marcinmoka

*Just on observation on your method* Day and night, you write posts trying to illustrate global warming as a myth, a lie propagated by "Eco - Nazi's" and flying in the face of the vast majority of Scientific Research. Do you just spend your days scouring the internet looking for far flung support from the 5% of nay sayers? Odd, since upon seeing any supporting evidence or statements from the 95% majority, you systematically deny it as being the work of these so called "Eco Nazis". Sure GreenPeace people can be a little (or considerably) off their rocker, and many solutions unjustly target the developed world, but that does not mean it's wrong. Even the most adamant industrialists have accepted that the "unknown" factor is something we should be concerned about. Perhaps we do not know the exact extent mankind is having an impact, but the rate it is taking place is worrying. And like insurance, it's better to offset a TINY fraction of present day income as means of ensuring some greater future stability. I would imagine a few centuries earlier, you would be calling out Copernicus as one of those "Helio Centric Nazi's" propagating lies.

And to whom are you loyal to? A democratic nation of Canada or extremists wishing upend the rule of law?

On a lighter note, I'm glad (for my sake especially) we never enforced such measures during the Cold War. Poor ol' Roncesvalles would of just not been the same.

I see where you are going, but a. Lebanon is not considered too much a threat, at least not relatively. b. The big ruckus was raised over dual citizens residing in Lebanon who kept a Canadian Passport in case the level of instability in Lebanon sky rocketed and they needed a "backup". I don't think anyone (except a few "special" characters from this site perhaps) put into question the loyalty of the typical Lebanese family who has been living here for the past 20 years and considers themselves Canadian, and for whom Lebanon is now at most considered a "tourist" destination.

Yes. Yes it was. Ditto. Not to mention it puts you at a massive disadvantage. If you are concerned with peoples "loyalty" because of their ethnicity or religion or what not, you can be distracted to the real threats, i.e. those who look like "friendlies" or "loyalists" on the surface but in reality, are far from it.

Labour, yes. But goods? And that impediment can have adverse effects on the American economy. The big irony as I see it? Closing off the nation and restricting economic growth is pretty much letting the subversive forces win.

Let us not forget that even the act of moving production abroad to a nation such as India would not guarantee viability since there is no assurance they would produce cars people actually want. 300C's and Mustang's are all fine and dandy, but they represent but a small sliver of the line ups. Besides, it would be partisan "cause celebre" for the upcoming elections, where the candidate who makes the most (empty??) promises to salvage an inefficient industry can have the backing of a major state. Nonetheless, it is a shame. Ford has some interesting, and seemingly desirable offerings in Europe ( Mondeo, C-Max, etc) and even G.M's Saturn subsidiary is starting to revive it's fortunes with more progressive designs (primarily from Opel), albeit their non-unionized labour force does not hurt either, since it helped them weather through hard times. But either way, unless there is serious health care reform down south, Michigan will be a loser, both in the short and mid terms, but hopefully it will give even greater momentum to push forth the dire reforms. Granted, if our precious $CAD comes back down to earth (hopefully in not too distant a future), this could bode relatively well for Ontario, and that is what concerns me the most. There is a reason Toyota chose Ontario, other than cost effectiveness, and that is skill and quality. While they do manufacture vehicles in the American south, they would not *dare* manufacture a Lexus elsewhere on this continent. Sadly, Mercedes had to learn the hard, painful way with the ol' M class.

In practicable, pragmatic terms, would such a 'transformation' change anything apart from the ceremonial nuances of political life?

???????

The real question here: when is the use of military force justified? Should it be used in the case of humanitarian intervention, despite there being absolutely no direct threat to ourselves? Despite the slippery slope this may create, I do think so, though many would (sadly) disagree!

I applaud the new French foreign minister and his resolve in calling a spade a spade, and actually calling on other G8 nations to finally stand up for the displaced of Darfur. While the current military enforced air corridor (in Chad) is still relatively small, it is better than just years of inaction and insincere vocal condemnations and monstrous passivity.

Okay. So do you happen to have a copy of these "rules"? At least a link. A 12 step guide to being "conservative"? A cookbook of sorts for governing "conservatively"? So to be a "actual" conservative (or risk being a non existent ephemeral entity), one must be an executive of nation, with 22 years years experience, be in an environment open to ideological transitions, anything else? Be white anglo-saxon protesant? Enjoys golf? Well against what are you measuring Bloomy's and Sarko's "conservativeness"? So only executives can be conservatives? But running a city bigger than many nations does not count? Nor being in the executive branch? Well, you don't leave many options open. Can you narrow down a list or will everyone not be "real" enough. Out of curiosity, can any forum member thus be considered "conservative"? It seems as if you have a (extremely precise and esoteric) definition of conservative, literally conforming to an exact cookie cutter shape, and all else is non existent. I will say it again. Governing by a prescribed set of ultra strict ideas and irrespective of the actual political environment is not only dangerous, but wholly unattainable. Just because there is an "ideal" (albeit esoteric) does not mean it is followed in orthodox without any variants. Do you not believe politics to be a dynamic process? So why refuse my initial polite request?

Granted. Both most modern western armies are put on a pedestal and so are terrorists. As per the difference between the two groups; - One deliberately targets civilians. And that is amongst the lowest, most despicable actions that can be carried out by our species. It is an act of savages. The targeting of innocent civilians, whether done by military or by non military entities, should ALWAYS be dealt with swiftly and severely. No one should escape punishment for such barbarity.

