Bob

Well, if it wasn't clear who I was referring to earlier allow me to clarify now - I am referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico. They are certainly, overwhelmingly, Mexican trash. It isn't Mexican physician, physicists, and computer engineers crossing the border into Arizona and Texas at three in the morning. It's trash. And it's costing America a lot of money. I sure hope you're not characterizing illegal immigration as some sort of net asset to the American economy. We'll see, of course. But I highly doubt America will be able to turn inwards and insulate itself from the self-destruction of the West. The current barometers leave no reason for anyone to be optimistic with America's long-term future if the status quo of massive spending continues.

The answer is obvious, the courts are there to "improve society" in the way that you see fit. Why limit the scope of the courts' responsibilities to something as banal as simply applying the law that's been passed by democratically-elected government to disputes brought before them? Give the courts free reign to affect social change in-line with the views of WWWTT and other leftists. In all seriousness, to the sensible-minded folks in here, WWWTT's comments above are very revealing of the typical leftist mindset. They view the courts as political instruments through which social change can and should be affected. Decision from the courts can and should be result-based, and not based on legalities, precedents, or accurate application of the law as it's been written. There you have it folks, leftists like Black Dog and WWWTT openly advocate for judicial activism. What matters is the outcome, not the legality.

Here's the CBC article. Although of course no Canadian in his or her right mind should want this Islamist piece of garbage in Canada, I think it's only fair that Canada accept him back. Why should it be the USA's responsibility to imprison him? Of course, he'll come back to Canada, be paroled in a few years, and be a free man. Who knows, maybe he can become wealthy giving seminars about his story and spreading Jihadism? Watch the idiot George Strombolopolous refer to this terrorist scum as "a soldier", he is then politely corrected by Sgt. Layne Morris, whose comrade was murdered by this Islamist scum. Of course, the leftist idiot Strombolopolous then stands by his characterization of Khadr as "a soldier"., as if this is just some legitimate difference of opinion. Go to 3:20 to get the part I'm talking about. Another reason why Canada is finished. Here's another example of the enemy within, as the NDP advocates in the best interests of a murderer, with meaningless references to "international law". Of course this was with the full support of Taliban Jack, who is hopefully rotting in hell.

The "human impact" of wealth creation and jobs, right? Those are bad things, eh? Maybe they're developing on some sacred Aboriginal burial grounds?

I think the West, most notably and importantly the USA, is finished unless we can make some major changes in our political cultures. I admire the USA greatly, but I see it succumbing (and this has been going on for decades, obviously) to the very things that are slowly destroying the rest of the Western world. Spending itself into oblivion, short-term politics, illegal immigration of Mexican trash for decades, wars that should've been won within weeks still dragging on from 2001 and 2003, increasing spread of leftist politics domestically, etc... I hope I'm wrong, but I think as time goes on we'll continue to see the self-destruction of the West.

Did you not follow the campaigns in 2007 and 2008 for the Republican nomination? Romney was tripping all over himself in contradictions, flip-flopping, dodging questions, and just plain being a fish out of water. He's much more confident this time around, which reveals that he is a man without principle. He needed to be trained to campaign. That's pathetic. It's just like Hudak. McGuinty did the same. Fine, who else do you want to talk about? Did you see Rick Perry in the recent CNN debate, when after being directly accused of corruption by Bachmann, he said something to the effect of, "I take offense to that"? It was so, so, so weak and so pathetic. What kind of man allows some dumb bitch to publicly accuse him of stealing taxpayer money, blatantly slandering him, and he doesn't defend himself? This is a potential future leader of the USA? I found it just now, actually: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIC_vc8YOj4

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". Articles

What I'm saying is that when the federal or provincial (and to a lesser extent, municipal) elections roll around, people overwhelmingly vote for the MP that belongs to the same party as the potential PM or Premier that they prefer. The vast majority of Canadians couldn't identify a photograph of their own federal or provincial MPs, although more of them would recognize the likenesses of the federal and provincial potential leaders from the respective parties.

That's true and I certainly wasn't implying otherwise, but there is a pathway to self-destruction, primarily through crazy spending, which America embarked on long ago. Mind you, America isn't alone, Canada is probably ahead of the curve in some ways. I just don't see any reason to be optimistic about broad issues in the long-term. I think that the West is finished, and I think this is a consequence of the ever growing influence of leftist politics.

Yeah, technically that's true, but the leadership of the party is the single biggest motivator for people to vote one way or the other. The vast majority of Canadians know nothing about their respective MPs, and vote for the MP who belongs to the party with the leader they prefer. In other words, if you liked Dion best, then you'd vote for the MP in your riding who belongs to the Liberal Party. Although technically it's different in Canada, the same things inform people's politics - namely, which personality they most strongly identify with.

We're even worse off than you are, when a guy like Harper can be described as "far-right wing". Reflexive anti-Americanism still wins votes in this country, and it's a tactic that is regularly used by the NDP and Liberal Party. It's inextricable from a dominant leftist political culture that is getting worse and worse in Canada every year. Still, it shouldn't make you feel much better to point your finger at us and recognize that disgusting politicians like Layton are lionized in their deaths, and socialists who can't even speak English like Stephane Dion are appointed to lead one of the dominant political parties in our most recent federal election. Just because Canada is on the expressway to self-destruction doesn't mean you should follow suit.

Although this is more speculative, I think the Israel/Arab conflict appeals to people as it touches on many concepts that are at the core of varying worldviews. It appeals to armchair intellectuals as it's a multifaceted conflict. I think this plays a small role in explaining why Israel is so obsessed over in Western public discourse. Still, the primary driving force behind Israel being pushed to the forefront of national dialogue is the massive global Muslim population, who are obsessed with this issue and generally hold a warped, dishonest, and sickening view of the entire conflict, as well as the massive influence of Islamism in global affairs via their control of massive oil reserves and swathes of land.

