Bob

Oh cool, where's bloodyminded when you need him? I think that's one of two subject that he loves going into.

So let me guess, you "care" about starving Somalians?

It's immoral to "care" for the broader world when it means throwing away public money to systemic "humanitarian programs" that perpetuate and worsen the very problems they claim to be addressing. But of course, these are programs who pretend to care about when we discuss the hypothetical abolition of the UN. "What about those starving Somalians, though?" The only universal morality is self-sufficiency, and not being dependent on the work of others without any fair exchange. I oppose all government funding that gets sent out of the country for foreign "humanitarian aid" where there is no real benefit for us except appeasing unemployed bleeding hearts who are very generous with the money of others.

Yeah, gotta love those online tests to tell you where you stand. It's too hard to define yourself based on your experiences, eh? I guess when you've only had political conversations with your mom and dad your frame of reference is quite narrow.... Out of curiosity, did you take the CBC poll to tell you who to vote for last federal election?

The main point I'm making here is that Fareed Zakaria is regarded as an intellectual, and he pretends to be familiar with the Israel/Arab conflict. He regularly throws around terms like "far-right wing" when describing the Likud party or Yisrael Beiteinu, talks about "East Jerusalem" and the "settlers", and all these others politicized terms as if he has some grasp of the history issues, and current happenings on the ground. Yet when faced with a blatantly false statement (although to be fair, it was a mistranslation by Erdogan's translator) about hundreds of thousands of dead "Palestinians" in recent years, he was mum! Remember, this is the very same "intellectual" that advised us to revisit our designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist and anti-Semitic organization because they had contributed money towards the restoration of a synagogue in Beirut. Zakaria is simply today's reincarnation of rat journalists that talked about the magnificence and equality of the former Soviet Union, deriding Reagan for having dubbed it the "Evil Empire", while touting the Soviet Union's declaration of rights and carefully scripted "interviews" with Russian residents about the paradise and freedom that they enjoyed behind the Iron Curtain. He is, quite literally, the useful idiot that allows himself to be the propagandist for our enemies, while masquerading as an objective, knowledgeable, and "intellectual" journalist.

You don't need to explicitly state it in a post in this thread. It's not difficult to glean how you view these things based on all the posts of yours that we've all read here on MLW. You think you have original opinions and are hard to figure out, or something? You are a dime-a-dozen cookie cutter leftist who fancies himself some sort of "rational centrist", who demands "evidence" that Somalians in Canada are overrepresented in all things bad. In the bubble that is your world, if it's not in a PDF file on the internet from some official-sounding source, it ain't real. This myopic worldview of yours is a natural consequence of living in a very, very small personal little world.

You have no point. You suggested that somehow those of us who are smart enough to desire the withdrawal of funding for the UN, as we recognize the UN causes much more harm than good on balance, want to do so simply because we don't like opinions espoused by the vermin that you adore. As if it were that simple. Of course, you make no mention of the non-democratic nature of the composition of the UN, while comparing the accountability of the UN's membership and representatives to that of the individuals who are democratically elected to the House of Common and Congress. Again, just a small detail you're overlooking. Nevermind the fact that there is no advantage to modern and civilized states to be members at the UN, only liabilities. Moreover, on balance it causes harm to the broader world (not that I give a damn about the broader world, anyway).

That entire paragraph is editorializing masquerading as objective information, as we've come to expect from Wikipedia. There's one support/cite link for that entire paragraph, rife with allegations and innuendo, which leads us here. The link is also misleading, as it is labelled as if it is directly from the WHO (as if anyone gives a damn what the WHO says, I certainly don't), when it is directly linked from an interest group. If anyone chooses to do a Google search on the "study" referenced, which apparently was entitled, "WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project", you will not find any links from the WHO website. Basically, that's another 100% bullshit article in Wikipedia advancing a dishonest political agenda intended to smear American politics. What a shocker! It almost sounds as if you want Canada to base its drug policies on recommendations from the WHO, as if being an "international" organization somehow elevates its judgement to some special level.

Since real human rights abuses are comparable to imaginary problems resulting from oil sands development in Alberta. unless you mean the "human impact" of creating jobs and wealth in Alberta as a result of this development, just as is done in Saudi Arabia?

How does this tilt the playing field in the favour of the CPC? Be specific.

Yeah, of course, context is irrelevant. Who cares if the UN isn't democratically formed while the House of Commons and Congress are? Who cares if the operations of the House of Commons and Congress as well as the participants are liable towards real and enforceable domestic law with respect to their conduct in their jobs while those in the UN are not? Just irrelevant details, eh? After all, they're all "assemblies". I can see how these minor details were overlooked by you.

I'm mocking a term that was seemingly just coined by our resident communist jacee. She used this nonsense term in the post to which you replied.

Well of course, your belief in Western "plurality and tolerance" means that we shouldn't be screening immigrants to this country on political or social grounds. Your idea of our society's "plurality and tolerance" sows the seeds of its own destruction, as we continue to import people whose values are antithetical to ours. You're willing to accept people who oppose democracy, free markets, secularism and pluralism. Basically, you're willing to continually import third-world trash and desert nomads who have no meaningful place in our country.

