A moving and informative talk worth listening to.

^ Safferz;984767 wrote: Yes, for recreation too! The "two click" checkout on Amazon is why I'm poor. I've even woken up before to order confirmation emails, only to realize I ordered books on my phone while half asleep. I checked my mail this morning only to find these boots waiting for me, apparently I bought them in my sleep earlier this week via the Zappos app on my phone. I can't be mad because they're hella cute, but I need to start charging my phone at the other side of the room from where I sleep because this is starting to become a terrible habit:

This one is my fav lool

Hmm new SOL won't let me include more than 1 video per post :mad:

Rob Ford has been comedy gold for late night television...

DoctorKenney;986213 wrote: Okay, valid point. And if I'm wrong here on some of the points that I've made, then I'd hope you at least understand the principle I was pointing to here; That Liberals cannot claim a monopoly on pacifism and that they have just as much blood on their hands as their Conservative opponents. We're not in disagreement, I'd just rather see precise and historically correct arguments rather than misplaced and ahistorical blame on "liberals" for the colonial/neocolonial Western interventions in the Muslim world, which is what I was objecting to earlier in the thread. Complicated histories have complicated answers.

Rob Ford stripped of key powers in council vote Toronto mayor loses authority during emergencies, vows legal action Toronto city council has voted to both remove Mayor Rob Ford's authority during emergency situations and, under a separate motion, has stripped his power to hire and fire the deputy mayor and appoint members of his executive committee. The motions passed 41-2 and 39-3, respectively, at council's meeting Friday morning. They are the first of three motions aimed at leaving Ford as mayor in name only. He will continue his last 11 months as mayor with severely limited powers. Ford still has the authority to declare an emergency but, in that event, authority would pass to the deputy mayor. The vote on the third motion is expected Monday. It would reduce his staff and office budget to that of a regular city councillor. During debate about the motion to strip emergency powers, Coun. Doug Ford said voters, not council, should make the decision about whether or not his brother stays on as mayor. "That's not our decision, that's the people's decision," he said. "In October of next year, the people will speak." "We sent a clear message. We're unified. We're going to go about doing the work of the city and we can do that in spite of Mayor Ford's behaviour," said Coun. John Filion, the sponsor of Monday's motion. "It's a move that shouldn't be taken lightly and wasn't." 'I have no other option other than to challenge this in court.' - Rob Ford Coun. Janet Davis said she was pleased with the outcome. "The positive side of this is that we now have a council speaking with one voice and we'll go forward now to restore the integrity of this institution," she said. The mayor indicated he would fight the motions in court, though he was uncharacteristically quiet through the proceedings, asking only a handful of mostly procedural questions. "Obviously I can't support this and I have no other option other than to challenge this in court," Ford said at one point. Coun. Ford was more bullish, remarking he looks forward to a court battle. A majority of councillors has already formally urged Ford to take a leave of absence amid a drug scandal, though some council members are now calling for the mayor’s outright resignation. For two weeks straight, Ford has made news almost on a daily basis with a rolling series of admissions, apologies and responses to new developments. None of these allegations have been proven in court. The motion approved Friday also freezes the standing committee and deputy mayor positions, while allowing Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly to appoint replacements if vacancies occur over the next year. The mayor draws a lot of power from his ability to appoint committee chairs. Filion said allowing the current deputy mayor and committee