PocketRocket

Ever hear the old expresion "Know thine enemy"??? How can you know someone's mind if you dismiss out-of-hand anything he says??? Are you some kind of mind-reader that you know whether Bin Laden was lying??? You must be good. That's a damn long way to tap into someone's thoughts. But, have you ever considered the question "What if he IS speaking the truth"??? I suppose not, judging from your tenor here. Yeah, but none of these groups were previously aligned with the victims of their attacks. Have you ever read the Quran??? Have you even ever held a copy in your hands??? You are an intelligent person, and a good debater, but in this you simply mouth words while citing nothing to back them up. Truth is not truth simply because it is oft repeated in a parrot-like fashion. And how many of these "fanatics" have you spoken with recently??? You dismiss one person's speculation, which was based on an actual event; Bin Laden's tirade, and then come back with more parroted nonsense about "escaping their miserable life of poverty and unimportance", and, of course the predictable "several dozen virgins to play with in paradise", which we've also heard harped upon in other forums too many times to mention. (BTW, the actual number of virgins is 72) What about the guys who flew the hijacked planes on 9/11??? How poverty-stricken were they??? Must have been doing alright to come to the USA, take pilot's training courses, etc. What about Bin Laden himself??? Rich beyond either your wildest dreams, or mine. What "poverty" is he seeking to escape??? Why is he the terrorist, while the rest of his family are friends to GW Bush and company??? What made him so different??? These questions must be addressed, and answered, before we can claim to know anything. Your sweeping generalizations hold no water. How can you claim to be such an authority on the mind of the Muslim fanatic without citing any backing evidence, and still claim your assertion is more valid than that of someone who actually gives Bin Laden's speech for consideration??? How can you justify the fact that only a few tiny clips of it were used, and used out of context, when it was reported to the public??? You don't know any more about the minds of these fanatical types than I or anyone else here. Your two posts here were personal speculation stirred in with liberal doses of aggressive language, and simple repetition of the same old tripe we hear from Bush's mouthpieces. Smoke and mirrors, nothing more.

IOW, they will continue to act like politicians??? What a surprise. On the one hand, some right-wingers complain vehemently about Trudeau, and how he introduced all kinds of things that are "bad" for the country. Healthcare being one of them. And now, we have someone complaining that a Liberal PM may allow health-care to go 2-tier. Consistency anyone??? Simple libel. Hardly a rational tool of debate. But if it's effective, who cares??? Harper certainly doesn't.

I think the education system does need some work, but not the huge cash infusion that some people would advocate. Now we've all heard plenty of "when I was in school" anecdotes, but here comes another.... When I was in school (see what I mean???) we had classes with 35-40 students. We had a teacher. We had textbooks. We were taught, not entertained. Although some teachers managed to do both at the same time. We were taught math. We could all add, subtract, multiply, divide, calculate area of various shaped bojects, or volume of 3-dimensional objects. We were taught algebra and other "bra's" that I can no longer recall. We did all these things WITHOUT a calculator. We were taught proper grammar and spelling. (Nowadays most kids can't even spell "can't". Even in university washrooms you can find common 4-letter words mis-spelled) We were taught to appreciate literature. We did book reports. These days most kids have never actually read a novel. We were taught history, geography, science, etc. If we didn't pass, then we FAILED. We were held back. We had to repeat the year. These days, kids are passed so as to not lower their self-esteem. Got 36% average grades for the year??? "Well, we can't hold him back. It wouldn't be fair. He'd be in a class with younger kids. They'd make fun of him." TOUGH. Maybe it's the incentive "he" needs to pull up his drawers and actually try. These days, I hear teacher's unions bitching and moaning about unmanageable class sizes wherein they have to teach "as many as" 30 kids. Not an excuse, IMHO.

Well, while I usually like reading SWEAL'S posts, and agree that he's quite intelligent and a good contributor to these forums, I have to agree with GREG'S decision. I did a search to find the offending post, and yes, it was quite offending. IMO, there's no room for phrases like "you are an ignorant, lying scumbag f*ck" (I paraphrase) in what is supposed to be rational debate. If I had done the same, I would not expect any warning. Hopefully it is a temporary ban, and SWEAL will indeed return. He has more smarts than most, and I believe this was a temporary lapse.

