Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by udawg

  1. A little surprised by your point of view Elder... I thought you were all about helping people... seems to me that fits with the so-called Canadian worldview on this issue... There are bound to be some people on both sides of the border who don't agree with their contemporaries. And some of us just enjoy a lively debate. As for our military, that is obviously the one place we have fallen short in Canada, and something needs to be done about it. d4dev is still correct however, that our military needs are not what the the US' are.
  2. And to link this apparent tendency towards pedophaelia in a select few to the issue of gay marriage is just dumb. If statistics show that African-American people commit more murders per capita, then they shouldn't be allowed to marry either. And read my post above about repression. If we allowed gays to marry, they wouldn't have to go after children for sexual gratification. They could just find a partner and marry them. Saves a lot of possible incidents and potential pedophiles.
  3. It's preposterous to suggest that even a noticable proportion of homosexuals are pedophiles. There are dads all over the world who rape their little girls and not their little boys. Maybe it's just the media attention when the offender is gay. I don't think it's anything more than a statistical anomaly, and if it is, I think we can safely blame it on the historical repression experienced by homosexuals, that still continues to this day. If I'm gay grown man, but I'm afraid to approach another man for fear of being discovered, ridiculed, shunned and whatever else I might be afraid would happen, maybe I turn to younger men, boys, even, who I can control to a certain extent, and use my power and authority over, to prevent them from spilling my little secret. I'm not saying it's right; pedophiles will all burn in hell. But it seems to me a logical explanation for a connection that doesn't really and shouldn't really exist.
  4. He should be prosecuted under the anti-terrorism laws, because what he did was terrorism. Just because he's not foreign and doesn't speak with an accent (that I know of) doesn't mean he can't be a terrorist. What he did had no purpose other than to cause terror. I think he said as much shortly after his arrest.
  5. Dead right. I'm just waitin for the public to catch wind of this. Figure ten years, we'll all be waitin to see who's ass we need to kick to get our fresh bananas.
  6. Nuclear disarmament will never occur, even under an 'international, multilateral body', until after the US unilaterally disarms itself. My argument that this could actually occur stems from the (I think...) fairly widely accepted fact that the US will never again use a nuclear weapon. The only time it would ever would have happened in the first place, after the nuclear genie was let out, would have been against another nuclear power, in an increasingly intensifying standoff. But now we all know, if the next nuclear war ever occurs, it doesn't matter. We're all dead. The United States will never use a nuclear weapon against terrorists; there's just too much collateral damage. So any nuclear bombs being held by terrorists simply don't matter, we would never respond in kind, even if they were used. A nuclear war against another nuclear-capable state is, at this point, unthinkable. Neither side would allow a confrontation to progress that far. The only consideration left, then, is whether somebody else would be tempted to use their nuclear weapons against the US, knowing there will be no MAD. (mutually assured destruction) I believe, however, that the United States could effectively wipe out an entire country with nearly the same effectiveness using conventional weapons. Simply replace all nuclear warheads on the ICBMs with large conventional warheads, and make sure to launch them all. All the US needs to do to prevent a preemptive nuclear strike against them, is to convince other nuclear powers that they don't in fact NEED nuclear weapons to blow everyone into oblivion. Just convince China and Russia and whoever else, that if an attack were ever launched, there would indeed still be MAD, it would simply be with conventional weapons. Convince everyone that MAD does not rely on nuclear capability. If the US can do this, and disarm themselves, no prompting, other nations, beginning with Russia and China I imagine, will try to look all macho or whatever and say, "hey, we don't need nukes either, we can kill y'all anyway too". Maybe I'm an optimist. Or maybe it would work. Either way, somebody's gotta be the first. And who better than the undisputed most powerful nation on the planet? Simply convince everyone that the power is not reliant on nukes.
