Bob

I think she did that after with Rick Mercer on the CBC, to the cheers of the fans.

This is a great post. It was hilarious how you pissed off cybercoma, who tried to sell us on this notion of liberal arts programs being comparable to technical education with respect to validity. Yes, any program can be made unnecessarily difficult, and there is no doubt that insecure professors in liberal arts programs sometimes intentionally make things more difficult than necessary in order to reinforce their false sense of self-importance, as if their Ph.D in "women's studies" is not only meaningless, but predicated on lies.

You may laugh at is, but it really pisses me off and depresses me. That dumb ugly Liberal bitch who made those comments was actually revered by certain Canadian leftists as she echoed their sentiments of "bastard" Americans. She have have been pretending to be kidding as she made that comment with a smile on her face, but it certainly grounded in a sincere animosity to her perception of what America represents - success, self-sufficiency, freedom, and with limited government. Fancying herself one of the anointed ones whose calling in life is to guide society towards a better place, like a modern day female Moses, the very concept of free people associating freely and doing well by themselves is antithetical to her worldview and self-concept.

Exactly. Obama is a perfect example of this phenomenon. He certainly didn't start his process of running for President with a lot of money. As he became more and more popular, however, marketing himself everywhere he could, he started making a name for himself and the money began to flow in. If the world operated according the cybercoma's leftist vision, then anyone with a lot of money could and would win elections. That's just not how it works. Money is certainly crucial to a successful campaign, but the question that needs to be asked is what determines which candidates successfully raise money? The answer is - the strength of the candidate and his or her perceived likelihood of success from the prospective donor(s).

Just another example of leftists loving their like-minded "experts" to tell them who they are. First of all the CBC poll that sought to advise its users which party was most aligned with their political views was not formed by "experts", but by a partisan consultant. Hilariously, if you went through the poll and answered without an opinion on either side of the question, the party stated to be in-line with your political views was the Liberal Party. Basically, the LPC was the default answer. I just think it's revealing, and sad, that people like yourself need to ask other where you fit in on the political spectrum. It's another example of how many people just can't think for themselves, anymore.

If you followed the 2008 campaign then you shouldn't need me to illustrate all of Romney's inconsistencies and how he didn't have a shred of integrity. he was terrified of actually having an opinion and speaking his mind, and was obviously a Frankestein candidate put together by moronic campaign managers and "experts". I really, really, really don't want to revisit that and go into specific details. He still engages in non-answers and evasion, and strikes me a fake conservative, much like Hudak. Yes, he's a much stronger candidate this time around, if you can pretend 2008 never happened. Of course he's also much better than Obama, but that's certainly nothing to be proud of.

Obviously you didn't understand what I was saying. Big money goes towards candidates that the donors think can win. They donate to the candidate(s) they think is/are most likely to win. It is irrelevant who you think would've been better to lead America between 2004 and 2008. People don't donate money to candidates that they don't think can win the election. Basically, this leftist mythology that money determines the winner doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's take you, for example, if I gave you five times the budget of the CPC to run a campaign in Ontario with you as head of the new party that you'd form, do you think you could win? Of course you wouldn't. Moreover, in the real world, nobody would ever give you a dime unless you had the talents required to do well in a campaign. This leftist mythology that you subscribe to is just predicated on a more primal resentment of money and wealth, which forms your worldview and ideology.

Americans should take heed that this type of rhetoric and sentiment is very prevalent among hardcore Canadian leftists. Anti-Americanism is in their ideological DNA, it is a big part of what defines them and their worldview. It's sad, but it is what it is.

Bush_cheney2004 wins this argument. He provided an example, which he conceded was narrow in context, about legal prohibitions of drug use in the Canadian military. Of course there seems to be some insult here because bush_cheney2004 is and American correcting a (leftist) Canadian. I still hold that American Woman is wrong in asserting that use is illegal. Let's be precisely clear - if a drug user is at a certain stage in use, let's say he or she is in the middle of smoking crack or injecting heroin, he or she is guilty of possession. After that's finished, though, and all the drug is now in his or her system, there is no longer guilt of possession. Possession doesn't mean in the drug is in your blood, it means it's in your hands or in your pocket. This is a very important distinction to be made.

