bleeding heart

Albertan students are numb to being screwed over, and have become fatalistic about it?

So, you are unable to read basic English? That was never my impression before.

I disagree with this take on it. I do, mind you, very much agree that it is good, healthy, and wise to recognize the ways in which we might have it better than most of the world in so many respects. But by your reasoning, you shouldn't be concerned about the surveillance state or police brutality, because these things are so much more intrusive and oppressive elsewhere in the world.

Which is a preposterous argument...unless you provide solid evidence for the (highly anti-intuitive) claim. And as Wyly has already astutely pointed out, privatization does not always equal efficiency and superior results. That's free-market fundamentalism...and since it's a religious belief, it belongs in the religion forum. Hell, all you have to do is to pay attention to economic theory...and I mean the economic theory that most capitalists agree with and defend: the point of free markets is not effiency; it's profits. If it's profitable to be inefficient, then that is, by definition, the "proper" way to go. As Kevin O'Leary--the most ardent free market advocate on North American television, arguably--puts it: "I'd be a communist if I could make a buck at it." Wyly already pointed out the higher (not lower) costs of private education versus public. The same is true of health care: the US system, for example, spends more health care dollars per person on bureaucracy than does the Canadian system. Your problem is that you think it's more about the principle of efficiency and cost-savings than it is about profit. That's flatly untrue, as any capitalist worth his or her salt will quickly admonish you. Free markets work really well in many realms, and can be much more efficient. But not in every case, not by a long shot.

Military service: ok. Adult prison: ok. Voting: ok. But don't vote for them, and don't let them drink or smoke. For god's sake, they're just children!

Well done. I had actually forgotten about that sanctimonious reactionary.

We've got a self-described bully-troll on this forum...and he's not young at all.

I don't know, I don't play them either. But it's pretty obvious to me that they're a lot of fun.

Well, at the end of the day, to each his own, right? I like the movie Rambo, for example. Not everyone agrees that it's any good.

Yes. Wihout getting too graphic about it, our actions might be jerky and unwieldy and a bit comical at that moment...but yes, we can stop.

Hmm. Now, out of all the myriad words you might have chosen as a comparison to homosexuals...you chose "pedophiles." Why, may I ask?

That's not a Randian insight, and predates her by a heck of a long time. Heck, if the bar's that low, you must love me, too! I find it pretty contradictory. It reminds me of conservative elites complaining about liberal elites. Again, I'm not buying it. By definition, she preferred the most powerful people on Earth. These two novels don't belong in the same sentence. What about the intellectuals driving Nazism and Stalinism? (I don't mean their influences; I don't mean Nietzche or Marx; I"m talking about the intellectuals within these actual movements and regimes themselves.) After all, Ayn Rand openly admired an infamous child killer...something about the "masculine will" and "freedom from conscience." That's not admirable. That's degeneracy.

I like that guy, too.

Well, now that prison rape is deemed so hilarious, any pretence that you consider rape allegations to be serious or worthy of discussion are pretty much out the window, yeah? So....what's the issue then?

You mean its refusal to extradite the mass rapist and killer, Pinochet? Please.

"Promotes freedom." Except when they don't. A deviation from their normal behaviour, I suppose....except that the deviations somehow manage to continue apace...morphing into normalcy at...what point, exactly? I mean, it's not as if the freedom enablers topple elected leaders in favour of dictators (nor with Canada's help, incidentally, lords, no); or that they materially aid massive terrorism and mass slaughters. But if you prefer the narrative plagiarized from chidren's tales, have at it.

Well, that's because you're rational and fair-minded. Some posters...aren't.

Put it this way: point out that the American system is superior to ours...and she will not argue with you! Hopefully that spells out roughly how you're ignorant.

Well, I got to say that's a good answer, g. And by "appointed," yes, I meant the GG, but I get your distinction. And I also agree that the potential politicization of a President would be a very serious issue. If anything, I'd quibble with your "useless" designation, and counter that it could be much worse than useless...but that's maybe pedantic, as I take your point.

Yes, I'm not sure how I missed that pretty crucial fact. My apologies. But in reading the article, a lot of questions are instantly begged, and I assume underlines part of your position of situational flexibility. For example, posters have been assuming this all about information already gleaned through possible use of torture. Honestly, I can't imagine where this idea surfaced. The article, including in its quoting of the relevant document, says quite the opposite. That is, part of the concern, from human rights groups, O'Connor, and others, is about future possibilities of abuse, as instigated by both the receiving and giving of information to potential torturers.

Yes, it's odd.

I agree with your first point, and consider it one of the stronger arguments in favour of the status quo. But what of the second, the "appointed president" and his or her "uselessness." Is that so very far from what we have currently? (Not the useless part; the appointed part.)

"Another charge"???? There are no charges. I wonder, are people going to get tired of making this rather substantial factual mistake before or after everyone else gets tired of correcting them?

I do too; but I think a lot of the issues that people (even otherwise sympathetic to Obama) are having with the US system are a lot different than that Canadian fringe minority who want to do away with universal health care. Two very different issues, is what I'm saying.