Moonbox

EI benefits are not self-sustaining. The people who use it (especially the ones who use it regularly) never pay nearly as much as they contribute. Most people, I imagine, never use it in their life. Essentially, for the majority of Canadians, this is a tax to help the less fortunate. It's not something most of us have a problem with, as we'd all appreciate some help if things got rough for us, but at the same time, most honest working Canadians find the idea of seasonal workers perpetually abusing the system to be disgusting. Oh no! I hope their feelings weren't hurt! The justification is that people with jobs and a work ethic don't feel it's paying EI premiums for people who pick their asses 3-4 months of every year. A workforce that needs a perpetual hand-out to survive isn't really a workforce at all. It's a charity. I hope that nobody listens!

I have trouble believing that Harper's done a really good job. You can go down a laundry list of his drunken-sailor spending and it's cringe-worthy. The real shame of it all is that there were legitimate opportunities for the Liberals to capitalize on his meanderings. Sadly, they went in a worse direction and their poor decisions are culiminating in an goofy little air-head that speaks like a high-school student.

That sums up your life pretty neatly.

The chip on your shoulder is looking bigger and bigger every time you open your mouth. It makes life easier blaming things on everyone else doesn't it? Waaaghh, nothing's my fault, waaaagh! As I said already, your assertion that western interference forced ~70 countries into the middle ages in terms of tolerance makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever, and can easily be refuted by the exhaustive list of countries that were 'diddled' with as you like to say that did NOT turn out that way. This doesn't matter to you, however, because you're so bitter and so angry that you're not going to have a rational discussion with anyone about it.

No, it was really obvious. As I said, the comment you quoted was all in the context of a discussion about Islamic countries. Out of a list of 76 countries, you made a deliberate effort to pull the the 5-6 that weren't Islamic out of the list in order to try and look clever or something. Lame and dumb, as usual, but nice try.

I didn't bring them in the discussion. You did. I asked you to take a look at the countries where gay marriage is illegal in the context of a discussion about Islamic politics. Looking at the list, probably around 85-90% of them are Muslim countries with Muslim governments. You thought you were being clever by picking through the list and highlighting the ones that weren't, as if that actually meant anything at all. The point I was very obviously trying to make is that Islamic governments operate mostly on the principles of vague interpretations of ancient Islamic teachings rather than reason, logic or fairness. Is it rational to execute or imprison a man for being attracted to other men? Only in their world.

My, you're quite the fan of herring aren't you? Parliamentary democracies can be broken. Again, I'm wondering why you thought Barbados' stance on homosexuality was relevant to the fact that virtually ALL Islamic states outlaw it.

I want to lump their legal and political systems together as broken travesties, yes. The non-Muslim countries you listed can certainly be lumped in with that. My point, however, was that there's a damning correlation between a country being Muslim-ruled and a country outlawing homosexually, and that's only one small example of how irrational their faith-based governments typically are.

Are those countries supposed to be a counter-point against something? Russia is supposed to be used as an example of what, exactly? Homosexuality has been legal in Russia for decades. In a couple of tiny regions, for whatever reason, it's illegal to talk about it among minors. Regardless, it's a craphole as well, but a different type of craphole at least. Those other 70 countries, however, have something very interesting in common. Let's look at a map, shall we: http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/

Cool testimonial. I have friends who've been diddled by their older relatives. They still turned out to be decent human beings. 'Rational' isn't subjective. Any country that makes homosexuality illegal (or even punishable by death) is clearly not acting within the bounds of reason. Guess which countries those are? Um, which countries are those? Last I checked, the Islamic world's freedom indices were the worst in the world. Hey if they bring down the rabid fools they call their leaders, good for them. This is what I was talking about by the giant chip on your shoulder. You're bringing a completely unrelated and fundamentally different set problems into the argument that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I didn't do any such thing. You have a real logic problem I think. The West's interference in Iran may have slowed down or paused Iran's political evolution, but the likelihood of a secular democracy emerging from that was pretty low considering how the rest of the Muslim world has turned out. Take a look at the freedom rankings of all the world countries and you'll find a pretty disturbing and obvious trend. The 'democracies' and 'republics' of the Islamic world typically don't turn out very democratic.

Personal? If you say so. My total disdain for your intellectually empty positions isn't something that's getting me particularly upset though. Your research, if it was an intellectually honest pursuit, would eventually have you come to the realization that your righteous crusade against these foggy arbitrary villains (ie. the West, the "Corporations' etc) was nothing more than an attempt to explain why you're so unhappy with your life. Interestingly, however, none of the states who've freed themselves from western interference have actually evolved into rational democracies. Iran, for example, has been totally independent for 34 years, yet is further from democracy now than it has ever been. In fact, when you look at all of the violently anti-western areas and countries in the world, literally none of them have legitimately elected governments. They've generally devolved either into either military of theocratic dictatorships, and they're among the worst in the world for freedom and human rights. I'm sorry eyeball, but your dumb theories don't seem to actually make any sense. A goofy analogy by an angry and unhappy guy. The Iranians were angry about the last Shah and the USA's support for that. That's understandable. This, however, by no stretch of any brand of logic, turns them into fundamentalists. The Middle East has ALWAYS been theocratic, and that's why it's never developed true democracy. A fanatically religious and willingly ignorant people is far too easy to control, and THAT's how thefundies gain control. That's how monarchs have ruled all over the world throughout history.

