Bob

What relevance does America's selling of arms to Saddam during its war with Iran have towards what's being discussed? Interestingly, Israel was on the opposite side of the fence, selling arms to Iran and taking out Iraq's nuclear reactor (Osirak? I forget the name....). Clearly, Iran's appreciation towards Israel is noted.

You really aren't the bright, are you? Canada's official position is one that seeks to establish a Palestinian state. It is quite telling that you cannot discern between voting against a "Palestinian" declaration of statehood on all territory past the Green Line, and outright rejection of the legitimacy of statehood for these Arabs. Yeah, since accepting "Palestinian" sovereignty over all the territory is the "neutral" position. Let's rewind the clock back forty years and rip apart Jerusalem and make it a tiny strip a few kilometres deep.

You have everything upside down. If anything, Israel is the epitome of modern rejection of colonialism and imperialism. It is a reclamation of national rights in our land. It's funny how some Aboriginals and their supporters show some sort of misplaced affinity with the "Palestinians", as if they are somehow "indigenous", with the Jewish people being foreign invaders akin to the Europeans who arrived to the America in the 15th and 16th centuries.

A unilateral stance? What is Canada doing besides declaring its position on this issue prior to casting its vote in the UNGA? What is this talk of "neutrality"? Aside from the farce that is the UN, which many in this thread seem to regard as some sort of sacred calf, Canada is entitled to casting its vote on this issue the way it chooses to. Your statement is so monumentally stupid - is Iran acting "unilaterally" when it votes in favour of "Palestinian" statehood based on the 1949 armistice lines? Is voting in support of such a ridiculous proposition a "neutral" position? Who ever thought Canada could dictate anything regarding this issue? Regarding the OP, good for Harper for taking the moral position and rejecting this meaningless proposal at the UN. Moreover, the thread title is misleading, as it drops relevant context. Canada's official position isn't a rejection of "Palestinian" statehood, as the thread title suggests. Rather, it is a rejection to recognize a "Palestine" state based on the 1949 armistice lines.

Ya, I think I watched a UN Watch video on YouTube where Hillel Neuer brought that up in some press interview. And the silence is deafening, as the free world continues to fund this evil institution. It's pathetic how Harper refusing to attend the anti-Semitic Durban conference and walking out of Ahmedinejad's speeches is considered "bold" leadership. I regard that a MINIMUM expectation of any decent leader. Obama, on the other hand, wants to increase American participation in the UN. One example was the USA's bid to have a seat on the absurd UNHRC, as if he thought he could make a difference. STOP FUNDING THE UN! We need to see some real leadership from politicians to condemn this organization and stop subsidizing it. On the bright side, I am optimistic that as time goes on, more and more fair-minded people will begin to learn the truth about the UN and harbour contempt towards it, which would perhaps in turn unchain the media and politicians from attacking it and making moves to dismantle it.

In all seriousness, you're speaking with a communist. He has an inherent dislike from private property (notice how he views rights to and protections of private property as trivial, and only contingent on the permission of the majority) and generally views those with wealth as undeserving and exploitative of the less wealthy. In other words, people who are successful generally stepped on the necks of others or were given unfair advantages as the expense of others - and the benevolent government must address these inequalities through seizing property for the "common good". He subscribes to the Robin Hood mythology, where the noble government should steal from the more wealthy and give it to the less wealthy. It's pure Marxism, straight up communism 101. Remiel certainly votes NDP. Remiel reserves the right to determine who deserves their property, by examining whether or not they worked hard enough. Put another way, he will examine whether their "work" was "proportional" to the property acquired. In the instance where people have more property than they deserve, well... you know what happens, then. Taxes become immoral when they end up doing more harm then good. And this is true for all forms of taxation - whether income or sales taxes on individuals or businesses/corporations, duties and excise taxes, municipal property taxes, minimum wage laws, rent control laws, environmental protection laws, labour laws, printing money and increasing inflation, etc, etc, ad infinitum. So if the tax/social program/regulation causes more harm than good, it's immoral. Unfortunately, this is true more a majority of government endeavours. I agree, I see nothing wrong with protecting people from harmful externalities in the CCRF. Absolutely it's the opposite, like you said. Don't forget - Remiel is a communist. Or, at a minimum, a socialist who wants heavy government control of the economy and centralized planning. Like I said, he's a communist. Don't forget that the Nazis did this, stealing things and doing whatever they wanted simply because they had widespread support among the German population, and committed their crimes in the interests of the "common good". In Remiel's world, property rights are contingent on the support/acceptance of others. In other words, my rights to property are trumped by the "common good", and depend on support from the majority of the population. So as long as enough people vote to steal your property, then it's kosher. Property rights are invalidated as long as you can convince enough people that they're subordinate to the "common good".

