theloniusfleabag

Dear kimmy, Huzzah and Bravo! Careful, though, I was taken to task by the moderator for referring to Anders as 'a moron'. What's worse, I am seriously thinking of voting conservative but Anders is the rep for where I live! Bah! I can't win for losing! Not only is there no viable candidate in my area, I get to find Anders' anti-gay, pro-religious propaganda in my mailbox!I, myself, am a secular, open-minded, left-wing conservative, so it is tough to find any decent people in our political system. The best and smartest people I know are too smart to go into politics. It seems a haven for retired lawyers and mafia-don wannabes. The House of Commons should hang a sign out front.."Wanted:Politicians. Weasels only need apply."

Dear Terrible Sweal, and again I think this may warrant an independent thread, as you have been doing, with your "Fundamental Questions". I have been thingking of some format to have these and other basic theories examined in their 'theorectical, pure form', but I haven't had the time recently. I also wasn't sure which category to put it under, Federal Politics (as it directly pertains to how our and other gov'ts process reality through dogmatic formulae) or under Moral and Religious Issues, as they are all founded on the moral principles of individuals, no matter how extreme.

Dear KalosSkilo, (Or should I say KalosPithecus? j/k) Do not forget, the Afghanis were primarily fighting an invader, who just happened to be the Soviets. A boon to the US, for they rushed to help the Afghanis, in order to strike a blow (of Vietnam-esque proportions) against their main enemy of the day, but the Afghanis were always fighting to keep Afghanistan under Muslim control and law, however fractious it may have been.

Dear Hugo, I have a copy of "We, The Living", and started it twice, but the taste of the bile in my throat became overwhelming. I guess, however, that by your definition she is a 'Conservative', not a true anarchist. Dear Hugo, this is the entire premise of anarchy! Every other derivitive implies "with the exception of...", whether it be based in Fantasyland or in 'Big Man' Thingi, Iceland, it means the immediate and total exclusion of rights from anyone else but yourself. Then, you negotiate what they will or will not have as 'rights' in your eyes, an endless and impossible process. However, I do promise to read some Thoreau and Rothbard, but Rand? Yeccch.

Dear cybercoma et al, This issue has been addressed, and Greg clearly stated that this is a political forum only. While I agree that there are many excellent people here, there is many other forums that have an open agenda, and are not as strict as this one. Some are pure BS, however, so beware.

Dear moderateamericain, Ayn Rand makes me puke. Besides, she is a classic anarchist, as is Hugo (who makes me want to think, not puke... thought I'd clarify), yet they commit an unpardonable sin of double-standards when they wish to quote 'law' yet deny collectivism. What is law but a collective agreement? If it isn't, it is oppression, the will of the few (or even majority) imposed upon those who do not wish it. Just as Hugo argues against the almighty power of the government, how can one accept the existence of 'law'? Or 'Rights', for that matter. Pure hypocrisy.

Dear KalosSkilo, This has been debated on another thread, however it is safe to say that the unbombed industrial capacity of the USA was indeed a crucial element of WWII. The opposite, I should say. The most over-valued, self-inflated and pompous nation in the world. Puter problems. Thanks for thinking of me, though. I couldn't get through on this forum nor KK for a long time. Gave up for a bit, and also am working on a book.

Dear August1991, You almost have it right here. In Gwynnne Dyer's book, "Future: Tense", he says much the same thing, but with a little more qualification. It is not a message to the 'tin-pot dictators', (since a good number of them are, or were, directly in the employ of the USA) but rather a message to the rest of the world. "The US will remain the sole superpower, and allow no one to even come close to them in terms of military capability, until the end of time". Further, the US also says it will have no regard for the UN, nor the wishes of any other gov't or peoples, and will act pre-emptively, without regard to fact or truth, as long as it serves the interests of the United States."The first bit about "being the sole superpower until the end of time" can be referenced through the Sept. 2002 document submitted to Congress called "The National Security Strategy Of The United States". It is to laugh, especially at this one. Written words formed the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Holy Bible. All of them were intended to produce more equality and inclusiveness, yet all have been considered 'the holy writ of the conservative'.I suppose I could argue that the right has always derived their self-worth with the sword and the gun, and been called 'liberators', while the leftists who sought to overthrow oppressive right-wingers (though calling themselves 'freedom fighters) were labeled 'the godless communist horde'. But yes, this digression is for another thread.

Dear moderateamericain, Yes, the 'undeserving', quite.

Dear moderateamericain, (I cringe every time I [mis]spell that name) Hardly. Look at the vote in the US last time around. The US voters were looking at many issues, not just the war ones when they narrowly elected GW Bush over Kerry last time around. Domestic issues were probably the biggest factor. In Britain right now, no one has any confidence in the other two parties.Just as in Canada. Many people would probably vote Conservative, even if out of spite against the Liberals, except hardly anyone trusts Harper to run Canada. The Conservatives, with the right leader, should be at about 80% popularity right now, but as it stands, even a scandal of epic proportions can't help make a 'shoe'in' run at the 'big prize'.

