| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Another country bans the Niqab; full Islamic veil | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 19 2010, 12:44 PM (802 Views) | |
| Axtremus | Jul 19 2010, 12:44 PM Post #1 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
This time, it's Syria, though the ban is limited to universities. Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/19/syria-bans-face-covering_n_651222.html |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 19 2010, 03:21 PM Post #2 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
OK, I'll bite, since the response to this is so overwhelming .... Syria's experience with the Muslim Brotherhood, and other likeminded Islamist organizations has been rather unpleasant for all parties concerned. Evidence slide A: Hama Destruction of Hama |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jul 19 2010, 05:47 PM Post #3 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Way to go, Syria! |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jul 19 2010, 05:53 PM Post #4 |
|
Shortstop
|
It's not right. Clothes don't kill people, people kill people. I hope nobody in this country gets ideas like this. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jul 19 2010, 06:11 PM Post #5 |
|
MAMIL
|
I agree - this is actually a lot more interesting (and hopeful) than France doing it. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 19 2010, 06:56 PM Post #6 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Gives new meaning to srsly ..... Syria's-ly. |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Jul 20 2010, 01:28 AM Post #7 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 20 2010, 06:03 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Do students bring guns to your class? If not, do they need to start? Somebody or something needs to end the suffering....
|
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 20 2010, 07:29 AM Post #9 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You're right and I am hoping that the US and other Western nations will have the political fortitude to outlaw Wahabist fanaticism and its filthy spawn, Salafism altogether. That alone would forego the need to ban repressive dress codes for mohammedan women. |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jul 20 2010, 07:31 AM Post #10 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
+1.. But I suspect we'll just diversify our culture out of existence. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 07:50 AM Post #11 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
No need for any (likely unconstitutional) legislation of this sort. Instead, we simply need to begin decoupling our government from it's seventy year near-total embrace of the Arabian peninsula. The regimes there have interests, and many of those interests coincide with ours. Where those interests mesh with ours we can continue to pursue close ties. But some of those regimes (the Saudis provide a great example) pursue policies that are directly hostile to our interests. Here I would place the Saudi's devil's contract with Wahhabism, and their worldwide funding of the spread of religious radicalism. The irony, of course, is that most of the Saudi family seems composed of essentially worldly men, many of whom full well understand the appeal of a nice single malt scotch, a western business suit, and a European wife or dalliance. We have no interest in respecting this hypocrisy, and we should undertake policies that reduce the income of this noxious family while we continue to cooperate with it on other things that are clearly in our mutual interest. If they wish to commingle things in ways that completely rupture our relations, so be it. I see no contradiction between imposing an oil import tax (a la Krauthammer) that would drive down the revenues of oil exporters while at the same time providing military cover to them to prevent the extension of Iranian influence. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 09:22 AM Post #12 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
No, but I have heard a few audible groans at times. Actually, I'm finding a serious decline in the classroom effectiveness of Monty Python allusions. That's too bad. References to 'and the count shall be three' often elicit one muted titter from the back of the room. What's with kids these days. Heck, mine can practically recite MP & the HG by heart. |
![]() |
|
| brenda | Jul 20 2010, 09:28 AM Post #13 |
![]()
..............
|
Easily fixed, PD. Include viewing the HG as the first assignment, with a short quiz in class. Of course, you can also use econ examples drawn from the HG on the quiz. Calvin and Hobbes was lots of fun for that, too.
|
|
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.” ~A.A. Milne | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 20 2010, 09:46 AM Post #14 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So long as that import tax is not inclusive of all imported oil into the US I have no issue. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 10:29 AM Post #15 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Well, sorry about that, but as long as a nation is part of the WTO (and you're not at war with them), trade barriers must be non-discriminatory. Yes, any oil exporter (friend or foe alike) would be hurt by a US duty on imported oil that pushed down the global price. And other importers (like China) would be helped. Those are the breaks. Nonetheless, from a US welfare perspective, an oil import fee that drove down the world price of oil would be an economic benefit. If such a policy seriously reduced the purchasing power of middle eastern sheikdoms, that would be a great geo-political benefit. But at last report, Saudi isn't part of the WTO. edit: unless you want to get in to molecular analysis of oil, we would likely impose a non-discriminatory duty anyway. The purpose, after all, would be to push down the world price of the stuff while pushing up the domestic price (to wean us of dependence). The difference between those two prices would be the tariff revenue collected per unit. Edited by Piano*Dad, Jul 20 2010, 10:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 20 2010, 10:44 AM Post #16 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You're not sorry at all. And I won't be sorry either when US investors lose their shirts on their Canadian energy stocks either. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 10:51 AM Post #17 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
If we passed such a policy, it would indeed hurt the asset values of some Americans. So what. Every policy change does that. You evaluate the balance. I don't worry about investors very much. They can diversify their portfolios, and any sensible one does. |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 20 2010, 11:03 AM Post #18 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Glad you feel that way- I think there is too much US ownership of Canadian energy assets any way. I'd like to see our foreign investor portfolio more diversified and international in scope. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 12:00 PM Post #19 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Yeah, yeah, and in the 1930s, my (Canadian) grandfather had to turn to investors in New York to finance the drilling of a mine shaft in Larder Lake because the money in Ontario wouldn't chance it. |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 20 2010, 12:09 PM Post #20 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Most Alberta wildcatters in the 30's, 40's and 50's sought American money for the Alberta oil patch as well. I'd say thank you but as you know very well, I wouldn't mean it. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 12:33 PM Post #21 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
I know. I have listened to Canadians piously declaim about the evils of American investment for years. . . . . Thank you. ........ |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 20 2010, 12:48 PM Post #22 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Obviously Canadian nationalism must frost Yankee balls. |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 12:55 PM Post #23 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
And some Canadian ones too. |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Jul 20 2010, 12:57 PM Post #24 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"Living next to you [the USA] is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." ~ Pierre Trudeau . |
![]() |
|
| Piano*Dad | Jul 20 2010, 01:13 PM Post #25 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You can understand the force of that point without giving in to the kind of petty nationalism that regards every venture from south of the border as a plot to wreck paradise or to commandeer Canadian destiny. And you can understand it without accepting as a natural corollary that wise Canadian bureaucrats, unencumbered by special interest as they all surely are, know exactly how to manage the level of economic interpenetration between the two nations. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2










4:49 PM Jul 10