chairs to stay in their roles will provide stability and allow them to act independently without fear of retribution. Council does not have the authority to remove Ford from office. Premier Kathleen Wynne said Thursday that should council indicate it is unable to function, she would consult with opposition parties on how to respond to a request for help. Daily surprises Since the start of November, Ford has admitted to having smoked crack cocaine while serving as mayor, apologized for that and other "mistakes," some of which were alcohol-related, acknowledged buying illegal drugs in the past two years and even said Thursday that he has potentially got behind the wheel after drinking. He also admitted to being "extremely, extremely inebriated" on a bizarre video that the Toronto Star purchased and published on its website, which showed Ford swearing and ranting. It entered the public realm just two days after Ford said he had "nothing left to hide." On Thursday, Ford further shocked reporters at city hall by using crude, sexually explicit language to deny some specific allegations that police heard during a lengthy investigation. The mayor soon apologized for his "graphic remarks," which were roundly criticized by council members, though he went on to tell reporters that the pressure on him has nearly pushed him to a breaking point. "For the past six months I have been under, tremendous, tremendous stress," Ford said. "The stress is largely of my own making. I have apologized and I have tried to move forward. This has proven to be almost impossible." The six months Ford referred to is the time period since reports first emerged about a video allegedly showing the mayor smoking crack cocaine. In May, both the Toronto Star and the U.S. gossip website Gawker reported that someone had been trying to sell the video. Ford long denied the video’s existence and also denied using crack cocaine. But the questions dogged him for months, no matter how many times he tried to change the channel or shut down reporters by asking them if there was "anything else" they wanted to know about. On the last day of October, Toronto police Chief Bill Blair publicly revealed that police had obtained a digital video file that was consistent with what the media had reported. The mayor soon called for the video’s release and within days made the bombshell admission that he had indeed smoked crack cocaine — a fact that is now known world-wide. Police probed the claims that had been made about the video, as part of an investigation that led to an extortion charge against the mayor’s friend and occasional driver. The public has learned about some parts of that police investigation via documents that a court has released in part. Ford has threatened legal action in response to some of the allegations that police were told about. Ford in the headlines But well ahead of the recent drug-related controversy, Ford was a magnet for controversy while serving as mayor. He survived a conflict-of-interest challenge that nearly ousted him from office and also saw a defamation lawsuit dismissed. He faced criticism over his commitment to coaching a high-school football team, which he no longer coaches after the school board decided to find a new coach in the wake of comments Ford made to a television station. Even his personal driving habits have made headlines, though Ford has recently been seen with a driver — something he has said are part of changes he is making in his life. The 44-year-old mayor came to power three years ago promising to "stop the gravy train," the rallying cry he has often invoked to describe his intent to cut waste and spending at city hall. But since taking on the job of mayor, Ford has often struggled to lead a divided council on key issues. Ford previously served as a councillor for a ward in Etobicoke, the Toronto suburb where he lives with his wife and two children. The mayor has said he intends to seek re-election next year, and has predicted the campaign will be "a bloodbath." So far, the only current member of council to declare their intention to run is Stintz, who said Thursday that her decision to contest the mayor is a sign that she has no confidence in him.