Smallc obviously has reading comprehension issues, as I've clearly explained major reasons why Israel is so heavily focuses on in the media, while ignoring much more important stories. Consider that the vandalism of a mosque (arson) in Israel recently made the news in international media (CNN, CBC, BBC, Al-Jazeera), as if that is somehow important. Meanwhile, desecrations of Jewish properties, such as Jewish schools, cemeteries, and synagogues around the world are ignored. You think the recent vandalism of a Jewish cemetery in Ottawa a couple of years ago made it to CNN's World News section?

Ah, you're always dependeable for one thing - parroting the typical leftist mythologies. The "powerful Israel lobby", eh? I guess there's no powerful Arab/Muslim lobby out there that pushes this issue to the forefront? Somehow fifteen million Jews around the world have more influence that one and a half billion Muslims. "A lot of Western media is run by Jewish people", excuse me? First of all, Jewish people are overrepresented in most high-paying professions. We're overrepresented in high-level medical, legal, engineering, research, political, and entertainment. Why do you think that is? Perhaps someone gave these roles to us on a silver platter? Of course, if "a lot of Western media" that is "run by Jewish people" is the reason why Israel is so disgustingly and ignorantly obsessed over by the leftist media, what about the media outlets that aren't "run by Jewish people"? If your argument had any validity, and it certainly does not, please provide some examples of Western media that is "run by Jewish people", and then compare this media to other Western media that isn't "run by Jewish people" and show us that the "Jewish run media" focuses more heavily on Israel than the media non-"Jewish run media".

"Pressing social issues" aren't the business of the courts. Those are the business of the electorate. The business of the courts if to apply the law as established by the electorate. The business of the courts is to do one thing only - to apply the law as it's been written. Not to be a forum where we discuss "pressing social issues". The courts should be a place where we discuss legal issues, not social issues. You clearly don't grasp the difference in the perspectives between the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts. The left, yourself included of course, want results-based judgements. The right has a much more constrained vision of the role of the courts - that their sole domain is the application of the law as it's been written. In our view, a good judge is a judge who should be able to make a decision that he or she is unhappy with on a personal level, while confident that he or she is accurately applying the law as it's been written. The fact that the SCoC's opening two paragraphs of the recent Insite decision make no mention og legalities, and invoke the court's perceptions of scientific "evidence" and "research" of the social outcomes of Insite, as well as referencing perceptions of "success" of similar programs in other countries tells us everything we need to know about the SCoC's decision - that is was based on desirable outcomes and not the accurate application of Canadian law. The justices at the SCoC clearly view themselves as the anointed ones who are now the arbiters of what constitutes ideal social outcomes of public policy.

The above post clearly reveals the leftist mindset. Black Dog included, with his "science and reason" win the day commentary. It's not "the law" that won the day, of course. What the above posts tells us about the leftist mindset is that they don't care about the law as it's been written, what they care about is that the courts render results-based judgements that yield the social outcomes they prefer. The law doesn't matter, what matters is that is applied in a manner which produces the social change they want. If the law mattered, then the leftists would be arguing that the SCoC's decision was a legally consistent position, rather than a decision based on "scientific evidence". Essentially what we have here is the SCoC venturing into new domain, where they are now the arbiters of social policy with respect to their interpretation of what the ideal social outcome(s) are of certain public projects based on how they interpret "science" and "research". Nevermind the fact that such issues are completely beyond the knowledge and expertise of SCoC justices, but it also completely beyond the scope of their responsibility - which is to apply the law as it's been written. As I've already said, applying social policy is the exclusive domain of the government. I want to point out one other thing, "key evidence" and "mountains of evidence" really means one thing - that "research" and "studies" have proved on thing - that having dedicated medical technicians on hand who specialize in emergency drug overdose interventions yields "harm reduction". What is "harm reduction", you may ask? Well, "harm reduction" is the decreased likelihood of deaths resulting from overdose of drug users if they happen to overdose in the presence of these emergency medical technicians. Who'd thunk it? I guess those sociology graduates are good for something!

