Charles Anthony

Why should military spending stay the same? Looking at numbers is too simplistic and unconvincing. We may not have the same need be go to war as we did in the past. Not to sound flippant but Canadians do not spend the same amount of money on fur-coats as they did in the past either. We have found synthetic alternatives. Canadians depend on trading with Asia more now than they did before the Second World War too. Must I believe that the supply and demand for international war or Canada's military technological abilities stay constant? You are asking for blind trust in world military and commercial powers. Canada was involved in The Great War To End All Wars (is that not what the all-knowing history-writing winning-side super-powers called it?) too. For what noble cause did we send so many young Canadians to their death during the First World War?

-- but not the poor. That is is exactly the justice and security and law and order that serves the poor alive today.We already have free-market two-tiered justice. We choose not to see it.

No. It shows that you want other people to pay for your entertainment and you want to impose your way. Forgive me but saying "collectively want" means nothing. How can you possibly determine what people collectively want? We can agree that everybody wants food and water. However, are you going to say exactly what type of food everybody must eat??? without giving them choice?? and forcing them to pay for the same meal?? That is what you are doing with museums. Who cares?? If governments were better at determining what healthy food we should be eating would you give them the power to tell us what food to eat? What makes museums so special? I will tell you what makes museums so special: they allow hiding cronyism. I have been "enriched" by publicly funded museums too -- that does not make their funding right. I could be "enriched" by Robin Hood who steals from the rich and gives to the poor -- that does not make such enrichment right. Yes: convincing people that governments have the right to steal. Viewing art is a social experience, where people mix and meet. Staring at digital portraits in front of a computer screen is not as enriching.A social experience?? What else do you want it to be? Can blind people get a crony-gallery non-enrichment tax-deduction? or are they somehow indirectly enriched through some trickle-down effect by your own personal enrichment?

You have NOT encountered many leftists. I started out as an extreme right-wing statist and swung away to become an extreme right-wing non-statist.

Rather than trying to promote equality before the law for everybody (inevitably a neverending venture -- next: what washrooms will transitional-transexuals be allowed to use?) I would suggest that it makes more sense to ask that the state butts itself out. In other words, demand that the state has nothing to do with matters of marriage or sex-rights. You have the ability to take us baby steps towards promoting more freedom rather than more bureaucracy.

Aaah!!! The TRUE conspiracy finally comes out!!Pardon the thread-drift but are Judy Garland and Andy Warhol anomalies?

I agree. What should be that mandate? What criteria should the federal government follow when it chooses which private museums to buy -- according to you?

Both. At least make a statement on the ones you were talking about.

Big deal. Why is that a problem?

Be more precise. Do you demand that the federal government accept or refuse to pick up the operating costs of museums?

Fine. I take your word for it. In that case, they should be sold off. What do you think? You are trying to prove me inconsistent?? First, the Portrait Gallery. Second, the Ripley's Museum in Vancouver -- that I never heard of before you added it to the thread. Now, the Human Rights Museum. Do I have to know the financial arrangements of EVERY SINGLE museum (in existence and in proposal) in Canada and make an individual statement upon each one??? Is this a game of trivial pursuit? Stop spinning. I have already said unequivocally in post #86 -- which you quoted -- that the government should get out of all museums.

How else should someone define laws? That is a false dilemma. It is only a problem because we have a state-monopolized and coerced legal system. If we had state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues, the same problems would arise. People on the MakebeLeafless teams would have one opinion on how the rules should be and people on the Ruenegade teams would have a different opinion on how the rules should be. There would be no objective way of reaching common ground. Might would mean right. The state would dictate the rules according to some ridiculous bureau-democratic shenanigan protocol. Ultimately, certain teams would ALWAYS get the short end of the stick and other teams would get a free ride. Thankfully, we do not have state-monopolized and coerced participation in hockey leagues. Thus, the Leafs play in one league of their choosing and the Gators play in a different league of their choosing. You have no more right to cling to the righteousness of state coersion as do people who cling to irrational attitudes regarding morality. If we treated the legal system like any other marketable service as found in Hugoland (reference: exhibit #1 and exhibit #2 and exhibit #3), none of this would be an issue. Those who believed that Homosexuality is an anomaly would be standing in line BEHIND the people waiting for hoola-hoops and beaver-skin hats. The reality of the free market would knock sense into their ridiculous demands. The market will clear the irrational arguments. People need to have faith in the free market.