"Illegal war".

Just another reason for American conservatives to be depressed about the current line-up. Here's a "front-runner", Michelle Bachmann, who can't muster the courage to directly answer a simple and straightforward question about whether or not Mormonism is a cult. Earlier in this interview, Bachmann told Candy Crowley that he has fifty-five years of experience as a tax lawyer, or something. It was jaw-droppingly painful to watch. Bachmann is literally a robot, she just goes into the same talking regardless of whatever question she's asked. It's embarrassing. Bachmann also said she would reinstate DADT if given the opportunity. It's crazy.

Yeah, this is totally the same as that. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MAclvGBXzj4/TKiFSXQjHnI/AAAAAAAAB78/5bG6X4b5-Gw/s1600/top_surf_girls.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5Th2BCjTFpM/TPagjvV9MFI/AAAAAAAABJM/8fzou9L1B3o/s1600/Tel+Aviv+Gay+Pride.jpg http://bunkerville.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/afghanbridems1205_468x3222.jpg

He's hollow and fake. He magically remade himself into some new man after his pathetic run for the nomination in 2008.

Although the UN is completely irrelevant and I don't trust a word that comes out the mouths of the rats that populate it, it'll be interesting to see the inevitable non-reaction to it. Will that disgusting Ujjal Dosanjh apologize for attempting to smear the Canadian military in order to win political points? How about that idiot Paul Dewar who pretended to give a damn about "Canada's reputation", clearly at the direction of Taliban Jack? It was sickening listening to those rats call for a "public inquiry" into this artificial controversy from the "diplomat" Colvin. What a pathetic charade, completely illustrative of how low Canada has sunk with its leftist politics, crying tears over worthless detainees and pretending to care about "international law", insofar as it protects the "rights" of savage desert nomads.

Did you not read a word I wrote? I explained to you that the "ethical oil" argument advanced by Levant and others is contingent on a reasonable alternative (comparable price and quality) being available from modern, free, and civilized countries. If you think that Levant must also oppose the consumption of products manufactured in other countries such as China and Venezuela in order for the "ethical oil" argument in order to be consistent, then you obviously don't understand the argument. I guess you're not lying, you're really just unable to grasp the argument. My apologies, your "argument" wasn't predicated on deceit, but on ignorance. I won't even touch the absurdity of your description of our current trade relationships with other countries as "exploitative" or "lopsided". Of course you view profits as bad, it's part of your ideology. In your world, profits are only acceptable if they aren't excessive. This is the natural conclusion of your false description of current trade relationships between Canada and poorer countries as "exploitative" and "lopsided". According to your sick worldview, we're just not paying coffee farmers enough for my Starbucks coffee to be "ethical" or "fair". Who determines what's ethical and fair? Why, you and your fellow myopic and anti-wealth leftists, of course!

Dumbest comparison ever.

I just explained to you why is gets a huge amount of attention. Can you not read? It is an issue the Arab/Muslim world is obsessed with, and considering how big and important the Arab/Muslim world is in many ways, Israel gets pushed to the forefront of our attention via our media and politics.

Oh, of course. I didn't know what "decrim" was. I thought it was some new word.... Gotcha. Yes, these weed junkies are not known for their knowledge or consistency. They can be depended on, however, to blame everything on "American policy".

She actually contradicted herself at the end, where she stated that Pakistan doesn't want monetary aid from the USA, just a genuine friendship. Of course, she says this minutes after characterizing the three billion dollars a year America has been sending Pakistan since 2001 as "reimbursement", as if America is indebted to Pakistan for having "created" the Taliban and many other Pakistani/Afghani Islamist terrorist organizations. But of course, the "conservative" George Bush thought it was a worthwhile investment, and Obama is following in his footsteps. I may have mentioned it in here before, but if you remember Michael Ware from CNN, he stated that Pakistan's leverage on the USA is its ability to crank up American casualties in Afghanistan if it so chooses. In his opinion, the only way this rag-tag group of Islamist vermin known as the Taliban are able to sustain their "resistance" is because they are able to flee back into Waziristan (province of Pakistan) in between their raids/attacks. And since America doesn't operate with any seriousness across the border in Pakistan, and since Paksitan apparently doesn't exercises effective control over Waziristan (despite the three billion dollars per year in military aid plus alleged sharing of intelligence!), the Taliban are able to operate with impunity. The real truth that you won't hear from anyone in the left-wing media? America doesn't prosecute the war aggressively enough. The fact that the world's sole superpower can't utterly destroy the Taliban tells you how unwilling America is to really leverage its military advantage. Here we are, a decade later, and American soldiers are still being sent back home in body-bags. And why? Because American leadership is afraid to kill "innocent" Afgani civilians. Nevermind the fact that winning the war decisively, which means killing enough of the enemy, crushing them, and making them realize that they will all be killed if they even lift a finger against the USA - is the most humane option in the long-term.

Because there are a LOT of Muslims in this world, and a LOT of leftists who sympathize with their "cause" reflexively. Perhaps more importantly, the Arab/Muslim collective does a fantastic job placing this issue on the forefront of whatever they can, whether it be the UN, their media (virtually all media in the Arab/Muslim world is state-owned), and their foreign policy. You don't think Israel isn't the number one agenda item when foreign representatives from Arab/Muslim countries communicate with the USA? Don't think the Arab/Muslim world doesn't have a lot of influence, given their control of much of the world's oil supply and control over massive swathes of land.

I certainly didn't understand it. Remember, corporations are evil machines bent on destroying the world, not collections of flesh and blood human beings people working towards a common purpose in their self-interest.

I don't understand this post.