  7. It seems obvious to me that the United States and Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Haiti before and during the recent problems there. And I have been called, on this very forum, an anti-Bush America-hating liberal. But seriously, the only reason that the US is even in the same sentence as Haiti is because they were dragged into it by the media. I'm quite sure that the White House would like nothing more than to be able to turn off CNN and ignore the entire situation. They have nothing to do with it. The media, however, has made it necessary for the United States to respond to the situation, and by shaping public opinion, forced the US to send Marines over and actually get involved. None of this would have happened but for CNN and all the other news services running Haiti as their headline story. Nobody in the WH gives a damn about Haiti, they are merely required to take a stand on it what with the media badgering them about it. I can only credit the opposing argument on an incredibly futile attempt to pin another international incident on Bush and his 'warmongers'. To think that the US is any further involved than this is absurd.
  8. An article in my local newspaper caught my attention. A person I know of probably 3rd hand received their twelfth conviction for DUI. They are an alcoholic. This has affected many people close to this person. Obviously, addictions, in their extreme forms, are very harmful, and not only to the addict. They can get in the way of family and friends, work, and often cause financial trouble. What do we do about them? If we try to curb addictions by outlawing their source, it will just go underground. Prohibition hasn't ever worked, and besides, the government makes a ton of money off our vices. But many people are hurt, even ruined, because of addictions. Something, in my opinion, needs to be done. Pretend for a moment that there is a generic government agency, or .... GGA. Now, I will stress, this isn't socialism.... not really. We have a capitalist system, people earn money for themselves. When a company is to pay you, they send the money (electronic deposit, credit, whatever) to the GGA. This agency then holds the money until you have taken care of necessary purchases using government credit, that will only be accepted at certain types of businesses. These types of businesses will include grocery stores, landlords/real estate agencies, and other groups who require so-called necessary payment from you. After the GGA has determined to their satisfaction that you have taken care of necessary payments and products, and only after this happens, will you receive the remainder of your paycheque for you to do with as you see fit. I don't believe this is infringing on anybody's rights, because the individual, and the group, both benefit. You're allowed to piss away the rest of your cheque if you want, but first you must provide for your dependants, settle any debts or deficits, and you will be unable to incur any further debt, because all necessary services and products have already been paid for. This is not communism, because the prices and payments for even the pre-paid services are not set by the government. The consumer has their choice where to shop, which house to buy, and it's up to them to find the best value, if they want it. The government merely acts as a go-between to ensure that you can't gamble away your daughter's lunch money for the next week of school. There is in fact a precedent. In Quebec, for several years now, there has been a system in place to ensure that landlords do repairs and whatever maintenance was necessary on the building. If the tenant feels that some work needs to be done and the landlord won't do it, the tenant would go to this rental board, pay them, and the board wouldn't pass on the money to the landlord until the work was done. Obviously, this protects the tenant from negligent landlords. The system I propose above should protect dependants of addicts, and to a certain extent, the addicts themselves, from their addictions. No longer will their problem cut into necessary funds.
  9. Name a better time for this to come out, from the LPOC point of view. Other than soon after the election, which I'm arbitrarily removing as one of your choices because it's just too obvious. Would it be better for them if this came out before Chretien resigned? Probably, Martin wouldn't have to answer the questions, and he'd come in looking like the knight in shining, non-corrupt armour. Actually, I seem to have answered my own question. Nonetheless, this is still a better time for it to come out than, say, 2 weeks before the already-called election. Another bad time would have been before the merger of the CA and the PCs. Why? Because this would have caused even more people to pay attention to the merger, looking for a viable alternative. Members of the new CPC would have looked long and hard at who they would choose as the new leader. Oh, wait. We still haven't done that. Maybe this was pretty bad timing. For something that they didn't have much control over.
  10. Simply regarding the oil argument, the US might indeed undertake an expensive war to get oil that will never pay for itself. If, for example, the movers and shakers in Washington had, say, some information that the rest of us don't, and say, for example, knew that US oil reserves were virtually empty, and a new oil crisis was looming, they might just spend alot of money to prevent this. Having oil that you had to pay hideously for, is after all, better than having no oil at all. And what about simply paying Iraq to import oil? The US likes to have control of its own resources. The American economy, like most developed nations, is still reliant on fossil fuels. The price of your own economy being controlled at the whim of a fluctuating world oil market is fairly high, I would think. Perhaps more than a mere 500 billion dollars for a war? It might not all be about money and running out of oil, either. How much is the US willing to spend to maintain its stranglehold on the world economy? Oil is an important commodity. Controlling oil, as well as most other products in the world, gives the US free reign over ... well, pretty much everyone.
