ScottSA

Ah, well, since my name came up, perhaps you'd like to point at one of my "xenophobic" posts. Hint: the best definition I can come up with for xenophobe is: "A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples." The operant word here is "unduly." One could be, and many were, fearful and contempuous of Nazis from 1933 to 1945 and Germans in general from 1939 to 1945, but few would today argue that they were "unduly" fearful and contempuous. Islam is a similar case. I grew up in India, long before Islam began to be taken over by murderous 6th century goatherders, and it was bad enough even then. You probably don't realize that in India today, as in the India of the 1970s, there are hundreds of people killed a months in riots across the subcontinent, and in 9 out of 10 of those cases, Islam is at the root of it. It's so common that the only time we in the west hear about it is when the numbers get really high in a particularly egregious episode. Now Islam is fast changing from a merely bad religion into an atrocious religion; far worse than it was when I was in India. And the only thing about it that's moving forward are its armaments and it's propaganda arm...everything else is moving backwards at speed. It is not a religion of peace. It is a global scourge, and there is nothing at all "undue" about either my fear or my contempt of it. Because I grew up in India, I know exactly how "multiculture" works, and it doesn't work well. It never has. I am dreadfully fearful of the results when critical masses of distinct self-identified cultural, religious, or racial groups begin to coalesce. It's beginning to happen in Canada...it's why Sikhs, Chinese, Blacks, and other like groups tend to congregate in certain areas. It is destined to destroy democracy, which is premised upon the Idea, but is rapidly giving way to group power politics. Multiculturalism is a naively nice idea, but it bodes ill for the future of any country which has adopted it. The contempt that many feel is not so much for the "foreigner" as for the culture they attempt to foist on us. We in the west have created the best culture in the world. It is not a mere accident of geography that the west shot ahead of the rest of the world; it is a cultural feat. Our system of government, our economic systems, our philosophies, our creations, are all light years ahead of any other culture...that's why people want to live in the first world and not the other way around. It is with a great deal of very warranted contempt that I see 3rd world cultures arriving from the squalor they came from and attempting to change us into them. And neither my fear nor my contempt is undue.

Do you need a hug?? Runningdog seems more in need of a hug. Anyone who uses the term "hurtful" and "angry" to describe other points of view is either a propagandist or has an extremely tenuous hold on their emotions...

*yawn*

Well, since you hinge your flippantly sophomoric argument around "two consenting adults," then you ought not have a problem with legalizing incest, pre-contractual necrophilia, and pre-contractual cannabalism, right?

This is simply not true. The rest of your post is the usual heart-tugging series of mantras attempting to elicite the proper emotion, but its all presumably offered in support of the above. We, the public, are asked daily to accept bum buggery as a "lifestyle." Making marriage between homosexuals a recognized institution is about as 'accepting' as it gets, not to mention condoning. The fact of the institution is both a demand for acceptance and a demand that it be condoned, by no less an entity than the state itself. The constitution demands that homosexuals (along with pedophiles, beastialists and necrophiliacs) be "accepted and their behaviors condoned. Your own simpering announcement that they only want equality is itself a demand for acceptance. If we're not being asked to celebrate it, then what are all those freak parades, gay rodeos and other disgusting displays of aberrence all about? You see, your argument technique is nothing new...feminists are the ones who actually started THAT ball rolling. The object in this technique is to leap forward with outrageous demands, and when called on it, retreat to "we only want equality." In the case of feminists, what started out as a noble liberal (I use that word in its original sense) endeavor for equality, all too soon degenerated into ridiculous demands that had nothing to do with equality, but the 'equality' mantra retained its utility as a pressure point nonetheless. This or that group would advance...say...a demand for a hiring preferences or a faculty of women's studies, and when called on it, retreat to the position that they "only want equality." In the ensuing caterwauling, no one ever thinks to point out that neither hiring preferences nor faculties of women's studies have anything to do with equality. Homosexual activists picked up the same technique. They find themselves in a slightly different situation of course, in that society, except for extremely rare and temporary historical periods, has rejected, throughout history, the aberrent practise of homosexuality, just as it has rejected necrophilia, beastiality, incest, and cannabalism. And while women had the rather obvious distinction of genetics, homosexual activists find themselves trying to advance a behaviour rather than a thing-in-itself. But the argument technique remains the same, as you just demonstrated: Make a clearly false claim, then retreat to the "we only want to be like you" position. It's very transparent.

It's a an issue that shows hypocrisy and lack of transparency. Harper is not a leader. Ayup. "Hair: the Death of a PM"

Freedom of the press is usually suspended during wartime...certainly during total war. It should be too. The governments of mature democracies don't, for the most part, set out to make life as miserable as possible for its citizens. Whatever one might think of Bush, most reasonable people recognize that the "OiliburtonBushbeelzebub" rant is more for public consumption than to convey any real meaning, and that whatever his actions, his intentions are to do the best he can to protect the American people and their way of life. The press, on the other hand, has taken this alleged "freedom" and run with it. It has divorced freedom from the chains of any moral or patriotic code and refuses to even recognize the very nation it depends upon for its freedom as the good guys. In WW II, there was a great deal more censorship, but for the most part the press establishment understood the need for self censorship. Had they not, had they behaved like the spoiled counterculturists of the Vietnam era or today, they would have been censored. And it would have been justified. No one is stealing anyone's freedom by not keeping the enemy apprised of our movements.

