Sir Bandelot

I agree with it. The problem is that political leaders who lick the hands of big business interests will abuse that devotion that is the military, for their own purposes. The challenge for citizens is to hold them accountable, to protect our troops from an abuse of power. So I have no problem voicing my objection when I see that a war is un-just. It doesn't mean I am unpartriotic or don't support the military, quite the opposite. The worst kind are the bobble-heads who always agree with anything they're told from our leaders, they have no idea what the corruption and abuse of power can do.

Yeah I bet your a big bully at home. I on the other hand raised my objections when we discussed it at the dinner table, with all 3 of my kids listening. So while it may not mean much to you and some others here, I do have a place where I get my point across, in my own way. And if I choose to bring it into this or any other topic on here, that is not for you to say whats allowed or whats not. So, enjoy

It's fairly simple; if you capitulate to everything the US wants from you you're ok. Up until the moment Saddam started nationalizing the oil industry and trying to invest its wealth into the people if Iraq, he was considered an ally of the US. Once he started making noises about Kuwait and the unfair price of oil, he was an enemy. US foreign policy does not concern itself with the internal politics of a country. Whether they're democratic or a dictatorship matters not, but what matters is, does their government cooperate with American interests. Even if those interests mean a bad deal for the people of that country, by unfair trade deals and lower wages. Once you understand that, you understand the basics of US foreign policy. Not that our country is so wonderfully fair to the rest of the world either. We buy our cheap goods from China, India, Pakistan, made by people who live in filth and are virtually slaves, so that we get a good bargain at Aikenheads.

It is important, our troops are dieing there too.

I object to the way it is used today to promote militarism in schools. On rememberance day they sent a military guy to give a speech at my kids high-school, and he went on about the Taliban, showing pictures of "the face of the enemy" etc. To me Remembrance day has become a day to glorify the military, not remember the sacrifices made in the world wars. We have pretty much forgetten those days and their events, our leaders ignore the laws of the Geneva conventions, things like torture, unlawful detention and first-strikes. If we want to honour the vets we should also remember those things, lest they happen again caused by us.

Well that's hardly the example I was thinking of. Freedom of speech, or more broadly the freedom to express ideas should have certain limits. Ideas that portray groups of people in a negative way, like ideas that show women as inferior objects, ideas about races being subordinate to others, those are examples where freedom is not always good. Although I do not oppose freedom of expression or freedom of activities where it does not affect the liberty of others, I also would not say, all such forms of freedom are always good. A society sets standards of decency, moral values. When somone expresses ideas that are contrary to the values of the majority, I mean ideas that would undermine freedom of others to grow into complete human beings, as with subordination of women or minorities beng portrayed in the media, society must determine what is acceptable and sometimes limit those forms of freedom. It comes down to, nothing we do happens in isolation. Actions you take do in certain ways affect others. For your example, think about that poor donkey... In others, children who have not yet learned about equality might get negative impressions, ideas such as lead to a Hitler jugend, or take away the dignity of our elders, media that perverts the minds of those who observe it by planting perverted ideas. Second example in light if this thread is, we sometimes give up freedom for our obligations. When society is threatened in wars, it is necessary to draft soldiers... and those that refuse for personal reasons, personal objection to war are either forced to go or imprisoned. If everybody refused, the enemy would win. There is a time when its necessary to give up on lassaise fair freedoms, because of obligations set by society. Freedom is not the greatest achievement of the individual... total freedom cannot be maintained and leads to ones own collapse, leads to the demise of freedom.

Thats right, a criticism of unbridled liberalism. Freedom does not mean that everything is permissible. Some times it is necessary to be un-free, as when we are obligated to fulfill our duty. Now as to Lest we forget, I don't mind honouring those who put themselves in harms way to fight oppression and tyranny. But tyranny has many faces, and it takes more than one man to start a war. While I appreciate such events as remembrance day, we should teach our kids about the history of the world wars, about the sacrifices made by their grandparents. What we should not do, is use it as a vehicle to promote renewed militarism. War should be used to protect and defend, as a last option when no other reasonable means to resolve a conflict exists, not pre-emptive or first strikes. Today there is a push to revise some of the laws that came about as a consequence of the world wars. In some cases to ignore what was agreed upon in those days. I believe our grandparents would have us remember those things too.

Fascists never are.

"While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray “that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.” She added, “That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.” “It's pretty uncomfortable stuff,” said the political operative, after watching the video online." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...02/1327574.aspx = Pray to God for a good war. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas pipeline built so pray for that …I can do my job there in developing my natural resources..But all of that doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart is not good with God.” http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/08/ac36...-pastor-speaks/ = Pray to God for the big money, honey

I don't believe it. She is one who claims that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a mission "from God". Sounds like another nut-job ala Bush. Even if she didn't mean it, that she would say such a thing to appeal to the minds of the religious right wing conservatives and the gun lobby and their children, is unconscionable. In my opinion in a secular state, the words "from God" issuing from the lips of political leaders should be verboten.

