Alex Moore

You still have yet to offer any evidence the contrary of my argument which I explicitly asked in the last post. I'm not even really sure how answer you with out repeating myself. but fear not i will try. 1) your right I should back my statements with factual information but i'm a lazy asshole and this isn't the house of commons so i just don't care to. If your really disappointed in this you could always try and find proper sources that say otherwise. as i said early you have in the entire of this discussion ignored offering ANY evidence to the contrary If you'd read my initial argument its not that we should tell the iranian how they should run their country. It was that Canada was right in boycotting Ahmedinejad's speech because WE should not in any sense accept this man as a legitimate leader. (Do you actually accept him as the legitimate leader?) We as a country cannot for two reasons. One is that the election this summer was at the very least poorly handled and the evidence points towards a fraudulent election, the violence the ensued cannot be accepted by the global community and every action must be taken to peacefully condemn it (this includes boycotting his crazy speeches). Two (i'm adding this to my original argument) that we cannot accept him and his message because it is counter factual (denying the holocaust), deceitful(no we're not developing nuclear weapons) and just plain revolting. Once again we must condemn these actions by giving them no pretext to be viewed as legitimate. to your final point was that we should leave a country rule by its people to act on their own will sure why not. but when you have a clear suppression of dissent and the presence of a dictator. We have an obligation to say hey that's not right. 2) why do you have to question it? Because questioning is the route to finding truth, accepting things at face value is accepting ignorance and disillusionment. If you'd prefer the latter. GET OUT. By the way bringing up abstract points like hey remember Iraq isn't an argument its really just annoying. because now i have explain something THAT HAS NOTHING to do with the argument. now lets get crack'n. Iraq the democratization of Iraq was the only way to sell the iraq war as legitimate to america and the world. it remains the only accomplishment to date of the iraq war. Iraq now exists as a democracy and interestingly a secular middle east nation. was achieving this violent? yup! should this have happened? probably not. Is it functioning? wait 50 years and then ask the same question. but this retrospect and it meaningless to comment on it in relation to iran. GX summits qu'es que fuck? your not trying to resurrect seattle 98' are you? 3) Ali Khammenei offered to support recounts in some of the areas that were obvious cases of fraud, (like you know 90% for ahmed! its all too stalinesc to be taken as legitimate). the reform said no we would a full recount and a investigation as to whether of not there was cases of government fraud. Ali Khammenei was then like" that's the final offer" and withdrew any support for recounts. so there have not been any to date and probably will not be any. 4) Yes they have the right to vote for an anti-american president just so long as he never holds true to his promise of wiping out america and israel. There has been no recount so the factual results cannot confirmed. what is fact is that a significant portion of the Iranian people rallied against him believing as i do that the results of the elections were fraudulent. the manner. that these where violently suppressed a way most nation don't dare try. which show a Stalin like resolve for power. You did it again bringing up abstract points that have nothing to do with the argument. In cases of uncertainty in a election a government should always do a recount. in our country its constitutional. in other like the US its dependent on the state where the ballots where cast (I don't know anything about the afghan system). I believe you're referring to bush v gore of 2000 where there were some obscurities in the election that should have justified a recount. I' don't want to summarize this beyond that HBO did an interesting docudrama featuring Kevin Spacey on this election and that I believe it to be fairly accurate in their description.

I maintain that Dalton got elected the first time because he was set against the background of good old Mike Harris. The second time was because John Tory made the catholic education system the critical issue of the election. I've never seen him as a particularly great political leader. I'm not surprised at what I read. He's also failing at delivering some key issues like early childhood education and such. While also being a recent public school graduate I've seen first hand how they've ruined it. The problem remains though that neither the provincial conservatives or NDP are popular enough right now to seriously challenge the libs. so the problems that are persisting in our government aren't going to be resolved until either one can challenge our wonderful Dalton Mcguinty.

can you source that? It seems odd to me and I've never heard it before.

1) Well I tend to agree with oversight committees like you know the UN election observers who all said that this election was fraudulent. The only people who actually do think it was are you and the ahmadinejad groupies What would I call the afghan elections? a fucking disaster 2)To be honest your right I do not know what the Iranians think and want. But you cannot claim the same thing. What I do is what I have read on the subject. And when you have MONTH ALONG RIOTS. followed by you know THE VIOLENT SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT.you really have to question how legitimate the government is and how the people respect the government.but you know you and the Ahmedinejad groupies can conveniently forget this fact just like you know the holocaust. 3) READ THE PAPER AND STAY INFORMED. Just because you approach a subject with a moderate liberal opinion does not make it correct. Your forgetting (so I will remind you) that there was a very strong reform movement in Iran before Bush came into power. Bush in declaring Iran and axis of evil, gave rise to the conservatives like Ahmedinejad. but since bush left office the country has returned to favor the reform movement (this has been confirmed by oversight commitees). Before the election projection where that yes Ahmedinejad would return to office but with a slim lead(2% ish) over opposition parties. Weakening his position considerably. instead we see a complete reversal of this and that he actually comes out stronger. Odd don't you think? (of course not you and the Ahmedinejad groupies just pretend this didn't happen). Opposition parties then ask for a recount which is promptly rejected by the supreme autocrat Ayatollah Ali Khammenei. Because the dirty little secret that everyone knows (except you of course) is that Ahmedinejad and Ali Khammenei are in bed together (metaphorically I hope). their policies of anti Americanism has become so intertwined with each other. That basically the two are inseparable. The fraudulent nature of this become apparent to the opposition causing mass protest. Which is violently suppress through both the police and pro-government militias causing riots and further protests. The government then suppresses any dissent and finally violently squashes the protests. Please do the one thing you have failed thus far and explain to me that after independent observers have claimed this election to be fraudulent. That after are mass protests and a violent suppression of them. That their election was fair and legitimate and that Ahmedinejad is not another bat-fucking crazy dictator.