I would not have used Bonam's description of property being acquired through "working long and hard", because such qualifications are completely objective. But you took Bonam's statement and ran with it, dancing around the standard leftist rhetoric about inequalities in this world that are just oh-so-unfair that you think you can and should undo. If I am born into a rich family and acquire a lot through inheritance, does the state therefore have some right to confiscate it from me? Do you have some sort of right to my property because you were born into a poor family, in the name of addressing inequality? What about the work that was done towards creating that wealth by my family? Are you then going to manufacture some sort of litmus test through which we can evaluate whether or not someone worked "hard enough" to "deserve" the property they own, in order to satisfy your opinion? What right do you have to the wealth generated by my family that was willed to me? Although you didn't go directly into this subject, it's clear in which direction you're going - seizing property and wealth from some in order to transfer to others, because the wealthier folks didn't work "hard enough" to "deserve" what they acquired. This talk of yours about the "proper proportion" of work being done towards earning "what was received" reeks of Marxist/communist ideology. That's exactly the type of argumentation advanced by those vermin, and you're now parroting their talking points, fancying yourself as some sort of philosopher king who can decide what people deserve. There is no problematic aspect with private property. None whatsoever. On the contrary, as Bonam has already indicated, private property rights and protections of these rights are essential components of fabric of a free and prosperous society. Nobody, not you or anyone else (or the state claiming to act on the behalf of the collective), have any rights to the property owned by anyone else. The only exception is taxation, which is way over the top and has been for a long time in virtually all modern welfare states (including the USA). That's another topic altogether, of course... Wow. You really are a communist to the core. This is sickening rhetoric. You really think that as long as a large enough group of people vote to steal the property of another group of people, that it's alright. Basically, if 51% of the population votes to tax the other 49% of the population at a rate of 95%, then that's alright. If the state wants to steal property from private owners in the name of the public good, then that's fine. Tyranny of the majority - NO PROBLEM! I can't say I'm that surprised that this is your perspective, given the posts of yours that I've actually read, but it is very disturbing to me that people with such despicable political views such as yourself are seemingly so common in our societies. Absolutely disgusting.

I agree 100%. The rights to private property and legal protections of them are essential components of a free and prosperous state. These rights are inextricable from other fundamental rights that guarantee us freedoms of speech (unfortunately limited in Canada, and unjustifiably) and association, as well as our rights to the judicial process. It's quite sad that certain people don't understand just how vital property rights are, they are no less important than other basic rights.

That's definitely the most important thing.

Sometimes they have organizations that grade the efficiency of various charities on a scale, where the charities who are able to spend a larger portion of the funds they raise towards their cause are given better ratings than charities that spend larger portions of their monies on "administration" or "operating costs". Perhaps the Canadian Cancer Society is one of the poorer performers, so donor should take heed. I sure hope this organization isn't receiving federal funds, but considering this is Canada I wouldn't be surprised if there was a certain degree of governmental overlap going on.

I'll say it again, peasant and savage are two very distinct terms. They mean different things and are NOT synonyms. It's not even close. I cannot fathom why you are trying to defend a blatant misrepresentation of the English language. Peasant may carry a negative connotation in certain contexts, but it isn't the same negative connotation as savage Do I really need to go to dictionary.com and copy-paste the definitions? Be serious.

Proselytization is a crime in Israel. I'm not really in support of such a law, because I believe in freedom of expression, but that's just how things are over here. Perhaps it is obvious, but this law predominantly affects Christian and Muslim denominations, since proselytization isn't a component of contemporary Judaism.

Alright fine, so you've got a grievance with the electoral system of Canada. Was that Topaz's argument, though? No, it was just a meaningless rant capped off with a worthless forecast of doom. He's indirectly criticizing the system for transparently partisan purposes. Just like any party that has all the power, Harper is going to trip up and the Canadians will let him know. Just like the Liberals, what goes up, must come down and down the Harper era will fall/ Seriously? You can't come up with something better than this? This is pure infantile partisanship. What a pointless thread.

