Sulaco

This is a strange position. No more ciivl disobedience? No more conscientious objection? I dare say that requirement for strict adherence to laws is not a characteristic of democratic society, and if it is, then it is not limited to those societies. It is also amusing to claim that the international roder constitutes some kind of a democracy.

Wha does "percentage of cases" mean? Degrees and credentials are emaningless. Most criminal defense aorneys, private of public, come from lesser schools or come out of top tier schools with crap grades. Something about that maverick personality that a criminal defense attorney should carry, comes out in education. I exclude elite white colar crim law firms from this. But what they practice is more akin to corporate law. but we digress. I return to my point, however, the flagship example you chose does not prove that which you hoped it would. In fact the existence of a private tier may improve the provision of publicly funded services to the indigent. I would posit same is true in American hospitals, where indigents benefit from subsidies paid by insured and/or wealthy clients. Heck I would argue Canada benefits from the fact that Americans pay the prices they pay - but that's another story.

I join in that question. I should add I have many friends across several states who practice, some as PDs or equivalents, others as private attorneys. And all, coming from the trenches, would disagree with your view, some would in fact be deeply insulted. But hey, if you form your opinion based on media portrayals of outlier cases - well I suggest you don't come into the practice of law with that approach to method and analysis.

Wrong. I am a lawyer in an American state. Most states have well developed public defender systems. The PD's are competent workhorses with ideological commitment. But we have a two tier systme. It seems to work okay. So there you go. Additionally: Personally I do private cases, and the money from those cases permits me to work at state rates when PD's are conflicted off. My ability to do private cases (Tier A) permits me to put the expertise I develop there to state paid PD-alternative cases(Tier B ). I would argue Tier B benefits from the private tier. This is analogous with doctors out here who charge high prices to those who can bear the cost but send some time working in free or charity clinics employing expertise paid for by the wealthy.

Wha!?! Canada no do wrong!?! http://www.oxfam.org.au/explore/mining/our-work-with-communities/marinduque-island-the-philippines

Hmm... that's the only idea of his that I like.

What is not mentioned by you, apparently, is that the academic misconduct consisted of severe plagarism and other acts of academic dishonesty. The firing was a result of a multi-month investigation. But - whatever.

My, how regional that map looks. First past the post system - two party, unless regionalism is tearing a country apart. The Tories' nuclear option - let the Scots figure out if they want to spin off their ultra-welfare state.

I am sure someone has pointed this out already, but this is obviously an attempt to help out Spain, Portugal, Greece and Southern Italy by subsidizing British and German tourists with British and German money.

Well - during the Bush years Canadians often said (while wreathed in their characteristic smugness) they hated the Pres but not rank an file Americans - despite the fact that they are boorish, ugly and arrogant. I guess the findings here are consistent then.

In fact there were neither Russians nor Georgians involved in last year's war. On one side you had Ukrainian nationalists killing off ostensibly allied Georgian villagers, and on the other chornozhupy blacks from Amerika prtending to be Georgian soldiers. All overseen by German jews seeking to stir up trouble so their banks could further enrich themselved. Russians and Georgians are really best of friends.

Mmmmm... yes it does.

Not to mention the righteous man said some terrible things about Negroes.

Don't take him at his word. He also believs Jews have been occupying palestinian land since 1948 - the implication - there shouldn't be an Israel. He doesn't acknowledge their right to exist, he is just willing to allow that for now at least - that battle has been lost. It's called incrementalism - '67 borders today, no Israel tomorrow. The Zionism canard never fails to amuse me. It is so transparent. "Zionism" is just a special word given to jewish nationalism - because as in everything else they must be singled out. When some anti-semite tells me he just criticizes the Zionists, he is really telling me he dislikes any Jew uppity enough to desire a homeland. Is there a special word for Kurdish nationalism? Czech?

Well - there was that tainted blood scandal. Look - you're an ignoramus - as demonstrated by your continued need to be educated on pretty much everything. Why don't you look those countries up yourself?

Why would DoP be surprised. As far as I can tell he does not paint Jews as a monolithic whole. The surprise can only come from someone like you.

The Red Cross is also known to lie.