It's a lie because he tried to draw a false parallel. If Canada produced, for example, comparable quality toasters as those made in China, for a comparable price, he'd have a point. Since that isn't the case, the slippery slope argument is a lie because Canada's mass purchasing of products manufactured in China don't have comparable alternatives made domestically, as is the case with oil manufactured in Alberta when compared to oil manufactured in Saudi Arabia. It's telling that this simple point needs to be explained to you over and over again. And, as predicted, you avoid a politically inconvenient question. All the while acting as some sort of forum enforcer for the rules as you see them.

Ah, the robot that is Michael Hardner strikes again. What's sad is that even when it comes to technicalities, such as whether or not Moonlight Graham was lying (or, at best, dead wrong), you can't get it right. As has been observed before, it's quite funny how you stroll around here and fancy yourself as some sort of arbiter over what constitutes rational argumentation, fairness, and accuracy. In your world, leftists are entitled to their own version of the truth. In the words of the liar Robert Reich, "I claim no truth higher than my own perceptions".

Answer some simple questions, please. Are the political/legal systems of Canada superior to those of Arab/Muslim majority countries? Are our educational systems superior to those of Arab/Muslim majority countries? Are our cultural and social values superior to those of Arab/Muslim majority countries? I'll go out out an limb and venture that you will refrain from the answering the questions and engage in your typical form of obfuscation.

Already been explained. The "slippery slope" argument is a lie.

So Ezra Levant ridiculing the CBC's blatant politicization is now nothing more than "insulting other journalists"? His criticism of Islamic terrorism and its team of domestic apologists (which I imagine you're a card-carrying member of) is now the same as an "anti-Islamic" rant? Remember folks, criticizing the reporting, and lack thereof, from what Levant refers to as the "consensus media" is no "insulting other journalists", and nothing more. Criticizing Islamist front organizations like CAIR and the CIC is now nothing more than being "anti-Islamic". Great discussion we've got here.

Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, apparently. The implication was the lie, and the implication was that there was a slippery slope involved with the "ethical oil" argumentation where we would have to, in the interests of consistency, cease purchasing all forms of goods and services from countries with poor human rights records. Of course this implication is a lie because the "ethical oil" argument provides for a reasonable alternative - the same oil, produced with less emissions, at a very similar price. There are no such alternatives with respect to the plethora of products we purchase from countries like China. Moreover, Saudi Arabia and other Arab/Muslim majority states actively sponsor murder campaigns via Islamic terrorism against the West. This isn't the case, as directly, with countries like China and Venezuela.

Yup. It should be noted, however, that this anti-Western crap about underdeveloped/developing nations being given some sort of get-out-of-emission-limits-free card because they should be permitted to go through the same "growing pains" as the Western world went through during its industrialization completely ignores technological advances. More efficient energy production isn't a luxury exclusive to the West. On the contrary, there are many instances where increased energy efficiency saves money AND reduces emissions. Not always, of course, but it should be done where economical.

Not sure if you folks have seen how the leftist rats in the media (i.e. CBC) have tried to spin these NYC/Wall Street protesters as the counterweight to the Tea Party, never mind the fact that the Tea Party was, as far as I know, free of arrests and composed of working taxpayers. These losers in NYC/Wall Street, on the other hand, look like they're all unemployed. Bunch of twenty-somethings from the suburbs with blue-hair, facial-piercings, tattoos, tattered hipster clothing, and no education - all the while wondering why nobody is offering them a lucrative career on a silver platter.

You're wrong on every count. This lie of yours that somehow if the West (specifically America) chooses to purchase Albertan oil over alternatives from tyrannies and non-free countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, then the West should necessarily stop purchasing other products tyrannies and non-free countrieswithout reasonable Western alternatives, is ridiculous. The point is simple, Albertan oil is an ethical alternative to oil from, say, Saudi Arabia. You then mention that we get a great deal of other products from China, which has a poor human rights record. Well, if you can point us in the direction of comparable alternatives to toasters and laptops from Western manufacturers, then we're all ears. Since no reasonable alternative exists at these time for many of these products that are typically manufactured in China and other poorer countries, you're making a stupid comparison between our purchasing of these products Levant's "ethical oil" argument. And what the hell would be wrong with him being concerned with the profits of North American oil companies? He's a political commentator, not a CEO. I sure hope any patriotic Canadian would advocate for purchasing Canadian options over foreign alternatives where reasonable (quality and price being comparable, of course). It's so predictable and pathetic how leftists like you throw around "profit" as if it's a bad word.

I don't believe this for a second. And even if you're telling the truth, you certainly don't have the wherewithal to really learn about and understand a foreign culture even if it's right under your nose.

There should be no limit on campaign contributions from any person or organization. I could perhaps be willing to consider restrictions on lobbying from enemy countries, but even that is difficult to regulate. Better to just force transparency so that people know where money is coming from, but again, even that is difficult to regulate. I hate this idea that Canadians need to be protected from political messages certain groups fear. As usual, the greatest cries for censorship in all its ugly manifestations always come from the left.

I was laughing at that statement, too. This suggestion of the Liberal Party's morality and conscience is too funny. Chretien himself stated that the restrictions imposed (which are totally contrary to the ideals of a free society) on campaign/party contributions were based on what he described as the "perceptions" of Canadians.