Black Dog

It's pretty clear, Fanatic, that your problem isn't with gay marriage so much as it is with gay people. You obviously are uncomfortable (to put in mildly) with the idea of conseual relationships between individuals of the same gender. Well, in case you haven't noticed, Fanatic, consesuel gay sex is legal. Sodomy laws were struck down a long time ago (no doubt accompanied by much the same teeth-gnashing and wailing about how such an action would bring about the downfall of soceity). Well, society is still here and all the stuff you mention (incest, bestiality and all the othe red herrings you constantly trot out) is not relevant to the issue of same sex marriage. It's simple fear-mongering, unsupported by facts.

I think that it says more about the global animosity towards Bush than anything about Kerry. Well, that's damning with faint praise. Steyn, while I violently disagree with every word the man writes, at least attempts to sound credible. Coulter is a rabid liar who belongs in a padded cell.

But what he meant was: "Bad for the Conservative Party." Nice drive by smear. But th epoint of public entities isn't to be profitable, but to provide a service to citizens. The above is a fine example of neocon dogma in action.

Last I checked, foreign leaders don't elect U.S. presidents. Oh, and Ann Coulter is f**king nuts.

Yeah, Clinton bombed a medicine factory in Sudan, launched Desert Fox against Iraq, participated in the questionable NATO bombing campaign in the former Yugolsavia, just to name a few. However, Clinton ain't president anymore. Bush is. And his voodoo economics and dependence on corporate special interests are hurting lower and middle class Americans. The tax cuts are geared to benefit the rich. More than half of Bush's $674 billion package will go toward eliminating the tax on stock dividends. It's a tax cut whose overwhelming benefit will go to the wealthiest Americans, people more likely to sock the cash away than spend it. At the same time, Bush is plundering social programs, including one's of his own creation. For example, he sliced $400 Million out of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and underfunded his own "No Child Left Behind" program by $8 billion. He took a surplus and turned it into a defecit almost overnight while pouring money into corporate welfare projects like Missle Defence. Well, speaking for myself, I'm not going to blow the Democrats' horn for them. Once you get past the surface, there's precious little difference between the two parties. However, I also believe Bush is exceptionally bad because of the sheer audacity of the propaganda and the new depths of corruption his administration represents with respect to special interests. So claims the Democrats are the party of special interests are downright laughable.

Well said cgarrett. I don't undertsand the attitude of people who bitch about the wages of "uppity" unionized workers. It seems to be part of some "race to the bottom" mentality that would rather see someone else deprived of what they have than see everyone brought to a higher standard.

Let's get this discussion back on track. Haitain Unrest was U.S. a U.S.-led coup Aristide continues to insist he was forced to flee by American forces. Meanwhile, the U.S-backed advisory council has picked a new PM. At home, some elected officials are starting to question th eU.S.'s rol ein Aristide's ouster: Probing U.S. ties to Haiti coup Why are the hawks who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the name of spreading democracy still silent over this?

people, people....make up your minds. On the one hand, many of the same folks arguing for the state to get out of marriage are also arguing elsewhere that same sex marriages pose a grave threat to society. But if a marriage is only a matter that concerns the individuals involved, then the gender of the participants shouldn't matter to anyone else or have an impact on society at large. So: is marriage simply a "contract: between two people or is it, as many same-sex marriage opponents say, an institution that is vital to the function of society. If the former, then gay marriage shouldn't be a problem. If the latter, then state involvment is not only justifiable, it is vital.

White House for sale Private dollars are is overwhelming public campaign funds, giving big monied special interests the inside track on the presidential race. And no one better exemplifies the rise of special interest cash and its role in undermining the public interest than George W. Bush. Bush has never met a chequebook he didn't like, and is very generous when it comes to paying back his friends. Americans can sense their voices are being drowned out by the sound of cash registers. Voters are apathetic, disinterested and cynical of the whole process. America is becoming the best democracy money can buy.

