Harper attacks Justin

[eyeball]

A lot of the values we cherish here mean nothing elsewhere in the world.

Why should they when we shit all over our most important one's ourselves?

[Moonbox]

Someone like you, with a giant chip on his shoulder, might think that, but that's far from the truth.

[cybercoma]

There are cultures that are better than others..

Quoting Mein Kampf?

[Moonbox]

Would you agree that western culture has evolved and improved since the middle ages?

Edited April 24, 2013 by Moonbox

[Argus]

They must feel they're targeting a homogeneous population that is in agreement with what our society has been perpetrating against so many others.

Oh horse sh!t. Let's look at the complaints of bin Laden, for example. Was he hurt by the west? Nope. He was the millionaire son of a multimillionaire in an extraordinarily wealthy nation. So what was he so furious about? What set him off was infidels daring to set foot in his holy country. Infidels, in the person of American forces, who his government allowed to set set up in an isolated base in large measure to protect Saudi Arabia. He wasn't furious because of the depredations of a brutal Saudi theocracy. In fact, if he had ever managed to take over the Saudi government would have been far more brutal and repressive. He moved to Afghanistan, aiding the nutbar Taliban in their journey into the distant past, those lovely people who murder schoolgirls for daring to try and get an education.

And here you are screaming and shaking your fist that we'll rue the day we didn't pay more attention to bin Laden and his anger with our 'policies'.

Yes, we should stop dealing with legitimate governments and instead behave the way every fascist religious wingnut out there wants us to.

I am not saying western industrial nations haven't exploited people in the third world for decades. But that's not the cause of terrorism. Otherwise we'd see it coming from central and south America, from Africa, from Asia. No, it's coming almost entirely from the Muslim world and is a reaction to retrograde interpretations of Islam being propagated by ignorant rabble rousing wack jobs that appeals to barely literate losers and backwoods savages.

[Argus]

Give it time...

That's why we have nukes.

[eyeball]

I am not saying western industrial nations haven't exploited people in the third world for decades.

Good, now you just have to start saying something about putting a stop to it and arresting and charging the people who did it and paying reparations to those who were exploited.

But that's not the cause of terrorism. Otherwise we'd see it coming from central and south America, from Africa, from Asia. No, it's coming almost entirely from the Muslim world and is a reaction to retrograde interpretations of Islam being propagated by ignorant rabble rousing wack jobs that appeals to barely literate losers and backwoods savages.

I don't think it'll be long until you do see it coming more from other people as the economy continues to crumble and the rich keep getting richer. As for Muslims, I guess it was a really dumb idea to try and sack a culture that embraces vengeance like no other culture on Earth.

[Argus]

Good, now you just have to start saying something about putting a stop to it and arresting and charging the people who did it and paying reparations to those who were exploited.

Why would I do that? All of these people have their own governmental structures. Many of them fought bloody wars to ensure they could govern themselves. They would fight those bloody wars again if we suggested someone else should oversee them. Now you want us to somehow order our governments to intercede on behalf of these often incompetent and corrupt entities because they're getting screwed over, or allowing their countries to get screwed over by multinationals. You want our governments to not do what they perceive is in OUR interests, but to strike deals with these entities which are more in THEIR interests? On the face of it's thats wildly paternalistic in the sense you want our governments to look out for their governments because we presume their governments are incompetent or unable to look out for their people's own interests.

I don't disagree their governments ARE often unable to look out for their interests, but if those people want our governments to look out for them they should try ask us to take over directly, eliminating the incompetent middleman. Most of Africa was better off under colonialism, and there's little question it would be far better off under a 2013 version.

I don't think it'll be long until you do see it coming more from other people as the economy continues to crumble and the rich keep getting richer. As for Muslims, I guess it was a really dumb idea to try and sack a culture that embraces vengeance like no other culture on Earth.

How did we try to 'sack' their culture? The only thing we've ever wanted out of Muslims is to stop blowing things up long enough to pump oil, and we reward them handsomely for it.

Actually, none of them are capable of pumping oil, so we develop it, we set up the infrastructure, and we pump it for them, then give them truck-loads of money.

[Moonbox]

That chip on your shoulder is looking bigger and bigger every time you speak eyeball. The proper response to militant Islamic culture is to fight them, not back off and avoid them. The fact that they embrace vengeance is irrelevant when the fear and oppression they're trying to spread needs to be stopped. It needs to be stopped, and you don't allow them to run rampant because they're going to get really angry at you for stopping them.

[jacee]

Attack ads lower the bar on debate

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is hypocritical when he denounces the cyberbullying in the case of Rehtaeh Parsons but allows his party to engage in some cyberbullying of its own.

...

Were not suggesting the situation of a politician criticized by opponents is anything like that of a teenage girl abused and harassed by distribution of photos. But theres merit to the old advice: attack ideas, philosophies, points of view but dont attack the person.

...

Why should teens believe a political leader who says its wrong to gang up on someone and attack him publicly, when that leader and the back room strategists are rubbing their hands in glee over the next round of attack ads?

