Jump to content

Reverend Blair

Member
  • Posts

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Reverend Blair

  1. It seems I'm the only one in thread who doesn't fuck pigs. Sorry boys, I've seen enough of your little site. Have a nice life.
  2. I never said that there wasn't waste, but inferring that is all our tax money goes to is just silly. Yes, and I made sure to vote for as many Manitoba/Canadian owned businesses as possible. Within that I voted for those companies that have a record of supporting the same things I do. Not one of those companies, nor my bank, nor Visa, nor Mastercard can track my purchases though. My income, postal code, etc cannot be used to say, "X percentage of people in this type of area and this income bracket purchase this type of product so we should target them with this new product that directs with the small businesses they are currently buying from." The small businesses I support cannot afford that type of profiling, so by paying cash I am supporting them. By supporting them, I am supporting my own province and country.
  3. I paid cash for all of my purchases last week. I have no problem divulging what I bought...groceries, beer, a used distributor, tobacco, insulin and needles (diabetic dog), and pet food...but I do not like being profiled by large corporations so they can better target me with advertising. I don't like paying taxes, but do understand that they are used to pay for services that I want the government to provide. I do not think that they should determine the worth of a citizen though. I know a couple of people who do not work and therefore pay no taxes. They still contribute to the country as a whole though, through volunteer work or looking after elderly parents or both. That is valuable. There is more to a society than money and a government is there to do much more than manage tax dollars.
  4. You have no right to force your beliefs on the rest of us. When you speak of laws that recognise only your version of the traditional family, that is what you are doing. Laws that protect the rights of gays, on the other hand, do not force those views on you. We do not require that you marry somebody of the same sex. We have taken great pains to not force your church into performing same-sex marriages. You can do as you want within your own lives. I'll bet you don't have a lot of contact with gays in those now.
  5. Or it could be that evolution makes sense.
  6. The problem is that US will not be successful in bringing democracy if they continue to do things the way they have been, Willy. They require the support of the Iraqi people for that and they have done little or nothing to win that support. They just turned Iraq over to its own government. The problem is that they picked who the government would be an insist on maitaining control of almost everything. When (if) elections happen will the US allow people who speak out against them to run? Will the US allow those people to take office if they win? We have not seen a history of that in modern US foreign policy and the Bush regime seems to want to keep a tight hold on the reins of Iraq. That is the sort of thing that got them booted out Iran in the first place and it is the kind of thing that built Saddam's power to the point it reached.
  7. Ah, another mob lawyer trying to defend the indefensible. Sorry dude, international law runs wider an narrower than that. You'bve forgotten to give an example of the US installing a democracy in the modern world. WWII was a long time ago. Things have changed since then. Defend your president of choice. Remember context? So does the US government. Sometimes they have to beat people to death to make their point understood, but the Iraqi people understand it fully. That's why so many so vehemently oppose the US occupation. You seem to be purposely obtuse. It is illegal to beat people to death. It is illegal to torture people. It is, as an occupying nation, illegal to change the economic structure of a country. Those things aren't just against international law, they are against US military law. There is no question that they occurred in Iraq. Things that are contentious include little things like the CIA hiring private contractors who fall into a grey area when it comes to torturing people. You know what? A mercenary is a mercenary and about the lowest scum on the planet. The pricks that hire them are even lower than that. Want to defend mercenaries now? Go for it. They are just earning a living, after all. There are prostitutes and then there are whores...which camp do the mercenaries fit into? Their apologists? Then they should be held fully responsible. If they are not willing to be held accountable the end result will be abuse. So it must be okay to send a rocket into a hotel then? Or blow up the offices of a press agency that has taken the time to be sure you know their coordinates so you don't blow them up by accident? That's what AJ did...made sure the US knew exactly where they were so there wouldn't be any "accidents" like there were in Afghanistan. Incidentally, AJ shared offices with the BBC in Afghanistan. The US bombed the BEEB. Now there's a sign of a democratic nation, huh? The BBC is the closest thing the planet has to a universally recognised press agency and Bush sent a fucking rocket into their offices because he didn't like their friends. Defend that, hugo. Keep in mind the rather sage words of Gilles Duceppe though...having a friend does not mean you have to kneel in front of him.
