ScottSA

I could give proper bibliographic citations in support of the existence of a middle class in England and Western Europe in the 13th century, but that's too much work for forum entertainments. I shall not bother to address more sophisticated evidence of the phenomena such as Edward I's 13th century ending of feudalism and the transmission of hereditary feudal obligations into monetary payments, or the 13th century Italian merchant banking and trading networks established across Europe. Instead, I'll just cite some bland references to 13th century middle classes from the 1st page of a Google search of the term. Apparently, by the early 14th century, the middle classes were so uppity with their style or manner of dress that the nobles passed laws to restrain clothing styles. Who knew? source source source source My goodness, we've been busy at google U this afternoon, haven't we? Your own citations, if you actually knew enough to read them properly, belie your point. Reread the last citation, slowly, after taking a refresher course in early medieval history and you'll see what I mean. Maybe. Please, for your own good; don't get into arguments you don't understand. It's embarrassing.

If Harper cannot communicate how the mission is going, tell us the benchmarks of success will be measured, people will decide for themselves. The right wing is saying any talk, any at all gives comfort to the enemy and makes it impossible to defeat that enemy. The right never considers the possibility that the victory may be forever elusive. Of course the victory is elusive for those people who don't want it. If there is, at some point, a period of relative peace in Afghanistan, you'll move the goalposts so that the win is no longer a win to your mind. I predict that if the Liberals come to power and extend the mission, you'll suddenly discover that we're winning again, and embark on explanations as to why.

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia. ....Yeah you would think that.....but 100% of the time the operation is done by women and it is the women who pressure the mother to make the child under go the clitorectomy. Men for the most part live in ignorance of the womens genitals and only know what they have been told, that a woman without the cicumsision will be morally corrupt and prone to hysteria.....so it isn't so much as the men forcing the operation.....women collude 100% .....anyone want to jump at the root of the word "hysteria"? Let's ban the practice in Somalia and see who screams loudest. I'll bet its the men. That the men can demonstrate high level control over their women is not proof that the women are independent or seeking their own interest. If prisoners in a penitentary work making licence plates, does that mean that they chose this labour? That this labour is a perfect expression of their personhood? Does it prove that making licence plates is popular with convicted felons? This analogy is not meant to say that women in Somalia are exactly like prisoners, but I respectfully submit, women in Somalia don't have much that we would consider as 'rights'. Indeed, many of the supervisors of slave labour in the Confederate South were slaves as well. If a black slave orders around another black slave, does this mean that blacks supported slavery? Do you ever venture outside the confines of your little undergrad inspired box of bumpersticker slogans? Do you not understand that the world is a bit more complex than Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi would have it? Momo is absolutely right; the custom is female driven, as were most of the western customs that allegedly held women down in our society. You see, once upon a time women believed that they were better served by elevation to a special status, and to domination of the inside world; the life of the home. Even post-feminist writers are coming to the realization that many of the mythologies of post-liberal feminism are ahistorical fabrications. Like the myth that women were pandemically beaten by their husbands, for instance. Doesn't the hierarchy of PC evils get confusing for you sometimes? You're ready to defend the virtue of tribal barbarism when it's juxtaposed against the Evil colonial white man, but when you are facing undoubtable evil from within the society itself, you have to retreat to a lesser evil in the PC hierarchy...male vs female. You can spout nonsense about how patriarchy this and patriarchy that, but the fact is that you don't have the slightest idea how those societies work, and it's a fair bet that you're incapable of learning.

Actually I did. He opined that CAIR-CAN was dragging down our security , with no facts I might add, and I rebutted it, as did pretty much everyone else. There was another thread and IIRC the premise, as proposed by your esteemed buddy, was that "vieled threats" were being issued when in fact none were. That also forced some name calling towards me. Again, you are lecturing me about name calling. Funny, that is not my MO. Anyhow, shall we get back on track? You rebutt nothing actually. You simply follow me around like a diapered brat attempting to shout me down with squeaky and ineffective insults. I don't mind accusations of racism and bigotry...that particular bullying tactic wore thin a long time before you tried it, and I treat it as rather a badge of honor, because it tends to highlight the intellectual bancruptcy of the folks who use it. In other words, since you may not understand that, it shows that the folks who use the tactic have no better argument. You see, you're the type of fellow who used to barge into opposition political meetings dressed in spiffy brown shirts and start hitting people over the head with sticks in the 1930s. You don't want to hear things, so instead of learning whether they are true or not, you retreat to your streetcorner preconceptions and try to threaten people into your way of thinking. You wouldn't dare do it if you were face to face with me, and it sure as hell won't work here. It's interesting...Ian Kershaw wrote of Hitler that he was well read...in fact he read voraciously. But he didn't read to learn; he read to re-enforce what he instinctively believed in the first place, and he read only those things that agreed with his preconceptions. I find that these days there are a lot of people who read, or debate, or enter the internet world, with that same attitude. You are a case in point.

It's good to see someone on the inside speaking out against this horrific and inhumane act. At the same time, it's disgusting that it is 2007 and there is a need for someone to speak out against it. Would girls be mutilated like this if not for religion? For what reason would good people do such horrible things, but in the name of God? Ayup...blame God...right. Maybe because they are friggin' 6th century savages? I have news for you...slavery was outlawed and the global trade smashed, directly because of religion. You can run around making sophomoric arguments that religion is the root of all ewvil, but let me save you a bit of future embarrassment and tell you that it ain't so.

