lost&outofcontrol

The United states hired Posada not knowing what he would do during the contras period? The United States trained him to be a terrorist not knowing he would go around blowing things up? Accessory to murder

So I can have absolute power over the minority by forcing them to accept a bill but I still don't have absolute power because the constitution says so?! Why is it so complicated for you to just accept to logical development of the "will of [a] majority" imposing itself upon the minority to our current political system? Absolute power does not imply power over everything in existence. One can have absolute power over one and not all. The majority in parliament has absolute power within the framework imposed by the constitution over the minority. The majority cannot tell the minority to walk around naked in parliament but it can force the minority to accept Kyoto.

The US supported him until at least 1990. But the issue of when they stopped supporting him is moot. Why would they support him in the first place? Why would they train someone to be a terrorist. How can we rely on the judgment of such a .gov? If they grew a consciousness overnight and decided that they would not support him anymore why not just arrest him? Watch this:

If I'm proud to be Canadian does it imply that the poor schmuck born in Haiti should be ashamed that he was born in one of the worst off(in just about every respect) countries in the world.

You agree that he was in the US government's pocket for 30 or so years and that the US gov. stopped supporting him in 1998. Why do you think he was hired during the contras period? What do you think the contras did in central America?

The majority is imposing itself on the minority by the use of absolute power within the framework imposed by the constitution. I'm not suggesting that we have to have unanimity at all. At the very root of our political system is a contradiction which forces an imposition of a will. Whether some of the minority votes with the majority or not is inconsequential. If the NDP were to vote with the Conservatives on a bill, they would be part of the majority imposing itself upon the minority. Yes I am.

The original poster said: Using the definition used by the United States of a terrorist, I think Luis Posada Carriles fits the bill. If the United States employs a know terrorist (they trained him to be one after all) for its own personal use while it runs wild in the middle east looking for another one then how can we trust their judgment. How can we posit any judgment for fact?

Let’s take an example then. How did the Kyoto bill pass if the conservatives could (stop) hinder the process? You cannot have it both ways. Either the "will of [a] majority", no matter how confined it is, can impose itself on the minority or it cannot. If the minority is dead set against the bill (which happens every time a vote is taken, if not then why would they vote at all?) then how can Kyoto or any other bill pass without unanimity? [quick edit] You apparently equate dictatorship with absolute power upon all. Confine it to your "constitutional democracy" as I have done just so we can get this discussion anywhere.

I promise this to be the last time I ask you a question* but why is it a contradiction? * It's not like you've answered any of my other questions.

Yes I can and if you would of followed my links you would of seen that this man is guilty of both.

So convenient is it not M.Dancer?

I guess you only read the parts of my link that you wanted. Cubana Flight 455, 1976 Tourist bombings of 1997

I enjoy wasting time. My position is that the ruling majority has dictatorial power within a predetermined (constitutional) framework. If a majority can impose its will upon a minority such as the liberals did with Kyoto then how is this not a dictatorial decree?

Funny how you equate criticisms to hate.

So you agree that the "will of a majority" can and does impose itself upon the minority. You agree that a majority government can and does impose itself upon the other parties. This as you so elegantly put is the way our political system works. We then both (at the very least) agree that each decision is given (during a majority government) as dictatorial decrees. Now that we have established this as fact we can move on. Do you agree that decisions should be taken in a dictatorial manner? Unfortunately, it appears as tough you want the picture of the cake instead just of eating it. Overall we do have democracy since most* major political parties get a turn at telling us what to do. If all individual decisions within this Whole which we call a democracy are taken as dictatorial decrees then are we not in a dictatorship? The philosopher Hegel once said : * 2 different parties for the past 140 years or so

Evil indeed The US knows of his involvement in various illegal activities since since the early '60s (the US hired him themselves a few times). Yet he is still a free man more than 40 years later...

You did not answer my question. Can the "will of a majority" impose itself upon the minority?

Definition of a terrorist

You do not think that the majority has an absolute hold of power for the duration of their term? So the "will of a majority" can impose itself upon the minority? If the "will of a majority" is always the happy consciousness in this farce you call a political system then what is it if not a dictatorship?

Why should a party with a majority of seats have a dictatorship over the State's affair for 4 years? Do we merely pretend to live in a democracy? I would think that most people believe the only fair system is one which allows everyone at once to hold power. The State’s socio-political apparatus is not something outside of us. We have to stop seeing it as something which occasionally one of us gets to use to impose ourselves. I though that was a good thing.

White man's burden?

Just like the one we engineered in '53? <sarcasm>Goody, I sure Iran's citizens cannot wait!</sarcasm> What is your definition of 'civilized'? Ahmadinejad: "I am not anti-Semitic" Palestinians should Decide on Two-State Solution

huh?!

Mattel apologizes to China for toy recalls

Why are you defending the interest of the company? The board of directors can blame anyone it wants. You on the other hand hired/payed the company for a product that is unsafe. You have no direct link with the contractor, only to the company itself (or the immediate seller). Funny you should post something about China's labour situation. ‘Undue influence’: Wal-mart, Google, GE press China to curb workers’ rights Agreed