SomaliPhilosopher;986177 wrote: For me the interface is totally messed up its like SOL on lsd It looks fine to me, except I can no longer see who is browsing the forum at the bottom and I get a weird message when I post. But glad to see SOL has a mobile site now! I usually post from my phone so I'm glad there's a nice mobile version now.

DoctorKenney;986173 wrote: We use the definitions available to us, to categorize politicians who lived 100 years ago. No, we don't, because that's bad history. We specify and define our terms, and we discuss the contexts in which they emerged and were used as they have changed and transformed over time. Terms like "liberal" cannot be thrown around divorced from their historical context because you'd prefer to make an ahistorical argument about "stuff liberals did" over the last century. This is a crucial point that you don't seem to be getting, and the discussion is getting tedious and repetitive at this point, so let's move on.

DoctorKenney;986167 wrote: The definitions of the words might have changed, but the people still remain the same. When I mean Liberal, I'm referencing the Progressives. I'm referring to those Big-Government types who want to force their values on others through legislation. John Locke's definition of what a "Liberal" is, is most definitely referring to the Libertarians that exist in America today. He was a "Liberal", but a Liberal in the 1700's and 1800's is not the same as a Liberal nowadays DoctorKenney;986166 wrote: Safferz, I'm aware of all this. But the Liberals I'm referring to are the same Liberals who are running the Obama Administration today, who opposed GW Bush in the 2000's, who were running Johnson's Administration in the 1960's, who were running Roosevelt's administration in the 1930's, and who were running Wilson's administration in the 1910's. Yes, the Republicans and the Democrats "switched sides" in the 1960's with regards to civil rights, but the Democrats still didn't change their economic policies and much of their ideology. THAT'S who I was referring to. When I refer to "Liberals", I refer to the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, the same racist Roosevelt who opposed the anti-lynching legislation back in 1936. When I refer to Liberals, I refer to the likes of Woodrow Wilson, the same racist Wilson who re-segregated the Federal Government and set Blacks back by at least 50 years. lol, so what makes you think Wilsonian liberalism is the same as that of Johnson or Obama, and how are you able to reconcile the two points I've highlighted, despite being logically and historically inconsistent? Why do you allow for liberalism to change in meaning from that of Locke, but not within its various articulations in the 20th century, a period that saw more social and political upheaval and change than any other century in modern history? Did you learn about liberalism from the same book that taught you the US started WWI and WWII?

DoctorKenney;986153 wrote: Safferz, did you ever think that the reasons the Republicans oppose these legislations is because either they're 1, Ideologically opposed to it and 2. Because they think it to be ineffective and 3. Because it is unnecessary Moot point. There were people who were "ideologically opposed" to ending slavery in the 19th century because they felt blacks were inferior, and thought abolition was ineffective and unnecessary because it underpinned the US economy. There were people who were "ideologically opposed" to giving women the right to vote and felt it was ineffective and unnecessary given women's "place" in society, outside the realm of politics. I can use a number of other analogies to make the point that with every rights-based advance in US history, there has been pushback from conservative forces (whose party affiliations have shifted btw, will elaborate on that below), women's rights and religion (Christianity) in public life have been two contentious areas in the last few decades. This is something well documented and studied (as are the systemic realities of violence against women and unequal pay for women), whether you think deny it or not. Anyway, in my response to AfricaOwn, I said that this is off topic and I can already sense what this thread will spiral into if it continues to be derailed by these tangents. DoctorKenney;986157 wrote: Well, WW2 is debatable, and there's a lot of issue against Roosevelt for "provoking" the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor back in 1941. But that's a discussion for another day But WW1 was clearly started by Wilson. America had no business in the conflict, the war looked like it would become a stalemate, but the War Commission of 1916 started a propaganda campaign to lure the American public into the war. And America did end up joining WW1 in 1917. And America lost over 100 000 men because of that decision. There are entire books written about this Safferz! Every war you listed including WWI was well underway by the time the US decided to enter/intervene. There are entire books written about this, DoctorKenney. To get back to the discussion -- I'm interested to hear how you and others define and differentiate between the terms liberal and liberalism, if at all? Who and what is a "liberal"? And how has that meaning shifted over time? If you look at the excerpt posted earlier from Niall Ferguson as an example, you can see how even neoconservatives identify with liberal political philosophy, it's a philosophical tradition of theories on politics, economics and society that come out of the European Enlightenment, and it is these same liberal thinkers whose ideas form the basis of conservatism. John Locke and his concepts of freedom that shaped the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Liberal. Adam Smith and laissez-faire capitalism? Liberal. The meanings and politics of the Republican and Democratic parties have also shifted over the course of the 20th century. It was Republicans who ended slavery in the 19th century, and Democrats in the South who tried to maintain segregation and block equal rights legislation from becoming law in the 1960s, before switching to the Republican party after the campaigns of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. You can't simply assume the political positions of these parties have stayed consistent over time, as though the Republican and Democratic parties as you know them in 2013 were the same in 1913. You also can't use a fixed and imprecise understanding of liberalism and assume what that means either, as though that's also remained consistent historically.

DoctorKenney;986151 wrote: America had 4 major wars in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. ALL of those wars were started by Democrats (Liberals) WW1 was started by Woodrow Wilson, a friggin Democrat. WW2 was started by Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat. The Korean War was started by Harry Truman, a DEMOCRAT. The Vietnam War was started by Lyndon Johnson, again....ANOTHER Democrat. That's 4/4. Yet people still believe that the Liberals are for peace. It's nothing but propaganda. Wrong on four counts, absurdly so (WWI and WWII being "started by" America in particular, lmao!). Go read a history book.

