Moonlight Graham

well Cheney was just very unpopular so hiding him made sense. But as for Gore and others, ya i guess it is pretty normal.

Also to add, as i`ve said this before on these forums, the entire democratic nation-building we are doing in Afghanistan is very likely doomed for failure in the way we are approaching it now, because the Afghan gov't is already corrupt, and if NATO/US were to ever actually leave the country the gov't would sooner than later become either insanely corrupt or authoritarian. Democracy in this country, given the current situation, is a b.s. pipedream. More horrifying about us training and arming the Afghan army is that these very soldiers/weapons may end up being involved in a military coup to overthrow the current "democratic" gov't. Just look at Africa post-WWII, where many African soldiers from African countries who were trained by European colonial powers to fight for them in WWII used this training after the war to rebel against these very same colonial powers & help their African countries gain independence. Then these same soldiers used their training to form military regimes in African states, and/or organize military coups to overtake western set-up "democratic" regimes. History is the lesson here folks. During the Soviet war in the 80's, the US funded weapons/training for the mujaheddin, who are now members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda etc. who we are fighting now. Have we not learned ANYTHING?

Canada and NATO are training the Afghan army, for many reasons of course, but supposedly primarily to defend the new Afghan gov't from the Taliban. However, if most of the most powerful nations in the world with the most advanced military tech in the world are basically at a stalemate vs the Taliban and cannot defeat them, exactly what chance does a rag-tag group of Afghan soldiers (no matter how well-trained, and whom will have nowhere near the military tech of NATO) have to defend the country/gov't against the Taliban over the long-term? The only chance i see this new "army" being successful vs Taliban attacks is the fact that many of the insurgents fighting NATO are not doing so to take over/replace the current gov't, but are fighting the foreign occupiers so they may leave. Some of the Taliban/insurgents also are fighting primarily because its a job/paycheck. Therefore, if NATO leaves then the Taliban may be slightly weaker if it decides to overtake the current gov't. NATO has an agreement with Karzai that it will leave Afghanistan in 2014 (ya right). What is paradoxical is that, unless there is a deal with the Taliban, the US/NATO will likely need to stay to support the Afghan army to secure the country. However, NATO staying actually makes the Taliban stronger for the reasons i cited (ie: many are fighting the foreign occupation, not to retake the gov't...althought the "puppet" govt can be seen as a kind of foreign occupation in itself so many Taliban/insurgents will want it abolished). So again, what is the logic of training the Afghan army?

Saw Joe Biden on Larry King tonight. First time i remember seeing him in anywhere in a long time. I actually forgot this guy even existed, no joke! Hillary's been all over the place, not this guy. Maybe they hid him during the run up to the mid-term elections because of his big mouth? Dunno. But weird to have the VP not even on the radar most of the time. I wonder if he'll even be on Obama's 2012 ticket?

i like it!

I agree.

Television news has many pros and many cons. No point in pointing them out. The internet has been the biggest revolution to news media since, well, television. The internet is virtually limitless in its potential to deliver news. It is instant, it is cheap to make, the amount of info it can provide is virtually limitless, and it can present info with any kind of media that can be digitized (video, audio, photos, charts & interactive images etc.). And all while the user can choose what they want to be exposed to & customize their news the way their like it presented.

It very likely won't. But all it takes is for people to massively pressure their congressmen to do so. Until then, money OWNS ALL.

That article is mostly one big brown pile of crap. With chunks of corn in it.

I'll admit that i have sometimes seen you argue views that are conservative/right-wing, leading me to think that the "left-wing yank" comment is sarcasm. I guess it ain't. But ya, i think it's that you have strong views on both sides of the left-right spectrum that leads to confusion.

I see your point, but there is also diplomatic value in meeting other leaders face-to-face. It strengthens relationships bn leaders. However, these face-to-face meetings must be done sparingly, or in a financially responsible way. I'm alos sure most day-to-day international relations are done via telephone etc., and not face-to-face.

I see your point, but there is also diplomatic value in meeting other leaders face-to-face. It strengthens relationships bn leaders. However, these face-to-face meetings must be done sparingly, or in a financially responsible way. I'm alos sure most day-to-day international relations are done via telephone etc., and not face-to-face.

Yes it does. The Harper gov ran a budget surplus in fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, before the recession. And their surpluses were greater than most of the Liberal surpluses. But i give great credit to Chretien/Martin for turning around the debt-spiral.