Dear KalosSkilo, This being the same Al-Qaeda that the US helped fund and abet in the overthrow of the Soviets in Afghanistan? The ones that were fighting for Islam and Shari'a Law to rule their lands? The ones that the US president(s) had been repeatedly warned about well before they were ever heard of in the media, let alone 9/11? The ones former Pres Clinton halfheartedly tried to kill (including Bin Laden) with a few cruise missile and predator drone strikes? How does the USA fighting it's former proxy guerillas and illegally invading countries translate into 'saving the world'? (You can also include Charles Taylor in your answer if you like. A former 'brutal dictator' supported and funded by the US, now causing trouble 'in exile'.)

Dear August1991, I think the purpose was to thwart the efforts of an evil madman, who hypnotized almost as many people as he killed. Canadians, as well as many of the other foriegn, and former, British Colonies realized early on that if they didn't 'join the fight now', they'd be going it alone later. Mammon is Janus-faced, and does giveth with one hand whilst he taketh away with the other. This is sadly too true.

Dear Terrible Sweal, Why? This is merely an extension of the free-enterprise ideal of 'Everyman for himself'. Perhaps it goes back to your thread "Fundamental Q#4", "What is a right?" and certainly, as a 'leftie', I agree with you regarding universal health care, but that does not mean the majority will. Some will argue that the 'quality' of health care can only improve if it is driven by the profit motive.Just think, if health care were to be privatized, the rich could afford the real doctors, and after the funding was cut to all Canadian hospitals, Wal-mart could buy them up and offer us wholesale rates from 'minimum wage Doctorbs' (The 'B' is for 'bargain!')

I got "ERROR 404" messages for days. Also "page not found'. I am assuming that this is merely a server glitch that will be ironed out, but is sure was annoying as I could only log on once in the last week or so. I am also guessing that the new user time means the server has been 'outsourced', which may have been a factor in getting the new format up and running. All the blue is indeed a bit much, but it is a nice 'non-violent colour', but a bit depressing. Some prisons had tremendous success with the colour pink when trying to curb aggression in prison facilities, so lets see if this new colour helps cut down on 'flame posting', lol.

Dear Terrible Sweal, As Hugo would say, there is no such thing, is is a metaphysical thing, not a tangible thing. There really isn't anything to 'rights', save what you are granted by others. You cannot create your own, it is all about recognition by others. Rights are generated by power (same as property ownership), that being a gun, an army or a government. A 'right' comes into being when others aquiesce to your wants and or needs. Even life itself is only a right in the metaphysical, it is our hope that everybody else agrees, but even then there are no guarantees.

Dear cybercoma, I vote, but don't really care as there is very little to choose from in any practical sense. I won't vote for the Liberals, though I am 'left of centre' I think the NDP is misguided, the CPC candidate in my neighborhood is The Villiage Idiot, so it doesn't give me much to choose from. Last time around i voted Green, but I have not heard anything to make me think it was a wise expentiture. Brian Mulroney took the Progressive Conservative Party (now there's an oxymoron) to the biggest downfall any political party has ever seen due to his personal 'alleged' corruption, among a few other reasons, so it makes me think that the liberals are only 'the crooks in residence', and the CPC's are merely 'the crooks in exile'.As to looking forward to an election, that would imply some sort of hope. What I would really like to see is a 'srtong Canadian' get elected as dictator, for a tenure of some 20-30 years, who would offer different 'bills and laws' to vote on, and have that person live on only an expense account, publicly approved of, and would only receive their salary upon retirement.

Dear Pateris, I can't believe a politician would promise something to the electorate and then renege after the election. People might disparagingly start calling that "An Election Promise". Seriously, though, at the time, it was my opinion (and the opinion of many others) that Joe Who got turfed with a non-confidence vote because he was too honest. Everyone knew that the tax increase was coming, (I remember seeing a video in school of puppets (ala 'Spitting Image') of Joe Clark singing (to the tune of the Bee Gee's 'Stayin' Alive) "Stayin' Alive, With 6/5". There were also fake bank notes printed up as jokes, with Joe Who and the phrase "A Fool and his Fuel are soon Parted". As for the popularity of Trudeau, he was Canada's 'philosopher king' coming out of the hippie era (his wife smoked pot with the Rolling Stones), he was outdoorsy (an avid canoeist,etc) and left wing, to many 'A Real Canadian'. His blackest mark will always be the NEP, and deservedly so, but he had charisma and occasionally an elegant charm, something sorely lacking in almost all political arenas.

