Sir Bandelot

Not really. What, sending the ship back, knowing full well what will happen to them, that's not complicit? Not accepting child refugees? Both things Canada did. Oh wait, after much debate in the House Canada decided they would allow a number of child refugees- they accepted ONE.

Wow Bush shows the world he has a soul. No, not a "soul brother"... Even a flower can bloom in the desert.

Really? I'm used to politicians having to apologize to their wives for something, in such circumstances.

On a higher moral plane, move on, ignore, learn to let it go. Recognize when there's no point in continuing. Unless of course you have infinite time to argue pointlessly, while real life in the outside world passes you by. Remember, there is no "win" in any of these posts, unless one person concedes a loss. Or my favorite method, drag it so deep into the gutter that even they can't be bothered with yet another answer. A lesson in absurdity

The reason for the disparity is pretty obvious, women carry the burden of "biological responsibility". That's why they are more pressured and discouraged from unprotected sex by their families. It's hard to ignore when you get pregnant... As for no one teaching their boys to be responsible, that's hogwash. Boys are generally taught by their families to respect women. Maybe not much by their peers. It depends on the family values... which nowadays is where most of the real social ills stem from. Acceptance of hedonism is on the rise in our culture, and along with that comes consequences.

Interesting and believeable anecdote. Many people do not know about western complicity in the holocaust, and to this day the story is not being fully acknowledged and told. The larger conclusion is that the west turned its back on the Jews, and once they were corralled into Palestine it wasn't our problem anymore. In truth the roots of anti-semitism go much much farther back than the past 100 years. More like, 2000 years... See Martin Luther, for example. His treatise on the Jews would have made Hitler blush.

Yeah, been there. was posted in "To the Tea Party: Keep Your Hands Off of German History" But I differ with how cleanly you brought the Jews to Palestine. A chosen destination... history seems to hint that they wanted to go to Canada, The US, Great Britain, even Cuba, South America. All turned them down. Oh yeah, some got let in some of those countries. But many did not... and these people were facing a life-threatening emergency. Let's not gloss over what happened. The whole world turned its back on these people. And the Gypsies, and the Roma... please, not in my backyard, Jack... So the "untermensch" were sent to a land, where there was an even lower untermensch. Not a problem that Palestinians already lived there. They could be deported too, by the hundreds of thousands, in good old nazi style (but the year is 1948... hardly can blame the nazis for that one.) From this we can draw a larger conclusion, as to the roots of WESTERN antisemitism

achh noo, I've naye got me boots on...

Even if it is disconcerting to some, not sure what anyone can do about it. Write laws against naming your kid Mohammed? Or laws preventing muslims from having more babies? How about making more "white" babies instead? Start a baby-making war... What do you propose can be done about it?

He makes many good points, a voice of reason, from a muslim. One can also interpret what he said about fascism as this: Europeans had a "problem", they wanted to export the Jews and had some meetings to discuss where to send them. Interesting places like Madagascar were mentioned. Canada, the US and Great Britain did not go out of their way to allow Jews to immigrate into those countries. So finally a parcel of land was decided upon, by these "Great Powers" who didn't want them to come into their own borders. In doing this what they were saying is. now it's your problem not mine.

the difference is, I don't need approval from this audience. Just getting my digs in. Now back to the somber tone of the flagellationists

I agree that the theme song is one of the things that makes all these openings great. Some of the shows like Hawaii 5-O had theme songs written by highly acclaimed composers. As a kid I liked the theme song to "Chico and the Man" written by Jose Feliciano, but the show was kinda dumb.

What a nexus we have arrived at... the "klown without pity" is actually a humourless clown...

Yeah and you love it. Homerun every time baby. Boom! Boom! Boom!

Realist is the word. Let's just put Saddam back in the picture, see what would happen. This sort of violence was heavily suppressed and controlled, because, just as many of your own arguments constantly go, these people are violent even towards each other. As many detractors said during the Iraq war, you can't have democracy when there is no will to cooperation. The only way to have society with some measure of peace is through strict dictatorship. Under Saddam, no one was even allowed to fart in the streets. now, virtual lawlessness rules the land. But hey, ok, USA...

They were vanquished, but legal treaties were drawn up at the time. So they were not quite so completely vanquished, were they. If there is a valid legal claim, that creates a real conundrum, doesn't it. Simple fact is, it will not go away on its own no matter how much people like you don't like it. This injustice has already been recognized by the UN. UNITED NATIONS: Canada was not just at the wrong end of a losing vote here in September 2007 for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it was a glaring spotlight on a failed Tory government campaign, which cost Canada prestige and respect. And its actions will not be forgotten or disappear, as highlighted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, who said she was astonished that Canada voted against this declaration. http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00122

The medium is the message.

If I boil down what you're saying here, it means we are not the ones who stole the land, but we bought the stolen goods, and moved in.

Socially liberal, yes...

What about, doing so for safety or defence FROM Canada? Since the apparent offences occured in another country. --> "without lawful authority..." Whose authority was he working for? It also excludes the word "willingly..."

I think the article is arguing that part of the reason some drugs are criminalized at the present time has to do with politics and economics. Also it indicates the need to make alcohol less readily available (but not illegal) by increasing the price. Human nature says, do that and all you do is drive alcohol into the black market, where people who want to drink it can buy it cheaper. See Native Reserves and tobacco sales for further reference. In doing so they lose the safety aspect of getting clean alcohol, as set out by federal regulations. For more on this, see Al Capone

no, but once they grow up

"Mission Accomplished..."

But if you read the details of the study, there are other significant factors that make alcohol rank higher than the rest. Alcohol, taken in sufficient quantity damages every organ in the body. Alcohol is a form of poison. Hence "intoxicant" And secondly the consideration if the drug tends to cause aggressive behaviour leading to violence, marital breakdowns. Like that.

He's saying that progressive liberalism ultimately leads to pedophilia, and he has the magazines to prove it.