Black Dog

You also forget: "Those who vote Liberal because, as crappy and corrupt as they are, it's still better then giving Harper's Republican-lites the reins." These are probably the largest group of Liberal supporters out there.

I don't really give two shits what other posters think. I care even less for Coulter's latest screed, whatever it is. If folks want to find it, I can't stop them. if you want to post it yourself, go ahaead. I'm not going to sully myself with her. Lies my Annie told me. Slander errors. Surely there must be some right-wing pundits out there with some credibility that you could cite?

Would that be the same Hans Blix who is now saying the invasion was not justified by the evidence that existed at the time? U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs The fact is this: Bush wanted war with Iraq. Whatever the reason (oil, a new base of ME operations, revenge for Daddy, whatever) the WMD angle was the selling point. It's clear that there are no WMD, so either the nmost powerful contry in the world was fooled, or the WMD allegations were trumped up beyond reasonable levels. As to why Saddam stalled on inspections when he didn't possess WMD, Blix has raised the possibilities that Saddam wanted to create a mystique in the region that he had weapons; he had tremendous pride and saw himself as 'the emperor of Mesapotamia;' and he was engaging in brinkmanship, and belived the U.S. was bluffing. I have a tremendous sense of humopur. I just don't find hateful scum like Coulter amusing. Thus I didn't waste any time or brain cells on her article. How original.

Depends. What are my current living conditions like? Am I living in crushing poverty or otherwise not seeing any opportunity for advancement? Is Saddam's Iraq marketing itself as a beacon of freedom and a place of prosperity for all? I am I completely unaware of the often grim realities of Saddam's nation? If that was the case, sure, I'd possibly consider it.

Well, to me, the obvious starting point would be a complete Israeloi withdrawl from the OT and the dismantling of all settlements outside the pre-1967 borders. The question of how to build a cohesive civil society in the Palestinian areas is a little diceier. I'm afraid I don't have the answer to that, save for the idea that if Israel put half as much energy into working with the Palestinians as they currently put into the occupation, things would be a lot further ahead

Funny, I don't remeber the RCAF bombing Quebec City to rubble. As for the rest...Ann Coulter? You've got to be friggin' kidding me! Oh believe you me: I weep everytime I read anything by that psycho. They're tears of shame for a society where Ann Coulter is considered a legitmate pundit and is not ensconced in a nice quiet room with padded walls, a spiffy jacket with extra-long arms and lots of buckles and a steady stupply of happy pills. Ann Coulter: for those who find Joseph Goebbels "too liberal".

I fail to see why an American critic of American policy needs to attach a caveat listing the atrocities committed by other regimes throughout history when making his point. His intention is to highlight the hypocricys of America in particular and western civilization in general, and to counter the commonly held ideas of western benevolance and alturism by demonstarting th ecountless failures of the west. In that, he has no obligation to present the "other side".

Consider this: This is a gross oversimplification of Chomsky's work. But hey, my sugestion would be to read him for yourself.

A nice bit of historical revisionism. Throughout history, right-wing economic policies have corresponded with stagnation, recessions and generally poor economic performance. The greatest periods of prosperity where when quasi-socialist ideas (ie. high taxes for the rich) were implemented. It's the dinosaurs of the right that lack anything when it comes to new ideas. Because the current lifestyle that North Americans (who consume a ridiculous amount of resources) is simply unsustainable. The mantra of "growth is good" fails to take into account that we have limited resources and that the planet has a carrying capacity. If anything, we need to slow down and find better ways of balancing well-being with environmental and social realities.

This isn't news. Gues sthiongs must be heating up at the 9-11 hearings, so it's time for the old Chicken Little routine from the Bushies. Can you indicate which parts he did not comply with. In the run up to last year's invasion, I never once heard Bush or any of his officials speak of violations of the 1991 ceasefire as a justification for invasion. I suggest you google "Operation Desert Fox". Terrorism cannot be met with military force. That's the crux of the argument against the war on terror. So your argument (such as it is) is a non-starter.