Nothing I can say here that hasn't already been said better...... So, y'all have the best day possible. Looks like rain here in Sudbury, but that's okay, we REALLY REALLY need it. The cannibis works as well indoors as out. Here's to another 138 years of being the True North, Strong and Free. (NEWFIE: Love the Stompin' Tom quote in your signature. Especially suitable today)

"Practised". LOL. You make it sound like a career. Perhaps in this case, the "openness" helps to perpetuate the problem. When a kid hears his dad repeatedly mouthing racial slurs, and doing so with obvious vehemence, it rubs off. The kid also learns to hate with no reason. I think we should consider the difference between racism and prejudice. Everyone is prejudice to some degree. Prejudice is simply feeling differently, or perhaps with a bias, towards a group, or a concept. Racism is hatred based on that prejudice. Moreover, racism is usually manifested with overt acts or words. Do I feel differently in the presence of Blacks than I do in the presence of Whites??? Absolutely. I have looked inward many times to analyze this, and I believe the difference is fueled by what I have taken in from various media over the years. The "difference", in my case, manifests itself in a very benign way; I simply take a bit more care to not say anything which could be construed as being intended to offend. Do I hate Blacks??? Not at all. The same can be said about my feelings for Natives, Orientals, Arabs, etc. Even hard-line conservatives Hmmm. Can't recall any group-lynchings. But I get your point. Reservations, boarding schools, etc. The flip side is with the boarding schools. At the time, our government in its vast ignorance actually thought it was doing the native kids a favour by forcing them into these boarding schools. It was all based on good intentions. Unfortunately, we know what the road to Hell is paved with. Hey, I do it out loud. But a joke is a joke. I am an equal-opportunity offender. I also crack very rude jokes about Frenchmen and Italians. And my parents were French and Italian. I include Scottsmen, Irishmen, hell, anyone I can make a joke about, or have heard a joke about. I have an arsenal of gay jokes that would make your head spin. Most of these were picked up from a few gay friends. Newfies are ALWAYS fair game, and the best Newfie jokes in existence are told by the Newfs themselves. Hell, there are even jokes about quadriplegics. (What do you call one on your doorstep??? Matt)(What do call one floating in the ocean??? Bob) (Etc, etc) I simply take care what company I tell these jokes in, as I do NOT seek to cause any bad feelings. And I make it very clear that it IS a joke, and has no malicious intent. No kidding. When your great-great-great-great-granddaddy was immensely rich from the forced labour of his Black slaves, and now you be po' white trash 'cause them n*ggers got uppity, and to make matters worse, they can sit in the FRONT of the bus with you and yo' nine kids and two wives now, hellfire and damnation, thet's jest wrong. Or maybe it comes from the South losing the civil war, and slavery being abolished, and then after some time, the law actually prosecuting Whites for lynchings and so forth. It could also stem from some of the younger generations actually using the thing that sits on top of their shoulders to THINK with, rather than blindly carrying on the hate in the old McCoy/Hatfield tradition. But yeah, actually being TAUGHT some of the values inherent in the theory that all men were created equal might have something to do with it as well. But it does continue, and there are those who actively seek to promote the hatred. In another website, I had a rather protracted debate with someone who fancied himself a neo-nazi. He quoted and cited literature which "proved" that the holocaust never happened, that Blacks are mentally inferior, that Jews are responsible for all the pornography and drug abuse rampant in the world, etc etc etc. The really sad thing is he actually believed it all. Poor sap. I cut him to pieces so badly he never came back to that website again. I'm considering actively seeking out nazi forum sites just to raise some hell and pi$$ some of these morons off. Again, I would argue that there is a huge difference between racism and prejudice. Plenty of prejudice everywhere. But racism??? Sorry, but I believe there is simply a lot less of it here.

