Bob

You are joking, but perhaps you've forgotten that America's "ally", Pakistan, made moves at the UN to go after America for violating its "sovereignty" after the termination of Osama bin Laden. Prior to that, if I recall correctly, the UN was already making its own moves to reprimand the USA in one way or another. I can't recall all the details, because of course the UN is so ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration, but I think Ban Ki-Moon also made statements chastising America's actions in the killing of Osama bin Laden, echoing the rhetoric of the enemy.

If you're a Muslim murdering people while shouting "Allahu Akbhar!", which is of course the standard refrain of any Muslim murderer/terrorist from any group, you're immune to allegations of "war crimes" from the left. After all, you'd only be legitimately "resisting American colonialism/imperialism" and defending "your land".

So.... you want an investigation that leads to punishment of those who are guilty of violating Qaddafi's "rights"? You think those that executed Qaddafi should be charged and convicted of murder? Do you also want justice for Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya, who've all had their "sovereignty" violated by the USA and NATO, respectively?

That's exactly what it looks like from here, as if WWWTT is crossing his or her fingers for a mass murder involving a gun in order to give an event to the socialists and communists to exploit for political purposes. Anyone else notice how WWWTT has bounced around a few times in this thread? It seems as if in one breath he's stating that a gun registry or lack of one would have no impact on a future mass murder involving a gun, and then in another breath he's asking Shady, sarcastically and rhetorically, if he doesn't grasp the seemingly obvious connection between gun registries and mass murder shooting sprees. "If you sinserly believe a shooting spree in Canada and the gun registry are completely unrelated to one another then you've got some serious issues man!"

You must be reading Smallc's posts and just shaking your head. Let me tell you, his obliviousness of American politics is extremely common among Canadians. Now, I don't fault anyone, especially Canadians, for being ignorant of American politics and American political culture, but it's quite rich to see someone who is so ignorant portray themselves as something else entirely. As a side note, we need an American comedian to do a counterpart to Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans" illustrating just how common massive ignorance of America is on Canadian streets.

I must've seen at least fifty episodes of that show. Perhaps more.

Blueblood, it must be hard for you to take Smallc's perception of the media when he actually tells us, with a supposedly straight-face, that Jon Stewart actually goes after the left. Jon Stewart is a hard-leftist. He never met a leftist he didn't like. You can see the venom in him when he goes after those on the right, with argument grounded in his leftist worldview, and the light-hearted buddy-buddy demeanor he uses to chastise those on the left.

Smallc, I will tell you what many others realize about you - you have a very bad grasp of the American right. It would be tiresome to go through your posts, point-by-point, and refute your assertions about the Republican party, your perceptions of its base, the broader American conservative movement, and the degree of religiosity among those vying for the Republican nomination. Unfortunately, your ignorance of these people and their politics is, in my view, typical among most Canadians, particularly the Canadian left. You put this sad reality on display.

I'd like to see the left and their pillars (the UN, "human rights groups", favoured politicians/intellectuals) call into question the legality of the execution of Qaddafi, as they did, for example, when Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki were recently neutralized. Will our lovely leftists express their outrage by crying for investigations and subsequent prosecutions of the perpetrators of Qaddafi's execution? Will we hear shouts of "war crimes!"? Or perhaps NATO can be accused of breaching Libya's "sovereignty", as we heard from Pakistan and other elements of the reflexively anti-American leftist Islamist-supporters when Osama bin Laden was neutralized? Should Qaddafi have had his rights read to him, been given medical attention, been given sufficient living conditions in his imprisonment (including Halal meals and access to religious necessities), access to a lawyer, and all the other trimmings that are somehow universal "rights"? It's a lose-lose situation for the left, of course, as they've already made fools of themselves on these issues in this past, and can either choose to be consistently absurd by advancing the same demands and criticisms now, or choose to be hypocritical by staying silent.

Nothing offensive in those videos, whatsoever. If you think the above two videos you posted above represent even a shred of the sickness you can find over at, say, MEMRITV, you're certainly continuing to display your commitment to dishonesty - trying to draw a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, and between Jews/Israelis and Arabs/Muslims. There is no parallel to be drawn. The moral high ground has always been and will always be ours.

There is absolutely no comparison to be made between Jewish societies and Muslim societies with respect to who is more consumed with hatred and subscribing to false political and historical narratives, specifically in the Israeli/"Palestinian" contexts. Good luck finding a plethora of videos of Jews advocating for murder of Muslims as I've shown above.

I'm pretty sure the mainstream news is reporting that it was a NATO attack that initially injured Qaddafi, to be finished off by Libyan "rebels" after-the-fact.