Not everything, no. But a good-sized chunk of the blame can be laid squarely at our doorstep. Recognizing our faults and acknowledging our crimes is not "self-loathing", but based on a desire to improve the way things are. It's possible to recognize the positive contributions of western civilization (ie. ideals of human rights, democracy and pluralism), while acknowledging taht we don't always live up to them. Which is a damn sight more nuanced, mature and, ultimately, positive view than "were the bestest and perfectest." Yeah: me. Oh brother. Acknowledging the historical realities of the "clash of civilizations" which date back to the Crusades is not making any judgement on the condition of Arab/Muslim society then or now. And the rest of your post is just incoherent jibber-jabber rife with misrepresntations and gross simplifications. In other news... Blix says Iraq war may have worsened terror threat

I'm confused. How is this possibly a good thing? So instead of having a range of candidates or parties representing a range of views, you end up getting to choose between the lesser of two evils. How is that a choice at all?

You're right: Buish made a mockery of the UN and its members. You're playing politics with the facts, but whatever. Have their been any such warnings? NO! Indeed, that's not even how the system works. The system simply indicates the "threat level" from nnon-specific terror attacks and advises how to prepare for it. Danger! Danger! Uh...isn't that a good thing? I though the point was to prevent terror attacks, not make sur ethey go off without a hitch, which is what the above implies. I never said or implie dI truste dtheir intelligence. Quite the opposite, really, which is why I think the terror alerts are a sham. We don't know what they are based on (and certainly have reason to doubt the credibility of the intellegence used), we don't know if they actually enhanc epublic safety and we don't know if they prevent terror attacks. I think we can both agree that emergency pre[paredness is a good thing under any circumstance. That's not the issue. The issue is the effectivenes sof the DHS Terror Alerts and whether they are useful or just political tools. Somethings been bugging me about tehse terror warnings that I haven't been able to put my finger on till now. And that's the capacity for these things to be abused. Since the public doesn't know what the government is basing changes to the threat level on, its not unrealistic to think that the DHS could raise or lower the threat level and take actions (for instance, suspension of civil liberties, matial law etc) whenever they felt like it, and we'd never know why. The capacity for abuse here is, IMO, quite high .

There's no hard and fast definitions of "left" and "right". For instance, the left includes evrything from moderate social democrats to anarchists, while the right can include everything from social and fiscal conservatives to laisze faire capitalist libertarians.

I think I've detailed the role U.S. agribusiness has in Haiti's economic troubles fairly well, but there's lots of good resources out there on this and other trade and development issues. May I suggest you check out Oxfam International? They do great work on fair trade issues, which is very much part of this whole picture. Take a look and then we can have a discussion elsewhere.

Al Q'aeda's "manifesto", if you will, is well known. Their reasons well-documented. "They like to kill", while great for dehumanizing one's enemies, doesn't wash. After all, it's not that difficult to turn your reasoning (such as it is) around. From a different perspective, the same argument could be used with regard to American troops in Iraq ("they just like to kill Arabs"). It's equally invalid. Violence, be it war or acts of terrorism, always occurs within a social or political context. Attempts to decontextualize acts of terror ("They hate our freedoms etc.") are merely to dismiss the possibility that "our" actions have a bearing on "their" motivations. Rose-coloured glasses? Hell, you're wearing a blindfold.

Clinton bombed Iraq. Bush invaded the place, expending billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The connection between the Anglo-American assault on Iraq and the events of 9-11 is specious, since there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime with the WTC/pentagon attacks. As for WMDs, the issue of questionable intelligence used by the U.S. and its allies is well-documented. However its worth noting that Iraq was complying with UN weapons inspectors (albeit slowly). The Un inspection teams were withdrawn only when it became clear that Bush was hell-bent on invading, even without UN authorization. Now THAT'S what I'd calla n abuse of power. Absolutely. Bush is much worse. That's the government's job to determine. Warnings without specdifics are simply counterproductive. I'm not arguing against emergency public warnings. However, they should only be used in the case of an identifiable threat. The current system is just to vague too be of any use and contributes (neddlessly) to an atmosphere of fear, not to mention the potential for the systems abuse for political purposes. Keeping a home safety kit and an emergency plan is always a good idea. SARS, severe weather: all examples of clear, identifiable threats to public safety. Comparing, say, a severe weather advisory based on existing conditions with specific details of what to do and vague warnings of a terrorist threat is a matter of apples and oranges. Bollocks. If you want to choose to hide in your basement bunker with a helmet and gas mask and 10,000 rolls of duct tape, that's your business. However, the government's job is to safeguard public safety, not spread hysteria. I could just as easily argue that terror warning (and yes, they are extremely vague) take away my right to live free of fear and propaganda. This speaks more to the power of media images than the threat of further terror attacks. How many Americans die each year in traffic accidents? Yet are people terrified of getting into their vehicles? No. Are the thousands of deaths that occur each year as a result of AIDs or otehr diseases somehow less tragic because they aren't on TV? Fact is 9-11 was a drop in the bucket casualty wise (indeed, the subsequent bombing of Afghanistan claimed more civilian lives than the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon). However, the images, the psychic shock of seeing it unfold before our eyes left an indelible imprint and generates a very emotional response. Actually, terrorism is less about numbers than it is about "shock and awe": that's why the 9-11 attackers chose symbols of America's economic and military power as their targets instead of, say, Disneyland or some othe rplace where they could have maximized the body count.