Yes the Popular Party was polling well before the attacks (nowhere did I say otherwise). That doesn't mean his Anazar Iraq policy was not wildly unpopular (90 per cent of Spaniards were against it). So my facts are still correct. The only difference is the interpretation of the results. Whereas you and your ilk see it as a victory for terrorists (why that is, what "the terrorists gain" has yet to be demonstrated), I see it as a simple matter that the Spanish people chose to punish the Popular Party for making them a target. And they did so in droves (62% of the electorate voted, as opposed to 55% last time in 2000, with millions demonstrating against terrorism after the bombings ) And, last I checked, the decision to change one's mind was part of this whole thing we call "freedom".

Arafat and the PA control squat. Yes, he's as crooked as the day is long, but the PA as a whole lacks the resources and infastructure to govern Palestinian society and clampdown on groups like Hamas (which Israel helped create in the first place) and build a functioning civil society. Notwithstanding the fact that, histiorically, it is Israel that has precipitated escalations of violence through assassinations and military incursions, nowhere else in the world has it ever been incumbent on the occupied to end their own occupation. Israel holds the cards here. (By the way, the last comment of yours could easily be read as implying that Palestinians are rabid dogs that need to be killed. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, but nonetheless, that's dangerous ground.)

If history has shown anything, it's that people don't require an audience to perform horrible acts against their fellow man. We should never, ever turn away from these actions. Blindness and silence is the same as complicity. Yes, you are being frivolous.

No source? No breakdown of methadology? Just numbers? Totaly meaningless.

Moore: the left's answer to Limbaugh Chomsky: unassailable.

Okay with you so far... Except, that's not how the invasion was viewed in the Middle East, which is the key audience. Rather than a great experiemnt in humanitarian intervention, it was and is seen by a (justifiably) cynical Arab population as yet another example of western imperialism. After all, it's hard to take western claims of alturism and interest in Arab success seriously when we continue to support regimes like those Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt. I do wonder: why Iraq? Why not start this experiemnt with, say, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, states that already have pliant regimes dependent on U.S. support. It seems far easier to use economic and political leverage to push for democtratic reforms than to spend billions of dollars, thousands of lives trying to pull democracy out of the barrell of a gun in Iraq. In that context, is it any wonder western motives are questioned? In any case, your rationalization relies on accepting that the U.S.'s goals in Iraq are purely alturistic. I do not, nor do most people who oppossed the war, nor does much of the Arab world. And once again, you confuse rejection of Anazar's unpopular pro-war stance with capitualtion to terror. Try peddling that lline with someone from Spain and see how far that gets you. Flat on your arse, I imagine.

I don't think Jack ha sany i9nterest in attracting any right wing Reformatorie sto the party. By attacking Harper, he's sending a message to the Red Tory factions who may have stuck with the new party out of some sense of brand loyalty. That message is simple: the new Conservatives are merely the same old Reform/Alliance crowd. With the Liberals firmly ensconced on the right wing (sharing elbow room with the new Cons), anyone with any left or centirst leanings should look to the NDP. Overconfidence has been the end of many politicos. Layton has been doing a fantastic job of raising the NDP's profile (without, as some have noted, the benefit of a seat in the House). Of course he's going to look for any further opportunities to get the party's message out. That's his job. By calling out Harper, Jack wins both ways: Harper says no, and ends up loking scared or arrogant. He agrees and Jack takes the dull one to bits.

Lookee! Another straw man (or straw dog in this case.) As I said upteen times, the state already controls marriage. There's volumes of laws that would need to be overturned, precedents demolished, and basically a whole crapload of trouble to go through, and for what? Because people are jumping at shadows? The current system works alright, but needs to be more inclusive. The way it is now, if people want to marry in a church, synagoge, mosque or mud hut, they can. If they don't belive in any of the mumbo jumbo, they can still be wed by the state. A perfect example of the misconceptions around gay marriage.