Raamsade;986142 wrote: Safferz, no I am not nor have I ever been a Hobbesian Brute. I don't even subscribe to much of the ideas of Thomas Hobbes. If you mean a character here on SOL then nope, there is only one Raamsade. I must say, before I joined SOL I recall only one avowed freethinker (johny boy). Then there was me and others I inspired thanks to my superlative wisdom, charm and erudition. Yes, an SOLer who appeared this year and was deleted not too long ago for insulting Islam. Your thinking and style of writing is quite similar, and since he's now gone and you've recently re-appeared, I thought I'd ask if that was your script. I don't think you're a "free thinker," your ideas sit quite comfortably with popular anti-immigrant and Islamophobic sentiment in the West.

thefuturenow;986134 wrote: I contemplated responding to each of Raam's points, but it seemed futile. Btw upon the previous discussion of neo-cons and neo-libs, I found this quote about Ayaan Hirsi by her husband Niall Ferguson on Wikipedia: "Ferguson dedicated his book Civilization to "Ayaan". In an interview with The Guardian, Ferguson spoke about his love for Ali, who, he writes in the preface, "understands better than anyone I know what Western civilisation really means – and what it still has to offer the world".[17] Ali, he continued, ...grew up in the Muslim world, was born in Somalia, spent time in Saudi Arabia, was a fundamentalist as a teenager. Her journey from the world of her childhood and family to where she is today is an odyssey that's extremely hard for you or I [sic] to imagine. To see and hear how she understands western philosophy, how she understands the great thinkers of the Enlightenment, of the 19th-century liberal era, is a great privilege, because she sees it with a clarity and freshness of perspective that's really hard for us to match. So much of liberalism in its classical sense is taken for granted in the west today and even disrespected. We take freedom for granted, and because of this we don't understand how incredibly vulnerable it is.[17]" I laughed because it was the only reaction that a concoction of overwhelming sadness, pity, fear and amusement could produce. Two douchebags who deserve each other. But at least Niall writes his own books Raamsade, are you Hobbesian_Brute?

Tell me this is a joke, LayZie.

Khayr;986112 wrote: Saff, You just want us to validate any pseudo intellectual whose ideas you espouse to and whose values you share with more than the orthodox muslim . What does this sentence even mean?