Perhaps this is one of the problems with ideologues, they can't grasp nuance. "Peasant" and "savage" are clearly two distinct terms, with clearly distinct meanings and connotations. How can you have a discussion with someone who so readily substitutes words with incorrectly perceived synonyms? There is nothing more useless and boring than having a discussion with a person who reads things that weren't written, or hears things that weren't said. The next step of this insanity is when these types of people connect the dots that aren't there, know what I mean? It invariably leads to strawman argumentation.

If Iraq becomes a "success" in the future, Bush's vision will be vindicated. The truth is I know very little about what's going on in Iraq today (the media barely reports on it, and it's hard to find thorough and trustworthy analysis on the developments, plus I don't really care...), but history will redeem Bush in the sense that his legacy will be reflected on in a positive matter if things turn out well. I'm skeptical, however, that Bush's subscription to the neo-conservative philosophy of an assertive foreign policy to spread democracy will yield real results. I think it will take real commitment across several administrations.

I really hate when people say this. You're acting as if there is a certain true version of Islam, and that those who espouse Jihadi philosophy and scream Allahu Akbhar as they shoot up a US Marine barracks are adhering to "distortions" of the Islamic faith, and are not being in-line to the "true reflections" of the religion. How exactly do we determine which is the true version and which isn't? It's not like Islamism is some kind of fringe philosophy, it's quite prevalent - from the Abu Hamza Al-Masris, Anwar Al-Awlakis, and Osama bin Ladens of the world, to the James Zogbys, Mohammed El-Masrys, and Abdul Raoufs... support for Jihad/Islamism against perceived "Western Imperialism" is quite mainstream. I have no difficulty in acknowledging that we can have a good man and a bad man, both quite different, yet both Muslims and practising "real" Islam. It seems like you're one of those people who can't bring yourself to acknowledge systemic flaws in cultures or societies, lest some idiot call you a "racist". Therefore, the 9/11 mass murderers weren't real Muslims. It'd be like me saying Baruch Goldstein wasn't a real Jew.

I wanted to revisit this thread because after reconsidering and changing my position. Although I support the desire to increase the scope of responsibility of the police and the bill's intention to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants in the USA via attrition, the term "lawful contact" needs to be changed. All they need to do is redefine that term to "detention" or "arrest". In other words, peace officers should only be permitted to verify a person's legal presence in the USA under those two circumstances, because both of them require a certain threshold of reasonable suspicion of the detained or arrested individual's participation in crime in order to legally justified. In my view, police already have plenty of latitude towards detention and arrest, and should therefore only be permitted to verify a person's legal presence in the country under those forms of "lawful contact". Although the following story is somewhat tangential, and arguably a breach of SB1070 even in its current wording, here's an example of an American being arrested at a "checkstop" and being taken to some centre because he didn't have his birth certificate on his person. He apparently provided his trucker's license and social security card, but that wasn't enough (which suggests that the folks that arrested him overstepped their authority even according to SB1070, because a license is sufficient to verify one's lawful presence in the country according to law). Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling Anyways, I think SB1070 either needs to be challenged and defeated repealed, or amended (ideally amended). My two cents.

Great point. That reminds me, I saw this interesting series of videos by Milton Friedman on YouTube on how free countries (economically and socially) were the greatest blessing to benefit Jews in modern times, while lamenting the seeming paradox of so many of the left's prominent intellectual figurehead having a Jewish connection. Which leads me into my next point... ...you say that, but Obama got about 75% of the Jewish vote in 2008. It is absurd, I know, but that's how it is. I hope and anticipate that this will drop in 2012, but Jews tend to reflexively vote for leftist political parties in Western democracies. Somehow we're dumb enough to believe in the lies from the left that they are advancing our interests, and that they protect equality for minorities.

Wow, is that Mel Brooks? Too funny.