  11. Actually, I suppose this thread should be in Religion and Politics, but I was going through American news when I discovered it, so here it is.
  12. NYTimes article: Report by Vatican A group of scientists and psychiatrists have released a report for the Vatican that denounces the "American bishops' zero-tolerance policy of seeking to remove from the ministry any Roman Catholic priest who has abused a child." To start the debate: there should be zero tolerance for sexual abuse in the church. A person who sexually abuses children should never be in a position of power and trust and influence, like a priest to a child. To suggest that children would actually be safer if the priest is allowed to keep their job is utterly ridiculous. A person who has demonstrated a breach of trust in their capacity as religious and moral leader should have absolutely no second chance. If you want them to be monitored after you kick their filthy arses out of the church, call the police and tell them to monitor the bastards. They should not be allowed to remain in this position of power and in easy/close contact with children. This is only asking for trouble. I fully approve of the American bishops' policy of zero tolerance.
  13. I was looking for that post... Anyway, I don't wanna sound like I agree too much, so I'm gonna argue this for the hell of it. ...What campaign? I haven't heard anything out of Clement's camp since he first announced his intention to run. We hear from Belinda almost daily, and while it's not all good, they say any news is good news... Harper is also in the spotlight, especially since he's the only one in the House of Commons... Meanwhile, Clement is virtually invisible. I don't know about Ontario, but here in the West, he's more of a spectre of our collective imaginations than an actual candidate. Maybe Harper should be scared, but we sure aren't sensing it out here.
  14. Being homosexual does not affect the day-to-day life of those "afflicted" with it, nor does it shorten the lifespan, nor does it have any detrimental effects at all. I'm not a doctor, or a microbiologist or anything, but I'm pretty sure that the definition of a disease is something that has an adverse effect on the body or on the mind. By this definition, transexualism should not be considered a disease. This seems like more of a political statement by the scientists or doctors involved than it does a medical or scientific statement. Even without getting involved in the argument about why and how homosexuality exists, I think we can safely say that it is not a disease. Mental disorder, perhaps. But it has no adverse effects on the body or mind, so it can't be a disease.
  15. With a belief system as you imply, I imagine that you hang out with a lot of victims. My SOP is to take appropriate action such as self defense, scream whatever. If after the fact, report to the police and prosecute. If you do nothing, like I said, learn to accept it. KK, you must agree that it would be better to simply stop the rapist before he commits the crime, than to deal with it after. To continue with this somewhat appropriate analogy, the victim of rape often has few powers at all to stop the attack, and is left with even less after the incident. If you honestly believe that we should leave the onus on the victim to stop rape, then you have bigger problems than being a proof-seeking right-wing conservative
  16. I wouldn't have predicted this 2 weeks ago, but things change Hypothetically: Step 1: Clement wins leadership of CPC. He now has party funding to raise his profile, so he does just that, and people take notice. The election is delayed (for obvious reasons), and he gets the necessary time to form policy and get recognition. Step 2: The conservatives win the election. Majority, even, and if not, they form a coalition with the NDP. (Don't believe it? Layton may not be a radical conservative, but he leans in that direction.) Step 3: After, say, 3 years, during which the Liberals weed out the deadweight and corruption, no longer needing to be concerned with matters of state, an election is held. (Martin still leader, is my prediction) Step 4: Now we have a real fight on our hands, because depending on how the CPC does as government, we might actually have two legitimate possibilities for the first time in probably 20 years. Canadians once again have control of their own political fate. Call me an idealist, but I think it might happen.