I think there's a lot of truth in this, re the example attack ads set for youth. It's not surprising that the Torys attract/recruit zealous youth who revel in attack strategies like robocalls: The party sets the example that the conventions of civil discourse don't apply to them ... because they are superior in some way, I suppose, their cause more 'righteous', the end justifies the means, etc.

Attack ads violate the conventions of civil discourse taught to children and youth in schools, homes, churches, and also in adult contexts like this very discussion forum, workplaces, etc.

Attack ads set an example of nothing that we as a society value.

Food for thought ...

Edited April 24, 2013 by jacee

[carepov]

Just back to the original thread - it's not just that he said the phrase "root cause"....it's that he went ahead and said there is no doubt of what the cause is:

"But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?"

Radical Islam is just the opposite - its proponents do not feel excluded....they want to exclude everyone who does not believe in their ideology. If you are anything but a true believer - you are an infidel and not worthy of this world. It's sick - and it's twisted.....and Justin and his apologists still don't get it.

Well it looks like our government is supporting and funding studies to look into the exact question that Trudeau asks:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/20/stephen-harpers-search-for-the-root-causes-of-terrorism/

Are you in favour or opposed to the government spending referenced in the linked article?

[eyeball]

Why would I do that? All of these people have their own governmental structures. Many of them fought bloody wars to ensure they could govern themselves. They would fight those bloody wars again if we suggested someone else should oversee them. Now you want us to somehow order our governments to intercede on behalf of these often incompetent and corrupt entities because they're getting screwed over, or allowing their countries to get screwed over by multinationals. You want our governments to not do what they perceive is in OUR interests, but to strike deals with these entities which are more in THEIR interests? On the face of it's thats wildly paternalistic in the sense you want our governments to look out for their governments because we presume their governments are incompetent or unable to look out for their people's own interests.

You misunderstand me, I want the people responsible for our complicity in OUR governments and corporations held accountable. As far as I'm concerned propping up dictators should be considered the highest crime against humanity that can be committed, it's the root cause of most of the worst of the other crimes we consider inhumane.

I don't disagree their governments ARE often unable to look out for their interests, but if those people want our governments to look out for them they should try ask us to take over directly, eliminating the incompetent middleman. Most of Africa was better off under colonialism, and there's little question it would be far better off under a 2013 version.

The real problem is when their governments are unwilling to look after OUR interests, as was the case in Iran in 1953. There is no telling how much farther along whole regions of the world would be today had they'd simply been left alone. The reparations we'll need now to set things right...well, sadly, I think it's safe to say that ship has sailed.

How did we try to 'sack' their culture? The only thing we've ever wanted out of Muslims is to stop blowing things up long enough to pump oil, and we reward them handsomely for it. Actually, none of them are capable of pumping oil, so we develop it, we set up the infrastructure, and we pump it for them, then give them truck-loads of money.

Most of that money came back for the weapons our dictatorial puppets needed to protect themselves with, from the cultures they helped us sack.

[jbg]

Though I normally respect your posts I must disagree. There are cultures that are better than others.

In our culture, gays, woman, and minorities have an imperfect chance of decent treatment. Still far better than their chance in any of these countries. We must not forget that some values are and must be absolute. Values such as freedom, initiative, accomplishment and self-discipline. And especially a chance for all to succeed. This is not the way it is in other lands.

Quoting Mein Kampf?

Invoking Godwin's Law?

Seriously, I don't think gays and minorities (not so sure about women though) came out so well in Hitler's Germany. Thus you selectively respond to a small part of my post.

Neither Muslim lands nor Nazi Germany practiced the fine art of ethnic tolerance. Both with deadly results.

[eyeball]

That chip on your shoulder is looking bigger and bigger every time you speak eyeball. The proper response to militant Islamic culture is to fight them, not back off and avoid them. The fact that they embrace vengeance is irrelevant when the fear and oppression they're trying to spread needs to be stopped. It needs to be stopped, and you don't allow them to run rampant because they're going to get really angry at you for stopping them.

Th proper response is to try and stop violence but above all else to also stop inspiring it. The only way to do that is to back away from their region of the world, leave it to it's own devices and stop being a threat to it.

[jbg]

Th proper response is to try and stop violence but above all else to also stop inspiring it. The only way to do that is to back away from their region of the world, leave it to it's own devices and stop being a threat to it.

How much has the U.S. really intervened in Chechnya? Edited April 24, 2013 by jbg

[eyeball]

I don't know, this about a clash of cultures - there's a conflagration underway not just a bunch of little fires.

[Moonbox]

eyeball you sound like you know a few things about world history (no sarcasm meant). How can you possibly be forgetting the exhaustive list of cases where leaving a region to its own devices led to catastrophe?

As for a clash of cultures, you're absolutely right, but you're still oversimplifiying. This is about the spread of fundamentalism throughout the world (not just in the Middle East or Afghanistan) and how completely incompatible and unacceptable that is for the West.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

I haven't forgotten them I just think interfering the way we do is creating an even worse catastrophe. I don't mean to say we shouldn't try to make friends in other regions but if we're so hell bent on making just as many enemies what's the point? We might as well just stay home.

