PrimeNumber

You said they are/were clearly without regular government. And you defined "regular government" as a stable democracy. I then said.. "So a government has to be a stable democracy in order to be considered a government?" In which you replied "I never made that distinction." When in fact you clearly did. That's your only reason? Oil? Warmonger much? It's easily verifiable that they did not. Not my fault you refuse to acknowledge it. You're talking about America and their initial 2003 invasion of Iraq right? Well then I refuse to answer your question for "fun". Find it yourself.

Yes you literally just did. Have you had your memory tested lately? They make these great little games nowadays to keep the brain active. So what exactly are we protecting in Iraq that is not happening in the nations I described. If you could comprehend reading simple English, what I said was they never posed a threat to Canada until after Canada decided to join the effort. Which is easily verifiable. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/21/isis-urges-jihadists-to-attack-canadians-you-will-not-feel-secure-in-your-bedrooms/ These threats from ISIS and their current members never occurred before we announced our support and joined the war effort. Harper has put this whole country at risk all because he wants a war which I might ad will most likely never be won. The groups we are backing and supplying will just end up doing the same thing rinse lather repeat. Conservatives have a hard time learning lessons though. Waste of money that could go into more important things here in Canada. The ones that were listed before hand in one of my earlier posts in this discussion. Seriously though, are you even reading what I write or just regurgitating the same questions over and over for fun?

There are parties that are serious and sincere about doing these things but unfrotunetly no one takes them seriously if they don't have federal funding. Look how long it has taken the Green Party to get to where they are now. Unfortunately you are right though, the current parties do not favour less surveillance, but to claim that is the only option is silly. There are more than 4 major political parties, 6 if you're in Quebec. Just because people don't want to vote for them doesn't mean they aren't there. The only way for them to gain ground is for people to help them do so with the ballot.

The Liberals are cut from the same cloth just slightly more left of the Conservatives.

So a government has to be a stable democracy in order to be considered a government? So you think we should invade China and North Korea right now? They don't have stable democracies after all. Your opinion again and one that is really mislead in my opinion. So we should be attacking Saudi Arabia and the DRC and China and North Korea right now! Because it is in our best interest that their societies are free of violence and injustice? Yes you have, and everything you have said so far is just your opinion. Numerous people in this country disagree with it can make an argument against it, which does not make it fact, fact is absolute. ISIS has existed as Al-Qaeda in the middle east since at least 1999, it wasn't until 2006 that the group started splitting into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Sometime around 2008 other insurgency groups began calling them out for their brutallity. It wasn't until April 2013 that they changed their name to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group remained closely aligned with Al-Qaeda until February 2014, when after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL. On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate under the name "Islamic State (IS). So yes, yes they have. You don't even know a single thing about the people you want our army to kill. You're the shoot first ask questions later type aren't you? Makes sense why you would be a conservative supporter. Not wanting social programs such as daycare doesn't mean they're against authoritarian policies all while they are currently tabling authoritarian bills in parliament. You're funny bud.

How can you honestly say that everyone who is anti-jewish is not against the religion rather than the ethnic group. We do have a word for being being the ethnic group of Jews, it's called anti-semetism. There is a word however for just the religion, it is Judaism. I suppose we can start saying anti-judaism. If that clears things up for you.

"both are/were clearly countries without "regular Government" until established by Western force." Please define what a "regular government" is then, because it appears to be very clear you did say neither of them had governments. You must be confused again, Smith was refering to the society in question. Which would be Canada, not Iraq. We have no obligations to Iraq. Iraq being in upheaval does not pose a threat against Canadian Society. That is not a fact, that is your opinion, once again. It's pretty obvious that for the 12 years prior to Canada not being involved in Iraq there was absolutely no threat against our society from Iraq..at all.. ever and furthermore the only threats to our society due to the conflict in Iraq are because of the fact that we entered the conflict in Iraq. We brought the fight here by getting involved. They would obviously defend themselves. You can't say that the Canadian military is responding to a threat against Canada because the threats didn't come until we announced our support and joined the war. Harper provoked them and there has been a response. And I provided several examples to reinforce it. "Both being fringe parties that will never govern in our lifetimes........versus the GOP and CPC that both contain varying Classic Liberal virtues." By saying Versus you are effectively trying to compare the two and attempting to convince me that both the GOP and CPC hold more libertarian values than "fringe libertarian parties" which is just plain wrong. When they're the ones in power and calling the shots and giving the State more authority it is not myopic, it is warranted. They are the ones who are making the decisions and it's pretty damn obvious those decisions are giving more power to the state and it's agencies.

False. Both countries had Governments in place at the time we declared war with them. Smith never defined a "Regular Government" and I can tell you many Afghani and Iraq citizens will admit to having a government at that time. Just because you didn't agree with those governments, doesn't mean that they weren't governments. The Taliban and the current Iraqi government led by President Fuad Masum were both in power at the time of war in the respective countries mentioned. Your confusing your opinion with the truth. Obviously they are not mixing. You said that a "non-interventionist foreign policy" is not a libertarian policy. I have proved you wrong. Now you backtrack by saying they are fringe so it doesn't matter, which doesn't change the fact that it is a libertarian foreign policy. You're attributing Libertarian principles to them more so than a Libertarian party. I am pretty sure the Libertarian parties are more libertarian than the Conservative Party and the GOP. That goes without saying.

Tip of the Day: I'd suggest not going through with the treatments before you have actually contracted the disease.

