PocketRocket

SLAVIK44: Your last post was hilarious , your last post was hilarious , your last post was hilarious .

And all this over a little sex. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, actually it's all over a LOT of sex And it's over some people having a better time than they rightfully should be having, consarn it!!!!

Hmmm. This sounds like fun. I'm really interested to know, since you "will not tolerate" this, what you are going to do about it, aside from complaining in the forums. The rest of this was directed at SHAKEYHANDS, but I couldn't leave it alone. Apologies.... Oh well, at least he didn't say "Bah, Humbug". (Talk about mountains from molehills) Because no one is forcing YOU into a gay marriage, and what someone ELSE does with THEIR life, is none of your business. Or mine. UNLESS they are causing harm to someone else, then people should be left alone to do what they like. Golden rule broken down to its most basic. If you want to rub blue mud in your naval and dance naked in your backyard under a full moon, then go to it, chum. But don't YOU push YOUR morality on ME. Cool. Let's go!!! Personally, when I do my "swinging" (such an icky 60's word) I prefer to do it in a private home with a few close friends. Well then, let's outlaw it because a few people may become "addicted" to sex, just like some do to gambling. Let's outlaw casino's, too. And sugar. Some people get addicted to sugar. Caffiene. Red meat. TV. Lots of TV addicts out there. Hell, let's outlaw ANYTHING to which people can get *ahem* "addicted". "Well, Martha, what are we gonna do tonight???". "Same as always, Vern, we'll have a good, old-fashioned Bible read, and knit some more socks." "But Martha, we've knitted enough socks to warm the feet of all of China". "Keep knittin', Vern" Come on, this kind of attitude has existed since we climbed down from the trees. Or, if you're a creationist type, since we were exiled from The Garden What is it with the religious right that demands they take a stand against every little thing on the premise that it will lead to the degradation of society??? Rock and Roll was going to ruin society. Comic books were going to ruin society. Jazz was going to ruin society. Big Band music was going to ruin society. And yet the Klu Klux Klan was made up exclusively of white Christian males. The pillars of society, I'm sure you'll agree. Sorry, pal. Society "degraded" a long time ago. And nobody noticed.

Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble, but EVERY party has to face this kind of thing. Just watch TV or listen to the radio, and you'll hear it all day. Lately I've heard a lot more bashing of the Libs and the Tories than I have the NDP. This is what we call "politics", in case you were unaware....

So why don't you call Goldhawk??? It may seem silly, but it looks like you don't have many options left open to you.

TML12: on your last 2 posts; agreed and agreed. Well said!!!

Yes I'm aware, I'm also aware that we are a much more powerful country in every possible way. You may not lik to hear it but Canada is getting involved in a pissing contest it can NOT win. I feel bad if your ego is hurt by that comment but, it's true. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Americans always go the undrying well with their schoolyard chant, "We are the best country in the world" crap. No one is in a pissing contest. Martin is simply standing up for Canada. You guys may be powerful but most of the world dislikes you. A great legacy for Bush. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, NEWBIE, America1 did NOT say anything about being "the best" country. I give him great credit for this, because "best" is a highly subjective term, and is a matter of personal opinion and nothing more. But he DID say the USA is a "much more powerful country in every possible way", which is a simple statement of fact with which I have to agree. (Although, when it comes to the "pissing contest", if the rules have anything to do with being able to write your name in the snow, you'd have a hard time beating Canada )

Getting back to the basic premise of the thread, I do not doubt that the motives behind this act are sincere. My contention is simply this; power corrupts. There are already people in government, and in law enforcement, who are less than honest, and who have a tendency to abuse their powers. This is why there are so many checks and balances in law (Miranda rights, for example). By putting MORE surveilance power into the hands of these people, and doing it in such a way that all they need to do is say "we suspected him/her/they of terrorist activities/affiliation", then you are opening the door to far greater possible abuses of the law than we've ever seen before. Wasn't there something in the news a few months back about an abortion clinic that got in trouble as a result of this type of surveilance??? I tried, but couldn't find the story. Will continue trying. As an addendum, since I have bashed Bush so much in this thread, I want to say this; I also have little doubt that Bush is (by and large) sincere in his desire to defend the USA. I do not question his motives (mostly) so much as his methods.

