Bob

How about a little more honesty? Let's encourage people to vote APPROPRIATELY according the regulations from elections Canada. You're trying to make it out to be as if the recent Guelph university vote was the only opportunity for these students to vote instead of a deliberate attempt to garner more anti-Harper support in a contested riding before the students go back to their homes.

The Ignatieff is doing an unbelievably terrible job when he is given opportunities to explain that platform. Exhibit A - the recent debate.

The lethargic rise and quite applause of the audience was so, so, so funny... Maybe I have a strange sense of humour, but I couldn't stop laughing at the unenthusiastic (and obedient) response. They were like drones. Check out the huge crowds being drawn from former Liberal hero Paul Martin. <found those photos are a hilarious blog>

Scotty, I agree with you one-hundred percent. The attempts to describe Harper and the CPC as "enemies of democracy" is pretty pathetic. Conversely, Ignatieff is trying to portray himself as the "pro-democracy" candidate, as if Harper is somehow anti-democratic. It's really pathetic, infantile, and revealing of how empty Ignatieff's message is. It's also hypocritical, as Ignatieff accuses Harper of using the "politics of fear", when Ignatieff's entire campaign (as was Martin's last time around) is built on portraying Harper as some sort of evil Darth Vader with plans for global domination. Ignatieff here is making a call to fringe "activists" and leftist students, not to ordinary Canadians. Stop pretending to be some sort of benevolent revolutionary against the evil Harper empire, it's quite unbecoming...

What you need to recognize is that the amount of people opposed to Harper is at least equal to those who support Harper. I am quite certain the vast majority of people who support the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois DESPISE the CPC and Harper. So as news of Harper's growing popularity spreads, his opponents (and there are many) begin to panic and do all they can to stop him. Bear in mind, most supporters of the CPC, such as myself, want a majority Conservative Party. government. There are as many if not more Canadians, however, who are opposed to a majority government formed by the CPC. I think this is partially the product of decades of liberal indoctrination (through our beloved leftist media and universities, for example) which ties into one of your favourite subjects - how Canadian identity shapes itself largely by what it's not (we're not Americans!) rather than by what it is. I think this is connected to a strange and almost reflexive pro-leftist mentality held by so many Canadians. In other words, since many Canadians view America as largely conservative and right-wing, they feel they need to take the opposite approach. For example - strategic voting.

I didn't mean theft in the legal sense. In my view, it's political theft. Just because it probably isn't breaking any laws doesn't change my opinion.

You're taking things too seriously and being too dramatic. It's strategic voting. It's a components of our system and these folks are welcome to engage in it to work towards their political objectives ("we must stop Harper!"). And if you think about it, these people aren't compromising their beliefs and principles. Indeed, many of them are staying true to their beliefs and principles - many of them are exclusively committed to one value: opposition to the CPC and conservative values. Listen to Ignaiteff's campaign and you'll be hard-pressed to find anything substantial beyond attacks on Harper. He has defined himself through what he's opposed to, and by extension, his party-loyalists are doing the same. It's really sad and really pathetic, but that's how it is. If we're gonna have a beef with these folks, it should be with the warped perspectives that Canadian leftists hold. Don't hate on them for using the system in a particular way. Instead, we should challenge their messed up political perspectives and propaganda.

Rachel Corrie is wholly responsible for her own death. She was interfering with a military operation. The bulldozer cannot simply yield because a person has chosen to become a human shield. The military operation of destroying the building SAVES LIVES. By interfering with that operation, Rachel Corrie was placing Israeli lives at risk. She was attempting to preserve a building that is used for terrorist snipers. Perhaps she believed the lies that Hamas had told her, that these buildings were exclusively used for innocent purposes. Either way, she was interfering with a military operation that was being conducted in the interests of Israeli security. The bulldozer driver cannot exit the vehicle to apprehend her, lest he expose himself to being shot. There are reasons why the bulldozers used by the IDF are so heavily armed. The bottom line - the military operation of destroying the buildings is entirely justifiable, Rachel Corrie willingly interfered with this military operation, and she was killed as a result of her own negligence. Sadly, her memory continues to perpetuate the dishonest movement she was a part of (the ISM). I have no doubt that in her heart of hearts she believed in what she was doing and perhaps thought she was doing noble and moral work. Her own perceptions, however, were deeply flawed.