Rob Ford documents: 11 shocking allegations Police documents reveal more about Toronto mayor's allegedly inappropriate behaviour Newly released police documents reveal more allegations about mayor Rob Ford's erratic behaviour. Several people who worked around the mayor or who say they were in his presence during incidents of allegedly inappropriate behaviour have given police interviews. None of the allegations detailed in the documents has been proven. You can read the documents by clicking on this link: Brazen ITOs - Redacted (36MB .pdf). Warning: extreme language. Also note that the documents contain allegations not proven in court. The following are some of the details they gave to police: Suspected prostitutes Police say they were told by Ford's former special assistant of communications, Isaac Ransom, that the mayor appeared to be close to a young, attractive blond woman named Alana. The documents say that she was in the mayor's office and was suspected of being an escort or prostitute. She had hashish and marijuana on St. Patrick's Day 2012, which the mayor wanted to use, the documents say. (Page 154, 155) Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is held back by his brother Coun. Doug Ford as he confronts Coun. Denzil Minnan-Wong (centre) during an extraordinary city council debate on Wednesday. Minnan-Wong put a motion forward that demands the mayor take a leave of absence and apologize in the wake of the crack cocaine scandal. The police documents, citing an interview with Ford's former chief of staff, Mark Towhey, say that the mayor got upset with then deputy chief of staff Earl Provost and former adviser Brooks Barnett on St. Patrick's Day in 2012. Police state in the report that Towhey told them the mayor pushed Provost down and drew his hand back, as if preparing to punch him. The report, citing Towhey, says Ford rushed at Barnett and pinned him to the wall and also cocked his fist like he was going to strike him. (Page 71) Racist remarks According to the police documents, Barnett and Provost told Ransom the mayor took a taxi to a bar and hurled racist epithets at the driver along the way, calling him a "Paki," mocking him with fake-language sounds and throwing business cards at him. (Page 155) Police say they were told that the mayor arrived at the Bier Markt on St. Patrick's Day 2012 and was given The Merchant Room, a private room at the back. A waiter interviewed by police is quoted in the report as saying that he went into the room to deliver an order of poutine and believed he saw the mayor appearing to snort cocaine, or heard sniffing sounds. (Page 101, 102) Smoking marijuana Toronto Mayor Rob Ford appears in still images contained in a Toronto Police Service report released on Thursday that details hundreds of contacts between Ford and a friend, Alexander Lisi, who is facing drug and extortion charges. Police say that Ford's former assistant Chris Fickel told them he was called around 9 p.m. in October 2012 to fix a computer at the mayor's home. The report says Fickel saw the mayor light up a joint and offer it, eventually smoking it alone. Police say that Fickel told them he knew it was marijuana from the smell. According to the documents, former executive assistant told Towhey he found a joint in the mayor's desk drawer. It disappeared about four or five days later, the documents say. (Page 116, 141) Petty errands for staff Police say they were told by Fickel that he was regularly called upon last minute to change lightbulbs at the mayor's home, or replace the batteries in his kids' toys. He is cited in the police report describing several duties, including buying cigarettes, bleach, laundry detergent and Diet Coke for the mayor's wife. (Page 110) Drinking and driving The mayor once stopped his car to drink a "mickey" of vodka with Gatorade, Fickel says, according to the police documents. In a police phone interview detailed in the report, former events co-ordinator Jennifer Dwyer said she was a nervous passenger in Ford's car, and that Ford once drove her to a 2012 event and was impaired. Police say that Dwyer told them the mayor was driving fast and she was nervous in the vehicle. (Page 73, 133) Vodka Police say they were told that the mayor has also asked another staffer, Nico Fidani, to buy vodka for him and deliver it to his home. Fickel is cited in the police as saying this was common for the mayor to ask young staffers to buy him Iceberg vodka. (Page 95. 114, 115, 135) Emotional about father Toronto Mayor Rob Ford denies allegations he used crack cocaine at a press conference on May 24, 2013. The U.S. website Gawker and the Toronto Star reported seeing the mayor smoke what appears to be crack cocaine in the company of drug dealers earlier this month. The drug allegations are the latest in a series of events that have kept Ford in the headlines since his election in 2010. In the police document, Ransom says Ford's mood changed quickly after being removed from the Bier Markt bar on St. Patrick's Day 2012. Ransom says the mayor broke down and began crying about his father. Police say they were told that the mayor has also phoned Kia Nejatian once or twice from his father's grave, and sounded like he was crying. (Page 135, 155) Crude sexual remarks Police say that according to Ford staffers, the mayor targeted his former special assistant, Olivia Gondek, in crude sexual remarks on the evening of St. Patrick's Day 2012. The police documents say that inappropriate comments continued around 4 a.m. at City Hall, when the mayor told a female guard he was going to perform a sexual act on her. (Page 156)