Was it a black Lab?

With polls being accurate to only a few percentage points, thats pretty good. 11-3=8

Time to get back to work and ignore the media circus.

"Stocks rise despite dismal employment news" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/ They're up, they're down. They're up... I wonder how Obama does that?

"Are you happy with Obama being elected president" I'm so happy, I'm doing cartwheels! Hoo Hah!

There was tears in the other court too. Some people were so upset about the Obama win, they reported crying all night long. Thats what happens when you bombard the electorate with useless media hype, splashy tabloid headlines that prey on their anger and fears, or exhalt the leader to messianic godhood. They become psychotic idiots. I feel sorry for them. These people need to see a shrink.

My how the worm has turned.

"Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, said percentage turnout was lower because Republicans stayed away from the polls. Disappointment over Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, combined with a perception that the ticket would lose, prompted many would-be Republican voters to ditch the polls on Election Day, Gans said. There was real hostility ... amongst moderate Republicans that McCain would choose the conservative governor, Gans said." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/vot...nout/index.html This observation about the effect of the Palin choice also reinforces my argument, as to why fewer Canadians went to the polls last month. We had our own Sarah Dion The knives out for Palin are not justified, in my view. She is what she is- the failure rests solely with John McCain. And in that light, the right choice was made.

It's easy to say, "Look at what they do, they are thus and thus", but the truth of these matters is, its only a few loudmouths who make the most noise get the most attention. Same goes for those who boo loudly when McCain mentions Obama in his conciliation speech. Fact is, people who are moderate tend to stay quiet and mind their own business, while intolerant ones go stomping through the playground making a lot of noise. The loud ones need to be further marginalized, not made to be representative spokesmen for the group. The problem is, no one stands up and tells them to shut up.

As to these types of observations, I personally disagree because I am not attracted to people I don't like, no matter how they look. This brings up the old adage, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig".

Didn't say Canada was different, did I. I'm not crying... but I'm not the one who's laughing either.

When a powerful country has so many enemies, it is practically inevitable that there will be more military conflict. Unfortunately some types of bullies do not respond to diplomacy and give no other option. But knowing it inevitably means suffering for ordinary people caught in the middle, its hardly something to laugh about.

Obama is also half-white, and was raised by white parents and grandparents. Why would he not care about white Americans. I don't see it as an issue worth worrying about. I think he will be about the same as many other presidents before him. He will have to get support from all parties involved in order to achieve things, so in some ways he will succeed and in others he will not. But I hope that he will do good things for America and the world. It depends on how much support he gets for his ideas. There is a cult mentality or fanaticism about politics, high emotions when people win, or lose an election. Some news showing people are crying in anger, and in joy about the Obama win. My perception is that it's much more extreme in the US than in Canada, maybe because of the longer campaigns and media hype that preys on peoples emotions. They like pick apart, analyze every aspect of their candidates lives. Compared to that, we barely know much about our leaders.

Although she was much loved by some, in a pop-starish way, sensible republicans who are serious about politics questioned McCains choice right from the beginning. I will be surprised if she does become a serious contender in 2012. If the party wants to improve its credibility amongst politicos, they should re-think that one. My hope is that people will not be so easily attracted to mere sensationalism, and that parties will not try to manipulate the tabloid reading masses. Of course, my attitude towards her would be different of she demonstrated some mastery of political dialog, including geography and history.

I disagree that making such arguments about political parties and their ideologies constitutes a personal insult to their supporters, and somehow justifies their attacks. Else, we could have hardly any debates here at all. I realize I might be attacked, but I hope that only the ideas will be attacked. There are really two reasons I have not continued with this part of the debate- Although I showed some examples, I didn't have time to make a full blown case, and it is really off-topic from the original post. I want to start a new thread on it, but I have been busy with other things, not enough time to get around to it. So I do want to continue the discussion, because I believe it will yield some things. The main point to me, is not to attack the CPC but it really originates with this expression, Islamo-fascists, and the fact that many people today don't even know what "fascist" means. They should know more about it, because parts of our society today copies the ideas of the original fascists very closely. And corporatism does threaten our liberty if the corporations influence governments, in their application of laws, environmental policies, privacy and labour regulations. But it should have its own thread. That way the topic is more obvious to other readers who can give their views, and we can let the dead Somali girl rest. So that is why I stopped, NOT because I don't believe in it. Of course, knowing I will be personally attacked, and that mine and other peoples views may not ever change, does make it somewhat tiresome to get into.