Let's split hairs. Shall we say, brutally killed instead of slaughtered? I take it you know of a place in which people are gently killed?

So is posting messages on an internet board. So, what's your point? I'm sorry you missed it.

That's precisely the point.

But I do admit to being anti-Islamic government. I freely and often and quite loudly admit to being entirely anti-Muslim. I'm surprised you missed that. In fact, I may take out a billboard advertising my anti-Islamic sentiments (just as soon as I can afford a bulletandbombproof car and house). I'm also proudly anti-Iranian nuclear program, and more so because the country is influenced by Mad Islamic Mullahs, against whom I'm also anti. I also happen to be pro-clubbing baby seals, pro-crab boiling, pro-global warming, but those are asides and irrelevant here. You and others attack Israel constantly. As the Lutwak article pointed out, fewer Palestinians have been killed in the entire history of Israel than in one good season in Darfur...not to mention any of the myraid other conflicts around the world...yet somehow the left's attention is glued to this particular, largely self-inflicted, conflict. Why is that? And why is there an incredible willingness on your part to believe that one side is the aggressor in spite of the rather obvious falsity of that position? Why indeed?

I suppose Lutwak is a "racist bigot" too for pointing out the reality. Excellent article

Well, it may seem a small differnce, but they didn't elect leaders who then turned to terror, they elected leaders who promised to continue already sufficiently demonstrated terror. They didn't elect them so they could build schools and community centres, they elected Hamas because Hamas promised to kill the pigs n' apes in Israel.

All true. What other animal cuts his hair, cooks his food, wears clothing, etc. Man is an anomoly only here after (long after) the dinosaurs died out. So in the big scheme of things, homosexuality amongst all the other anomolies is so trivial. Ah, but there's the rub. Humans are an anomaly in nature, but homosexuality is an anomaly in humanity.

I'm sure you question the validity of democracy anyways so what is the difference? Really? And why would you say that?

Translated = Kill all muslims. Wonderful grasp. Don't you have something better to do than follow me around making juvenile and idiotic comments? I mean realy...why not just spike a note to your forehead alerting people that your brain is dribbling out your left ear and to beware of splatters?

Yes. I'm sorry if it eluded you. What rubbed off is a better grasp of the reality of Islam than what is available to you. And yes, that reality happens to be negative.

[deleted]

It doesn't matter that 1000s of people saw it in real time and reported exactly the same thing. What matters is that TeH EiVl BsUH Did It!1!11!!1!1!1!!1

Umm duh okay there cletus. Me no read so good.......smallville.....smallville thinking. Very droll. Toodles.

Whats this "we" BS you talk about? Stay in small ville BC and all will be well in your whitebread world. Still spouting garbage about Muslims/Islam are you? We know we know, you hate all muslims. One trick pony. No, wait a sec, you were'nt able to get some "fag bashing" into that post? You must be slipping. Is there a point to this post other than to make general attacks on me, small cities, and white people? Just so's you know, I grew up in a town with a population roughly the same as the population of Canada, and a whole lot more multicultural than anywhere you've ever been.

Wait....you think you won? Oh my. Bemused giggles is correct. Well, you are indeed bemused. Flabberghasted in fact, since you don't even know what I'm refering to.

Well, Saddam miscalculated badly, twice, so it's not all that surprising that iran is doing the same thing.

Bemused giggles. This is slightly more colourful than your usual standard. That you can deluded into thinking that your opinion is relevant to anything or anyone is one of the features of democracy that makes it work. You seem to giggle bemusedly quite a lot. Is it a hereditary condition or just bad drinking water? Another manifestation of your disease seems to be stalking, picking a fight, getting trounced, and running away declaring victory. I hope you feel better soon.

Very convincing argument. No less convincing than yours. You're simply taking the latest poll numbers and running with them. I sincerely doubt that you even have an opinion on Islam or any knowledge whatsoever of the religion itself, and are simply peddling what you imagine to be the Liberal party line. The world is a different place these days, and there will be, in the future, much less time for navel gazing and political correctness. Once we take a few hundred casualties in TO from some of these folks whose diversity you're eager to celebrate, you'll find that a lot of people share jbg's "hatred" of a barbaric 6th century religion.

Bingo. What some like to celebrate as "diversity" and "progressiveness" has elements of pure nihilism masquerading as liberalism. We are so imbued in relativist thought that we are unable to take a stand on anything, including morality, anymore. We have put ourselves at a distinct disadvantage against the enemy, because we will find it increasingly hard to hold the walls against the moral certainty of the other side. We made the mistake about thirty years ago of taking the discovery that there is more than one side to an argument and more than one view of morality, and extrapolating from that discovery the idea that all sides are equally valid. We have, in many ways, become a latterday Sodom and Gomorrah, and unless we voluntarly lose the hedonism, we will simply have it taken away from us one way or another.

You can chalk up anything you like. Feel free to make a list. At the very least it might give you something to keep you out of trouble. Ummm...I'm already making a list. Obviously list-making is another topic for you to avoid, since you can't seem to identify the list I'm already making when it's right in front of your eyes. Here's a hint: if you're going to get your information from Google U and half-remembered shows on the history channel, you'd do well not to mock other folks on the topics you're a little iffy on. Btw, what do you think of the current Windsoar dynasty? Do you think the Spendzers should get compensation for the death of Dina?