Then why do you think it makes sense to vest huge amounts of arbitrary power and the capacity for massive (even nuclear) violence in the hands of these fallible, selfish and evil people? This is what I don't understand about statists: anarchy won't work because people are evil. Instead, we must give these people the huge power of a coercive State and a military. Analogy: corporations are evil, enslave people and rape the planet. What we need to do is to abolish governments and give all the power to corporations, and give them private armies too. That'll solve the problem. I have to agree with your first point. I DON'T think it makes sense. Unfortunately, it is happening. The USA does not need us or anyone else to "vest huge amounts of arbitrary power" in them. They seem to taking care of all such vesting on their own. Other countries are doing the same. As for your analogy, that was just silly. Relevant, but silly. I did not belittle him because he is a member of the military. As I said before, I have had the same arguments with military men and armchair warhawks. I attacked his arguments (or lack thereof), excepting where I sarcastically referred to him as an intellectual giant, which was my attempt to curb his insufferably arrogant attitude made all the worse by his complete inability to explain or justify his views. Perhaps "belittle" was the wrong word. But I did not find his arguments as feeble as you seem to. It cannot be denied that your debating skills are quite highly developed. Also, you have the knack of being able to twist your opponent's words to imply something other than their original meaning. Ever think of getting into politics??? But this is wrong. He is, in fact, willing to put his life on the line for the Canadian State, which daily commits millions of crimes and rights-violations against Canadian citizens such as you and me. This I disagree with. Ask any member of the military WHAT they feel they are defending. The replies will be many and varied, but I doubt any of them will say "The State". They may say "My Country". But everyone has a different feel of what "their country" is. I believe that most, when pressed on this point, will answer that they seek to defend the people, and the rights and freedoms of those people. Why don't you ask ArmyGuy to break it down in that way for you??? It may put an end to a pointless whinge. (Gotta love that word) He provides a service I don't want and supports a State that steals money from me in order to provide it. I think I have every right to denegrate that! Imagine if I decided that you needed your roof painted with purple polka-dots, stole a few thousand dollars from you to pay for it, and then accused you of ingratitude when you complained about it. That's my situation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay. Again, this is silly. First of all, I want the polka dots to be a nice fuscia. As for the "service" that you don't want, that's exactly the point I made a few posts back. But IF we were invaded (big "if" I grant you), and IF your family and home were threatened, then would his services be so unwelcome as they are now??? I think not. When push comes to shove, when your home is threatened and can only be saved by the military, that's when your tune will change, like most, if not all, pacifists. And regarding the money being "stolen" to pay for services you don't want; this I must agree with. But I have no beef with maintaining a military. It takes but one enemy to start a fight, not two. I do, however, agree that a lot of our tax money is pissed away on stupidity. Gun registry, for example. The Sheila Copps Flag Flap was another. Many others that you can probably come up with more quickly than I. But taxes are the price we pay for having a government and a structured civilization. Sad, but true. But if you think we have it bad, check out what's been happening in Belize. Then you'll see some REAL theft by government. By comparison with most countries, we have it REALLY good. But we have strayed from my original point and concern. Your views on the "unnecessary" nature of the military are wonderfully idealistic. But unfortunately, in the real world, idealism must often take a back seat to pragmatism. Otherwise, the "ideals" of others will walk all over you.

The problem with all these pieces of evidence against Bush is that they trickle out one piece at a time. If ALL the stuff had come out at once, everyone who has pointed a finger at Bush with some hard evidence to back them up in the past couple years, he'd be buried by now. But, bit by bit, item by item, the Bush publicity machine spins things, or discredits the messengers, and the American public forgets them each in turn.

HUGO: Your reply to my remark...... ...was a truly wonderful example of obfuscation. Thank you for that demonstration. But no matter how many long and convoluted justifications you give for your anti-military stance, you cannot deny the fact that there have always been hostile people, and hostile nations in the world. Human nature being what it is, there will likely continue to be for a long time to come. If you personally are pacifistic, that's fine. I will not attempt to demean your personal philosophies in this regard. But for you to belittle a member of our military, simply because he is a member of the military, is out of line. Why??? Simple. Because he will be as willing to put his life on the line for you, and those others who hold your beliefs, as he would for me or any other Canadian. He and his ilk are the first to stand, and possibly fall, if our country is threatened by outside forces. The likelyhood of such a threat matters not. The fact that he has enlisted, and stands ready to defend your life, and your rights, INCLUDING your right to complain about the military, makes all your trite little complaints in bad taste. IOW, if you are too "pacifistic" to defend your home and your homeland, that's fine. Don't denegrate those who are willing to defend it for you.

Regardless of what the so-called "biased" media, or this so-called "biased" website may say, for Harper to come out say..... ...is a joke, and the height of hypocrisy, considering his own deal-making with the BQ in attempting to overturn the government. Harper is simply too damned eager, and too blind to see that now is not his time. If he doesn't have the patience to wait another 6 or 8 month for an election, time he badly needs to sway public opinion in his favor, then how "impatient" would he be as PM, and what rash moves would he make in that position, were he to attain it??? He acts like a spoiled kid. If just once, he were to admit defeat and accept it gracefully, I would hold him in a bit higher regard. He could easily have said "Well, Martin caught us with our pants down. That will not happen again", which pretty accurately describes the situation. But no, he has to take a shot at Martin, and one which is hypocritical, which simply demeans his own credibility further. Every time I hear him bitch and moan about something, I like him less. Which is really too bad, because I think it's time for a change of government, but I will not vote Conservative as long as Harper is leader.

THELONIOUS, actually, it ended slightly differently.......I have made corrections in bold print...... Sorry, but I'm a bit fanatical about my Python To ARMYGUY: I see you're taking some flack from at least one member here regarding your decision to join the military. Just to level the playing field a bit, I want to offer my thanks to you for having stepped forward and offering your services. It's easy, and sometimes fashionable, to slag the military, and many people do. These are generally the people who will scream the loudest about how the government should be protecting them when the Huns are at the gate. But some of us realize the dedication of our forces. And I for one have very deep gratitude for anyone who has volunteered to be putting his/her life on the line, should the need arise, to protect me, and all other Canadians. Thank you. As an aside, I firmly believe the Airborne got shafted as a matter of political expediency over the actions of a few bad apples. An example of our best and our bravest, and their reward was to be disbanded. One more statement in this area; it is my opinion that until I step forward and put MY life on the line, I have no right to judge someone who has done so. Keep the faith, friend, and keep your powder dry.

