Bob

Clearly msj is completely out-of-touch with America on the issue of the "birther" movement. It has nothing to with Obama's skin colour, and everything to do with his early years and ambiguous background (unusual familial situation, to put it lightly...). If the same people who tried to make moves to change the legal requirement in the USA for the President to be American-born were now trying to attack Obama's ambiguous origins, you'd be closer to almost having a point. If Obama was completely white-skinned and has a completely Anglo-name, there would still be attacks against him from certain people because of his early years. End of story.

Thanks for pointing that out, I meant to type that I reject Palestinian nationalism on principle. In short, I don't view them as a distinct people deserving independence in this world. I can assure you that arguing in favour of Palestinian nationalism is very difficult to do, as the only claim they have to being a distinct people from the neighbouring Arabs is rooted in modern history. They're Arabs, and we already have more than enough Arab states through which they can achieve self-determination, with the rest of their people. None of this has stopped much of the ignorant mainstream from recognizing the superficiality of Palestinian nationalism, as Palestinian claims to independence has been accepted wholesale, at least in part, by so many. Like I said, I view this issue from one perspective only - how will it affect Israel and Jewish national rights? There is no way I would ever support moves to advance Palestinian agendas at the expense of Jewish national rights.

Listen my friend, this isn't really a matter of opinion. There is no question that the legitimacy of a nation's or group of people's claim to independence is NOT contingent on the prospects of the future state's financial liability. If your position made sense, then it would be true for all states in a retroactive manner. In other words, a state that went bankrupt would forfeit its sovereignty. Look, I'm largely ambivalent about Palestinian claims to independence and statehood. I only view that issue with respect to how it affects Israel. I do not accept Palestinian on principle, as in my view we have more than enough states that are for Arabs and/or Muslims - there is no need for another, unless it serves Israel's interests. I reject the suggestion that Palestinians represent a distinct nation entitled to self-determination, unlike the Jewish people. They are indistinguishable from many in the neighbourhood, if you know what I mean. What I'm trying to get at is that there are legitimate arguments against Palestinian nationalism rooted in principle, and arguing that the Palestinians do not yet have a high likelihood of financial viability in the form of a hypothetical future state isn't one of them. Is the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination dependent on Israel's financial viability? Certainly not. Lastly, on a practical level there is certainly a connection between a state's economic viability and its true sovereignty. If a state is dependent on hand-outs for 50% of its economy, as a hypothetical future Palestinian state certainly would be given its current conditions, how sovereign can it really be? One more thing - you seemed to make a comment expressing concern for America's purse, as if a Palestinian state would become another financial burden on the USA. The USA is already the largest single-state supporter of the Palestinians, giving them hundreds of millions of dollars per year for almost the past decade, giving smaller amounts before that for many years. The USA doesn't need to give this support, you seem to be suggesting otherwise. There have been recent developments, however, that Congress will make attempts to stop funding the Palestinians, especially after the recent unity deal between Fatah and Hamas. I'd write more, but it's tedious on my mobile. Cheers.

I'd say the indicators thus far as bad for the best days being ahead for the USA. America has a massive total debt and deficit. Unemployment is high. Many jobs are being replaced by lower-paying jobs. Salaries are not growing in line with inflation. There's a massive illegal immigration problem. In my view, American leadership for many years, including Obama of course, seems unwilling to address any of these problems boldly. There are also a lot of social problems - high rates of crime, leftist academia, stupid pop culture, etc... I'm sure the resident Americans in here can offer better insights into the problems they feel are threatening their country. Despite all that, I still view America as arguably the best country in the world to live in (in a general sense, of course). I hope America can reverse track and realign itself with its basic principles, but I'm not so sure. It looks like the progression of American decline continues.

I don't care about what labels a specific party attaches to itself or what labels another party tries to distance itself from. It is not inaccurate to describe the NDP as a socialistic party that seeks to increase government intervention in the economy, as well as the social sphere.

Do you really think it is hard for me to give illustrations of socialistic and harmful policies implemented by and/or advocated for from the NDP in other spheres, i.e. in BC or Ontario? Any cursory examination of Layton's position instantly reveals socialistic policies. With respect to what I've studied at university, it's really unimportant. I wasn't trying to insult Smallc, I was simply offering him sincere advice. He's a politically-oriented guy, but with an amateur grasp of economics. He's greatly appreciate economics at an academic level to a much greater degree than the average schmuck. I can't recall specifics, and they're not from this thread, but he's demonstrated to me before a poor grasp of incentives/disincentives with respect to economics. It's not an inability to understand, it's just a lack of education on the matter.

Are you suggesting that describing the NDP as socialistic is similar to a person describing an advocate of public medicine as a communist? It should be pretty obvious that the former description is fair while the latter isn't.

Are you saying that before this potential scandal broke you thought highly of Layton's judgment? My opinion of Layton was already well-established long before this story came out. And that opinion is unaffected by the possibility of these adulterous escapades. Layton is ridiculous with or without prostitution allegations.

I said quantify, not qualify. Moreover, I find it rich that the person with the high-school understanding of these issues who speaks of the "basic principles" of our economy is trying to ridiculing me. Even one with a simplistic understanding should be able to concede that what is socialism to one is not necessarily socialism to the other. It's to bad the label "socialism" offends you when used to describe the NDP, but it's accurate.

I'm not familiar with the economic situation in Manitoba or the events you're speaking about.

I wonder what Canada's "basic principle" is consider that we've got a mixed economy.... I guess Canada must have an economic identity crisis!

