Where do you come up with that junk, cjunk?

Sure there are most certainly are some lefties with junk in their heads.

But the Liberals sent our troops over there. The Liberals expanded the role of our forces over there. The Liberals and the Conservatives just signed onto an extension.

As for pride, the Ontario Liberal government - surely a "progressive" government - just renamed a portion of the 401 as the "Highway of Heroes" to recognize our heroes in Afghanistan as they return home and head to base.

Why do idiots insist on everything being a conservative vs. progressive issue? The idiots on the left - the same ones who have a knee-jerk reaction to oppose anything that the US does - do the same thing: try to create this imaginary polarized universe where it is US, The Force of Good vs. THEM, The Force of All Evil in the World!!

Most of us ordinary Canadians disagree with you and them, and your respective attempts to divide us against each other for your gain. And the polls support that view.

The lieberals sent our troops over there so the petty little man chretin would not have to commit to Iraq,the lieberals agreed to an extension so they would not face an election with a weak leader named dijon,as for polls,who gives a hoot,they are designed to illicit a certain response.And the onterrible's provincial government,lies and more lies.

Actually, the polls support a clear "progressive" "conservative" divide on this issue. It is "progressives" who oppose yellow ribbons on public vehicles, it is "progressives", including the Liberal Party (not exactly a "progressive" party), who want in, then out, then in, then out ... then who knows what ... all depending on momentary public mood. The main "progressive" party in Canada is the NDP, and their stance is clear as day and they DO NOT support what our people are doing in Afghanistan. They want out.

Ted ... are you sure we live on the same planet .. you and I.

... or perhaps our definitions of what constitutes a "progressive" are not the same.

Ted obviously did not click the link and read it.

Instead, the progressive brainwashing controls "clicked" in his head like a useful idiot automaton.

Stalin/Mao/Lenin/Pol Pot: "Nice going, useful idiot, Ted! Keep it up"

It's getting *very* difficult to ignore the strong correlation between the co-ordinated proliferation of state encouraged heroin use in every city in Canada - and the fall of the Taliban, especially when history is taken into account (see: Opium Wars I, II).

Canadian police officers are on record as publicly stating in the media that heroin availability in Canada fell to record low levels prior to 2001, and are now higher than ever.

At the time of the invasion the Taliban had virtually shut down heroin production in the country. Coincidently, they get invaded in short order, and drug lords, widely believed to be close to Karzai, once again run the country.

That's one hell of a coincidence.

TED

your position falls apart as soon as we git to discussing the leaders of the liberal(dion and jackass) parties, if your position had merit, these two fools would NOT be the leaders of thee progressives.

tho I agree that most issuse are now US vs THEM, lieberals luv playing gotcha politics, rather than work at governing as they were elected to do, and "conservatives" ain't much better. There are no real conservatives in this country if you ask me!!

Ted:

Activism is a business and activists must watch their bottom line. This is evident in the contradictions that these groups spew. For example "Feminists" in general by definition should be standing up for the protection of women, yet by in large most "Feminist" organizations openly support federal parties that are calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Why is that? If the Conservatives wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan and the NDP wanted to extend the mission would these same "Feminists" be supporting the Conservatives; or, would they be supporting the NDP and accusing the Conservatives of not caring about the women in Afghanistan?

Feminist support of the NDP and withdrawal from Afghanistan has NOTHING to do with women. It has to do with funding, and they will follow blindly where ever money is coming from. I can't believe that the average Canadian woman supports "Two Tier Feminism". The fact is most are unaware of it because watch dog groups that are suppose educating us about these issues are actually "Miseducating" us because they are on the take.

This is but one example of a "progressive" group that has sold out its ideals because of partisan politics."c"conservatives openly admit that they like and want money, and are proud of it when they earn it. Progressives like and want money also; but they want it given to them behind close doors because they resent those who earn it themselves, and are to ashamed to ask for hand-outs openly.

Reader: A history lesson for you on Afghanistan.

The Taliban came to power with the help of the drug cartel.

The Taliban then brought in the largest opium harvest to that date and flooded the world market (1999). The street price of opium and it's by-products then collapsed. It is after that, that the Taliban instituted a ban on opium.

So, understand that they first flooded the world with the stuff, then cut production in order to regain the market value.