lolllll Rob Ford apologizes for oral sex comment, says he is seeking help Mayor Rob Ford used coarse language in earlier scrum with reporters. Warning: The following story contains graphic language Mayor Rob Ford has apologized for the “unforgivable language” he used on Thursday, but is standing firm that the new allegations that he partied with a prostitute and snorted cocaine are “100 per cent lies.” In a hastily assembled news conference in the mayor’s protocol lounge, Ford said the recent revelations “of cocaine, escorts, prostitution” have pushed him “over the line.” “I used unforgivable language, and again, I apologize,” he said. “These allegations are 100 per cent lies. When you attack my integrity as a father and as a husband, I see red.” With his wife Renata by his side, Ford told reporters he is “receiving support from a team of health care professionals,” but said “I do not wish to comment on the particulars of this support.” “I fully realize in the past I have drank alcohol in excess,” he said. “I am taking accountability and receiving advice from people with expertise . . . I wish you to understand I am accepting responsibility for the challenges I face.” Mayor Rob Ford speaks at a news conference with his wife Renata at city hall on Thursday. Ford, under pressure to resign after he admitted smoking crack and buying illegal drugs, said he was receiving professional help for drinking problems, but gave no hint he might step down. In a brief statement to the Toronto media, Ford also apologized for using obscene language earlier in the day when he denied allegations that he had sexually propositioned a female aide. The mayor did not take any questions. After his brief remarks he pushed through the crush of reporters to the elevator outside his office. The news conference came after his remarks earlier in the day, when Ford threatened to sue former staffers as he left his office. But it was his reference to allegations of oral sex with a former staff member that sent shock waves through the city. Ford said he didn’t party with a prostitute, he didn’t snort cocaine, he didn’t take OxyContin and he plans to sue former staffers who told police he did. “I might have had some drinks and driven which is absolutely wrong,” Toronto’s embattled mayor conceded in an impromptu scrum. But it was his comments about allegations in court documents released Wednesday that he had claimed to have been intimate with former policy adviser Olivia Gondek that stunned reporters. “It says I wanted to eat her ***** and I have never said that in my life to her. I would never do that. I’m happily married and I’ve got more than enough to eat at home,” he said before heading up to council. The mayor took aim at former staffers Isaac Ransom, George Christopoulos and Mark Towhey in particular, and said his unwillingness to speak before about the allegations contained in censored parts of police documents Wednesday was because he hadn’t yet read them. “I’ve . . . never had a prostitute here. I’m very happily married at home, this is very disturbing against my wife,” Ford told reporters. “I have no other choice. I’m the last one to take legal action, I can’t put up with it anymore.” Although many councillors have stated repeatedly they are no longer surprised by the controversy surrounding the mayor, his comments Thursday morning clearly left some of them taken aback. Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, who was behind Wednesday’s symbolic motion asking Ford to take a leave of absence, said he is now demanding the mayor’s resignation. One of the mayor’s few allies, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, issued an ultimatum, stating he would join calls for Ford to resign if he did not seek help for his alleged drug and alcohol addiction by day’s end. Ford’s apology did little to sway them. “There’s nothing that he could say now that will be acceptable to me anymore. This is too much . . . apologies don’t cut it,” Minnan-Wong said. “The mayor needs to resign. He needs to step aside. This has to end, and the province has to step in, because council cannot remove him.” Councillor Paula Fletcher said she is “very shaken from the earlier remarks.” “I know the man is under tremendous pressure and that’s why so many of us have said, ‘Get out, get help, get out of the spotlight . . . or something terrible is going to happen,’ ” Fletcher said. “Something terrible did happen today. Those remarks were probably the worst remarks that any mayor has ever made in the history of this city.” Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon said the mayor’s mouth “needs to be duct taped.” “My heart goes out to his family, his wife, his kids. I can’t imagine what they’re going through, but enough is enough,” she said. “We can’t even take him seriously in the council chamber or the city. He cannot be trusted with anything.” Speaking to reporters in council chambers, Councillor Janet Davis described the mayor as “one of the most stubborn, pigheaded people . . . we’ve ever come across.” “The executive (committee) needs to say very clearly, ‘We’re putting a wall around you, Mr. Mayor. We will not deal with your office or you in this budget,’ ” she said. “This council is going to be accountable for the budget. The executive is going to be accountable to council. Let’s put a firewall around the mayor. He has no legitimacy here.” Mammoliti, who was among those assembled in the mayor’s protocol lounge for the apology was more forgiving. “I think what you heard from him in referring to health care officials was a willingness to talk about the issues that are causing him a problem,” he said. “I hope that the next thing that comes from the mayor is the recognition that it’s an addiction.” He said the mayor’s decision to forcefully push through the large crowd of reporters following the news conference is proof that “we are dealing with this in the wrong way.” “You don’t throw an addict into a fray,” he said. “All they do is get their back up against the wall and retaliate, and what you’re seeing is the mayor doing that.” Earlier on Thursday, Mammoliti said he and Towhey, the mayor’s former chief of staff, tried unsuccessfully to get Ford help for addiction to drugs and alcohol a year ago, but the mayor “said he didn’t have a problem and not to worry about it.” It is time, Mammoliti said, that Ford and his family recognize he has an issue. “Now he’s probably going to lose everything — probably his family, probably his job — all of it, because he’s not recognizing his illness,” Mammoliti said. Renata Ford declined to speak with reporters after her rare public appearance at the mayor’s news conference. “I think my husband said already enough,” she said. “We want privacy for our family.” Ford’s brother, Doug, usually the mayor’s most outspoken ally, ignored questions from reporters on Thursday morning. If the mayor follows through on his plans to file a lawsuit, he will face an uphill battle, according to media lawyer Iain MacKinnon. “Anything is possible when it comes to Ford, but any lawsuit on that basis would be doomed to fail,” MacKinnon said. “The staffers would have an excellent defence of qualified privilege. “The idea is that society wants to encourage people to speak honestly and candidly in certain situations when they have a legal or moral duty to talk. Giving statements to police during a police investigation is one such occasion.” Toronto lawyer Brian Shiller told the Star he is offering to represent “all of the proposed defendants in Mayor Ford’s anticipated lawsuit on a pro bono basis.” “It is important that a signal is sent that the citizens of Toronto will not be intimidated by the mayor of Toronto from co-operating with the police in an investigation into potential wrongdoing by the leader of this great city,” he said.