I think this new thread is a good place for me to copy and paste a couple of fantastic posts I made in the other thread about the SCoC's recent ridiculous decision regarding Insite and the continuing expansion of "rights" in Canada through leftist judges. The following three paragraphs are in direct response to Black Dog's jubilation over the SCoC's Insite ruling, stating that "science and reason had won the day". Remember, the law means nothing to leftists like Black Dog, what matters is the outcome. And in their view, the social outcome (labelled "harm reduction"), is less drug users dying from overdose as Vancouver now has a place where there is a dedicated team of medical specialists who exclusively intervene to save the lives of drug users who overdose. Also remember that we also needed "research" and "studies" to "prove" that less drug users would die from overdose if they had a team of dedicated overdose-paramedics, because of course in this modern age we need "specialists" and "experts" with sociology degrees to tell us the obvious. I wanted to revisit this statement from Black Dog, as I think it is a perfect illustration of exactly what capricorn and I were discussing regarding judicial activism. Consider what Black Dog and his ilk are telling us when they justify the recent decision from the SCoC regarding Insite with "science and reason" being the justification. In other words, accurate application of the law to resolve disputes is irrelevant. Black Dog and his fellow leftists want a results based application of the law. What matters is the outcome of the judgement, and not the legitimacy of the judgement in accordance with the law as determined by our democratically-elected governments. Even if we accept the "harm-reduction" claims from the supporters of Insite's endeavours, is that a justification for radical application of and expansion of Section 7 rights of the CCRF? To summarize, Black Dog and the other salivating leftists want judges to make decisions based on the social outcomes they desire, rather than for judges to accurately apply the law as it was created. Of course the hypocrisy is thick, as these very same leftists would be up in a rage if, say, a judge admitted illegally obtained evidence against a defendant in a trial - even though the outcome, which would be conviction of a guilty person of a crime, would be desirable. Here's an interesting quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he stated that in order to be a good judge, all that is required is to "read English intelligently". Here are another few paragraphs explaining just what "judicial activism" really is. This is also a fantastic post of mine that intelligent readers will appreciate. There's a great series of chapters here which I can't duplicate here from Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" outlining and giving several historical examples of the phenomenon that is judicial activism. Even earlier than Brandeis (and Pound before him), we heard undefined rhetoric of "social justice" from Supreme Court Justices in the USA. This is frightening, where certain judges viewed themselves as the anointed ones whose role was now expanded into creating "social justice", rather than their real mandate: implementing the laws passed by the democratically elected government. Judicial activism is when a judge considers him or herself the arbiter of "social needs", without having any knowledge or expertise whatsoever regarding the issues upon which they would arbitrate. Brandeis himself stated that there was a growing trend among judges towards "a better appreciation by the courts of existing social needs". Since when are judges in a position to estimate "social needs"? They are there to interpret the law, and understanding "social needs" is far beyond their knowledge or expertise. This is about elites going above and beyond the the boundaries of their professional competence. Brandeis himself stated that he wanted the law to "reflect the will of the people", when of course the will of the people is expressed through elections. "While there are many controversies over particular aspects of the law, the most fundamental controversy has long been over who should control the law and who should change the law. American intellectuals, since at least the middle of the 20th century, have overwhelmingly favoured expansion of the role of judges beyond that of applying laws created by others to themselves remaking the law to fit the times. Which is to say, making the law fit the prevailing vision of the times, the vision of the anointed intellectuals. Where the constitution of the United States is a barrier to this expanded role of judges, then judges have been urged to "interpret" the constitution as a set of values to be applied as judges choose, or update it as they think appropriate. Rather than as a set of specific instructions to be followed. That is what judicial activism means." This is what we're talking about, and for you to write off "judicial activism" as meaningless rhetoric simply reveals your obliviousness of the history of judicial activism in either the Canadian or American contexts. I want to add one more thing, and anyone can notice this if they take a few minutes to read the SCoC's decision online. Consider that the first two paragraphs of the decision say nothing about legalities - not mention of precedents, and no mention of application of the law. All that is stated is the court's perception of the "research" and "studies" relevant to "harm reduction" as a result of Insite's operations. Indeed, they even make reference to alleged "successes" of comparable operations in other countries. So here we have it, the SCoC is telling Canadians, in no uncertain terms, that they wish to legislate from the bench, and will render decisions based on what they view as the ideal social outcome(s) of their decision. Nevermind the fact that examining such issues is far beyond the knowledge or expertise of the courts, and is certainly exclusively the business of the government. I'd like you folks to consider one other thing, and that is language used on the SCoC's welcome page. Check this out, "Courts offer a venue for the peaceful resolution of disputes, and for the reasoned and dispassionate discussion of our most pressing social issues." In other words, the courts are there, according to the courts, to address social issues and affect social change. I guess people like capricorn, Argus, and myself were all stupid enough to believe that the responsibility of the courts was to apply to law as it's been written. How wrong we were.

