Yes it does. Try delivering that line on TV in Saudi Arabia, and see what happens to you.

"Al" is used often in Arabic, and is roughly equivalent to "The." It combines with "lah," and properly translates as "THE [one, indivisible, neither begot nor begetting] God."

Mind you, Jack Layton may well see the socialist state in those terms, and simply rely on the mutual incomprehension of his audience to sound good, while camouflaging the mortal insult.

Regards
Dave

Yes, but enough about Mark Stain.

But instead of ever outflanking Harper to the right – meaning on the side of liberalism in this case – Iggy has, with tragic panache, outflanked him on the field of petulant and petty politicking. The Liberal habit of fighting popularity contests pitting the cool "big Canada" people against the squares is creating a small-tent.

http://www.zombietime.com

As against this backdrop from the alleged stalwarts of "free speech" meaning (to the left) that Grog can say bad things about Nog, or show pictures of gory decapitations of George Bush with not visits from secret service agents, I'd say mine and Steyn's take on things is said fairly well by comparison.

Though in the first place I might point out that the mere omission of the requisite follow-up of "attack" to "ad hominem" in order to satisfy the grammarian prudes who haunt us and make sure the phrase's adjective status is well intact for future generations—is all that much of a sin enough to be evicted from the train.

Secondly, I think your grammarian point might come off with more bang had you spelled the phrase correctly.

Unless, that is, you hail from a land where spelling is far more optional than "parts of speech."

Especially since the removal or banning or Steyn would bring no real tears to more than a few liberals who just LOVE to posit to the rest of us how they reluctantly must begrudge free speech to people who don't eat at Elaine's or read The New Yorker.

Gee…THANKS.

Further, I doubt it's real bigotry to raise more than a few eyebrows about the Steynian subject matter–the conversion of Europe's maternity wards into nurseries for the Sons of Allah (who're caucasion, even if olive-toned) and the social and cultural decay of Europe and Canada and other People's Worker Paradises that have all the time in the world to eat, drink, screw, and suck down wine on the beach, and have all manner of sumptious handouts and goodies from government, BUT don't think enough of their own civilization to either reproduce or defend it.

I say bully for Steyn.

May he get the word out over and over–while he still can.

The Canadian Press
Date: Mon. Mar. 9 2009 7:35 PM ET
NDP Leader Jack Layton earned the nickname "Taliban Jack" by Tories and other critics for promoting the idea of a negotiated ceasefire involving the Afghan government, Pakistani combatants and the Taliban.

Harper said in October 2006 that NDP House Leader Libby Davies was asking "despicable questions" in the House of Commons for raising that possibility. And as recently as during last spring's Commons debate on the length of the Afghan mission, Tory MPs were still suggesting it was foolishness to talk to the Taliban. But reports emerged around the same time that Canadian troops were already engaging in discussions with local leaders connected with the Taliban on the ground in Afghanistan. The rhetoric has gradually cooled around such activities, and the Conservatives have supported the Karzai government's efforts to slowly build bridges.

I read a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin and I think it applies to a number of issues. "Those that would sacrifice liberty for safety don't deserve liberty".

It would be refreshing to hear from a politician that doesn't sound like he's been scripted by polsters.

I suppose Christians who go to church weekly or more may tend to support Harper's causes, though they also tend to want to put creationism in our schools and get red in the face when you bring up evolution…it is interesting that identify with Steyn a lot more than others normally do

Cheers

There's a desire in the media (and evidently within these comments) to use the world "Christian" and "Albertain" interchangeably and it's getting tiresome.

The "Christian vote" is almost entirely based on geographical region and perhaps to a lesser extent education, and little to do with the Bible or church leadership. Evangelicals tend to be rural and mainline Christians tend to live in the city. The fact of the matter is, if you polled Christians about Jesus' thoughts on guns, evangelicals would almost certainly conclude Christ was pro-guns and mainline Christians would almost certianly say he would be anti-gun, when if fact, he never brought up the subject.

Among Christians who practice their faith (the easiest differentiator used by pollsters is "attend Church services weekly") polls consistently show a lopsided support for conservative causes, and they would likely be more in agreement with Steyn than with you on most issues.

For example, the right to breathe and the right to blink do not infringe on each other in any way per se. Someone could introduce an artificial link by saying "if you blink I will suffocate him", but then it is they who are trespassing on people's rights, not the guy who chooses to exercise his right to blink.

Similarly the right to speak one's mind does not interfere with the right to live per se, although artificial links may be introduced by those who will kill another based on the urgings or revelations of a third. This does not change the fact that free speech and the right to life can both be irreducible. (I am not saying they should, just that they can.)

Same goes for owning a weapon. Property in general is a more complicated case.

Among Christians who practice their faith (the easiest differentiator used by pollsters is "attend Church services/Mass weekly") polls consistently show a lopsided support for conservative causes, and would likely be more in agreement with Steyn than with you on most issues.

For example, the right to breathe and the right to blink do not infringe on each other in any way per se. Someone could introduce an artificial link by saying "if you blink I will suffocate him", but then it is they who are trespassing on people's rights, not the guy who chooses to exercise his right to blink.

Similarly the right to speak one's mind does not interfere with the right to live per se, although artificial links may be introduced by those who will kill another based on the word of a third. This does not change the fact that free speech and the right to life can both be irreducible.

Same goes for owning a weapon. Property in general is a more complicated case.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=…