I'm sneering at you because you're nattering on about the arbitrary villainous "corporations" and how they're going to somehow be held 'liable' for...whatever you think they're going to be held liable for. Your selective grasp of history forgets the thousand years where the middle east was violent and expansionist and run by vicious monsters, all justified in the name of their religion. This was long before European colonialism. That kind of goes against your brain-dead conclusion that the West somehow MADE them into the frothing and brainwashed idiots they are today. I ask you again to research Arab treatment of the Africa from 1000-1900 AD. Interesting stuff.

You bet. You deserve it. If anything, it was harder, because they didn't have the internet or mass media to keep them informed, and it started happening in the 1400's, well before colonialism, and enlightenment has been a gradual process every since the start of the reformations.It's easier for you, however, to ignore fact and history and just blame the man and corporations for the Islamic world's failings. The possibility that they're prone to villainy all on their own hasn't even occurred in your jilted mind. I recommend you look up the Arab slave trade in African from the 9th to 19th centuries. That might give you some perspective. You shouldn't be talking history, because there appears to be some fairly enormous gaps in your knowledge of it (ie. the last thousand years).

This is just goofy chip-on-your shoulder nattering now. I know 'corporation' is your pet word and for you it conjures up all sorts of visions of evil, but who are these corporations and what, specifically, are they guilty of? Things are not going to improve until they reject fundamentalism and religion as the ultimate authority over their lives and decisions. The cultures that have grown to be prosperous have all done this (more or less) and the Muslim world can expect to remain in the Dark Ages until they embrace a more secular light. Any legal or political system that operates merely on interpretations of human writing and teachings from over 1000 years ago is doomed to remain brutal, ignorant, oppressive and violent. Pre-Industrial Europe was no better.

It's something pathetically small like $30,000 across the entire country if sent out to all 166 seats, and the Liberals are doing it too, but they hilariously justify that by saying they're delivering a 'positive message'. What a pile of dog crap.

It's not taxpayer's money. It's from money raised by donors and members of the Conservative Party, just like the upcoming Liberal ads featuring little Trudeau will funded by Liberal Party donors.

The lessons of WW1 and WW2 are still too fresh in the USA's mind to try and isolate themselves from what's going on there. There are, quite literally, no examples coming even near the sorts catastrophes that happen all over the world without interference from the west. It's not even close to close. That's flat-out untrue. Religious fundamentalism is spawned out of a desire to keep the population ignorant and under control, not liberated and empowered. Unfortunately, the ignorant support this sort of thinking thus the more ignorant a population, the more entrenched the fundamentalist becomes. It's interesting to note that when Egypt's dictator was recently deposed, a fundamentalist government took over and started immediately cracking down again. Superb. You're oversimplifying because you're acting like each part of the world exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. Regional problems can become much bigger very quickly.

eyeball you sound like you know a few things about world history (no sarcasm meant). How can you possibly be forgetting the exhaustive list of cases where leaving a region to its own devices led to catastrophe? As for a clash of cultures, you're absolutely right, but you're still oversimplifiying. This is about the spread of fundamentalism throughout the world (not just in the Middle East or Afghanistan) and how completely incompatible and unacceptable that is for the West.

That chip on your shoulder is looking bigger and bigger every time you speak eyeball. The proper response to militant Islamic culture is to fight them, not back off and avoid them. The fact that they embrace vengeance is irrelevant when the fear and oppression they're trying to spread needs to be stopped. It needs to be stopped, and you don't allow them to run rampant because they're going to get really angry at you for stopping them.

Would you agree that western culture has evolved and improved since the middle ages?

Someone like you, with a giant chip on his shoulder, might think that, but that's far from the truth.

I don't disagree with you, and you're touching on the point I'm trying to make. A lot of the values we cherish here mean nothing elsewhere in the world. Women, minorities, gays etc have zero rights in certain cultures. Values like freedom and even life are worthless in certain places, and while we can explicitly state that those cultures are not ones we're going to respect or cooperate with, it's still important to understand them and get in their heads, if for no other reason that to be able to anticipate and stop further attacks.

Is that why Mali was invaded by fundamentalists? Was that the reason for the Sudan rape/genocide? Was that why there was a popular revolt in Libya that needed American support to succeed, or why the Syrian rebels were begging for American support while Assad cracked down on his people?

Gee, everything is just so simple isn't it. It's just big bad America's fault right? I mean, take the Americans out of the equation and everything is just peachy right? Islamic fundamentalists are just peaceful, reasonable people if you leave them alone. They have excellent standards of human rights, enlighten and educate their people, and they don't try to impose their beliefs or laws on anyone else.... Wait...I forgot about India/Pakistan, Turkey/Syria, Iran/Iraq, Indonesia, Mali, Sudan etc etc... The fundamentalist world is so at odds with the rest of the world that there's little hope for simple reconciliation. American foreign policy has its serious faults and there have been some horrible blunders (ie. supporting Afghani mujahadeen against the Soviets, inciting the Shiites to revolt against Saddam in the 90's and then abandoning them, only to have to come back 10 years later on the pretense of a lie and invade again etc), but there are legitimate cases where the US would be doing more harm than good by NOT interfering. You like to pretend that some of the people they go after aren't dangeous nut jobs. Did anyone else not see the irony of the Americans being asked to support the rebellion against Gadhafi???

Nobody said we shouldn't try to understand them. That's always a good idea. What's not a great idea is saying that there's a 'cause' for the attack and that it happened 'because' something was done or not done. That's a "This, therefore that" sort of statement that implies blame, and laying blame before we know anything is idiotic.