  17. Very convicing post, Baron. Shame he doesn't have the money to raise his profile more. Still not convinced about his record for the long haul in Ontario Health, though. He performed well in one particular time of crisis, but these days it seems like every day is a time of crisis for healthcare, and I'm not sure he did that much for Ontario overall. I do also agree with what someone said in another thread, which was that while Harper will not draw as many votes in Ontario, if Clement wins, he will draw votes in Western Canada as long as he's leader. Maybe Clement is the guy who can unify the country, and give Ontario voters that national party they're looking for.
  18. Yes, being Liberal means that we would rather come to an agreement without having to force ideals on others. No wonder the US is called the great western imperialist satan. No argument here that force is sometimes necessary... say, when somebody is using force first, and there is no other way to counter it. But otherwise, there is no reason why military or other physical force is needed. It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. - Alfred Adler
  19. No doubt about it, Preston Manning has the experience and trust that voters want to see in the new Conservative Party. However, the reason he was dumped is fairly obvious too, in that they wanted new leaders, to appear fresh and rejuvenated, and when they remerged, they didn't want to look like the same old PCs or Reform/Alliance that was the original problem. Nonetheless, a guy like Manning would be ideal at this time.
  20. Who said the Liberals are doing the job competently? The sponsorship scandal is just the latest in a long string of major problems. We've alienated several allies, our pilots are still dying, voter turnout is still at record lows, the gun registry is still costing money, and our government is continuing to take actions the Canadian public does not approve of. How can that possibly be construed as competence? And our government IS to Canada as the US is to the world. Unilaterally taking action against the wishes of the rest of the people.
  21. Goldie, you ask the same questions my father has been asking for years. It was before the 97 election that he said something to the effect of, Ontario better not vote Liberal, or this country's in trouble. Said the same thing, only more vehemently, and with more despair, 3 years later in 2000. And he's saying it again. Ontario continues to vote Liberal federally, and you and him both can't understand why. I doubt anyone does. Is the Western Conservative ideology too dangerous? Or maybe Ontarians just don't like their money. Maybe they feel sorry for beating the French in 1763. Whatever the reason, until somebody can convince Ontario that the Liberals are ruining this country, they'll continue to shy from reason and accountability.
  22. If you don't like this statement, KK, revise it to read: When you carry the biggest stick, you can do what you like. The US only follows UN resolutions when it is to their advantage. Sorta makes the whole idea of the organization kinda pointless, don't it? What the US should do is simply pull out of the UN completely, allow it to collapse, and we can start all over again. Rather than have this charade of the US complying with UN resolutions as an excuse to invade countries as it wishes, and ignore UN resolutions when they don't allow said invasions. Of course, if it were ... say, Iraq that was invading other countries, say... Iran, under the guise of UN approval because of something Iran did, and at the same time, ignoring the resolutions concerning Iraq itself, we can be sure that the mighty US would have something to say about that. Unfortunately, there is no watchdog with a big enough stick to counter the USA. So instead we smile weakly and nod when the US decides to momentarily pay attention to certain UN wishes, and in the same breath, ignores others.
  23. Can it happen this election? Or does big business still have enough influence in Ontario and maybe Quebec to eke out a majority? Then factor in the fractured nature of the new Conservatives. The Liberals have had one defection away from them. How many have the CPC had? And Ontario won't vote for Harper, and there's no guarantee the West will vote for Clemente, and there's no guarantee that anyone will vote for Belinda. Can the Conservatives mount a strong enough opposition to the big money?
  24. If they dump Martin, who will they pick up? They can try all they like to get rid of the apparent insiders of this scandal, but this one runs deep. The Liberals may end up with a fresher face as leader than the Conservatives.
  25. Do you mean socially ? If so, I think it's Canada that's moving left. Very vocal elements in Canada have moved left, anyway. I think there is still a very large proportion of Canadians whose beliefs are well to the right of where the LPOC currently finds itself. I'm not sure whether it's the Liberals themselves, who, by being in power and controlling a certain amount of public opinion, make it seem like we're moving left as a nation; or whether our people as a whole actually have moved left. I am of the opinion that it's just a result of Liberal spin and policies that we seem more socialist than we used to be. Deep inside, away from the spin and the media, I think many, if not most, Canadians are much more socially conservative than the Liberals seem to think.
  • Create New...