Clearly Smallc's perceptions of the media are worthless, when a guy like Ezra Levant is labelled "insane". Although your screen name is funny, there's certainly nothing conservative about you, whatsoever. There's also nothing pompous or arrogant about Levant. He may be animated, and he's funny, but of course leftists have no sense of humour and prefer the robots at the CBC who think objective and unbiased "journalism" is about demeanour, and not about language. Levant is easily my favourite Canadian TV personality. Blueblood, there is nothing over-the-top whatsoever about Sun TV. What is over-the-top is the pathetic bias of the CBC and most of the Canadian media landscape, which Levant has aptly dubbed "the consensus media". I agree with you on one thing, however, and that is that Charles Adler is uninteresting and boring.

Since when is equal distribution of wealth some ideal towards which we should strive? What right do you have to any money you didn't earn on your own through the exchange of free individuals in a free society? Goddamn, I despise you socialists.

It's called war. As usual, the left is trying to ignore all relevant context in the comparison of Omar Khadr to Canadian or American soldiers, as if their is a moral equivalence to be drawn between these two factions. This is the typical treason of the Canadian left - where Omar Khadr is now the moral equivalent of the Canadian soldier. Omar Khadr is simply the Canadian soldier's counterpart on the other side, and Canadian soldiers are now "an invading army".

It may come to that.

The myth held by the left is that money determines elections, as if no other context is relevant. The relevant context that you are oblivious to, of course, is that money follows strong candidates. Let's say I gave YOU one hundred times the money the next wealthiest candidate. You think you could be elected President of the USA or PM of Canada? The answer is - of course not. Money flows to strong candidates, rather the mythology that you espouse and its moronic implication - that money BUILDS strong candidates. If you're not charismatic and a good politician, you will never get enough money to launch a serious campaign. Continue ignoring this reality, however, and keep spewing this leftist idiocy about the evils of money and the wealth puppet master who rule your life behind the curtain, which is the fundamental lie upon which this statement of yours was predicated - "More like, womever American voters choose, as provided for by the highest bidders."

You don't know much about Khadr outside of CBC's sympathetic characterization of him, do you? Do you have any idea what kinds of things he's said in recent years? Perhaps you were one of those people demanding "evidence" that he was actually the one who threw the grenade that murdered the American medic, as if somehow somebody caught the whole thing on their mobile phone camera?

I meant to say not from Canada. That was a typo. Those massive immigrations took place in a context when there weren't a fraction of the same entitlements. Back then, people actually had to work and be self-sufficient. Things are much different today in the USA. Before, people couldn't go to the USA and expect things for free as they can now. If America didn't provide all those freebies, it wouldn't be an attractive country to the Mexican trash that continues to pour over your border. I don't think we'll get close to seeing its epitome in this lifetime, but it will destroy the West eventually unless there is a major shift in the political culture. I see no evidence of that happening, even with the Tea Party. I said it before, I think the American political culture is the most immune to suicidal and destructive leftist politics, but that doesn't mean it can hold out forever.

