Bob

The Conservative Party is gonna need an ultra-strong candidate (not Harper) to bust through deeply entrenched Canadian partisanship and prejudices. I don't see Harper as the type of leader who is so convincing that he can pull those who may not be partisan, but have strongly held and ill-founded ideological leanings. I know that's not what you mentioned, but I can't see a majority coming around given the sentiment across Canada and Harper. In a strange way, I think Ignatieff could've been that leader if he wasn't the kinda guy that he is - as ridiculous as that sounds. He's tall, looks good, speaks well, is highly intelligent, and has charisma. The problem is his approach - attack, attack, and attack... and a deeply flawed ideology - internationalist rhetoric, resentment towards Canada when not under Liberal control, cries for spending more to improve solutions, anti-military (wants to freeload on America indefinitely), hostility to America, appeasement of Quebec separatism, etc, etc, etc... Ignatieff reminds me of Romney, a man who has a lot of the tools required to win, but completely lacking in courage, vision, honesty, and integrity (and perhaps a little on insight/intelligence). Basically, a half-candidate. I know, I went off on a tangent.... I was just wondering if anyone else sees what I see.

I think the more honest way to portray this is that if you're not an American, you're more likely to have your vote tossed. Considering the fact that most people who come to America illegally aren't regarded as white, why is this surprising?

American Woman, you know you are being entirely too charitable to an organization you know is largely politicized against American interests, given the volume of countries represented at the UN who are opposed to American interests. You know as well as I do that there are countless legitimate problems in many countries regarding torture and illegal detentions. The fact that the UN has assigned an "investigator" to an American citizen in American custody, who just happens to be at the epicentre of the recent Wikileaks controversies, tells us everything we need to know about the true intention of this "investigation". Nevermind that the accusations of what he's been subjected to do not qualify as torture, and nevermind that he has access to confidential conference with his lawyer. Come on, call it for what it is, it's the UN again making a mockery of one of its role as a result of politicization.

The attempts to liken the Conservative Party, or Canadian conservatives in general, to the Republican party or other affiliates of the stereotypical right/conservative wing in the American context is such an old cliche, and really tells us more about the accuser than the accused. It's a tired attempt that plays on anti-Americanism and prejudices held by some on the Canadian left. In my view, the only people who such rhetoric resonates with are people are already ideologically blinded and partisan. I really can't see middle-of-the-roaders reading or hearing rhetoric referring to Harper as the Canadian Bush, parroting accusations of Bush being anti-democratic (although the 2004 Supreme Court decision was indeed controversial, to put it lightly) and being convinced to vote Liberal (even if only to cast a vote against Harper). It's just stupid and infantile, Harry. Try acting like an adult, and you may get some respect around here.

That's fine. It's quite clear what your political disposition is.

What are your intentions in differentiating Canadians from Quebecers?

Seriously bud, you're not going to get far in your attempts to deny Hamas' intentions to murder civilians, and their stated wish to destroy Israel. Imagine the impression you're making on other posters in here, who now see even more clearly that you are a Hamas-apologist/Hamas-supporter. The intentions of your posts are clear - to downplay/deny the terrorist conduct of Hamas, by using Hamas recent public proclamations as evidence! Seriously... just take a moment to consider what you're saying and who you're advocating on behalf on.

I wonder if any of the UN-apologists, who always love to invoke the demands of the "international community" with respect to Israel, have anything to say with respect to this video. Here's a video again featuring Anne Bayefsky regarding the Organization of the Islamic Conference's hijacking of both the UN and UNCHR. Here she talks about how the OIC tries to redefine anti-Semitism, tries to portray victimhood-status to Muslims, and makes absurd suggestions that Muslims today are facing discrimination similar that experienced by the Jewish people during the Holocaust (apparently the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad <PBUH> was as damaging to the Muslims a little ago as the gas chambers were to us in the Holocaust). This is political Islam at work, which has effectively crippled the UN and UNHCR. Those of certain ideological leanings, however, would lead you to believe that the problem with the UN is the USA's veto at the UNSC. There is no reason not to take CAMERA seriously. CAMERA does a decent job of bringing to light dishonest approaches of many institutions towards Israel. Anyways, as usual we get the typical high quality one-liner post from bud. You certainly contribute a lot to this forum

From the article - A UN investigator on torture says US officials have blocked his requests for unmonitored visits to alleged Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning. So these are the types of priorities at the UN, apparently. As if the true motivations for this push aren't obvious - to make baseless attacks against the USA to the gleeful applause of third-world dictators and Arab/Muslim countries. This is funny - Supporters of Pte Manning say he has been held under harsh conditions, confined to a spartan cell for for 23 hours a day without personal possessions, and forced regularly to undress. If he really wants "unmonitored" abilities to investigate the allegations of a particular anti-American group (Bradley's fans who support the theft and public release of confidential documents to compromise national security) information, why not just meet with his lawyer(s)? The BBC article.

Holy God... is bud trying to tell us that Hamas didn't intentionally mean to target a school bus? Is that the same Hamas that has made thousands of proclamations declaring all Jews to be legitimate targets? The same Hamas that props up huge murals all across Gaza to memorialize suicide bombers? The same Hamas that launches rockets and mortars into Israeli towns? The same Hamas that shoots at Jewish civilians in the West Bank? Bud has officially become the Hamas frontman for MLW! Bud, I have two simple questions for you: 1. Do you believe that the IDF operates with a much higher degree of moral conduct than Hamas? 2. Are you a Muslim?