That's one poll. Of just over 1,000 Baghdad residents. Your articles condradict themselves. but later... And since you love stroking polls, here's anothe rone for you: Poll finds most Iraqis oppose occupation Proving...well, nothing. Except that opinion polls are pretty open to spin. No where did I say the U.S planned to stifle the elections. But, one way or another, the next Iraqi regime will be very U.S. friendly. If not, they'd soon be replaced by one that is Oh and this was pretty funny. So all of a sudden the "irrelevant" UN can come play in the country it refused to sanction the invasion of? ??? I was talking about the U.S.'s habit of ousting democratically elected regimes that don't suit their interests. Iran. Chile. Venezuala (attempted, but stay tuned), Haiti, just to name a few.

It's within the realm of possibility. But so is winning the lottery and getting hit by a meteor on the same day. Fact is, Bush et al claimed Saddam had large stockpiles of WMD that constituted a threat to the west. To date, no WMDs or evidence of active WMD programs have been found. The U.S. has even scaled back it's hunt for weapons and the former head WMD hunter, David Kay, is on record saying he doesn't believe they existed. Bush himself has distanced himself from claims linking Al Q'aeda and the former Iraqi regime. There is no credible intelligence to indicate this to be the case. I don't know about this, but if true, it should be noted that the area in question is controlled by Iraqi Kurds and, up until the start of the Anglo-American invasion, protected by U.S. and British forces. So there's still no link between Saddam and Al Q'aeda.

I give a big "Yikes!" everytime I see someone say there's sucha thing as "too much freedom". I highly doubt this. I sure don't see too many palaces around.

Oh? Show me where this is so. As for my argument being moot, it is not. The point I''m making is the government the Iraqi people choose (if they ever get the chance to do it) will be little more than a docile, American quisling government. theAgain, teh U.S. is not intereste din Iraqi self-determination, but in having a pliant regime in power. Why? It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Do you actually have anything intelligent to add, or do you just want to keep spewing your lies (you haven't backe dup a single claim you've made)? So put up or....

That's hi-freaking-larious coming from a G.O.P supporter. You wouldn't know shit from bad chocolate, baby. Thank goodnes sthat folks liek you, who "know what's good for this country" aren't running the show. Oh crap. They are. We're screwed.

Ah, yes. Collusion, price fixing, consumer gouging: the "free market" in action.

You need to get your head into the real world. there are profound differences between firrst world countries like Iceland and a third worl nation like Haiti, a former slave colony with a 200 year history of political and economic strife. Why is blaming the U.S. "silly"? You've not countered any of the reasons I've given as to how the U.S. has contributed an dbenefited from the basket case that is Haiti. Indeed, your inability to grasp a simple and recognized economic concept like commodity dumping shows either a simple ignorance of economic and political realities, or deliberate wrongheadedness. Nothing exists in a vacum and Haiti is a prime example of a nation that has been unable to develop on its own, free from the post-imperial machinations of the west. Anyway, here's some more background on how western intervention has kept Haiti poor and chaotic. Haiti: 1984-1996

Give me a break. Do you honestly believe if the Iraqi people were to choose, say, a rabid, Islamist anti-American government, that the U.S. (having spent billions of diollars and hundreds of lives in the place) would just shrug its shoulders and say "Oh well. the people have spoken." As I've noted elsewhere (and history backs me up) the US only respects democracy so long as it serves its purposes.