That's just another mythology of the left. Money follows political success, not the other way around. Leftists think wealth determines elections, without realizing that wealth follows a strong candidate with a high likelihood of success. Read Freaknomics for more detail.

It's quite clear that I was implying that according to your perverted leftist worldview which is shared by many, the obligation of the courts is to affect social change as you see fit. You want results-based jurisprudence. To hell with the laws of land as determined via our democratic institutions, you want the judges to legislate from the bench. Rather than simply requiring that they implement the law as has been written, you want them to base their decisions on outcomes, not legalities. That is the textbook definition of judicial activism. Are you a threat to my well-being? Although as an individual you're not that important, you are a part of a broader machine that is what I view as the enemy within. You believe in self-destructive politics, which in its own micro manner contribute to manifestations of this disgusting ideology through our politics. A good example would be the NDP, that is one of the foremost champions of destructive politics.

So when you're fifteen you're not responsible for murder? How about him not being at all remorseful, and even more entrenched in his Jihadi ideology than ever before? "Fighting an invading army", it never gets old how you leftists do everything you can to advocate on behalf of the enemy. As far as Omar Khadr being entitled to "rights", Moonlight Graham is acting as if Omar Khadr is just some ordinary criminal committing an ordinary crime in ordinary circumstances. It's funny how those who always invoke "international law" in order to support the enemy never acknowledge that the the enemy in this case broke many of the rules of "international law" that seek to determine lawful combat. How can "rights" belong to individuals and groups that have not chosen to adhere to the agreement through which those rights are articulated? Nobody is entitled to "rights" granted via international conventions if they themselves do not adhere to the obligations of those international conventions. In effect, the leftists want "international law" to protect rats like Khadr, while simultaneously giving these rats carte blanche to break every "law" associated with the very conventions they invoke in their defense of the terrorists. In other words, "international law" only works in one direction - protecting the enemy that refuses to adhere to the "international law". Canadian jurisdiction doesn't really extend to Afghanistan, now does it? Especially considering that Khadr was captured by Americans. Is Khadr entitled to certain rights or exempt from the laws of war that Canada chooses to follow because he's a Canadian citizen, differentiating him from the rats with which he operated? Is he, by virtue of Canadian citizenship, entitled to certain privileges regarding his criminal liability in conflict that the other Mujahedeen are not? It's funny how Moonlight Graham invoked "due process" in a conflict scenario, as if his murder didn't occur in the context of a war. You do realize, Moonlight Graham, that "due process" changes in the midst of a war, right? Soldiers aren't police officers, you get that right? You don't call a Justice of the Peace in order to get permission to execute a search warrant on an enemy location. Khadr should've been executed on the spot after he was captured, but of course that would've led to "war crimes" prosecutions against American soldiers.

Illegal Canadian immigrants in America are also more than likely to be trash - why else would they do it illegally? The thing is however, it's not twenty-plus million Canadian illegals named Miguel running around in southern border states that are putting the squeeze on the already struggling social infrastructure. I think all illegal immigration needs to be dealt with aggressively, but when we look at illegal immigration as a whole, your biggest problems are from Canada. I also used the term "net asset" intentionally. Yes, of course illegal immigration brings some benefits to some people, but broadly speaking it is an economic disaster, and it's only getting worse. Consider that this ridiculous "Dream Act" will now offer scholarships and other financial aid to illegal immigrant students in California. There are massive and well-organized interest groups in the USA that advocate for self-destructive policies such as this. Of course, we have the same trash in Canada, but I always like to think of America as having the strongest social immune system to such self-destructive politics. I don't think we'll see the low-point of this self-destruction in our lifetimes, but it's happening.