I guess your not as informed as you thought. Well, I never claimed to know everything. Oh THEM. But "war" traditionally is a word that described a state of conflict between nations. I wasn't aware that AlQaeda was now recognized as a nation. Does this mean that the USA does not consider itself to be *ahem* "at war" with any other terrorist organizations??? I stand corrected. You're right. His exact words were, as you stated "major combat operations" were over. But the funny thing is (you may have to correct me again, but I believe this is the case) more US troops have been killed since these "major combat operations" ended, than were killed when the "war" was still officially on. Strange, that. In any case, good post, and thanks for the correction. BTW, I sent you a PM. Did you get it??? (Edited to say: Apologies to BHS. When I was writing this post, I had not yet got to yours wherein you defined "war" in a similar way)

Which, when you think about it, makes a great deal of sense. Not only does it not cause harm, but because it is behind closed and locked doors, and out of public sight, it does not even cause anyone any annoyance. Well, pot would be a good start Seriously, would you have put stuff on the books like they still have in some of the US states??? Like making it illegal to have oral sex, even with your own spouse. "Indecent" is a subjective term. We need more objectivity in law. True, but as previously stated, this would NOT be behind closed doors, and may well upset many people, thereby, yes, causing harm of a sort. I don't know that it is indecent, but again, may upset many people's personal sense of propriety. A great Prime Minister once said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". A wise choice of words. Probably, but then again, don't "they" always??? BTW, anyone know the address of any of these clubs ???

Uh, in a democracy, is that not what politicians are supposed to do? Seek votes? By appealing to the lowest common denominator? By offering up beads and baubles? By doing something which the simple crowd likes, but which he knows is contrary to their interests? That might be a way to get votes, but it's cheap and sleazy and shows just how little he actually cares about the country he so loudly professes his love for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A gold star goes to anyone who remembers the name of the philosopher who stated that when the general populace is given the vote, they will vote for bread and circuses every time. Sorry to say, ARGUS, but the lowest common denominator has been the dominant theme in politics for quite some time.

Well, you picked the right quote for the season. Isn't Dickens wonderful??? And here all along it was my thought that the MP should do the reverse; that is to say represent his constituents to the party. Sorry, but I have to go along with ARGUS' post directly above.

You are at war??? Who with??? Bush said quite some time ago that the war in Iraq was over. Is there another one I don't know of??? If so, who is the enemy???

Heh heh. An apt analogy considering one of the nicknames given to Bush is "Chimp". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no stomach for Bush, as I have made plane on numerous occasions. But Bush is almost certainly smarter and better educated than Chretien could have ever hoped to be. And his paralels with Martin are actually kind of eerie, both being the pampered sons of powerful politicians who gained wealth almost solely through the "generosity" of their father's wealthy friends. Canadians who trooped off to the polls to vote in Chretien election after election have no business sneering at the US leader's stupidity and shallow pool of knowledge. Bush got through Harvard. Where did you go to school? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whoa. Are we touchy today??? Sorry, but I didn't have a daddy with millions of $$$ to send me to Harvard, so I had to settle for what I could finance on my own. It seems evident, though, that all GWB's education didn't help him to become a good business manager, as his string of failed business ventures will attest. And isn't a country the biggest business of all??? Hopefully his management skills have improved since his pre-governor days.

For those who argue against ANY immigration, I say this; hands up everyone whose ancestors do not originally come from abroad. Hmmm. No so many.

Now now, kids, lets play nice. We need the USA. The USA needs us. Who needs who more??? Who cares??? This current little spate of words between the USA and Canada will blow over, and in all likelyhood, will be completely forgotten within 6 months.

I think that in parliament, when MP's are voting on bills, the voting should be anonymous. Secret ballots, just like when we vote in elections. In this way MP's would not be forced to vote the party line, and bills would be more likely to pass or fail based on their merit rather than on the basis of which party proposed them.

Heh heh. An apt analogy considering one of the nicknames given to Bush is "Chimp".

How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb??? (Choose from the following) "How many can you afford?" It only takes one to change your bulb...to his. Two. One to change it and one to keep interrupting by standing up and shouting "Objection!" Three. One to do it and two to sue him for malpractice. Three. One to turn the bulb, one to shake him off the ladder, and the third to sue the ladder company. (And POLYNEWBIE'S personal favorite) None, lawyers only screw us.