Harper and the CPC have a selective conscience. Much like their selective conscience with Saudi Arabia. Not only that their pretty dense when it comes to learning lessons. Can't teach old dogs anything it turns out.

So I'll take that as you think a not having a daycare is more important than not being at war. Got it! haha why even provide links on this site unless anyone is willing to acknowledge them. Jebus weeps for you. You will notice it says "through the remotest provinces of the empire and maintains government in countries which could not otherwise admit of any." I'm pretty sure Afghanistan and Iraq both had governments at the time of war and are not provinces of the "Empire of Canada". Whether you choose to acknowledge that fact, has no bearing on the fact that it is a fact. This just proves my point further, it in no way says a society must engage in foreign wars. It just says that a state has the responsibility to defend the society. In no way at the time of war, was Canada in danger of violence and injustice. In fact the only time it has been in danger of violence is after Canada entered the foreign war. Hence the non-interventionist policy. Case remains, the GOP and CPC are NOT libertarian. They are Republican and Conservative respectively. Just because you refuse to acknowledge something, does not mean it isn't true. Libertarians everywhere will agree that a non-interventionist foreign policy is a Libertarian policy. How can you even say the Libertarian Party of the US is a fringe party when it is the 3rd largest party in the US? With over 370,000 registered voters in the 35 states that allow registration as a Libertarian and has hundreds of party candidates elected or appointed to public office. Why are you continuing to embarrass yourself, you're understanding of contemporary Libertarian policies is just plain wrong. This is literally almost every major Libertarian organization. You are wrong, please stop embarrassing yourself,

It has been done. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge it that is your problem, not mine.

So a daycare has more of an effect on your life than a war, or being spied on by that very state? http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119153/canadas-stephen-harper-government-muzzles-climate-scientists http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/tell-harper-to-stop-muzzling-scientists/ http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/when-science-goes-silent/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/muzzling-of-federal-scientists-widespread-survey-suggests-1.2128859 http://sciencewriters.ca/initiatives/muzzling_canadian_federal_scientists/ http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/ uuuuh yes it does. I have a copy of Adam Smiths the Wealth of Nations which is in my hands right now not sure about your copy but on page 747, Book 5, Chapter 1, Part 1 "Of the expense of defence" begins. there is a paragraph a few pages later on page 763, this paragraph describes how a Standing army is the only way to civilize a barbaric nation, but it in no way condones doing so. In fact it really condones trying not to use your military, as it saves money. http://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy The Libertarian Parties of America's foreign policy reflects this. As does the Canadian Libertarian Party https://www.libertarian.ca/platform/

So you don't think that giving the national police service and government surveillance agencies more powers is not a more relevant example of authority of state? You don't think silencing scientists is a more relevant example? Libertarianism maintains a non-interventionist philosophy as a foreign policy. So you don't think that dragging us into a foreign war is a more relevant example? I could go on.. To me a National State Run Day Care is peanuts compared to what I mentioned above

Well I've seen them challenge the Authority of both the Armed Forces and the various Police Services of this country more so than the conservatives ever have and probably ever will. It's pretty obvious that the Canadian Conservative Party of which I was I was referring to when I said conservatives love authority, have absolutely no libertarian values. Why libertarians would vote for them is really beyond me. They have done pretty much the exact opposite within every context of a libertarian policy, save for getting rid of the gun registry. Hence the reason I say they love authority.

I've provided many, you just refuse to acknowledge them. You write them off as being self-serving, or wrong based on your imaginary lines or where the wind usually blows. Why you are in a constant state of denial is anyone's guess? Maybe you're an oil groupie?

There are both liberal libertarians, and conservative libertarians. To claim libertarianism is strictly a right wing concept is silly. Libertarianism is a philosophy of the political centre because it combines liberal social values with free-market economic principles. What they have in common is the philosophy that people should have the freedom do do whatever they want, as long as what they are doing does not limit the freedoms of others. This is not to say that they believe in anarchy or lawlessness, nobody is arguing the need for laws and police, it's just about limiting the extent of government intervention. And keeping those in positions of authority in check just as much as they want to keep us in check. When you tip the scales in one direction to far you end up with a violent system like we have seen in other countries. Would you consider the NDP statist "left"?

Aerosol Cheese.

You're are in state of constant denial. Of course Fort Chip is no where near Edmonton I never said it is. Rural areas surround Edmonton, if you didn't know this well I suggest you get outside. You are drawing your imaginary line again. Get a clue.

Is that what the line up is for? I thought people just wanted to see the Peace Arch?? http://www.borderlineups.com/cam.php?BorderID=2 Ohhh wait.... nevermind, nobodies there.

About time! But in all seriousness you can just get an American feed nowadays, it's not difficult, no need to wait until 2017. CRTC needs to adapt and they are slowly learning that.

Is it really worth the drive though?

Doesn't make it less silly. I wasn't aware a belief in Jesus was needed to visit America? How do they test this at the border? Have the Americans invented a Jesus Machine? It must not be very hard to pass, they've let me in numerous times.

To the left the Soldiers are fine and in fact needed, it's the people telling them what to do that should always be questioned. I know many people on the right-side of politics that have just as much or more of a vendetta against police as some on the left. That I think has more to do with personal experience then which political party you vote for. Although Conservatives seem to love authority for some odd reason and have a tendency to never question said authority, unless that authority happens to be left-aligned.