Any notion that the Taliban reduced opium production because of some "moral" system is historically false ... they were simply being capitalists.

http://opioids.com/afghanistan/heroin.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36822.html

I have observed that progressive think what they are told to think. This is evident when you debate one and they quickly resort to name calling to avoid presenting a logical argument to back their demented views.

Those on the right debate with real evidence and logic to back their arguments. I believe it is a waste of time to debate a progressive. It is like trying to talk sense to a drunk person. Can't happen.

Jon (Play'n),

I think you're dead on again. I live in Vancouver and I find that the anit-poverty activists are an industry rather than a group of concerned citizens. Using your same (although extremely skeptical) logic, one can assume that anti-poverty activists are against fixing the problem, because then they would have to get real jobs. By prolonging the problem they are guaranteeing their jobs.

One only has to look at your examples of feminism and Vancouver's East Side of Downtown (or Sketchy Regina) to know that leftist "activism" is merely a career path. I actually see leftists as profiteers in the misery of the downtrodden, regardless of their supposed motives.

Jon:

Does the term ‘parasite' describe accurately enough the type of mindset involved in these activities?

Excellent article CJ! It makes one proud to be a Canadian and see what our boys and girls are striving to accomplish in Afghan. If the leftoids would stop the rhetoric long enough to take a reasoned look at what they are doing... ahh to heck with it, you can't sway them with truth or logic so let's wipe 'em out in the next election.

Thanks to all the comment's so far that are finally exposing this mega-industry of helping the impoverished for what it is! I don't know how we would have spotted these parasite's without your insightful analysis. It's especially difficult since it "appears" that these activists are making next to nothing, and spend a great deal of their time begging other people for money.

Not....

I know there's lots of non-profits out there that take like 70 cents on the dollar when you're helping poor children overseas, but to claim that most anti-poverty activists are doing this to make money is ridiculous in the extreme.

I do agree that alot of people exploit the cause of poverty for publicity or money (celebrities, politicians, etc.), however your generalization is not accurate in the slightest.

Anyways, I'm heading down to my local LGBT organization and United Way so I can finally make the big bucks!!!

Jebus: The last time I checked, 99% of all anti-poverty work was being done by well paid government employees. NGOs constitute almost nothing within the bounds of our country; and where they work abroad, some have massive overhead costs before one cent reaches the Afghan child.

Having said that, there are some incredibly honorable NGO, like Afghans for Afghans, but many exist for the bureaucracy they create.

They're soldiers for Christ's sake. They were sent over to remove the threat of a return to Taliban rule insofar as it was a threat to us. Set them loose to hunt and kill the Taliban 24 hours a day or bring them home. There are dozens of crappy countries requiring a good scrubbing and Afghanistan isn't even the worst of them. Where does the nation building stop? Set them loose or bring them home.

ted, don't be so leftist, with your assertion of 'most of us ordinary Canadians'. That's a typical strategy of the left, to claim that they speak for 'most/all Canadians'. You speak for yourself. Period.

As for the Liberals sending the military over to Afghanistan, Chretien didn't do it because he believed in that combat or believed in the military. After all, he was one of the chief agents in reducing the capacity of our military to participate in any combat operation in the world by his refusl to fund them properly. Chretien only sent the military to Afghanistan so that he wouldn't feel that he had to participate in Iraq - where he and his buddy Chirac have financial interests.
And as pointed out, the Liberals agreed to an extension only to save their own skin from an election.

jon and paul - I completely agree. Activists are parasites living off of others; they actually want and need poverty, addicts etc; otherwise they'd be out of their govt funded job. The other key parasitic force in our economy is the unions.
Gee - both are 'left' ideologies. Hmm.

The regressive Liberal Ontario gov't didn't rename that highway because McGuinty wanted to; it did so because the people wanted it done. McGuinty has, as do all Liberals, only one agenda. Power. He did it for votes.

And after all, it's the Liberals, now in Opposition, who totally misunderstand that role and merely oppose everything the govt does. It ought to be intelligent critique - and that means they might support some issues. Instead, being Liberals, they divide the world in two; Us and Not-Us.

The comments about these groups belonging to an industry is spot on. They are simply leeches benefiting from the situation of the groups they claim to protect and represent. We need a government with the courage to end all government money to them and they will disappear once the bank is closed. The sad thing is that they do more harm to the people in question while making good money at their expense.

As for the Leftists most would change their tune about the war if the communist regimes decided to enter the war. It was the same in the U.K. when they were all against fighting the Nazis until their beloved Soviet Union entered the same war.

