PhilosopherKing

You would get more traction to say western nations have, in the past, provided aid and assistance to the culprits. It would be more accurate too. But in any case you are comparing past actions to present actions. The US does not currently aid regimes which engage in that sort of behavior. No western nation does. Russia continues to, of course. So does China. I don't see any great ringing denunciations of them for it on this site -- ever, but they continue to care nothing whatsoever for human rights abuses. Possibly because they commit so many abuses themselves. But now that we've established how many nations either commit brutality and murder, or aid and assist them, we come back to Israel. And I believe the query was why we continue to get those ringing denunciations from the UN and keep getting topic after topic devoted to denouncing them here. While Israel is no paragon of virtue it doesn't begin to approach the brutality of Suharto, or for that matter, Russia or China today or the nations Russia and China support, such as Syria and Sudan. So what gives?

Quebecers are proud to be bigots. It's part of what makes them 'unique' after all. A 'provincial' people whose ethnic dress ought to be white sheets.

Don't be silly. It's nothing but a change in tactics. Since he knows the Chinese will never agree to emissions cutbacks, that is, to cutbacks outsiders can actually verify, he's safe in pushing for that as the basis for Canada joining.

Have I stated I am against global warming science? That I am offended by some pampered children who go to an international forum to insult Canada does not mean I am entirely opposed to the theories regarding global warming. However, I am realistic enough to recognize that there is nothing Canada could do at this point in time to meet its obligations under Kyoto other than pay billions of dollars to "buy" credits from third world countries. I am opposed to this. Most Canadians, I believe, would be, too. The only thing that accomplishes is to make some third world dictators rich. I am also realistic enough to recognize that trying to cut back global emissions while exempting the Chinese and Indians, and ignoring the Americans is idiotic. And people who rant at us while doing so are, in my books, not worthy of being taken seriously.

They are the only realistic alternative for most Canadians.

Fifteen years ago? I believe it's been more like 5 years. And they don't appear to have substantially changed.

I don't believe the subject under discussion is the Tory crime bill. There are other threads for that.

No in fact they are not. They make up only 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. And the oil industry is the driving force of our economy right now, and the reason why we had such a 'soft landing' in our recession. Without it our unemployment rate would be far higher, as would the rate of other social ills.

468 million Chinese live on less than $2 a day. If you can demonstrate how you intend to live on a similar amount anywhere but the deep woods I'm interested in listening. There, at least, you can get free firewood. Poverty in China Cretinism, is it? And yet, you've evidently not summoned up the necessary effort to consult the internet yourself. Had you done so you'd have been embarrassed (presuming you are capable of feeling embarrassment) at the way you rabidly attack others despite a seemingly total lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion.

I'm not sure why you bring in this term 'free marketers' with such dreary regularity. This discussion is with regard to a particular group of protestors at Durban. Disapproval of their actions and/or opinions does not automatically translate into unvarnished support of the corporate elites.

No, I don't think that works until the level of corruption begins to approach that seen of the alternative. And frankly, I've seen no evidence of corruption from the governing Tories. The worst I've seen by far is that patronage nonsense with Tony Clement. Thus far the Tories have been largely competent. Their patronage has been at an acceptable level. And there's been precious little evidence they have been enriching themselves at the public's expense.

You forgot that they shut down the inquiry into this affair the moment it started to reach above the level of field officers towards DND officialdom - some of which had close ties to the party. The Liberals were always eager to offer up Canadian soldiers for duties abroad but loath to actually support them, especially financially. The military was starved of funding during the Chretien era despite large suprluses. So were a number of other programs. The Chretien government presided over the deterioration of Canadian society, the rise of violence, illiteracy, homelessness, the fall of health care competence, and general social welfare. Once the deficit was tamed the Chretienites seemed to feel their work was done, and retired from the field. However, they insisted on remaining in office, even while doing nothing but coasting along. I dislike braggadocio in politicians. Chretien was a swaggering braggart, dishonest, and corrupt to boot. That shady business of forcing the government's business development bank to 'loan' money to a crooked ex con so he could buy the hotel in Shawinigan so that, in turn, Chretien could be repaid was worse, to my mind, than the sponsorship scandal. The money was never repaid. The man Chretien sold it to was acquitted of arson in attempting to burn it down. And given Tony Clement's largesse in his riding is still under scrutiny, Chretien's generosity to Shawinigan was legendary, and dwarfed anything Clement could have dreamed of. It included art galleries, fountains in the river, and moving federal jobs there from Ottawa. In fact, it always seemed to me that Chretien was largely uninterested in English Canada, except insofar as there was a need to control it in order to benefit himself, his friends, and Quebec. When in France once, he spoke of how French-Canadians had been humiliated by the English, and how he was getting his revenge by ensuring that French Canadians were in charge of almost every important governmental job, from Governor General to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Whilst I don't entirely disagree, a brief perusal of your own postings of late does not show an abundance of respectful discourse aimed at those on the other end of your political spectrum.

I think you miss the point. For the past fifty or sixty years we have been given one choice only as an alternative to the current government. That being the case, political discussions (which invariably have, as their basis, the replacement of the party in power with the official opposition) inevitably consider the alternative when discussing the present. Therefore, if we say the government in power is corrupt, as an example, but we know the alternative is more corrupt, the conversation is largely meaningless as we're not about to replace a corrupt party with a party which is even more corrupt (or stupid, or incompetent or whatever). As an example, the Tory government has, of course, evidenced political patronage in the appointment of certain people. This too is inevitable. Every political party at every level does it. However, the Liberals were notoriously brazen and shameless in their patronage appointments. That being the case, when liberal supporters squawk about Tory patronage I think people are bound to be cynical.

An interesting datum in this morning's news. The Six heirs to Sam Walton (The Wal-Mart family) together own as much wealth as the lowest 30% of the American population.