Hey SHARKMAN, always a pleasure. And, nice to see you find something impressive Your magnanimity is a wonder to behold. According to whose reports??? So whatever happened to the supplies we sent down there??? Were they turned down??? Sent back??? Were our aid workers sent away??? Could the "lateness" of our arrival have had something to do with Bush initially saying that they didn't need our help??? How many other countries offered aid??? How many took any action??? You said it yourself, "Words mean less than action", and Canada's actions have always been those of a good and dependable friend. A friend who will help when the chips are down, but will not be pushed around by its rather more boisterous big buddy. "All about image". You mean like all politicians??? Any politician's image is his/her biggest asset. But in speaking of selective memory, you seem to selectively forget our aid after 9/11. Fortunately, the US hasn't. In times of trouble we've always offered our help to the USA, and likely always will. Just like the friends we are. As I pointed out in another thread, "David vs Goliath" is always a great image to cultivate, and the USA is the biggest Goliath on the world stage. The right-wing pundits in the USA don't seem to grasp this simple fact of politics, and all their rants simply play further into PMPM's hands and do little more than add fuel to his tactics. It's a sad commentary when you think about it. Pot, kettle.

This reminds me of an interesting piece I heard on CBC radio last week. Apologies for having no names to cite, but I was driving at the time and hardly in a position to take notes. Anyhow, the guy being interviewed was a political science professor. The topic was right-wing vs left-wing opinionists (if that's the correct word). His premise, when broken down to its bare-bones basics, was that the main difference between left and right pundits is that the right-winger media-personality types have their main stock in trade in stirring up anger. Get riled up about something. ANYTHING. With the current situation in the USA, they can hardly get riled up about the government, because their own boy is in power. So, they look for any other little thing to get steamed up about. He went on to give examples. A few of these included the attitude towards France. (Why wasn't there the same hostility toward Germany when they too vetoed Iraq??? Good question. No answer.) Recent jabs at Canada. (Coulture's comments several months ago about "rolling over and crushing Canada". Other comments were also included). Not to mention the always dependable "traitors to the USA" which is commonly directed at anyone who publicly disagrees with the President and or his poilicies. Also, the ever-ready "Liberal protesters are directly responsible for the deaths of American soldiers" The list went on and on pointing out many right-wing rants that never even would have been brought up if there were a Democrat in power who the right-wingers could REALLY slag. The guy was equally as critical of left-wing pundits, but pointed out that the lefties are not as quick to point fingers at outside factors in a search for someone or something to blame, because by nature of the left policies there were always plenty of internal targets at which to take aim. A lefty doesn't need an external target when there are ALWAYS "social injustices" like racisists and anti-abortionists and anti-SSM's and so on, not to mention the dreaded NRA. He did mention the habit of some on the very-extreme left who bandy about words like "fascist" and "neo-con" on a regular basis, but pointed out that the mainstream left in the media are generally more moderate. Which brings me around to my point (finally). What we're seeing is just more of the same pointless posturing. Martin brought up the same old points he's been harping on for months (years???) regarding softwood and Kyoto for purposes of his campaign, and to give the appearing of taking a tough stance with the USA. "David vs Goliath" is always a great campaign tactic. Wilkins, in criticizing Martins campaign tactics played right into Martin's hands. These right-wing talking heads are doing exactly the same. The more they yammer about "crushing" Canada, the more Martin can stand up and say "See, I told you so", and the better his "David/Goliath" image will appear. Which brings me to point #2: If Canada is so insignificant, as these right-wing pundits seem to say, then why do the words of any of our politicians matter to them at all??? Well, simple really. It gives them, as detailed above, something to get really good and riled up about. Best thing for the US right-wingers to do??? Simply dismiss Martin's comments in a casual "no big deal" manner, or ignore them completely, and that will take the steam out of Martin's sails. Can't claim to be fighting Goliath when he's ignoring you.

Call Dale Goldhawk

C'mon, you're just being mean spirited now. You forgot to mention "No Blood For OOIILLLL!!!!!" (Sorry, MONTY, couldn't resist) Gotta give him credit though, he's definitely very firm in his beliefs.

Good to hear, because that seems to be what this thread is evolving into

Harper is bending over backwards. Period. Not just for Quebec. Moast everything he's said in the past couple years is being moderated in an attempt to broaden his appeal. A necessary tactic, and a smart one, if he's to make inroads in either Quebec, or Ontario.