Bloodyminded, you've made many comments acknowledging the disproportionate volume of criticism that Israel receives. Of course there can be no doubt about this. More disturbing, however, is that the criticism is largely unjustified. Especially with respect to how Israel uses force to defend itself. More than anyone else, and often beyond what I think is reasonable, Israel engages in activities to reduce civilian casualties - often at great expense, including placing soldier at increased risk. I will give a simplistic example. Using ground troops to go into an apartment (which is incredibly dangerous when it is known that that the terrorists are within, and perhaps have installed traps) rather than simply destroying the entire building, in order to reduce the likelihood of harming civilians. Now, we can have a legitimate argument about whether or not Israel can justify placing its soldiers in a higher-risk situation in order to protect civilians. What we cannot do, however, is accuse Israel of not taking sufficient precautions to reduce civilian harm. There is no systematic pattern from Israel towards harming civilians. There are aberrations. For example, soldiers mistreating detained Palestinians, stealing their possessions, or disregarding the rules of engagement, etc. The accusations we always hear is that Israel actions, in their entirety, are unjustified. For example, Israel is criticized for firing into civilian areas - well that's where the terrorists are and that's from where they operate. There is simply no other option Israel has to defend itself. Anyways, it's not just disproportionate criticism we see levied against Israel, it's UNJUSTIFIED and DISHONEST criticism. At best, it's ignorant criticism.

Of course that's impossible right now for so many reasons. It's sad, but that's the world we live in.

First off, I don't understand why the city of Toronto would fund such a thing. It's simply theft of taxpayer money. The organizers of the event should be free to make arrangement with the municipality to ensure things go smoothly, but why should they receive public funds? It makes absolutely no sense. Second, and I am sure everyone has heard this a million and one times, the irony of QAIA condemning Israel in a dishonest manner (describing Israel as an Apartheid state is flat-out wrong) while advocating for the national rights of a people that discriminates against homosexuals is quite rich. Last, I admire a politician who will stand on principle and deny funds (that I don't think should be given in the first place) to an event that will allow such a group to participate. Although not quite as reprehensible as a Nazi group, QAIA is certainly spreading a dishonest message and attacking Jewish national rights in Israel. Maybe he's trying to appeal to certain Jewish voters, or maybe he's sincerely standing on principle, but he's doing the right thing in denying to fund an event that would host a group like QAIA.

It's not news worthy because they can hide behind this murder being the work of "a fringe group", and not representative of the Palestinian people - despite the endless examples of horrifying behaviour that comes out of their society. Arbitrary arrests, kidnappings, torture, and killings/executions of political opponents. Glorification of suicide bombers and other terrorists in the form of massive posters on buildings, naming streets and buildings after them, offering scholarships and awards in their name, etc. Training would children to identify with and support terrorism through indoctrination camps/classes, media, etc... Despite this kind of thing not being surprising in the least to those in-the-know, it will be forgotten and written off as some isolated incident that is completely disconnected from, and not the product of, serious problems in Palestinian culture and society.

And in order to read the data and inspect the methodology, all one has to do is go buy the book! It's also too simplistic, the Muslim world is WAY TOO BIG to simplify. Regionally, we will certainly see disturbing perspectives. You think we'll find widespread support for these values among Afghanis? Among Pakistanis? Among Palestinians? Get real. You always seem to think that everyone around the world is fundamentally the same. It's the typical myopia we see for Western liberals who haven't met any of they people they pretend to understand. Here's a tip - the minorities you meet in Canada, at least the well-to-do ones, are almost exclusively minorities from their countries of origin. All my Arab/Muslim friends growing up, from Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, and other backgrounds tended to have professional parents that came to Canada because they could. They are quite different than the majority of the rabble from those garbage countries. You need to stop assuming that everyone around the world is fundamentally the same and that the few Lebanese folks you know are representative of the broader population. As an aside, every single Arab and Muslim I know, and I've had this conversation with probably a hundred of them in a face-to-face manner over many years, were biased against Israel. They tend to think uniformally with respect to Israel.