maybe there's a high cost to developing our north(I absolutely refuse to read that rag known as "the star" lol). But we must do so in order to extend sovereignty over it. Without any industry or population there to speak of as our own our claim over it becomes purely territorial. Without any legitimate claim to we may as well say "hello Russia, and/or USA please, come rape and pillage our land" Canada is so far behind when compared to other northern nations we really have alot of catching up to do.

I think the courts are trying to avoid confrontation with this issue. If convicted the Blackmore "family" would have grounds to appeal before the supreme court. The courts get enough shit from the religious right over the morgentaler case and there's a fear that polygamy could get handled similarly If forced into a constitutional challenge.

lol and that he's not actually american born.

In the original argument or the current?

(Applause) yay! someone else who offer criticisms without actually looking at the argument. No we are not the ones deciding the legitimacy of other people elections. The Iranian are the one deciding the legitimacy of their own. You may have conveniently forgotten but after the fraudulent Iranian elections this summer: there where riots demanding recounts. Followed by a severe beat downs from police and paramilitants. Arrests for being on the same street as a protest/being British or working for a western organisation. followed by the show trial of opposition leaders. I'm not the one saying that's the government isn't legitimate. If there's one thing we learned from this summer its that the Iranians themselves don't think their own government is legitimate. Maybe I didn't make this point strong enough in the original argument.

I disagree. We cannot lend any legitimacy to the Iranian regime after the clearly fraudulent election this year. Listening to that crazy crazy man talk means two things: one that we accept him as the leader of Iran. Two that he has something worthwhile to say. Neither of which are correct. Ahmadinejad has already made it clear that diplomacy is not the option with him. War isn't an option. The only chance we have to get rid of this guy is through the Iranian people. therefore we cannot under any circumstances make this guy even appear legitimate/respected.

There used to be an insult for conservatives and it was called Hitler. Then 2000 came around and it was Bush. Now? Its Sarah Palin

Agreed. I was on a debate team and one of the works purposed was the power of now . His philosophy is basically watered down Buddhism with out any sense of commitment or practice. Further more there is absolute disregard for philosophical/theological practice/criticism. This has just become another reason why I hate Oprah

lol I voted Iggnatieff, he's what I would imagine an uncle who touches you funny looks like. Plus he's proven himself to be the biggest political opportunist in Canadian politics (yes surpassing Stephen Harper)

Probably but gun control hasn't been an issue for awhile now in Canada. it might be difficult to resurrect the issue "no criminal to date has registered his firearm" ? I think your wrong on this point

The obvious answer: It Isn't We have a responsibility to resolve the conflicts we begin.

Well Michael Iggnatieffs plan is clear then. To move in on NDP turf. Like Dion Iggnatieff intends to collect on the left vote knowing its harder to play for conservative votes and still remain the liberal party.

Also there are now two ways of spelling creepiest

This Just For fun so please don't take this seriously.

This Iggnatieff we're talking about here. .He's just playing the role of critic. For something like the economy nothing is good enough for him, while offering nothing constructive or substantial. He's not going either because doing so would require him to commit to something. Which he won't do.

Uh ok? and this is supposed to be some kind of revelation?

The settlers mentality is that this is their land and that the Palestinians are occupying, to them they are reclaiming Israel territory.

The explanation I have heard for jack Layton's decision has been that the NDP aren't ready for an election. If that's the case then I wonder how long this will last or If he'll end up another Dion.

Omar Khadr, is not a Canadian Canadians don't try and blow up their own soldiers. Any Canadian that tries is no longer a Canadian. As to your second point. Your criticism is valid except that in order to fix it we'd have to abolish the Canadian refugee system. Yes Canada has let in war criminals, hell even nazis. But we did so not knowing they were. in a refugee situation crimes committed are rarely known until after the conflict has been resolved. to be able to screen all individual of crimes committed before we'd have to wait until the conflict was resolved negating the need for refuge.

Please tell me you are joking. (it's not that funny)

McKenna is the only liberal that I would ever consider voting for as of right now. the problem is that the liberal party has effectively purged itself of any Chretien era liberals. also he has refused the position twice now Rae is by far the most laughable liberal candidate unless Joe Volpe makes another run for it. By that I mean Rae would result in a shut out from ontario which would reduce the liberal considerably. Kennedy: although I respect this guy. I think he is one of the few genuine politicians left. He has not really done anything since entering politics which makes me wonder if he'd go for it again. Justin Trudeau: people seem to think he has this aura about him. Entirely because he is the son of Trudeau. Which by no means makes him a good politician (If politics where genetic lord help us lol). Dion: ? I think this would play out like a scene from frankenstein