Black Dog

Uh, no. See, the gentleman in question has been front and centre at a number of these controversies in the past. Conidence? Bad luck? I don't think so. But then critical thought seems a little too much for you to handle.

Lowering the AoC won't stop kids who are biologicallly ready for sex as young as 13 from acting on those biological urges. Unlike voting and drinking, sex is a natural part of human development. You can't legislate against sexual desire, nor do I think it's wise to place unrealistic limits on human sexuality (between consenting individuals) in hopes of maintaining some sort of idealized state of innocence for the kiddies. What confuses me is the relatively modern notion of children and "innocence". A couple of generations ago, teenagers were considered old enough to marry, hold real jobs etc. The period between childhood and adulthood now called adolescence is a social construct. In

No, stupid, what I'm saying is that Mr. Parlock is clearly a Republican operative specializing in generating negative media attention for the Democrats by staging these events with his children. Yeesh.

But we're not talking about the middle class, are we? We're talking about the 10 percenters. (Indeed, I'd wager the majority of Vietnam-era draft dodgers were solidly middle class). The middle class is just as much a victim of class politics as the lower class. Witness Bush's tax policies in action.

Those damn Demo-rats even make little girls cry! Oh no! The sorry story. Man, Mr. Parlock really has bad luck!

Go get a spoon. WTF?

So what is Islamism a symptom of? And how would one destroy Islamism, extactly? An ideaology has no home base, knows no borders and no physical form. You might as well try to destroy ennui. Furthermore: how does one decide who are adherents to "Islamism"? Even Wahabbist Islam is not monolithic, so who shall be the ultimate arbiter of who is a "good" Muslim and who is a "bad" Muslim? I've not seen a single poster defend any of the backward, superstious, repressive regimes you name, nor apologise for the doctrines of radical Islam. I think it's time you came up with an argument actually rooted in reality, instead of these shoddy ad hominems. They only serve to highlight the weakness of your position and your own dubious moral relativism. More ad hominem b.s. If anyone has betrayed Enlightenment values, it's you through your semi-tacit approval of atrocities and crimes committed in the name of thos evalues. There can be no moral flexibility in condemning crimes against humanity. Let's not kid ourselves: the slaughter of Chechnya's people, the endorsement of repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia by the west, the continued oppression of Paletine are as much crimes against humanity as the slaughter in Beslan. The difference is you condemn the latter and excuse the former. I can't make much sense of such a position and the intellectual dishonesty that is required to peddle it. As we've seen (and there's no better example than your quote ) there's no level you won't stoop to in an attempt to score cheap rhetorical points and deliberately misrepresent and demonize anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint. In fact, I'll go further and state your position is intellectually bankrupt and fundamentally fallacious. A mile wide and an inch deep. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. If it were otherwise, you'd be capable of articulating a position beyond "Destroy Islamism" and would have no need to slur opponents with false accusations.

How so? I'd say it's more a matter of class warfare: certain segments of the population are going to be more vulnerable than others. So while someone from, say, Kennebunkport, Conneticut, can spend their mandatory service time on weekends between keggers at Yale, the kid from South Detroit is going to wind up in a Humvee in the streets of Najaf.

IBM and the Holocaust Ford and the Fuhrer No, I'm acknowledging historical facts to highlight the fallacy of the current (and widespread) analogies between the threats posed by modern "Islamism" and historical fascism. My predjudices towards U.S. corporations are largely irrelevant. No, most wars are fought on practical matters such as money, resources and turf. "Freedom", "democracy" are usually just buzzwords designed to make the masses believe the ideals they are dying for are noble.

But the western ruling classes liked Hilter. Fascism was a wildly popular ideology in the '30s among the rich and powerful, who liked the ideas of merging state and corporate power, bashing unions and socialists. American corporations like IBM and Ford supplied the Nazis right up till the U.S's entry into the war. So it's a specious analogy. Really, it's a tautology. Imperialism. nationalism. Too many armys. But the "cause" of the war was the death of the Ottoman empire and the rival claims of Russian and Austria in the Balkans.

[sarcasm]Now now: there shall be no ruminating about such trivial matters of cause and effect. Why, you're just excusing Hitler. Maybe you're just a Hitler supporter...[/sarcasm]

Worse than Vietnam?

