Canuckistani

How so?

Just as both rich and poor people have the right to sleep under a bridge, so should rich and poor people have the right not to have medical insurance.

Take a look at BC and the HST. The people certainly cared about that, made their displeasure known, and we had a Premier at the top of his game have to step down and his successor agree to get rid of the HST. That's how it would work with a truly unpopular war too - say the Quebec conscription crisis. Govt spending vs revenue is a long term deal - people have lots of chances to vote for something different. But as I say, we all basically want something for nothing. A huge majority of Canadians want to maintain or increase social spending, but less than 50% are willing to pay higher taxes for it. They'll believe the right when they say that lower taxes will result in more govt revenues, when that doesn't work jump to the left with the siren song of tax the rich (with which I agree) but oh, no, not little ol 100k a year me, I'm not rich, I should pay less. Most people are going to have to pay more taxes and we'll have to cut some social spending if we want to pay off our debt. The govt is us, there's no way to avoid that. Yes the rich influence the govt more than their numbers warrant, but if voters were really unhappy about that they wouldn't keep voting for the same people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

There's a difference between being something and being painted to be something. Are you saying separatism is inherently racist? If so, between what two or more races is this conflict taking place?

Not my reading of her - she was making a prescription for society. John Gault doesn't seem like a very Neitzchian figure to me. Didn't even notice, thought that was the term used by others here. But fine, she built on sand, since I don't think she understood Neitzche at all. (I really make no apology for disparaging her). Of course my comment only goes so far, since I don't pretend to know Neitzche very well. But, from what I've come across, he's in a whole different universe than Rand.Again, Nietzche seems to have been on a spiritual quest. That is inherently a selfish or self centered act, even if your quest involves serving others. Tantra seems to have many elements in common with what Neitzche seems to have been up to, and it's a very dangerous practice. But I see no connection between that and what John Gault seems to be all about.

Ultimately the voters are responsible for the government. The one excuse the Greeks have is that the government colluded with Goldman Sachs to fool the EU about the debt situation, so how could the average voter know. But avoiding taxes is a national sport in Greece, and they voted to have cushy retirements schemes etc without having the means to pay for it. Same is true of every country. We may also be called upon at some point to make even bigger sacrifices. I hope that when the time comes we don't follow the siren call of either the right or the left that it can be done without pain. My bias is that the pain should be at the top, because that's where the money is.

I know little of Neitzche, but my impression is that he was writing aimed more at the individual. He wasn't making a prescription for society. Just his "stare long enough into the abyss and the abyss stares back at you" makes his contribution worthwhile. That's not from somebody who thinks they have society or even their own life all figured out. And the Uebermensch was not some Randian greed hog. It was a spiritual quest for going beyond conventional morality to self-liberation. And Neitzche paid a huge price for this quest - he didn't make it, but went crazy instead. The abyss got him. So what little I know of these two writers, if Rand stole his ideas, she stole something she didn't understand.

I'll play. If a woman gets a guy drunk and then gives him a blow job without his consent, that's sexual assault. You all are assuming that rape has to involve penetration of the vagina, but why, since it's the guy being raped? Here's wiki: Here's a question. Assange is charged with rape because he did not use a condom. How about if a woman lies about being on the pill, is that rape as well?

I absolutely blame the people. We all want something for nothing, and will follow any pol who promises it. I'm for hefty government spending to ensure income redistribution, social mobility and infrastructure that supports economic activity. So, I also have to be for hefty taxes. That includes taxes on the middle class. I don't support all the regressive taxation on the working poor tho - they have a hard enough time as it is.

Conversations, not so much. Hard to talk to true believers. But I'm going by what they say, and what the politicians who seem inspired by her try to do.

Quite possibly. For the people who follow her, it's another matter. Just like L Ron Hubbard didn't believe the crap he was putting out, but his followers do. But for people with a more collectivist bent, Rand is a good tonic. We all harbor greed and selfishness inside - it's the big mistake that Marx made that he thought it could be bred out of us. But just because we are greedy and selfish doesn't mean that's all we are or that we have to justify acting that way. We also have the capacity for co-operation and altruism. Devils and Angels. The question is which capacity do we want to nurture and how much? Without self interest, we wouldn't advance very far, but neither would be without co-operation - this has been true ever since we became humans.

Not innocuous, but maybe not as extreme as mental illness. Certainly somebody with anger issues. May be that they let off steam this way and it's for the good. Or, of course, the responses they get just send them over the edge for more drastic expressions of rage. I think we all harbor some of this inside us, and the net removes the social blocks that usually prevent its expression. I'm certainly a bit nastier on the net than in real life.

There you go. Or the various religions cults that purport to lay it all out for you. Simple, clear solutions. Too bad they're wrong.

Yes, the settlers and their supporters in the Israeli parliament. The reason they're not going all terrorist is because they have the whole Israeli army to protect them. Withdraw that protection and they'd probably act just as viciously as the Palestinians. When God has given you some land, you have to be willing to fight and kill for it, ask the Canaanites.

Yes. Better to take a quick sharp pain than just keep drawing it out. I'm not sure how Iceland and Greece compare tho. Iceland always seemed to have a pretty decent standard of living - few people and lots of resources. Greece is the opposite to that. But of course going by our pro immigration people, if Iceland had just flooded the place with immigrants, they'd all be much richer now.

It was written to have a citizen army, the way Switzerland has now. But the first part of the amendment seems to just be ignored, with the second half, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the focus. But that's not followed either, since there are so many exemptions to that right. The idea was to have a civilian infantry armed with the latest technology - that would be at the least full auto M16s should be legal for pretty well everybody, including the right to 'bear' them. Not really a good idea. Obviously the right to keep and bear arms needs to be infringed.

Up to the judge. So Harper and Guergis share a suite? I always thought they were called in-law suites.

So (Igloo of Parliament)Huckabee isn't just interested in forcing women to carry babies they don't want to term. Yep, that's an important point alright.

You're absolutely right, I should have been more clear in my meaning. Forgot I was communicating with Hilary Clinton.

I haven't heard that. If true, yep, that's rape. Remember that he hasn't even been charged, never mind convicted. I did year that one of the women complained that he was more interested in his computer than her.

And this distinction matters why?

Rape.