Dear moderateamericain, Being a 'moderate Canadian' would mean that you were not an 'extremist Canadian', by putting Canada's interests first. Let's take Saddam Hussein as an example of a 'moderate' in the Stockwell example of serving US intersts. Saddam was seen by some as a dictator, thug, and Ba'athist extremist. However, he served US interests by fighting Iran, (while the USA got richer by selling arms to both sides) and by providing oil to the US (some 50+% of Iraq's production was sold to the US in the month before the invasion of Iraq so the US could 'top up' it's strategic reserve). The USA was actually on very good terms with Saddam right up until the invasion of Kuwait in 199o.Noriega is another example, with him being cast in the light of 'brutal dictator', while being on the US Army payroll for 31 years, and the CIA's for 15 years prior to the illegal invasion of Panama.

Dear Terrible Sweal, It will ever be so, until the individuals of the human race begins to value it's and all existence as greater than individual rights. And acknowledges it willingly.Dear moderateamericain, I vaguely agree with you, but your definitions are a bit off. As defined by my Standard College Dictionary, (Funk & Wagnall's Canadian Edition, 1963), Liberal: 1.Characterized by or inclining towards opinions or policies favouring progress or reform, as in politics or religion. 2. Not intolerant or prejudiced; broad-minded. Moderate: one who is not extreme, either in politics or religion. (recently, as former CIA Col. John Stockwell once said, "It has to do with whether or not you serve US interests. If you do, then you're a moderate". This applied to people who otherwise were viewed by many as 'dictators and thugs', such as Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, and Charles Taylor in Liberia.) I basically agree with the 'extreme' bits though.

Dear PocketRocket, As much as I would love to see that, and as much as it is needed, I haven't got high hopes for any significant change. Dear Argus, Too bad for Chretien that Canada isn't more like the States, where every outgoing President automatically gets a full pardon for 'anything they did or might have done'. A clean slate, like you suggest, might be refreshing. It might be interesting to see a Conservative minority tempered by the NDP.

Dear kimmy, Hitler (not that there is any comparison to the level of 'crimes') was once beloved by millions, at home and abroad, but when the feces hit the fan, everyone blamed him and him alone. The 'adscam affair' has allegedly exposed deep corruption and neither Chretien nor Martin will ever be viewed in the same light again.

Dear Slavik44, Unfortunately, Mother Theresa is much too dead to be Pope (besides the fact that she was a *woman*).I believe the qualifications include 'nearly dead', not 'already dead'. While I can understand the Church wanting to 'reaffirm their stand' against the changing moral values of society, such a stand is unlikely to win them many converts. I think appointing Chris Rock would have done wonders for recruitment, but he might not have been trusted to 'toe the party line' when it came to moral judgement.

Dear PocketRocket, I have to completely agree with your above post, that for some children, spanking is a neccesary evil. I was also deemed 'a hyperactive' child, and I am old enough to remember 'the strap' in school. (I only got it once, and I 'smartened up' enough to not get it again). However, I do believe the gov't recently upheld the 'spanking law'. I believe society has gone a bit downhill with the absence of 'mild, corrective' corporal punishment.Nowadays, kids like me are given excuses and drugs for 'bad behaviour', where I was given a spanking and told exactly why what I did was wrong. They have names like ADD, or 'aggressive/defiant syndrome, but when I was a kid, it was called 'being a little bastard' and you got your ass whooped, rather than an excuse made for you. As Hugo points out, different methods may work for some parents, as he believes a 'time out' is enough of a consequence to get the message across. Good for him, as he may have generally good kids to begin with, and has not had to deal with 'severe' problems that might require a whoopin'. When I was a kid, my best friend and I (I was about 10) were in his basement right after halloween. He lit a match and set a bowlful of candy wrappers of fire and then we tried to play catch with the flaming bowl. We burnt the carpet a bit, but his mom caught us trying to clean it up, and she called my mom, and guess what...I got a wooden spoon across the ass a few times when I got home. Looking back, we could have died and or killed someone, but the spanking taught me to abandon by pyro-maniac ways. It might have been fun at the time, but the punishment wasn't worth it, and I did not have the 'intelligence' to look back at the possible consequences as I do now.

Dear Digby, Most times preachers are like snake-oil salesmen. They are selling you what you want to hear..."Whatever you got, this'll cure it! Guilt? Fear of death? We got the cure for you!" Not to be callous, but I suspect that the preacher at your grandmother's funeral was telling the people what they wanted to and expected to hear.

I have noted several great points throughout this thread, the best I think is by Argus... All too true, and most people who enjoy using the derogatory will continue to do so, regardless of what we change the 'name of a rose' to. jccc: Next thing you know, we'll be renaming 'Lake Titicaca', and changing the language 'Hebrew' to 'Webrew'.. (thank you "Duckman")