Good post, random akhi. But I would not say that my arguments reflect that fragmentation, I was actually quite careful to argue the cultural (religion included) is deeply intertwined with the economic and the political, and I cited Edward Said as one thinker who tried to make those links explicit to understand how colonialism/imperialism operates at the level of culture to facilitate economic and political exploitation. I'm in line with that view. What I resist are the simplistic explanations you often see on SOL for these historical processes (ie. "they" want "our way of life," end of discussion), and the (related) hostility towards "liberal" thought without defining the terms or politics and incorrectly ascribing that label in ahistorical ways.

Ibtisam, STOIC and anyone else who was interested in looking at the Leila Ahmed chapter "The Discourse of the Veil," here's the scan.

What are you experiencing? People have been posting about issues but I haven't noticed any change.

Cool story bro.

I believe so, but the best way around it is to use a website like tinypic.com or imgur to upload photos and post them here as an embedded url, rather than to attach photo files. That way you can include up to 10 photos or so per post.

Apophis;985971 wrote: Also let's hear of Obama, the liberal hypocrite, who attacked Libya, almost attacked Syria, was behind the Egyptian coup and whose drones hover the globe like vultures ( something which has expanded under the democrats). Yes, the liberals are indeed responsible for as much death and destruction, if not more, as the right. But your inability to admit this plain fact is understandable, you're among them and have imbibed the ideology fully (something I, too, was guilty of until a few months ago; the cure is critical thinking and an open mind). So this entire comment relies on two assumptions: first, that I identify with and like Obama, and see his politics and policies as beyond critique; and second, that I identify with an American centrist-democratic vision of liberalism and have "imbibed the ideology fully." Both are false, overlook the politics you may be able to deduce from my posts in this thread, and do not engage with any of the comments I've made here. Try again.

AfricaOwn;985970 wrote: Can you give us an example of how they curtail women's rights in the US? Sure -- cutting/eliminating funding to women's organizations/health/rape crisis centers, opposing reproductive rights such as birth control and abortion even for rape victims and women who will die without it, attempting to redefine rape (also this), opposing violence against women litigation, opposing equal pay legislation, among other things. And those are just a few of the more obvious instances, I didn't even mention things like attempts to cut a number of low income food programs and aid as well as employment services, senior care, Head Start, etc, all of which would have the indirect effect of hitting women and children the hardest. But let's stay on topic, I'm sure you're already well aware of this.