You do a great job of putting on display what much of us already know - the perverted morality of the left and the "pro-Palestinian" crowd. The moral equivalence drawn between the Israeli soldier and the Islamic terrorist tells us everything we need to know. Beyond that, you eagerly obfuscate the motivations for the mass murder of the terrorists. According to you, they don't hate Jews (despite the mountains of indications that they do, easily available to anyone who wishes to see it), they just hate Israel. I guess videos like this are somehow taken of context, eh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fic15V8ChE

You seem to think that somehow this recent deal emboldens Hamas and increases their motivation to continue to carry out abduction attempts against Jews and other Israelis. Their motivation has been as high as possible for decades, and the strategy of terrorism (including hostage-taking) precedes Hamas by decades. It's been a part of the Muslim-terrorist playbook for many decades. There is nothing Israel can do to increase their motivation for terrorism further, they've been amped up and climaxing on bloodthirstiness for over a century, now. The recent hero's welcome extended to the the released mass murderers is just a recent example of a pattern that's been around for a very long time.

On the one hand of this hostage negotiation, we have the guaranteed return of Gilad Shalit. On the other hand of the negotiation, we have the risk of these terrorist rats being successful in inevitable future attempts at murdering Jews and other Israelis, as they will mostly resume their support for mass murder and terrorism to the best of their abilities. What's important to remember is that these released terrorists do not represent some sort of finite human resource for the infrastructure of terrorism - there is no shortage of willing "Palestinians" and other Muslims from the broader Muslim collective who wish to murder Jews. Israel's security measures remain constant, whether or not these 1027 terrorists are in or out of jail. As an analogy, a paramedic doesn't retire after he or she has saved X amount of people, because the need for emergency medical response is a constant (well, a growing constant). Terrorism and willing recruits, similarly, is not impacted in a meaningful way by the release of these 1027 terrorists, as there is no shortage of demand for terrorism and no shortage of supply of willing Jihadis. At worst, this deal is a miscarriage of justice, but not really a significant increase in threat to the Jewish people or Israel. The threat remains constant. It was certainly no an easy decision for Netanyahu, but he weighed the value of the certainty of Shalit's return against the risk of increased victimization from these released terrorists in the future. The nature of living in a neighbourhood populated almost entirely of violent, inferior, hate-filled societies leads to being forced into making tough decisions.

Over half of the first portion of released prisoners were serving life sentences, and directly or indirectly responsible for murder. Moreover, the drawing of a moral equivalence between Gilad Shalit and terrorists, although unsurprising, never ceases to be ridiculous. I guess the Taliban is now the moral counterpart of the Canadian soldier, in terms of objective and conduct.

He's just as sure that Canada and other countries send foreign aid to Israel as he is that there's an Israeli presence in Gaza. In all seriousness, it's not a problem if people are ignorant of facts about Israel. For example, if I played the Rick Mercer game known as "Talking to Americans", but instead walked around Canadian cities, I could easily reveal massive Canadian ignorance of America and the broader world. For example, I could go around Toronto and ask people, "Should Canada discontinue foreign aid to Israel in favour of countries that are much poorer and in much more desperate need?" I am certain a large portion, if not most, respondents would respond in the affirmative, as if Canada actually sends foreign aid to Israel. What is strange is that people like GostHacked, here on an internet forum, remains resolute and "sure" that Canada and other countries send foreign aid to Israel, and then asks us to prove otherwise. It's unreal.

There is no way that 16% of farms are incorporated. It's probably a lot closer to 99%. But hey, I "hate farmers", right? EDIT - Predictably, guyser avoids the the thrust of the thread and goes into irrelevant tangents, which doesn't bode any better for him.

In case you hadn't yet realized it, there are reasons why nobody takes you seriously. The most recent example are your posts in this thread, where you actually think that many countries give foreign aid to Israel. Only America gives foreign aid to Israel, while much of the Western world gives foreign aid to the "Palestinians", whose economy is at least 50% based on foreign aid in the West Bank, while almost entirely composed of foreign aid in Gaza. I mean, when you don't even know that America is Israel's only financial benefactor, and talk about "we" as if Canada is giving Israel foreign aid, it's kinda hard to respect your statements on these issues given your massive ignorance of the basics. Apparently you still think Israel has a presence in Gaza, as well?