The meer thought of such heroism, is beyond the "progressive" mind.

Speaking of "progressive" minds reminds me of the story of the fellow who needed a brain transplant. On the shelf were conservative brains at $5.00 an ounce and progressive brains at $15,000 an ounce. The fellow asked why progressive brains were so expensive. The answer, in question form, "Do you know how many progressives we have to kill to get an ounce of brains?".

I remember a slightly different vesion ol hoss...the answer being "the conservatives brains were used."

You have reached the correct conclusion Jon (commenting on remarks from with yo mama). Lieyers should be included with social workers IMO.

Stay at home socialists do not like and do fear the solid confidence of soldiers. The former never move a finger without payment and can never understand those who do...their minds revolve around their five basic senses; they are incapable of Abstract thought because they have no imagination.

Our soldiers make me proud every day. Thankyou all - past and present.

oops that's version, a slightly different version.

My brother’s wife worked for the United Way, she quit after dealing with the constant bull shit she had to deal with and the people at the top feeding on filet while touting "give to the charity".

Many of her bosses were making well over 6 figures. And if one takes a close look at the united way’s books they'll see that a HUGE portion of all donations is "for the bureaucracy they create."

Someone once said "if you want to get rich start a charity or church".

I'll give my spare change directly to a bum on the street before I'll give to any charity. It's why I leave my empty bottles next to the dumpster!

Everybody knows Jack Layton is about as harmful as a newborn kitten. Only in his wildest dreams will he ever be even close to making the decision to bring our troops home. As for the Lieberals, no matter what the motive, the commitment was and is correct.

Fortunately we have Harper making decisions now.

BTW...I always thought CJunk stood for 'Conservative Junk'. But celestial will do just fine.

Jebus: Good intentions aside I'm of the thought that anyone who works at a permanent full time position for an organization that receives public money for operations has a conflict of interest with respect to politics.

It is a self fulfilling prophecy, remember what happened to Mr.Smith, he would have been better off not killing Neo. An professional activist who solves the worlds woes is just a "no job having, wife leaving you for a conservative who can make a living" progressive.

How about a real example. I think it is fair to say that most people who will vote Conservative dislike the CBC and would be quite happy to pull all funding. Call me naive but it looks to me like a Conservative government could be a bad thing for the CBC, but a Liberal or NDP government is a good thing for the CBC; and the CBC is a good thing for these parties because they attack the Conservatives. This analogy works because the funding sources are the same and the results are the same depending on who is in government. Vote conservative and lose your unsustainable and unnecessary position, or vote for a socialist party and keep your job a while longer. This would be very nerve racking for me living year to year worrying about my job. It would just be easier to do away with this democracy BS and appoint a government of my liking who truly understands my value and contribution to society. The little "Humanoids" of Canada are not smart enough to know know how important I am.

Cjunk,

It's strange how some are so proud of being walking talking stereotypes...

Could people have other motivations for wanting to bring the troops home other than wanting to be "progressives" that "can't move themselves to feel pride ... least of all gratitude, for our soldiers?" Maybe recognition of a lack of planning, of a lack of analysis for consequences, wanting to see the heroes again alive in person etc...

It might just be possible to simultaneously recognize a soldier's sacrifice and to believe that leaving Canadian troops in Afghanistan in perpetuity is a mistake.

"Maybe recognition of a lack of planning, of a lack of analysis for consequences, wanting to see the heroes again alive in person etc..."

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that we are on the wrong side of this conflict? Do you really believe that "seeing the heroes alive again" is the true motivation of progressives when the families of our troops and the troops themselves are not asking to come home? Do you really believe that this was poorly planed? Have you looked at a map and noticed Iran is surrounded by Allied troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have you considered that the larger objective (Iran,Syria) is in immediate striking range because of Allied bases in the aforementioned countries not to mentions its vulnerability from the sea. Have you considered that the Americans are the only ones standing between Israel and its mortal enemies?

Tell me Forain, who is going to step up and separate these combatants before something unthinkable happens? You? Michael Moore? Oprah? That is the strategy, preventative maintenance. Prevent Iran from acquiring weapons that will cause the Israelis to obliterate them.