I will definitely agree that "brain drain" is a big problem for developing countries.

Uh-oh, someone drops the F-bomb again! (as in "fascist"). Shady i think you mean authoritarian or totalitarian, not fascist. Or better yet, thugs.

Incorrect. Before the Harper gov ran a budget deficit in 2008-2009, the last time any federal government, including the Harper gov, ran a deficit was 1997. Stats are your friend: Dept. of Finance Canada

I am tired of continually hearing easily refuted nonsense about the Harper government's economic policies regarding the current rescission. This nonsense is based on 2 myths: Myth #1: The policies of the Harper government kept Canada's economy relatively strong amid the global recession. Truth: The vast majority of the regulations that prevented Canada's banking system & economy from suffering a similar fate to that of the U.S. and other countries worldwide were already in place before the Harper gov came to power. Myth #2: The Harper government is leading Canada's economy into dire straights because of the large deficits/debt this gov is racking up. Truth: If one knows anything about economics, countercyclical fiscal policies aka deficit spending during an strong economic downturn is Keynesian economics 101, and is meant to stimulate the economy with the idea (ha!) that the debt will be repaid with surplus during better economic times. This has been done internationally over the past 70 years, and 30 of the 33 OECD countries (including the UK, US, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark etc.) posted deficits in 2009 with this similar idea, and there is little doubt the Chretien/Martin Liberals would have done similar. And as you can see with the link i just posted, Canada's deficit as a % of its GDP is well below the OECD average, and looking at the estimated 2010 budgets, Canada is ranked with the 5th lowest deficit-per-GDP% among the 33 OECD countries. This is not to say one can't criticize the way the deficit money has been spent, but a deficit in itself is not a bad thing. But feel free to spin this along partisan lines as you wish

Oh, and the 3rd major political meaning of "liberalism" would be as a theory of "international relations". I don't like the term "liberal" or "liberalism" because of its multiple meaning, which is easily confused. I see the OP using the term "liberalism" to mean the classic Locke/Rousseau/Hobbes variety, ie: "individual freedoms and equal rights". Some seem to be confused.

True. However, Harper put the fate of the Afghan mission to a vote in parliament in 2006 and 2008. So why not now?

Seriously? How many Jews in Canada have planned to execute violent attacks against the state in recent memory? Or have declared war on the West and Canada specifically? I hope you know the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist (of the offensive jihad variety).

The OP wasn't taking about all Muslims, it was talking about Islamists. Islamists are radical fundamentalist Muslims, ie: the group that has tried to carry out terrorist attacks within Canada. Islamists are, i suppose, guaranteed freedom of religion and belief under the Charter, yet their teachings, including jihad, threaten the Charter rights of "life" and "security of the person" of other Canadians. So who wins? Islamists who believe in violent means can kiss my big western ass.

yuppers.

There is a distinct difference between different political meanings of "liberalism", the 2 most common being that the liberal/conservative variety, meaning "progressive, open to new ideas, tolerant of others etc.", and the more classic meaning of "liberalism" of the Locke/Rousseau variety, meaning literally "liberty", or "individual freedoms and equal rights".

True enough. 2% of Canadians are Muslim, and a much smaller portion of that would consider themselves Islamists. "Islamists" can do as they wish, but if they break the law they will go to jail.

Liberalism is about equal rights, but it is also about individual rights/freedoms. There is a dichotomy within the ideology of liberalism, a struggle between the equality of people vs protecting individual rights. We live in liberal democracies, and we must decide the rules we live by and what rights to protect. At some point, we must chose which rights go above others. Does the right of a person to murder whomever they want go above the right of people to be free from violence? No. We take away a murderers rights, and lock them in jail to protect other people's rights which we judge as more important and more to the benefit of society. We have a problem today where many people do not see that we still must judge other cultures/religions that value actions which infringe on an individual's liberty/rights which we have already established as vital to our society. Liberalism is NOT about believing that every culture/religion should be equally tolerated. I would think it's clear for those living in Canada or the US that freedom of a person to practice a religion/culture that believes in raping one's own babies and grandparents, and then eating their genitals, would be against other individual rights we would judge important to the betterment of society. But this doesn't seem clear to many. ALL rights cannot be protected under liberalism because some contradict each other, as they always have. We who live in liberal democracies must continue to make judgment calls on which rights trump others. This is not always easy, but it must be done.