What I'm saying is that contemporarily, the left is the loudest voice of anti-Semitism. I'd go so far to say this phenomenon is at least a century old. I already stated that as we go further to the left or right on the spectrum, both sides converge on this issue. Are a lot of leftists anti-Semites? I didn't say that. Is the left today's loudest group of anti-Semites? Without question. Do you really want to go into detail? I realize that many obvious truths are not as self-evident to people such as yourself. Whatever. I never really believed that anti-Semites who associate themselves with the left were really grounded in principle, rather, they masquerade as being proponents of this value or that value in order to obfuscate their prejudice. Look, I think we're spending too much time on this. I've arrived at my assessment of the left being the contemporary champions of anti-Semitism, particularly with respect to Israel and the "Palestinian plight" after plenty of time and consideration of the matter. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - particular criticisms of Israel are often ignorantly anti-Semitic. You're guilty of this, for example, through your rejection of the legitimacy of the blockade on Gaza. You don't even realize what you're doing, which is attacking a legitimate means of self-defense which has arisen from experience. The Kassams and Katyushas are not imaginary, neither are the RPGs, AK-47s, or explosives/IEDs. The terrorists that have murdered and injured (not to mentioned thwarted plots) who came from Gaza are not figments of our imagination. The murdered victims buried in our cemeteries are an eternal reminder of the threat we face from these people and their ideology. Israel has a legitimate need to place restrictions on the passage of goods and people into and out of Gaza across its shared border as well as the coastal border, to reduce the REAL risk posed to us. Yet all of this is regularly ignored by people like you who use empty rhetoric invoking "international law" or "collective punishment" or "siege" or "human rights" or any other hollow buzzword. Does that mean you're anti-Semitic? No, but your position on this issue as well as others are perfect examples of ignorant anti-Semitism - as if Jews don't have a right to engage in necessary actions to protect ourselves. Even worse, when people like you actually do acknowledge the threat from Gaza (which is rare), you invariably blame us for causing it. As if we're responsible for compelling Gazans to walk into discotheques to mass murder teenagers. I can buy that, the media is biased towards "power", at least in certain instances. And you're right about this being a mixture of both left (expanding government power) and right (covering for business abuses under the guise of free-market). In other words, support for power can transcend left/right categorizations. Still, I find the media biased to the left. Whether it's the CBC, CNN, the BBC or Channel 1 in Israel, it's all leaning to the left. I'm not sure exactly why, but it's a phenomenon I see every day, day in and day out. As far as your assertion that corporate media is beholden to big business advertising interests and is unwilling or unable to report on them in an objective manner, your point is minuscule. It's a two-way street. BP can't just bail out on spending money on PR. I would argue that the corporate media has as much influence over the large companies and vice versa. Although of course there is a conflict of interest when they are actually owned by the same entity, like GE's ownership of media. Anyways, it's complicated - but your assertion is simplistic, and moreover, it cannot be reconciled with the leftist bias many of us see every day in most of the media.

I don't believe that. No, it doesn't. And that's assuming your "fact" about men with "lots of education" having a higher proclivity to commit serial-rape is actually a fact.

Not anymore. The left has been proudly carrying the torch of anti-Semitism for decades, now. While at the extreme ends of both there seems to be a convergence on the issue of anti-Semitism, in a general sense, the left absolutely leads the charge of anti-Semitism (more often than not masquerading as anti-Zionism). Not really. The media is left-wing, generally speaking. It's funny that you regularly challenge this reality. No amount of evidence would be able to convince you of this, however, so perhaps I shouldn't go into detail about personal stories from prominent media personalities who describe this in detail, or political support from media figures, or our own extensive experience with it. The "Jews control the media" gambit is not some false assertion upon which the description of the media as being generally left-leaning is built. It is pure garbage to suggest that the description of the media as generally left-leaning is the product of anti-Semitic rhetoric about Jewish control of the media.

I never made that claim. Is this where you link us to a counterpunch.org "eyewitness testimonial"?

I didn't say being rich and educated makes someone morally superior. What I said was quite specific and admittedly a generalization - that I find it highly unlikely that a Ph.D in economics who is so prominent is the kind of guy who would rape a hotel maid in his spare time. I tend to associate underachievement with that type of behaviour - my guess would be that the if we examined the population of convicted rapists, they'd have a lower average income and level of educational attainment than DSK. Again, I'm making a generalization based on more that just empty conjecture. Sorry, I just don't buy that story on its face. I've already stated my reservations about believing this hotel worker, and indicated the events that I find much more believable.

Bloodyminded, you sure have a penchant for going off on irrelevant tangents. It's as if you read a thing or two about this or that, and stop at nothing to derail a thread towards those topics you are committed to discussing. It's really weird. And jacee, you would lose that bet. There are many relatively lawful organizations that work with Gaza. You're just trying to be witty with simplistic rhetoric, which ironically serves only to reveal your ignorance.