Truly, a brilliant analysis. While I would not disagree that Israel has a militaristic culture, the notion that it is based on mandatory military service is just pathetic. It is based on deeply existential fear. In other words; No it doesn't. And find one shred of evidence to back up this notion. Does Brazil have a militaristic culture? South Korea? Denmark? Switzerland? Poland? All of those nations have mandatory service. Hell. Had I not immigrated here, I could very well be in Iraq.

Not an invasion. Just an oversight. Blame it on the GPS.

Amongst which is the notion of "making sense".

As I asked earlier, what about his time in the M.I and M.F? What if someone acts conservative 90% of the time. What if they only made one NON - CONSERVATIVE decision (however you choose to define this) in their lives. Is our current Primer Minister a conservative? Do "real" conservatives even exist? So what is this yardstick you are referring to? Who dictates this is a conservative and this is not. Since when is politics nothing but a series of fixed rules? Than what is this "actual conservative ruler(s)" you speak of? Well pardon me dir sir, for having wasted your time. But please bless us with some of your wisdom? Actually, if it is going to be as nonsensical as your past few posts, I think we will not be any worse off for not knowing.

In all due respect, this claim makes no sense. How is Sarkozy an ephemeral conservative? Granted, he has been only recently made president, but I think his time in the M.I and M.F show is capable of towing the line in such a hostile environment as France. But again, views such as his apparently do not exist? But when I asked you to do the same, your response was : Well yes, you did. You are implying there is some "fixed" genuine conservatism and that those who do not abide by this esoteric (and perhaps fantastic) form are ephemeral, or 'do not exist'. You seem to be lobbing very incoherent and contradictory points, but if you would care to put some effort and explain them, I would very much be willing to continue forward. I am going to take a stab in the dark here, but when you are referring to the "actual" conservative leaders, are you referring to the Churchill's and the Thatcher's, both of whom happen to be bannerheads of conservatism? No. It does not imply anything. Simply because I posted an excerpt of an interview, and defended the author from seemingly illogical arguments does not mean that this interview somehow trumps and/dictates ALL my views. Granted, life would be much, much simpler, but arguments would be much dumber. So we live in vacuum. Merde. And once again, I would be curious to hear why: And don't worry. We might even agree on some stuff, for I am far from a conservative, I just happen to agree with them on some issues, but many far left elements on this board just make my centrist position appear on the right. Heck, I was hoping Iggy would be next leader of Canada ( and I still do!!!!!) *Cue conservatives making blaming all the worlds ills on the Liberals*

And presumably, in your world view, Bush will be "staying the course" for the next century and dictating American foreign policy? Perhaps its because you are using tarrot cards? Try the world around you, one would be surprised. I see multi-lateral talks with N. Korea, and a partial reinstitution of diplomatic ties with Iran as being a good sign. (i.e the balance of the Axis of "Evil")

Good for you! But why? *I hope you don't mind my questioning, but I am a curious soul*

So now a translated interview is the final word? Is this what you are implying? Was my definition not acceptable? I did? Could you kindly show me where? I know. But my knowledge of Strauss is shallow, at best. And unlike some characters, and I would rather avoid arguing for something I know little about. But with some time.... So what you are asking for is proof of a (conservative) political system which runs by the book, irrespective of the conditions and stimuli it faces? I would argue that's a bad thing, be it of any political ideal. But since you seem to argue otherwise, could you enlighten us as to what I presume would be a "permanent" conservatism?

Because you can foster and encourage all you wish, but sometimes, there needs to be a catalyst. Is it? When? Where? The Iraq policy is discredited, though one can argue that method (Rummsfeld) was just as much, or even more to blame than the idea itself. Iraq, in sum, was a failure. But do you know what "neoconservatism" means? It is nothing more than "conservatism" practiced by former socialists (quite literally, a collage of hippies and academics). It refers to the downsizing of the welfare state, tax cuts and steady growth, as well as importance being placed on matters of security. As one board members signature says. If it is "us or them, I choose us". They do to. Neoconservatism, with it's focus moreso on the individual, also tends to be more progressive on social causes, since it retained many of the secular values brought in by the ex socialists. And that for me, is a plus, because I fear the marriage of traditional fiscal conservatism a la Joe Clark (good) with social conservatism a la Falwell (bad), and in equal measures, the libertarian propensity to drift towards chaos and anarchy. It is a nice balance I would argue. So by saying "neoconservatism" failed, you are saying "conservatism" failed. Or are you just referring to the type that is practiced by people formerly of the left? *BUT ALAS*, on a final note, all this is in spite of the fact that I am not a neo-con as a believe in a few taboo's a bit too strongly, such as subsidized medical care, subsidized university access. While these may appear as wastes on paper, in careful moderation, they add tremendously to social stability, and that is too great a value to price. In other words, I like the Sarkozian, or Bloombergian version of conservatism, a fusion of elements, not just following a pre-set ideology blindly. I just cannot wait till we have our own Canadian version. Granted, we are in a much better state than most, if not all others.

Agreed. There is no way the direction, or at least the method(s) came from the top. Death by such an exotic means as Polonium is far too noisy and very un-FSB-ish. Seeing as it did take place in the U.K, had it would of been ordered from the highest ranks, it would've been a "suicide".

But your quotes supporting your view were: I give up. Pat yourself on the back. Insha'Kuzadd.

It's the modern version of ol' Niki's "banging of the shoe". http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/khrushchev.jpg