The fundamentalism was and still is inspired by our undue interference - we're just as responsible for having made ourselves incompatible and unacceptable to it.

I'm not oversimplifying things as much as you're complexifying them. That's why we have simple established principles, especially about democracy and liberty to guide us and keep us grounded in decency. When we trash those principles in our dealings with other cultures we are the bigger losers.

Edited April 24, 2013 by eyeball

[Argus]

You misunderstand me, I want the people responsible for our complicity in OUR governments and corporations held accountable. As far as I'm concerned propping up dictators should be considered the highest crime against humanity that can be committed, it's the root cause of most of the worst of the other crimes we consider inhumane.

Because the alternative to dealing with a dictatorship is rainbows and moondrops, right? If only we stopped propping up Saudi Arabia a kind, democratic government would take over. And once we leave Afghanistan, another kind, democratic government will take over there. In fact, were it not for us, kind, democratic governments would be erupting all over the Muslim world!

Most of that money came back for the weapons our dictatorial puppets needed to protect themselves with, from the cultures they helped us sack.

Simply untrue.

[Argus]

I liked Rex Murphy's column on the Tory 'attack ads'

In more recent times much has been made of the Conservative attack ads. The “He didn’t come home for you” ads they ran against Ignatieff are supposedly of the genre. Well, maybe they were. But, really where was the real “attack” in them?

They merely asked harshly a very legitimate question. Should a man who spent his entire adult life and career outside Canada be elected prime minister? People might not have liked putting the question so directly; we are sticklers for politesse in this country. But it was Ignatieff’s own resume that was the substance of that ad. It was fair. We make far too much of attack ads, and misname every ad that throws a criticism across the partisan aisle as of that genre

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/20/rex-for-saturday/

[carepov]

I liked Rex Murphy's column on the Tory 'attack ads'

In more recent times much has been made of the Conservative attack ads. The “He didn’t come home for you” ads they ran against Ignatieff are supposedly of the genre. Well, maybe they were. But, really where was the real “attack” in them?

They merely asked harshly a very legitimate question. Should a man who spent his entire adult life and career outside Canada be elected prime minister? People might not have liked putting the question so directly; we are sticklers for politesse in this country. But it was Ignatieff’s own resume that was the substance of that ad. It was fair. We make far too much of attack ads, and misname every ad that throws a criticism across the partisan aisle as of that genre

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/20/rex-for-saturday/

No single ad offends me greatly, however when all of them strung together they erode the publics trust in politicians and become divisive. Also, I especially do not like any political advertising outside of an election campaign.

[Moonbox]

eyeball, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:00, said:

I haven't forgotten them I just think interfering the way we do is creating an even worse catastrophe. I don't mean to say we shouldn't try to make friends in other regions but if we're so hell bent on making just as many enemies what's the point? We might as well just stay home.

The lessons of WW1 and WW2 are still too fresh in the USA's mind to try and isolate themselves from what's going on there. There are, quite literally, no examples coming even near the sorts catastrophes that happen all over the world without interference from the west. It's not even close to close.

eyeball, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:00, said:

The fundamentalism was and still is inspired by our undue interference - we're just as responsible for having made ourselves incompatible and unacceptable to it.

That's flat-out untrue. Religious fundamentalism is spawned out of a desire to keep the population ignorant and under control, not liberated and empowered. Unfortunately, the ignorant support this sort of thinking thus the more ignorant a population, the more entrenched the fundamentalist becomes. It's interesting to note that when Egypt's dictator was recently deposed, a fundamentalist government took over and started immediately cracking down again. Superb.

eyeball, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:00, said:

I'm not oversimplifying things as much as you're complexifying them. That's why we have simple established principles, especially about democracy and liberty to guide us and keep us grounded in decency. When we trash those principles in our dealings with other cultures we are the bigger losers.

You're oversimplifying because you're acting like each part of the world exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. Regional problems can become much bigger very quickly.

[silver72]

The thing that bug me about the Tories latest attack ad is we, the taxpayer, are paying for it because they are saying that its information on Justin. They have done this before and its no wonder their advertising budget it well over 500 million. The Liberals are calling them on this and saying if they want to do attack ads, go for it, but not with taxpayers money. Thoughts?

[Moonbox]

It's not taxpayer's money. It's from money raised by donors and members of the Conservative Party, just like the upcoming Liberal ads featuring little Trudeau will funded by Liberal Party donors.

[jacee]

It's not taxpayer's money. It's from money raised by donors and members of the Conservative Party, just like the upcoming Liberal ads featuring little Trudeau will funded by Liberal Party donors.

Unfortunately not ...

Just f'n lovely ... f'n sleazebags!!!

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/24/conservatives-set-to-orchestrate-mass-mail-campaign-against-trudeau-at-taxpayers-expense

Documents obtained by the Liberal Party show the Tories are planning to send thousands of taxpayer-funded mail-outs to households across the country reiterating their message that Trudeau is in over his head.

The mail-outs,called 10-per-centers,are usually supposed to be used by MPs to update their constituents on what is happening in the House of Commons. According to the documents,the anti-Trudeau flyers will be mailed out June 1.

Edited April 25, 2013 by jacee