  8. Ah, so it does take a village to raise a child. Has it occured to you that a lot of the "family values" argument was previously taken care of by consensual silence and turning a blind eye. Example...bachelors and old maids. They've always been there. There were a lot of rumours. It wasn't a real problem though, because they kept quiet. They aren't quiet anymore, they want you to acknowledge them. Does that really change anything? The latest and most common (meant in the most derogatory way possible) version of family values is little more than an attempt by those stuck in the old testament to force the rest of us to live within their limited grasp of reality. Silence and hypocrisy isn't enough, only regressive laws and idiocy will suffice at this point. Hitler had a cure for gays too. He murdered them, just like he did to Jews and Gypsies. I've fallen down a couple of hills in my lifetime. It was wet and steep and...I learned to watch where the hell I stepped. Maybe you oughtta give that a shot, DAC and Digby.
  9. Exactly, Idealist. We're supposed to buy into a system that no decent businessman would opt for himself. If we don't agree to it we are communists or anarchists or something. Pee on that, not being an idiot does not make anybody a communist or an anarchist. We are supposed to buy into the dogma of not asking questions and short-term profit being good enough, no matter what the long-term cost. I may have been born at night, but I wasn't born into a family of myopic greed-hogs.
  10. Since I had a couple of politically opposite grandfathers who both grew wheat for a living and helped to start the Wheatboard (along with everybody else) and I still have many relatives who grow wheat and support the CWB, I'll just assume that you are misinformed, Krusty. You can believe whatever you want. Personally I believe that Greg Moore was Jesus and died because of Tony George's sins. It's at least as solid as your feelings about the CWB.
  11. I did say that, and I stand by it. Such an admission by a criminal shows contempt for the law. Perle was clearly aware that he wouldn't be prosecuted. I'll sjow you mine if you'll show me yours. Who, prominent in international law outside of the Bush administration, has clearly backed your position up? Not by inference. Who has outright said that the invasion was legal? Ah, but their basic argument is based on international law. They wanted a specific resolution because the US was using old resolutions to circumvent the spirit and letter of existing law by insisting it didn't apply because this was a continuation of an old conflict. They were seeking to strengthen their case, not make a new one. Which US action? You can quibble about the invasion itself, but the US has broken many laws in Iraq since then. They did not prevent looting or even try (unless you count the oil ministry), they did change laws that affected the basic economic structure of the country. There is footage of US soldiers shooting a wounded Iraqi soldier who is clearly out of action. There is serious doubt as to whether the use of some weapons the US uses is legal. There is footage of US soldiers shooting into a crowd of unarmed civilians and of bombs being dropped on civilian neighbourhoods in an effort to kill one or two of Saddam's pals. I didn't compare the US to the Angels by accident. Frankly, I trust the Angels a lot more, which is not at all.
  12. Just a wild shot at trying to find something out. What constitutes a traditional family?
  13. "I think" implies nothing but conjecture on my part. That's why I put it in. Are you saying that my opinion implies fact?
  14. I'd love it to be about something else, but Caesar is right. I was almost gleeful when I saw the headline this morning, and sadly disappointed when I saw the story that followed. Blaming Martin for the coke on his boat is as wrong as saying that Reagan won the Cold War or Dick Cheney shouldn't change his name to Spiro Agnew.
  15. Because Hank Kissinger is a robot too, and they are deeply in love? Not your average love, but a manly kind of love based on physicality as well as a deep understanding of each other's dark and twisted souls.
  16. So are you advocating that only those who have paid taxes be allowed to vote?
  17. Which part of "I think" did you not understand, Krusty?
  18. You may want to give Bobby Zoellick a Google, August. You might want to consider that Britain got Bush to drop the unfair steel duty by promising to target key states. You might want to look into the Campesino forums in Mexico (Zoellick declared victory before he got on the plane to go to Mexico. He got told to piss off) and consider that a lot of countries have refused to sign on to the FTAA. No, it is saying that any reasonably intelligent businessman knows that they should not rely on a single customer because that customer can then bully them and/or put them out of business.