H.R. 163 S. 89 I'm not sure if these are technically about the draft, but rather mandatory military service along the lines of countries like Israel, Greece, Switzerland and many others. I'm surprised this issue has gotten more attention period. But I think we know why: it'd hardly be in Bush's best interests to talk about reinstating the draft in the midst of a tight campaign. The real irony here is that the draft could brought back by a draft-dodger.

As Hugo states, there's something to be said for breaking an unjust law. "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!" I doubt the cafe was selling drugs to minors. I wonder how many liquor stores are in the same vicinity. Gee and these modest gains have only come as a result of some of the harshest drug policies in the world. For example, the number of people imprisoned for drug offences in the U.S. increased 213 per cent between 1980 and 1992. Today, nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. And while cannabis use may be declining, pot and other drugs are as available as ever. There's a difference between acknowledging that some teens are going to use pot now and then (just like most teens are going to illegally use alcohol) and therefore supporting sensible drug policies, and "advocating teen drug use." Gee, and if pot were legal, what would happen to these biker gangs and grow ops? Apparently, our society has yet to learn any lessons from prohibition eras of the past.

deleted

Again: what's your beef with his analysis? Even if it entails mass slaughter of civilians? Indefinite arrest and detention? Rape and pillage? Would that be the proper, manly response in your books? I mean, all the Americans did was invade two countries, detain thousands of suspects indefinitely, kill tens of thousands of civilians, and create a new precedent for unilateral military action wheneve rthey damn well pleas. I mean: what a bunch of pussies. Oooh "obscurantism". "Dilettantism." Someone hide the thesarus. Tell me, are these fancy words there to hide the fundamental lack of a coherent thesis? You complain about the "western analysis" without saying what it is and what your problem with it is. You praise "the Russian response" without having any clue what it might entail. What is your point?

The U.S. economy is already struggling under the weight of the deficits of the wars on "terror" and Iraq. I don't think they can afford another war. Startegically, they're not ina good position either. Invading Iran would require an invasion via Iraq, which would essentially open up a second front and leave Iraq essentially without a leg to stand on. Then there's the question of trops: the Iraq force is already streched thin, and while they could probably summon enough troops from reserves and other postings to do the job, they'd probably need a draft or some quick way to replenish tehir troops. Let's not forget many of the troops in Iraq have been there since the invasion: I don't think any would be eager to march to Tehran. From a military perspective, Iran has a large, relatively modern fighting force (compared to Iraq's) and would certainly put up a fight. In addition, even if the invasion succeded, does anyone think an occupation would not face the same pitfalls as the one in Iraq? Finally, invading Iran would confirm (in the minds of Muslims world wide) that the U.S is on a crusade against Islam. Terrorism, violence and strife would escalate. In short, invading Iran would be utter folly: which is why I wouldn't put it past Bush and company to do it.

Oh boo hoo. You have a divergent opinion? A good argument to make? Give'r. There's no party lines and no idealogical slant to this board. When I started, it was populated by predominately right-wing posters. Now I'd say it's pretty even. And that's good. The discussion and divergence of opinion is why I keep coming back. Who wants an echo chamber anyway?

The CBC shoukd do what they did during the last stoppage: show classic games like the Soviet/Montreal New Year's game from 1976, or Sittler's 10-point night, or any of the great Oilers/Islanders playofffs. Now the OSHL is a good concept: I like the four on four, no centre line stuff. But some of the rules (Periods will be 17 minutes;Line changes can only be made on the fly; all minor penalties are taken as penalty shots with chasers; and at the end of each period, two players from each team will take part in a shootout) are ridiculous.

What does this have to do with the facts that there's been no evidence of a Sddam/AQ connection? Nor have you been able to back up your contention that Canada allows terrorists to claim refugee status. It has nothing to do with intellectual snobbery. Given that you are either unwilling or unable to offer any evidence to support your arguments (beyond invoking "common sense", which is a complete contradiction), you can't expect to be taken very seriously on a discussion board or anywhere else for that matter. That, my friend, is "common sense."