I think much of the Canadian media landscape is anti-conservative, so it isn't surprising that many Canadian news outlets would carry this story and misleadingly report on it in an anti-conservative manner. Just because I support the CPC this time around doesn't make me a partisan. There are several things I dislike about the CPC and Harper, but we can get into that later. Your attempts to portray me as some partisan-hack are just stupid. I have not and will not support a party or candidate "just because".

I don't think Rachel Corrie or Vittorio Arrigoni can be described as good people. Perhaps in their minds they thought they were making the world a better place, but that certainly wasn't the case. I think, simply, that these two people were empty and needed a cause to give meaning to their lives. So they plunge in head-over-heels into something they don't understand and willingly (or ignorantly, to give them the benefit of the doubt) become instruments of propaganda for organizations such as Hamas. If you like, there are plenty of photos of Vittorio all smiles with Khaled Mashal (head of Hamas) and other Hamas officials. He's also written in support of Hamas, without telling the truth about how they operate - although perhaps he had to be careful about what he said/wrote about Hamas, lest he be murdered. He made comparisons between Israeli policies and Nazi policies. He likened Israel to apartheid. He supported the "resistance" (terrorism). He blatantly misrepresented Israel, either ignorantly and/or maliciously, deceiving anyone who may have read his tripe. So again, although I'm sure he sincerely believed in what he was doing, that doesn't make him a good person. I'm sure I don't need to provide more prominent of bad people who sincerely believed in the "good" of their actions.

The double-standard is exposed in the sense that there was outrage and condemnation of Israel for the death of Rachel Corrie, as it was argued that her death was at the hands of the IDF - and now with the recent story of Vittorio Arrigoni, he was kidnapped and murdered by a group of Islamists (political/terrorist group) that wanted to pressure Hamas to release one of their leaders, and also to protest what they view as a soft approach Hamas has taken towards Israel. Will we see similar outrage against the Palestinians as we saw against Israel? Either way, Rachel Corrie caused her own death obstructing a military operation to support "homes" that were in reality cover for terrorists who shot at Israeli border officers from protected positions. Vittorio Arrigoni, on the other hand, intentionally placed himself in an unruly (top put it lightly) place in order to do something he was committed to. As much as people like Rachel and Vittorio are reprehensible, at least for their views and what they worked towards, it brought me no pleasure to read of Vittorio's death. I remember when the story of his kidnapping first broke... and then, literally hours later, the headline changed to his murder. My heart sank a little when I read it, even though I hate everything he and his organization (the ISM) represent.

I'd like to see the elections laws, if possible. As you've already pointed out, there's something very strange about accepting the votes from the university on the one hand, and then saying they won't allow any more similar early-voting without pre-authorization going forward. If the votes from the university are acceptable, why not allow the practice to continue? There's something very untoward about these events, and my suspicion is that Elections Canada, like most other apparatuses of the government, are biased against conservatism.

So Guergis bringing up a story that's already a year old in a desperate to get attention for her campaign is more newsworthy than the political platforms of the major parties? Perhaps the CBC could actually spend some time examining the legitimacy of the statements made by the candidates in an effort to do some fact-checking? Maybe the records of the political candidates and parties can be examined? This is not newsworthy. This is soap-opera stupidity, and the CBC isn't reporting on the story accurately. As has already been explained several times recently in several threads, this story, if reported on properly, exposes hypocrisy from Ignatieff and Layton (and probably Duceppe, although I don't pay much attention to anything he says). Does the CBC expose the hypocrisy of the opposition when writing its summary of events for this affair? No. Should anyone be surprised by the manner in which the CBC is reporting on this stupidity? No. And whether or not you recognize the CBC's bias doesn't change the fact that the CBC is biased. It's almost inevitable, given the fact that a government-apparatus will naturally be inclined to support leftism in the interests of its own self-preservation and continual growth.

