diatribe when a simple refrain of "Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!Mine!" would have sufficed.

I'll give you a shiny nickel if you can define anti-Americanism for me. Based on the caliber of posts on this board, I'd have to disagree.

Uhm...maybe you haven't heard, but there's a significant portion of Iraqi society who are boycotting the elections because they believe (with good reason) that they will be a sham. Furthermore, maybe you haven't heard, but the U.S. is building fourteen permenant military bases in Iraq. they aren't leaving. Ever. And you are basing this on...what, exactly? The reality is the insurgency is not homogenous, but quite diverse as this inventory of Iraqi resistance groups (by Iraqis) shows. As apt a description for the U.S. troops as any I've yet read.

And yet there are still people going around declaring that the words and actions of a single solitary government backbencher have caused great harm to Canada/U.S. relations. I agree, with you that this won't make a dent. Bush ignored the voice of literally millions of people in his own country and around the world by going to war with Iraq. I don't think he'll start listening now. That said, I'll definitely be taking part in the protests. Typical straw man bullshit from someone whose opinion is shaped by what he's spoon-fed by CanWest Global. Would you like a hanky to dry those eyes, lil' fella? I don't like your opinions, so I should be allowed to bludgeon you with a baseball bat. Fair is fair. Ah yes: the sheild that doesn't work to defend against threats that don't exist. It's almost postmodern in its absurdity. Why so much hostility, I wonder? The millions of people who took part in the protests against Iraq did so peacefully. Indeed, most protests only turn ugly because of testostorone fuelled jagoffs like you, stamps. God forbid someone dent your SUV, jerk. And the alleged 9-11 terrorists were in the U.S. legally on student visas. What's your point. And it's precedent. Personally, I'm all in favour of beefing up security at our borders to keep the criminal element from entering our country. Which is why I find it curious that Bush is being allowed in....

I think at this point, others have done such a thourough job of derailing your arguments that I don't need to address that aspect. But the above comment is telling in that it reveals a craving for simple answers (which was revealed earlie rby your disdain for "shades of grey"). It's precisely that kind of thinking "good/evil, us/them" that George Bush and his kind are such expwert practicioners of is also responsible for the degredation of American political discourse (I aplogize if these terms are overly complex). Frankly,it surprises me to see a Bush opponet espousing such bianary thinking.

How about something a litttle more reflective of their stance?

You are correct. The only one who has said otherwise is individual who starte dthis thread, who claimed the FoxNews approval had liberals"frothing at the mouth" even though most people's reactions have been along the lines of "Fox is crap, I won't watch it." accompanied by a shrug.

That's a two-way street, sunshine.

Yes. Objectivity is a myth. However, when a partisan source such as FoxNews opts to pass themselves off as (in their own words) "fair and balanced", that's when we run into problems. But is their agenda hidden?Furthermore, does that somehow invalidate their findings about FoxNews? FAIR Alternet

This really says it all. Who needs nuance and rationality when we can have hysterical hyperbole! That's exciting!

Naw. He's not well-known enough to be a truly national embarrasment.

Not strange at all. Oceania needs its Emmanuel Goldstein.

Still spinning your lies, eh Monty? You should consider a job with Fox news, seeing as how you're pathalogically incapable of teling the truth.. Fox News was never banned, as was already covered in this thread. But for your further edification, here's the original CRTC decision. "but wait," you'll no doubt cry. "That's for Fox News Canada, not Fox News." Well, as thisToStar article points out: Which it has. I think you're confusing the yawns that have greeted this decision with "foaming at the mouth." A big difference. Of course, I suppose it's too much to ask for you to back up such a statement... Pshaw. Not on FoxNews (unless you believe the two sides of the political spectrum are "the right" and "the ultra-right".) Yes, when you can have 2 or 3 hysterical right wingers seeing who can get the furthest up Bush's anus. I expect it will be greeted with teh same widespread enthusiasm as Arena Football or Monster Truck racing: it won't make a dent outside it's tiny niche market. I'm sure Bill would be excited too: and we know how excited he can get. As for Coulter:l ovely? If bitter, dried-out and coked-up anorexics are your thing.... That's funny. Fox is by far the most blatantly biased news source there is. It's high ratings have to do with the current American zeitgeist and the basic fact that people seldom seek out media sources that contradict their own values. Which is why Fox News will be insignificant to Canadians. Who? Nazis? The Most Biased Name in News Fox's slanted sources There was a study. Well, for starters, it doesn't work to contrast CNN and Fox as they are both corporate media sources and thus more or less on the same end of the spectrum.

Where they've helped turn Saskatchewan into a economic success. Your point is...? Well, considering the PC's lost 10 seats, that's a step in the right direction. Yet you seem to endorse the Topries, a party rife with cronyism, notorious for handouts to big business with a leaderwhose policies overwhelmingly favour the privileged "elites" over the common man. It's amazing how strong the hold of propaganda is.

In any situation, you can only expect a country to serve its own best interests. Evidently, Russia feels its interests are best served by re-establishing itself as a global power. It would follow that in any conflict between the U.S. and China, Russia would do whatever is in its best interets. That does not necessarily mean siding with one side or another. In fact, were such a conflict to occur, I expect Russia to sit on the sidelines and allow the two current major powers to have it out.

Simple: prosperity breeds complacency. As long as the economy is doing well and Albertans precieve themselves as prsperous, there's little desire to change what is seen as a system (or in this case, a political party) that works.

Which is precisely why the discussion of "evil" is so academic. So we're defining "evil" as simply "having the ability/desire to perform evil acts" now? This is just silly. I'd really like to get a straight answer as to what purpose all this talk of evil serves. As anyone who frequents this board for any length of time knows, I am the last person who would defend Bush. Yet i find this talk of "evil" to be, at best, pointless and, at worst, damaging to the broader credibility of the anti-Bush/neocon side. Yes, Bush is responisible for thousands of deaths, but so are many other rulers around the world today and throughout history. Surely evil is a term that should be reserved for the moast hideous creatures to walk the earth, That's why "evil" (for what it's worth) suits someone like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: people guilty of such unimaginable crimes against humanity as to beggar the imagination. Bush is corrupt, he has caused great ill and could caus emuch more. But compared to Hitler, or even someone like Saddam Hussein, Bush is a piker.

What's wrong with methadone? You know, JWayne, we had the discussion about the Vancouver Safe Injection Site over here., yet you continue to misrepresent its purpose. Why? Maybe, but crime is one element in a web of social problems, usually tied to poverty, marginalization, addictions etc. You seem to be advocating soem ouitdated, Victorian notion that crime is fundamentally a failure of character. No one's forcing you to watch it. Or they can get some proper information now to let them know that it's not wrong, you won't go blind or get hairy palms to counteract the shame and fear that society attaches to natural acts like masturbation and sex.

You have no cogent argument, no facts, no evidence, nothing. In fact, you've given me and everyone else here any reason to think you're anything but a 13 year old, sitting in his mom's basement with nothing better to do than troll message boards with your drivel. I think you should take up a new pasttime (I hear Halo 2 is pretty awesome), or maybe try reading a book or a newspaper. Anyway, you're wasting my time, and I won't bother with you anymore.

Probably because you didn't read the article, just the quote, and have no idea what you're talking about. They knowingly used false intelligence to create false impressions of Iraq's capabilities in order to justify the war. That's lying in anyone's book.