Where's the evidence that America did anything beyond simply selling weapons and maintaining cordial relations in secret? And what about the false argument that America's involvement was a necessary component of these events? Indonesia could've purchased its weapons from many other places.

It's interesting that you linked that document, as that document just happens to be what I looked at last night. I read through the whole thing, and yes, it reveals what appears to be cordial relations between Ford, Kissinger, and Suharto. But so what? Nowhere in that document is any proof that somehow Indonesia would have done (or not done) whatever the American administration had "ordered". There is no question there is something untoward about maintaining relations with a government that is engaging in such war crimes, but that is certainly not the same thing as your suggestion that somehow America had the means to easily stop the war. It was also during the Cold War, which I'm sure had a lot to do with the motivations of the American government towards staying plugged in to the region.

I don't bring up Israeli issues when irrelevant, however. I can't recall exactly, but I think I remember you trying to derail discussions towards this subject several times.

Since when could America simply order Indonesia to do its bidding? And why are you suggesting that if America hadn't sold arms to Indonesia, that the violence would have come to an end? Don't you know there countries that sell arms besides America?

You have a really bad grasp of politics. America's view of Palin has always been overwhelmingly unfavorable. CNN spending a lot of time on Palin AFTER THE ELECTION was simply because she was an easy target. More conspiratorially, if we assume that CNN is a liberal/Democratic-leaning network (which it is, without question), then I'd guess that continuing coverage of Sarah Palin was done with the underhanded intention of damaging the conservative/Republican brand, which I think has been successful. When you stated that Sarah Palin was getting as much airtime as Obama, I assumed you were referring to the time of the 2008 Presidential campaigns. So yes, I do remember a time when it seemed as if all CNN would talk about was Sarah Palin (after the election, when she was promoting her book and talking about a Presidential run, I think, back in early-mid 2009?). Dedicating a lot of time to covering her, however, isn't the same thing as promoting her. She was always portrayed in a negative (which is completely understandable) light.

Sarah Palin never got even close to a fraction of the time Obama received. And if anything, CNN mocked her repeatedly. Any time they gave towards her, generally speaking, was to bash her (understandably).

Lou Dobbs has a show on Fox News Business, though? What do you mean he's "on meds"? I think Fox management simply saw Glenn Beck's show going too far to the fringe and out-of-line with their overall conservative/Republican theme. I liked Lou Dobbs, he was the only guy who seemed to be straight-up regarding illegal immigration in the USA.

Yeah, but I made that point in another thread. It still feels like you read my mind.

John Stewart's IQ is about the same as Glenn Beck. The last episode I ever watched of The Daily Show was when he had some American Jewish "peace activist" girl and Marwan Barghouti. After that, I had had enough. Glenn Beck is actually a lot funnier than John Stewart, also, because Glenn Beck actually takes himself seriously, whereas John Stewart's moments of righteous indignation compose only about 15% of his show.

Hahaha yeah, were those really the kinda commercials that were running during his show? I bet he has "make money from home" advertisement running on his radio show. Still, his show apparently has two million viewers (which is good for that time slot?). I think the Fox News management just foresees the decline of his show and perhaps have something lined up that they're confident is better. I wish I had Fox Business, I really miss Lou Dobs (one of the really good anchors from all the networks) and I know he has a show with them, now. It's too bad he had to part with CNN do to CNN's leftist politicization, I really enjoyed his show.

Definitely. He always seems to want to shift the discussion towards that.

You are literally reading my mind. I didn't mention it, but I came across the phrase "green light" from a couple of these online "projects" who claim to be committed to getting down to the bottom of America's involvement in these events. Of course, that "green light" is never really explained. I was gonna say, but I declined. You read my mind and did it yourself. I was also going to bring up the Pastor in Florida, as it seemed like a much simpler example of people blaming a slightly connected party (in a way) to a crime in an attempt to shift blame from the truly responsible. I abstained, though, because they degree of relationship between America and Indonesia is greater than the relationship between Terry Jones and the religiously-motivated murderers in Afghanistan. Still, I see your point. Again, I was going to bring this up, but I didn't - and you made the point, anyways. I guess we can blame the USA because some websites use the phrase "green light", as if the USA had a button in front of it, with a green button (support war and mass murder) and a red button (stop war and mass murder). It's weird when that happens, it's telepathy across the ocean.

So here's a brief article about Glenn Beck being let go from Fox News at the Washington Post. His ratings have been slipping lately, according to what I've been hearing from other media outlet and talk radio. I don't know if any of you have watched his show lately, but he's been getting weirder and crazier as time has gone on. His professor-act with the blackboard and glasses is also quite ridiculous.

You can't tell me that you're not a little depressed with the current line-up. Hopefully some strong candidates will come forward by the time the campaign really gets into gear.

Thanks for the link. After perusing it for awhile, it still seems that these events would have happened with or without American "support". Yes, assuming the summary of "What The Documents Show" is accurate, America knew about and maintained some degree of contact with Indonesia, as well as what's described as "military ties" (arms sales?). So far, my intuition seems to be correct, that these events would have happened with or without what is being described as "American support" for Indonesia during this time. I would think that people would place the blame on Indonesia and its people. But hey, that's a crazy idea, right?