This post is a great demonstration of your selectivity re: "international law". Your timeline for Israel's "occupation" of other lands implicates it's internationally lawful inception. I guess international alws that work for the Jews just don't work for you. Responding to the grander claim of your post is therefore a little ridiculous but let my try with a parital list of current occupiers - some for having occupied for centuries, many brutal today (arguably) and some having been so brutal in the past that they no longer need to flex muscle: Canada United States Mexico Brazil Peru France (though to be fair Alsace Lorraine had been largely pacified) Italy Germany Poland Russia Romania Hungary Britain Indonesia Pakistan Sudan China Laos Vietnam Thailand The Philippines The Ukraine Iran Turkey Iraq Syria India Sri Lanka Japan Taiwan so on so forth, until I reach somewhere in the nighbourhood of 198 countries.

Meh - the founding fathers have generally been relagated to one-dimensional quote sources.

It's always about the Jews for you. See I mistakenly assumed your point was a general one - that atheists are somehow precluded from supoorting certain nations due to entaglements between their governments and religion. But really your main goal is to strive to undermine Israel in the eyes of whomever. You craft your worldview purely in light of this goal. You couldn't really care less about the logic of your argument. In the end it's all about the Jews. My argument stands. You, as is often the case, show your singleminded hatred of a certain ethnic/religious group. Except of course for your many close Jewish friends. I assume you have those in copious amounts and they all agree with you.

It has only ever failed for lack of proper implementation and when applicable (in situations other than when the rebels were so butchered as to leave them powerless till assimilation) bad follow-up. An enormous number of successes are forgotten because it's generally viewed as unseemly to celebrate when a majority asserts its rights successfully. It's the cheer the underdog syndrome - we all view ourselves as underdogs so we blindly identify with other underdogs regardless of their methods or often insane ideologies. But if we were to go through history we would find that the powerful were for the most part (and we are talking in the 99% range or higher) very successful in suppressing rebelions - were these rebellions righteous or, as was more often the case, inspired by evil.

Umm... I am constantly amused when such simplisme is ascribed to Jefferson. The man also grew up in a Christian society and considered christianity, sans its miracles, as the moral (and thereofre political) backbone of this nation - he wrote a "miracleless" bible to make Christian morality more paletable to those who did not appreciate the finer points of Christian mysticism. many of Jefferson's writings dealt with how to best build and preserve the moral bedrock upon which a republic can be built and he easily drew on Christian mores to write his rpescription. That is unless you care to argue that Jefferson also wanted a wall between morality and state. And of course, and this may be hard to believe, vut Jefferson was but one of many founding fathers. And lo and behold, they differed in their views - on some issues terribly so. (I should add, waxing hyperbolic myself, that seldom mentioned is that Jefferson argued for a very limited franchise - he being a Virginian Gentleman that is not surprising -, believed that revolutions where an appropriate and constructive way to change government on a regular basis (how French of him, and had the cockmamie idea that untried farmers with harvest to worry about could put up a fight against trained professional armies) Now, please direct me to serious Christian wiritngs that call for the establishment of Christian theocracy (with public stoning). I look forward to you providing support for your seeming hyperbolic assertion.

Umm - I have no idea why what you say should be true. I also support Great Britain (whatever that means) which has a state-established church led by it's head of state. Israel is a secular state strongly informed by it's religion, much like the United States. Jews have over millenia gained the ability to tolarate those who do not share their creed and make place for them in their state. I have yet to hear of a Christian or an Atheist or a Muslim being stripped of his israeli citizenship or the attendant rights simply because of their creed. So what's the problem. On the other hand Israel is beset by barbaric enemies who's religion teaches even today the murder of infidels. No, I am not talking about some imam in the 14th Century calling for Holy War - I am talking about fatwas being issued today. Given that, i would say atheists and Israelis make natural allies in a region beset by Isalmist dogmas.

Umm no. We had one president who was open about the use of torture by his intelligence services and did much to publicize the internal debate about these methods. Which is why various men who spent time in the debate now face potential political prosecution. We have a sitting president who says on the other hand, "out of sight out of mind." And so rendition will come into vogue and when impractical the CIA will do what it always has done, but it will again do it secretly, rather than being open about it. I am not sure which approach is better - though I tend to lean toward the honest one.

Well let's hope the whoopin' was sufficient to last several generations in Tamil memory, eh? Wot wot?