Funny, it seems a lot of people in the developing world managed to get by before Nike and Coca Cola came calling. If sweatshop wages are the only recourse left, why is that? Why are there no sustainable, functioning and stable local alternatives? I'll tell you: because the west, through "free" trade (actually dumping), subsidies for domestic producers, IMF austerity measures and a host of other trade imbalances, destroys local markets and producers. The people who once made a living locally then have no where left to go but to the factories and free trade zones to slave away for pennies while North American stockholders reap the rewards. The idea that we're doing these people a favor by gutting local economies, and paying them a pittance for grueling work is ridiculous. It's economic colonialism, pure and simple. It hurts locals and it hurts us by sucking jobs out of our economy.

Then you haven't the faintest idea what appeasement means. What concessions are the Spanish people granting terrorists? Iraq and Al Qaeda were not even connected until Bush and his cronies decided to make it into a terrorist's rallying cry. Now, because of their nation's participation in Bush's adventure (again, against the will of the people), the Spanish people find themselves a target. Let me give you the scenario by which the terrorists "win". Spain keeps its troops in Iraq. More Spaniards die as a result. Repeat.

yes you are. You don't have to take to the streets to oppose the war. Again, you're peddling the faulty "with us or agin us" philosophy of George W. Bush, filing people into narrow boxes based on whether or not they would choose to participate in actions expressing their disgust with the invasion of Iraq. I took part in the marches last year. However, I know simply from talking to those who did not, by the carloads that drove past waving, honking and expressing their support for marchers that we on the street were not the only ones against the war. Indeed, as I said, we were (and are) the majority. Still beating the straw man of appeasment, I see.

Indeed? is that "what the terrorists want"? After the Madrid bombings I saw millions of Spaniards take to the streets to give voice to their outrage that these attacks happened and at Anazar's regime for making Spain a target. I saw signs saying "No to war, no to terror". And I saw a people who refuse to buy into the false and childish "with us or against us" dichotomy. Which is what you're presenting. Thank you Hugo. At least you're honest. But when I see criticism of people's democratic choices being couched in neggative terms as appeasement, I can't help but think that there are those who will only support democracy so long as it suits their needs or beliefs.

Anti-U.S policy, perhaps (a crucila difference). As for "arguable" facts, I've never seen Chomsky use anything but "official" sources (ie. the public record or actual government documents) to support his positions. Irrelevant. I don't know how well Chomsky's books move in Port a Prince, or if Barnes and Nobles Bahgdad carries his works, but the idea that "people want to come here, so we can't be too bad" is, at best, flimsy. Third world citizens want to come to the U.S. and west because of our reputation as a place where the downtrodden can make a better life for themselves. What Chomsky is saying is that the actions of the U.S. and the west play a big part of why people need to leave their homeland in the first place.

Of course you're wrong. Given the amount of derision being heaped on Layton by the Reformatory set, it's clear they're scared. They know Harper has about as much populist appeal as a dead fish, and that their Frankenparty is berfet of new ideas, or indeed, any policy that's not simply warmed over Reform swill, which Canadians east of Manitoba have consistently rejected. Even in the midst of the sponsorship scanadal, the Cons are full of sound and fury, but lacking in substance. Despite the media's tireless promotion of the Cons, Harper himself knows he wouldn't stand a chance if put on the hot seat, so he's staying out of any situiation that doesn't allow him to control the media environment. In other words: he's chicken. *Buckka bukka buk!*

I think KK doth protest too much. Nowhere does Chomsky indicate the U.S. is the enemy. Indeed, he consistently rejects such simplistic notions of "us and them", "good guys and bad guys, etc. In this case, he demonstrates that the U.S., in spite of high-minded rhetoric about fighting terror, is just as guilty of harbouring terrorists as any of the nations it deems enemies. Chomsky uses such examples of western hypocricy to subvert the notion that western nations are fundamentally morally superior.