Ignatieff's description of the NDP is irrelevant. Moreover, it's entirely expected that a Ignatieff would avoid describing the NDP as socialistic because of the ideological leanings of his party. If the NDP are socialists, then the Liberal Party are pretty close to socialism - a label Ignatieff wants to avoid.

Of course, it's all language management. There are some negative connotations associated with the terms "socialist" and "separatist", and of course the NDP and Bloc Quebecois tend to try to evade those labels. At the end of the day, the term "socialism" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. In his view, the NDP isn't socialistic enough to be defined as socialistic. You and I disagree.

What is the "basic principle" of our capitalist system? There is no such thing. Is there an opposing "basic principle" of a socialist system? Our economy is affected by government decisions, whether it be a more free market approach or a more interventionist approach. The NDP are in favour of significant government intervention. Is there some magic number that quantifies a party or state as socialistic with respect to some variable? Should we evaluate percentage of GDP attributed to government spending? What's the threshold for socialism - 30%? 45%? 60%? The NDP is socialistic. End of story. You don't like that descriptive term for your party? Fine. Feel free to disagree. With respect to your education, I am honestly not trying to insult you. All I'm saying is that I can tell you've not studied economics at an academic level. I have studied economic (and politics) at an academic level. That's not to say I possess final authority on what's right and wrong, but it is somewhat annoying to speak with you on some of these issues because you simply don't know what you're talking about. Although the Liberals tend to use less aggressive socialistic rhetoric than the NDP, the Liberal Party is also socialistic, just to a lesser degree than the NDP.

Since when is income disparity a problem? The entire OP operated on an unstated, yet obvious supposition that wealth disparity is something to be fought against. It would also appear that this study posited this supposition to those who it polled. So, the average person being the average schmuck that he or she is, sucked up that supposition and rolled with it - and wished to be in a place with less wealth disparity. Ridiculous.

University are very homogenous politically. Particularly with respect to their opposition to the CPC and what they view as conservatism.

Betsy, Layton's judgment can be easily decimated with his own words. We don't need to use allegations of sexual immorality to illustrate that. Want to criticize his naivety? Examine his absurd promises. Want to criticize his lack of understanding of basic economic? Continue examining his absurd promises. Want to criticize his approach to crime? I'm sure we can find examples of him harping on with rhetoric about "rehabilitation" and "compassion". The point is that Layton provides plenty of fodder against him with his own words. There are certainly very few threads in here that really scrutinize the stupidity of Layton and his supporters. Rather, there are many more thread discussing superficial soundbytes and premature allegations - this thread being an example of that.

I'm well aware of that, but it can't be quantified. You're the one throwing around fake concepts such as "base" of an economy. You're the one with the high-school level education on these issues, not I.

"Base"? Meaning what, 51% of our economy? I don't know what a "base" is with respect to the economy. The NDP can be accurately described as socialists. They want to socialize more and more components of the economy - that's socialism. I wasn't trying to be condescending, either. I was sincerely telling you something I think you'd appreciate. Take it or leave it. You're welcome to disagree with my usage of the term, but you certainly don't own the term "socialism" and don't have exclusive license to use it where you feel appropriate.

There are many socialistic elements to the Democratic party. I wouldn't describe them as socialists, but then again I'm talking about the NDP here. Describing the NDP as socialistic doesn't mean I need to apply the same label to the Democrats in the USA. The NDP are certainly not the same as the American democrats. Does that really need to be said? Considering that there is no official qualification of socialism, I am no wrong. The NDP is very socialistic. I stand by that statement for reasons I've already explained. How would you describe the NDPs? As centrists? As centre-left? How would you describe socialism - as far-left?

The NDP can accurately be described as socialists. You and I clearly don't live on the same planet. Don't take this as an insult because I mean this sincerely - I highly recommend you study some elementary economics. Maybe find a first-year textbook or something? It is clear you never studied the subject at an academic level and I would assume that a politically-inclined person such as yourself would get a great deal of satisfaction in educating yourself on this subject. I also don't mean this with reference to how we define socialism or whether we can apply the label to the NDP, but in reference to several comments I've seen from you over time that illustrate a lack of knowledge on this subject.

I know, but you're getting into technicalities here. Please don't tell me we need to get into this. You're going over silly stuff when the point I was making should be easy to understand - that the politically-loaded language used in the title is silly and stupid.

The thread title assumes that the allegations of true. It also describes the sex as "reckless" as opposed to.... responsible? Lastly, the prostitutes were illegal as opposed to... legal? This is an embarrassment to the forum...

Betsy, why not talk about something relevant? Why not go after Layton's ridiculous promise to deliver nationwide daycare, which is a service that families should pay for on their own? Why not attack Layton's idiocy to implement some sort of cap-and-trade system and/or comply with the "international community" and damage Canada industry? What about his fantasy promise that he will magically find the doctors we need to address the shortage of their supply in Canada? How about the NDP desiring a "more balanced" approach from Canada towards the Israel/Arab conflict, meaning in essence that we should be more accommodating of Hamas and Fatah? There's no much REAL stuff that needs to be discussed about idiotic and dangerous leftist ideas that will hurt Canada if implemented, yet there is this stupid focus on these allegations that nobody should give a damn about.

In my humble opinion, the political discourse in Canada in all respects is just as infantile, disrespectful, dishonest, and stupid as in America. This is true across all avenues: media, politicians, political interest groups, and dinner tables.