Posters like wyly regularly demonstrate that the level of education provided to average Canadians regarding basic economics is lacking. Let's go through his list of "potential problems" point by point, shall we? With respect to "smaller farmers being squeezed out" as a consequence of the abolition of the CWB, it's quite simple: if you can't compete, get out of the industry. As has already been said, if the CWB is as universally beneficial as its proponents claim it to be, farmers will voluntarily such an organization outside of the coercion of the government, which is what's happening now with "grain police" enforcing the CWB. Nevermind the fact that the very concept of such a grain cartel is entirely anti-competitive and amounts to government-sanctioned collusion. The losers of course are always the consumers, with the "poor farmers" needing government "protection" and "investment". Related to your "potential problem" of higher food prices, the CWB's claim to fame is how it proclaims to get the highest possible price for grain it markets. The CWB, proudly, presents itself as a sort of domestic form of OPEC for the grain industry. Granted, Canadian wheat production doesn't compose nearly the same share of global grain production as OPEC member states do as a share of global crude oil production, but they do present themselves as a sort of mini-grain-cartel. What this means is, they essentially inflate prices - meaning we're paying more right now as a consequence of their operations as would otherwise be the case. Ever the dedicated leftist, however, wyly inverts reality on its head. Somehow, in his mind, the abolition of the CWB and the implementation of true free market principles on the domestic grain industry would somehow lead to higher food prices. As far as "more corporate farms" being a "potential problem" resulting from the abolition of the CWB, do you not realize that virtually all farms are incorporated? I'd be greatly surprised if any serious farms out there operate as sole proprietorships or partnerships. Any farmer with a shred of business sense would incorporate. Of course, this is just the reflexive anti-corporate silliness of the left. If it's corporate, it's somehow inherently evil. Lastly, as we've seen with Michael Hardner and other leftists, the endless refrain for "studies" to illustrate basic principles of the free market. Remember folks, in the world of the leftists, we need "studies" and "research" composed by likeminded leftist sociologists before formulating or implementing any public policy. Just like we needed "studies" and "research" to demonstrate that drug users have a lower likelihood of dying from an overdose should they overdose at or near an Insite clinic than would otherwise be the case.

You missed the point. You clearly view yourself as the "enlightened" type. The type of person who'd make a good bureaucrat, making decisions for the rest of us that we're too dumb to make on our own. It's irrelevant what you do for a living, what is relevant if that you think we need holier-than-thou types (like yourself) in government throwing money around towards things of "value" that the rest of ignorant folks aren't bright enough to do of our own volition.

Freed would-be suicide bomber tells kids to be like her Just a few excerpts from the article illustrating the beautiful culture of the "Palestinians": "I hope you will walk the same path we took and God willing, we will see some of you as martyrs," Wafa al-Biss told dozens of children who came to her home in the northern Gaza Strip. After she spoke, the children cheered and waved Palestinian flags and chanted: "We will give souls and blood to redeem the prisoners. We will give souls and blood for you, Palestine." "Unfortunately, the button did not work at the last minute before I was to be martyred," Biss told Reuters

Ah, so what we need are enlightened bureaucrats (someone like yourself, perhaps?) to make decisions for the rest of us regarding "value" by taking our money and spending it on services we were too ignorant to buy in the absence of coercion. For our own good, of course. Even if we don't realize it, throwing money at "history" (as if we're not already freely spending billions of dollars per year on the broader industry we could label "the history industry") beyond what we're already freely spending in our interest, is in the broader interest of "humanity". How lucky we are to have noble leftists like you in our society. The arrogance of leftists like yourself, acting as if you know what's best for the rest of us, really has no limits.

History is certainly profitable. There are many high-profile historians who do very well for themselves, and if we could classify "history" as an industry (books, movies, magazines, other periodicals, television, internet, lectures, etc), there are billions of dollars to be made if you're good. Valuable education doesn't need government sustenance. There is a massive industry revolving around free people voluntarily indulging their interest in learning history. There is absolutely no need for government coercion in this scene, which essentially saturates the market with more "historians" than we need. If you're not making money doing what you're doing, you're not doing it well. Perhaps there are others doing it better.

Anyone else find it rich how advocates for the preservation of the archaic CWB invoke "farmer's rights", while the CWB expressly tramples of the rights of farmers to do with their private property (what they manufacture) as they so wish? I keep seeing this invocation of sixty-some-percent of Canadian farmers being in support or preservation of the CWB, but it wouldn't matter if it was 99.9% - it doesn't give anyone the right to control the manner in which a person or business sells their product(s). Moreover, if the CWB is as universally beneficial to Canadian farmers (and the broader Canadian public) as the socialists from the LPC and NDP claim is the case, then why do farmers need to be coerced through government regulations to join the CWB? In a free market environment, farmers would voluntarily join such a fantastic organization. The hypocrisy and absurdity from the Canadian left continues. Of course, nobody examines any of the broader economic implications of such a government-preserved monopoly. We can get into that later.