A swealian squirm par excellence...

Bravo. If only someone in Canada could bring themselves to squeak out something similar...

I think Harper is still not convinced. His response has been that it impossible for Canada to do anything so it won't. Harper may be simply riding this CO2 foolishness for political reasons. God willing, he will ever remain a heretic.

Do tell. Link?

Why?

Whoa, that's pretty shocking. I keep hearing Likudists assert how free and democratic Israel is, but this kind of thing certainly seems to detract from those claims. You're apparently not so shocked at the sawing off of heads by the other side, though, eh? In fact, I haven't seen you express shock over the latest Lebanese army exploits, or any of the daily murders going on all over the globe in the name of Islam. Amazing how the shock leaps at you when it's Jews, isn't it?

The Global War on Dominionists!

Enough of a tempest to plunge the Tories down from majority territory in the polls to where they are now. Guess people do care how their money is spent. Yes, I'm sure it's all about hair. Well, I guess that means he can stay in Afghanistan and maybe advance into Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, blowing vast quantities of CO2 out the exhaust pipes of Leopard tanks, and no one will notice because they are so very concerned with the state of his coif. God help us if he grows a beard.

I had a big problem with that. I continue to have a problem with the Tory continuation of that do nothing policy. What would you like them to do?

Maybe he was embarrassed. Maybe he even got red-faced. He may even have been beet-faced. But even if he got third degree burns and the skin sloughed off his face into his lap, the burns would have healed by now. It's been like 2 months that this thread has trundled on, page after page, reiteration after reiteration...it's worse than the everlasting polynewbie thread about deathrays and missiles and Elvis Presley sightings. 'Tempest in a teapot' is an expression insufficient to describe the sheer inconsequence of of this alleged "issue." Liberals are scuttling from dungheap to dungheap with bags of cash, our troops are in a hot war in a global war, and you're talking about someone's barber bills.

Nope. Not much of a reply there at all. There's a fellow on another board I used to visit like that. His response, whenever pushed into a corner, was to announce that he was far too clever to deal with the sorry likes of whoever had him by the short hairs, declare victory, and slink away shouting insults over his shoulder. We called him different variations of the name Turgidius Bloviatus Pontificus.

I think she was refering to progressives of the sort commonly seen today in pink t-shirts yowling at the white house. You know, the kind who holler and bellyache about the 'fascists' running their country, the kind who want to shut everybody else the hell up in the name of freedom of expression, the kind who always wonder what went wrong when the utopian revolution they all can't wait for comes and they find themselves up against a wall staring at the business end of a carbine...

Lets apply this logic to...let's say...Europe. France is responsible for Nazism, and here's why: Once upon a time, when men had giant mustaches, big guts, and lots of braids on their uniforms, and a guy named Alois Schicklgruber was running around Austria, France declared war on Prussia. Needless to say, France lost and Prussian Hussars soon stood watch on the walls of gay Paree. France of course embarked on another of its interminable cycles of revolution, but the Prussians went home and used the glow of victory to unite all of Germany. Because France declared war on Prussia and lost, Bismark was able to unify Germany. Because Germany was unified, it became a major European power. Because Germany became a major European power, its backing of Austria in a power gambit in the Balkans led to Germany's loss in WW I. Because of Germany's loss in WW I, the Versailles Treaty created hyper-inflation and widespread un-employment across germany in the 1920s, allowing an itsy bitsy political party led by a superlative speaker to create a democratically driven springboard from which it was able to launch to national prominence in the mid 1930s. But perhaps the biggest effect France had, way back when, was that the Prussian victory over France spurred Alois Schicklgruber to change his last name prior to birthing a son. After all, who in their right mind would have voted for a party led by a fellow named Adolf Schicklgruber? Law of unintended consequences, doncha know? It's all France's fault. Mind you, then there were the Romans, and that German chieftan named Arminius...I suppose the Romans share some blame for world war II as well...

My personal feeling is that if a public official thinks it is necessary to spend taxpayer money, it should be available for all to see and that person should justify the expense. I think Harper used to call it transparency. So was he a liar then or is he a liar now? Neither times. Your argument is best described as transparent. This is boring.

You probably found it to be hot news when Harper attacked Manning on the same sort of issue. No. I thought it was contrived. I think this is contrived. It's like trying to discredit Churchill over the fact that the British taxpayer bought his brandy and cigars, or Chretien because he drove around in a limo. It's hogswallop, to paraphrase Momo.

I dunno, but there's a shadowy figure outside my window on dark stormy nights, and last night a cattleprod zapped me out of my sleep. There's also that damned giant hamster wheel that appeared in my living room one night. I've been meaning to ask Greg what that's all about... The truth is out there.

Harper is Beelzebub! He is Satan with an expensive hairdresser who adorns his horns at taxpayer's expense! He wants to pollute, to make us all into fundamentalist Christians, to put troops in the streets! He is the AntiChrist!

It wasn't when Harper attacked Manning on virtually the same issue Yes it was. It is and always has been a yawner without end, Amen.