Gee, didn't see that coming. Why, it's like you're reading from a set of "War on terror" talking points. The 9-11 hijackers (assuming they were who we're told they were) are but 13 examples. There's countless more examples of the poverty-stricken and oppressed turning to radicalism and terror. look at Palestine. Look at Iraq. And now, look at Chechnya. Funny, the only people who've mentioned American foreign policy on this thread have been the terror war's advocates. Fortunately, I'm not so simple-minded. U.S. (and western as a whole) foreign policy does indeed play a role: the west's favoritism of Israel over Arab nations, the invasion of Iraq, the support for repressive regimes and so forth. But it's one cause among many. I'm hope to god you're not a doctor. "You had a minor heart attack. But it's too late to attack the cause. Sure you could look at your poor diet and lack of exercise, but it's futile. You're just going to have to die." Putting aside your persistant habit of drawing specious comparisons, I'd wager there were many lessons to be learned from Hitler's rise to power. "Those who ignore the lessons of history blah blah blah."

The Red's could have turned Manhattan into a glass parking lot. The Islamists are forced to scurry about in caves, while those affiliated with the broad ideology (let's not be foolish enough to think Al Q'aeda is a large and nebulous organization, while the ideaology itseldf is by no means monolithic) strike wherever they can with whatever means they can aquire. A few spectacular successes doesn't mean they are a real threat to our way of life. As I said, they've yet to even bring down a government in their own sphere of influence. I do, however, acknowledge "they" (a term I'll employ for purposes of this discussion only) are gaining strength. That's partially due to the continuation opf the condistions and circumstances that gave rise to teh ideaology in the first place, as well as the heavy-handedness of the western crusade against terrorism, which is making the jihadist vision of a clash of cultures and a western war on islam very real to many devotees. What does this have to do with the price of teas in China. I'm getting really sick of being accussed of harbouring som efondeness for despotic regimes and backwards religious ideologies, when the exact opposite is true. Oh, no doubt. But, given the historical animosity between Russia and Chechnya, was Putin's ill-fate dinvasion, and subsequent istallation of a pro-Moscow government the solution? Hindsight is 20-20 and all that, but there's no doubt that Putin was motivated by many factors, several of which we've touched on here. (And given the state of the Russian economy, free press and political system, criminals and thugs" are hardly a Chechyan creation alone). Again, no one's quibbling with the idealogical underpinings of thE particular strain of Islamist thought in question. It's regressive and totalitarian: that train has already left the station. The discussion is not of the ideology itself, but how it became a force in the Islamic world in the first place. Do you have a point? I certainly don't see you purchasing your ticket to Afghanistan or Iraq to wage war on the jihadis. So why don't you "think of the children!!!" and go pitch in? I'll even spot you $5 for an AK. If you want to talk personal responisbility, the folks who attacked the school bear the ultimate responsibility for their actions, just as the Palestinian suicide bomber, Iraqi militiaman, American gunship pilot, Russian paratrooper, or IDF sniper bear the ulimate responsibility when their actions cause uneccesary suffering and death (though the action's of the latter three are far more likely to be rationalized away by sniveling "small l liberals" and their conservative bretheren). But when we're not talking about who pulled the trigger. We're talking about the events that led to the trigger being pulled, the motivations of the trigger-pullers and the political/social circumstances that contirbuted to the whole process. Cause and effect. No one ever woke up and randomly decides "Gee, I think I hate America/Russsia/freedom today. I think I'll just pop down and shoot some kids." That would be the crux of the narrative you are pushing: Islamists are evil and want to destroy us because they are Islamists and, therefore, evil.

You thought wrong. There's no major TV deal in place, expansion revenue is gone and most teams are struggling. It's funny: time was, I would have sympathized with the players. Now, I find their reluctance to take on a salary cap rather counterproductive. In the meantime, though, the owners aren't much better, but I think a salary cap, combined with some form of revenue sharing or luxury tax, is the only way to go. I also think they should contract a few of the lame duck franchises like the..uh..Ducks. In the meantime, I'll just be watching the NFL.

First, can you give any evidence that Canada harbours terrorists by gioving them refugee status? Give me one example. Just one. Interestingly, all of the 9-11 atackers made it through the U.S.legitimately (including the three whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" program). And gee, and it's not like the U.S. harbours terrorists (like Cuban exile Orlando Bosch, who was pardoned by Bush 1, despite having blown up a Cuban jetliner in 1976, killing all on board). Why, between these misconceptions and your persistant belief in a bin Laden/Saddam connection (despite a total lack of evidence and a disavowal of such a link by U.S. officials), it appears you don't really know what your on about.

Israel invaded Lebanon, and has historically shown a predilication to striking first when it feel strheatened. Iran, on the other hand, has not attacked anyone in the 25 year history of the Islamic Republic. Is there any reason to think they'd start now?