When you consider such wonderful historical events as...... the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, destruction of the Aztecs, likewise the Incas, the Line of Demarcation, various Jihads, the Witch Hunts (both in Salem and Europe), .....the argument for a Religion-run-State becomes pretty unattractive. For those who would say this is all ancient history, look to the atrocities in the Middle East, committed in the name of Allah. Consider also that Christianity has historically fought virtually every scientific advance in its history.... Galileo was a heretic for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe. Columbus was persecuted for saying the world is NOT flat. Paleotology is still doubted by many of the "faithful". After all, if God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, then all those dinosaur bones must not really exist. Darwinism???? Don't get me started. Even today, Catholicism, and a few other religions, fight the idea of birth control. So many others I can't think of right now. No, I'll take a secular state, thank you very much.

I never implied otherwise. Re-read my post and you will see this. And in my previous post, which you chose to quote and pick apart, I never even tried. Well, if you consider me part of "You all", then again, I never made any such claim. If you can find any place where I did, please point it out. Until that time, please do not include me in your sweeping generalizations about who made what claims. But again, as I said earlier, talk radio is NOT policy or politics. It's entertainment, pure and simple, even when it's talking about politics. When the ratings for these types of shows drop through the floor, they will be pulled. But as long as large numbers of listeners continue to tune in, then the stations/networks will continue to carry the shows on the air, and the money to the bank.

I'll second that motion.

The word "conservative" in it's early, if not original, context, means "traditional". Traditionally, people who are very traditional, have a lot more to complain about, what with all this new-fangled thinking and changes to everything Comments like "In my day, we wouldn't have put up with that....", are typical of people who hang their hats on the coat-hook of traditionalism. All that being said, while I don't always agree with Lowell Green, I find him hilarious, and listen whenever I get a chance. But not for political enlightenment, rather for entertainment. And that's what these shows are all about; keeping the people entertained so they'll keep on listening.

NEWFIE: (gotta love that name) I think the "it doesn't matter" goes along with the vote for a good, gay, PM. A vote FOR the gay PM is a vote advocating quality of leadership as being more important than sexual orientation. IOW, it doesn't matter what his/her sexual orientation, as long as he/she is a great PM.

Thanks, Tawasakm. Now I have a new word to add to my regularly-used vocabulary. Now can we all stop wingeing about all the wingeing????

MELANIE hit the nail on the hea when she said this thread reminds her of her daughter's sixth grade class. I disagree somewhat; all this *wingeing* is more typical of a bunch of 3rd grades. FYI, ARGUS, while this is my first use of the word in a forum, I have read it many times as I am a fan of a few British satire/comedy writers. One of the reasons I don't use it in speach is simple, I'm not sure how to pronounce it, and have been to lazy to search it. Can't we try, just for a while, to quit with all the bullcr*p insults and posturing, people???

Let's re-phrase that, shall we??? THELIBERAL, don't presume to speak for me, or for any other Canadian. I have had little or no beef with any of your other posts, at least not that I can recall. But in this case, you would do well to retract this statement, and clarify that this is your sentiment, and yours only. I have no beef with Alberta. They are doing well for themselves, and I wish the province, and all its denizens, nothing but prosperity and happiness. Their voices are as valid as yours, or mine, or anyone else's. If you find that simple fact hard to swallow, tough.

So the verdict is in. Twelve jurors found Michael innocent on all counts. Personally, I find it no surprise that he's so bloody messed up. Forced into a massive spotlight at age five, forced to live his father's dreams of stardom. Robbed of anything remotely resembling a normal childhood. No bloody wonder. As for whether or not he fondled any kids, I don't know. Ultimately, only MJ and the kids themselves know the truth. This one particular kid, however, I don't believe. Too much about it reeks of a con job. Any thoughts???

I have heard the word "prostitute" being used to describe her, on the radio. Don't remember by whom. I don't think that particular epithet would have been used if she were a he.

When we consider the question which began this thread........ "What is wrong with the Islamic world?" Then the answer is far simpler than any so far posted..... After sitting on a camel all day, these people are badly in need of a shipment of Preparation-H Sorry gang, but it needed some lightening-up in here.

Sorry, but I haven't heard anything about this. Please post a link.

Well, we're dealing with a blind, one-eyed snake to begin with.... Combine this with the old saw about men letting their penis do their thinking for them, and we're halfway there already

You're probably right. More's the pity.