Ted, those men and women are fighting for your right to spout idiotic nonsense, and my right to call you on your drivel; the only poll that counts made Mr. Harper PM. And he got the Liberals onboard to extend the mission in Afghanistan. "they can’t grasp the nobility of what our Canadian men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan" Do you get nobility Ted?
Forain, I am not a soldier, you are (presumably) not a soldier, their sacrifice is beyond ours, far beyond, Remember that.
YoMamma, I have looked at a map recently and also watched how many carrier groups are in the area, however all the sword waving means nothing. Our civilization will not fall from without only the rot within can cause us to crumble.
cjunk, thank you
Dana

Jebus,

As Paul remarked, most "anti-poverty" work is done by well paid bureaucrats with solid pensions. I also find it somewhat interesting that what I see as progress seems to be achieved by people who would be considered conservative.

I believe that parasite isn't necessarily the right term... more like profiteer. These anti-poverty folks prevent the development of property (ensuring decreasing living standards) so that homeless folks can continue squatting. Their actions directly contribute to the malaise that they seek to prevent. Orwell called it doublespeak...

I believe this is not a result of leftists being inherently dumber than rightists, but less concerned with the practical obvious solution and more concern with the abstract-Chomsky decision.

The only troops that commies support are those of China, North Korea, Russia or Cuba with a boot on the throat of each of the 'rest of us.' Never trust a commie. (real conservative)

"This is evident when you debate one and they quickly resort to name calling to avoid presenting a logical argument to back their demented views.

Those on the right debate with real evidence and logic to back their arguments"

I don't think either side can be less guilty of your claims.

toronto spends $200 million plus a year

on the homeless.... check it out

it's big business at our expense

What the hell are you talking about Dana? Who's talking about an election? I'm talking about the BS that Canada is as black and white as the far left moonbats and the far right wingnuts want us to be, like CJunk's post.

It was liberals/Liberals who brought us into Afghanistan when they didn't have to (and it's quite an invention to say it was to keep us out of the Iraq War since was not asking for our troops to be sent as documents have since revealed). It was liberals/Liberals who extended the mission to one of the most difficult and dangerous regions of Afghanistan when they didn't have to. It was liberals/Liberals who appointed Hillier to his post (and Harper who pushed him out the door). It was liberals/Liberals who renamed a portion of Highway 401 as the "Highway of Heroes" (not a big point but directed to cjunk's lie about progressives not taking pride in the solidiers efforts). It was liberals/Liberals who worked together with Conservatives (for once both putting their respective petty partisanship aside for the good of the country) to extend the mission but not automatically indefinite (which sends a message to our partners to pony up).

Who the hell was talking about an election? The polls I was referring to show the country is not so two dimensional as cjunk and the hardcore on the right and left would have us believe.

Ted, you said "the polls support that view.
Posted by: Ted at May 8, 2008 1:43 PM"
You go right ahead and judge 'Canadians' views by a poll from some research company. I say again THE ONLY POLL THAT COUNTS gave us a Prime Minister named Stephen Harper. He is not a liberal or a Liberal or a millionaire lawyer from quebec.
The Liberals, Ted, under Chretien and Martin starved the Army and then threw them into combat. For shame. It will be a long time in the wilderness for the (once) natural governing party

So you support the war do you?

How much would you support this war if required a tax hike to cover its costs?
How much would you be willing to pay out of your own pockets?

Again, Dana, what the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about what kind of support there is for the war in Afghanistan. You can't tell that from "THE ONLY POLL THAT COUNTS".

You'd think that supporters of the Conservative Party, which is shattering spending records on polling about twice as much as Martin, would understand what a poll actually is.

What are you smoking and where can I get some?

The meer thought of such heroism ...

I always thought that word was "mere".

Meer cats wander around in the dark too.

The wars in Afstan and Iraq will get worse if "we" leave. Those who claim to be anti-war are in reality anti-peace because peace - and the establishment of the rule of law - can only be obtained by killing, capturing or otherwise subduing those who are attacking the agents of the democratically elected governments in Afstan and Iraq.

I'm delighted to see the word progressive placed in quotation marks when referring to those who claim to be anti-war.

When it comes to the establishment of democracies leftists are anything but progressive. And when it comes to a recognition of the price to be paid they are anything but adult.

It was liberals/Liberals who brought us into Afghanistan when they didn't have to

Well, yes, they did according to this long piece by Terry Glavin and Stan Persky. These two lefties eviscerate the "thinking" that passes for leftism these days. It's a long read, but good.

http://www.dooneyscafe.com/content/view/552/1/

via Damian Penny