Just because I will vote for the CPC candidate from my riding doesn't make me partisan. I am an independent and have no problem criticizing Harper, where legitimate. Or, conversely, agreeing with leaders from other parties, where legitimate. Just because I know who I'm voting for this time around doesn't make me a partisan. And just because I recognize the anti-conservative bias of the CBC doesn't make me a partisan.

Elections Canada is breaking its own rules by accepting these votes from the university in Guelph, considering that advanced votes are supposed to be coordinated with Elections Canada in advance. It looks like another example of the government-apparatus' anti-Conservative bias. I was reading a conservative blog on this story and an interesting question as asked - do you think Elections Canada would behave the same way had this early vote taken place at a Catholic Church that was known for being largely conservative?

WWWTT is a perfect example of a partisan who attacks Harper with CBC talking points rather than for legitimate reasons. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Harper. The Guergis fiasco which is already a year-old and completely irrelevant, and simply being brought up because of lazy anti-CPC politics at the CBC. If you've got a beef with Harper, bring up something legitimate rather than a partisan talking point.

She hasn't been rehabilitated then, has she? If she can't be trusted to be a teacher for fear of her victimizing children, why would we trust her with her free time? That's the point. If she's undeserving of that trust, she should still be behind bars or, better yet, underground.

Wait a minute, Homolka can only be considered rehabilitated if she votes for the Liberal Party.

You mean the majority of countries that have no ability to stand up for their interests and therefore can't be compared to the handful of countries that can? With respect to the majority of the countries around the world, they can be lumped into the same category as Saudi Arabia in the sense that their cultures and/or political systems are inferior to ours. There is no shame in acknowledging superiority where it exists. When Harper said that Canada is the best country in the world to live in during the debate, did you find that an arrogant or offensive statement? I found it to be the best statement of the entire debate, quite frankly.

Well, I guess we've got you on the record as saying that there isn't a discrepancy between the culture, political system, and of course people between the USA and Saudi Arabia (as examples). This has nothing to do with war, either. It's tiring to have to respond to such absurd statements, but America certainly hasn't installed any "puppet governments" in the Arab/Muslim world. Doing business with these government for the purpose of acquiring the economic lifeblood that we know as oil isn't the same thing as "installing puppet governments". I think this is your cue to show us a photograph of Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein from the 80s shaking hands? Or maybe a photograph of Barack Obama bowing to the Saudi King Abdullah? People like you always think that as soon as America has ANY sort of relationship with an Arab or Muslim country, that they are controlling the dictatorship. As far as your comment of "plundering resources", this is again another frustrating lie to respond to that we hear all the time. IN your world, when America buys anything, it's "plundering". Not let's actually get to the point I made, which seems to require more explanation despite how obvious I thought it was. Look at the treatment of minorities. Look at the role of women. Look at the respect/tolerance for political differences. Look at the levels of freedoms and liberties. Before you tell me that the Middle East would resemble America and Canada is only it weren't for what you describe as American-installed/American-backed puppet dictatorships, go take a look at public opinion polls asking question regarding issues I've just mentioned. Stop being so naive to think that all around the world, in the heart of every oppressed citizen around the world is a sensible Canadian longing to be free. These people, largely, are not like you or I. And again, this has nothing to do with was. Them being moral backwards and primitive doesn't mean I want to go to war with them. On the other hand, I'd rather have as little to do with them, generally speaking, as possible. Lastly, I love your implicit justification of terrorism. I'm not sure if I should ever waste any more of my time responding to you again. You're actually trying to suggest that those militias that the mainstream American media reported on a couple of years for a week or two, when it was the cool thing to report on, are comparable to the perpetrators of 9/11? Unbelievable stupidity...