  19. No bait and switch. When has a unilateral US action resulted in a democracy. Don't tell me how this isn;t unilateral either, they are clearly running the show and it was clearly the US that decided to go to war. I'm not trying to pull anything off course. You are ignoring that this invasion has more in common with incursions into South America than it does with World War two. I think your source in nothing more than an opinion colomn that conveiently ignores facts that it can't make support the author's argument. As long as cluster munitions are used, and although it wasn't in the link there is also the use of du munitions to consider, the body count will continue to rise long after the conflict is over. The Iraq people are fully, and quite personally, aware of that. It is something that cannot be ignored for the convenience of your argument. Are you ignoring the fact that so many involved in international law have said that the invasion is illegal. Even Richard Perle admitted it was likely illegal. Kofi Annan said it was illegal. Their familiarity with international law is far greater than either yours or Krusty's. Until you provide your legal degrees and resumes it will remain so. Did I say anything about them being better, worse, or the same? As long as any nation is above any law, then others have a green light not to follow the law as well. Look at it this way...when the Hells Angels come to a town and start offing the other criminals, we still seek to prosecute them. The experience in Winnipeg is that the Angels are far more professional than most criminals though, so the harm done to innocent bystanders is less. Are you saying that we should let the Angels run organised crime in Winnipeg? It's the same principle...we need to prosecute criminals whoever they are. Even Krusty agreed that all of the claims seemed to stem from one article that was based on a quote from CNN that he can't find. Some refutation. al Jazeera is an internationally recognised press outlet, no more biased than Fox when you get right down to it. The reporters in the Palestine were not working for the Iraqi press and were not Iraqi. The Iraqi press was not part of the embedding process. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. You are saying that one of the basic tenets of democracy doesn't matter in a place where the US is claiming to try to bring democracy. If the US were to invade Canada would say it was okay for them to blow up the offices of the CBC? How about the Sun? The Winnipeg Free Press? MacLean's? If there were a bevy of international press staying at tehe Richmond Inn would it be acceptable for them to fire missiles into the hotel? Would it be appropriate for them to refuse to have an open investigation into the matter?
  20. I was thinking we should eliminate men who wear ties on a daily basis. The bloodflow tyo their brains is constricted and they tend to make bad decisions.
  21. I'd like to see Saddam in an international court. His crimes reached far outside the scope of his own country and there will a lot of ass-covering going on with the trial being held in Iraq. I don't think Iraq is a signatory to the ICC though. I know for sure that the US is not. Even if they both were signatories, the convention is clear...a country gets first shot at their own criminals. As for the Glaspie go ahead for the invasion of Kuwait. I think that Saddam honestly thought that he had permission from his American masters. He was still basically a puppet of the US at the time, he went and asked permission, he thought he had it because he was told that the US would stay out of it. I think that permission likely came from the White House through Glaspie or was the standing policy. Diplomats do not make decisions like that on their own. I don't think it was some conspiracy within the White House though. I think that it was likely a misunderstanding of the effects of allowing such an invasion. Kuwait was screaming that they thought the US was their friend and the Saudis were making noise that they might be next. They told the US to leash its pitbull.
  22. We actually sell very little wheat to the US though, Krusty. Their big bitch with the CWB is that we can sell our product to third countries too cheaply. This from one a country that subsidisings its huge ag companies to the point of affecting not only world markets, but its domestic small farmers. We do need to diversify our markets. The US may be convenient, but it is also predatory
  23. I said I'm not going to discuss it anymore, Krusty. The only thing that will clear it up for either of us is if it goes to court. Political moves on all sides make that unlikely.
  24. I've looked for that CNN interview too. No luck. Notice that Moore never says it was a stunt though, just that Disney had said no a year ago? He'd another book come out in that time and his fame had grown a fair bit. I don't think that expecting renegotiation is unfair under those circumstances. Since Disney owns Miramax and Miramax owned the distribution rights, iy is perfectly plausible that Disnay did not want the movie to come out.
  25. It will be interesting to see the stage managing of Saddam. There's little doubt that he's guilty as hell, but many of his actions were tied up with the policies of Reagan and Bush I and the US isn't going to want that to come out. How do they keep him quiet in an open trial?
×
×
  • Create New...