Machjo

Scott Reid. Again, I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's got some good ones none-the-less. This of course is if you're talking about members of the Conservative Party. Otherwise, André Arthur, an independent in Parliament, is another one to keep a close eye on. He's had some good ideas too, though as an independent he'll never be PM of course.

This is another reason I've sometimes tended to vote more left that right. The left does seem more able to balance the books judging from recent history in Canada and the US, and I think the reason is that it acknowledges that if it intends to spend, it must raise taxes too. But it still ticks me off when even the NDP supports subsidizing big business like the car industry for crying out loud. The difference though is that at least the NDP would raise taxes to pay for it whereas the Conservatives still choose to subsidize but then refuse to raise taxes. On that front, at least the left (and yes I am generalizing here) is honest enough to admit that it needs to raise taxes. That said, if a politician comes in promising not tax cuts, but rather spending cut, then I know he's a real fiscal conservative. honestly, I'm not sure Paul meets that standard. But at least he'd be serious about cutting spending so as to bring sustainable tax cuts in future closer to reality.

Also, even if social spending is higher than military spending, it still doesn't change the fact that, relatively speaking at least, it's much more of an investment. Spending on education for example will generally come back to benefit the economy and society later. And what about that 4.5% 'investment'? Flush. I'm not saying I agree with excessive social spending to begin with; but if it's a choice between that and military spending, then it's still an investment at least.

And again, I'm not I agree with Ron Paul's desire to cut taxes so radically and so quickly. That said, he is the one who'd bring spending down at least so as to make his tax cuts come to at least partial reality in a sustainable manner over time.

1. 4.5% of GDP is not small potatoes compared to most other developed countries. That's money a person could use towards helping others if he wished. 2. I thought job creation was supposed to be left to the private sector in Republican ideology?

I'd read about this. Now Ron Paul stated some other guy wrote it, though I'd say if Ron Pal was truthful there, then it was highly irresponsible of him to have someone else write on his behalf without him at least editing it. So yes, it was written in Ron Paul's name, and so he should take full responsibility for this. Yet, even if he should be racist and did write that and meant it, let's say, it still does not change the fact that his very libertarian views would not affects in any concrete practical sense. By the way, he does have black supporters too: Again, with two sides to the story here, I don't know the whole truth. But in the end, it's clear that his policy stance would not affect blacks in any practical sense at least.

There too. Usually it's a see-saw battle between Democrats and Republicans about HOW to pend the money, with Democrats spending on social programmes and Republicans spending on the Military Industrial Complex. And of course Republicans add a further irresponsible move by proposing to cut taxes without commensurate cuts to spending, or at least not sufficient cuts. Ron Paul is one of the few who proposes not just a debate about HOW to spend the money, but rather about whether to spend the money. While he wants to cut spending to social programmes, he also wants to cut spending to the military too. No sacred cows. Some have asked me in another forum about why I usually vote left when many of my economic views are moderate-right. My answer has generally been that if it's a choice between the military and social programmes, then at least social programmes, if done properly, such as education, job training, etc. can be an economic investment, whereas military spending is just money flushed. That said, if it's a choice between excessive spending and spending cuts across the board, then I'm more right-leaning than left. I guess that's what attracts me to Ron Paul.

As mentioned above, Paul is not without his flaws, one of which being that he'd want to scrap the IRS immediately. That would be too radical when the government still has so much debt. That said, cutting spending on pre-emptive wars would be a nice first step.

I think Jews and Muslims have it right with this event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGivELEG0Ko&feature=related It's a conspiracy I tell you. These Muslims are not sincerely good at heart. They're being kind because it's a requirement of Shari'a law. They're trying to Islamize the country, see. It's a way to attract people to Islam. Just as the Islamic centre should not be built there, so Muslims have to stop being kind too or it will confuse people, damn it. I'm telling you, it's a conspiracy.

Oh, he has flaws indeed. He still stands out as an intellectual giant next to the other leaders of the Republican Party I've come across. Hell, he puts quite a few Democrats to shame too.

That's why I'd used the conditional present tense.

New York Muslim saves Jews from 'Christian' antisemitism. Bust still, if this guy thinks he's earned the right to be treated as an equal around Ground Zero, think again. The protesters will haunt him at every turn, because after all it's his beliefs that led to the attacks, right?

Birds of a feather...

I like this video of his too: Here he makes Hilary Clinton look like a senseless hawk. I will say Hilary was right about the Taliban protecting Bin Laden. That said, she still seemed way too hesitant to give a straight answer on the bush Doctrine.

Here's the link:

Ron Paul is absolutely amazing. Heck, he puts Democrats to shame, let alone Republicans. I'd come across Ron Paul's ideas a long time ago. but I have to say that though I usually vote left, Ron Paul is one Republican I'd seriously consider voting for if he were running in Canada. Amazing, honest politician who doesn't succumb to stupid rhetoric. Truly a politician with brains in his head.

Maybe I have confused you. Sorry.

Just so I understand correctly... you're not responsible for the crazies in your camp, but Muslims are responsible for the crazies who identify with them. Check.

Again, you're making assumptions here. A convert to Islam will certainly benefit from his non-Muslim experiences just as a convert to Christianity will. Though granted a convert will usually be open minded almost by definition.

And as a North American man (not that's it's relevant), I can tell you that not all Muslims are dictated to by fathers, husbands or clerics. In fact, from my observations, converted Muslims are often freer than others. To take but one example, I remember a case in Victoria of a converted Muslim woman at a Muslim funeral. All the men were on one side, the women on the other, but she stayed with her husband on the grounds that there is no requirement in the Qur'an to divide themselves like that. She'd converted from a protestant background where the Bible is the final judge of what is Christian, and so she took that same principle to the Qur'an and Ahadith. if it wasn't in the Qur'an or Ahadith, then it was just some ethnic thing with no bearing on Islam. I can imagine she gave many local Muslims a hard time with her understanding of the religion, but it shows that we need to distinguish between Islam on the one hand, and ethnic superstitions on the other.

I also get the impression though that North Americans in general are becoming less tolerant of religious freedom. I think in the past there was a belief that this would ensure all voluntary conversion would be to the Christian Faith. Now that we see converts to Islam from all branches of society, from the child of a Baptist minister, the Algonquin lady down the street, and the new immigrant, suddenly freedom of religion doesn't seem so good anymore.

I should also clarify that when I said France had made Algerians their equal, I was referring strictly in a historical context during the time of empire and only on an official level in that they were all given France citizenship. By no means did I intend to imply that even there Algerians were fully equal in daily life. I'm sure they were likely just as xenophobic as they are now if not more so. One of their intentions then though was to assimilate the Algerians into French culture to make Algeria a permanent French territory. Clearly their intent was to transform Algerians and not just accept them as is. I still admire their willingness at the time to treat the Algerians they ruled over a full-fledged citizens in spite of all those flaws though.

Pardon me. I wasn't referencing general French culture here, but merely the legal status of Algerians near the end of the colonial period. They were full-fledged French citizens. I do agree though that today France has become extremely xenophobic.