Whose ass got bitten by GMO products? Please explain. A clone is the same. I can understand somebody being horrified at the practice and the technology. However, people who have a problem eating clones or genetically modified products should take a high school biology course. There is no reason to fear eating a clone any more than eating any other animal from the same factory farm.

If a Canadian DID NOT wear a maple leaf, that Canadian would be automatically assumed to be American. A Canadian would not advertize that fact if he believed he was truly different from Americans.

Thank you. I stand corrected. Stephen Harper only lives a hop and a skip away. I knew of only the one in Prince Edward Island. Either way, the point is moot. What are you? some kind of anarchist??? Compared to Trudeaumaniacal bureaucratic rule, ANY private component is a HUGE stretch. Thanks for more trivia. However, I will cut it short here because my encyclopedia memory is faltering. More importantly, none of this trivia furthers the issue. Are you happy with a shared private-public museum? What is YOUR opinion? Wherever it is located, are you demanding that taxpayers (who will never get to see this stupid gallery) have to pay for ALL of it?

That depends: VHS or DVD? If it is VHS, my answer is No. If it is DVD, my answer is a provisional Yes. I would give it a try. Reason: I am addicted to subtitles/closed-captioning.

Take a wild guess! The national portrait gallery that-nobody-has-ever-seen is being privatized. That is a step towards less stupid government. Any government service expenditure waste which can be privatized is a step in the right direction. In case decades of Trudeaumania have not made it more than obvious, less government is better than more government -- for people who earn honest livings that is. Where it stays is irrelevent. The properties should all be sold off to the highest bidder -- as should all "government" properties. If the highest bidders choose to continue using it as a national portrait gallery so be it. Otherwise, to hell with it. By the way, the National Hockey League has teams that are not profitable yet they are funded by rich men who want to see hockey stay alive. Correct but only indirectly. What the government should have is irrelevent. The government should not be spending our money on museums. You are getting ahead of me. Everything should be private -- unless you are a parasitic crony. [Although it does not change the premise of your question, I will take it for granted if you say that the Ripley's museum is private. However, I do not know. The economy of PEI is peculiar and incestuous. I have no reason to trust any operation there to be free of government interference.] In the age of digital art and the internet, we do not need a national portrait gallery open to the public. Only thieves benefit from a National Portrait Gallery.

What is happening to our National Portrait Gallery? Ironically, that is correct. The Globe And MailInterestingly, Encana's head-office is in Stephen Harper's Calgary riding.

Proves your point??? The fact that Newfies are leaving Newfoundland to seek work disproves your point. "Too much" as compared to the pitance some industries are willing to pay for actual work?Correct. The alternative is not Employment Insurance but rather a twisted free-lunch: poor people (who work for a pittance) are taxed and subsidize non-working rich (who do not work) but collect puny-but-equal-or-greater-than-working-wages government cheques.

No, the mother should not be charged for negligence. The burden of raising her FAS child is enough of a repercussion for her actions. Oh!!!!! I forgot! We have an almighty State to pick up after ourselves and absolve us of any of our own responsibilities! Silly me! More practically and along the same lines, should a couple who knows they carry genes for a congenital disorder be charged if they give birth to a child with said disorder?? I know a couple who want kids. However, they know that in all likelihood their potential children will have a fatal inheritable lung disease. Therefore, they are adopting. However, what if the chances were only 50%, would it be negligent for them to reproduce? What would be a cut-off negligence-percentage?? Nobody can define that. My answer is still the same: No, the mother should not be charged for negligence. Here is a different way of looking at the situation: should a pregnant mother who drives wrecklessly or drinks alcohol be encouraged by her peers to have an abortion?

Bloc Quebecois

It does not sound like you want to get off the island. There may not be bad publicity but there is certainly bad comedy. This steps into the direction of the advertizing debate. Can this bad publicity change what people want or just tell them that it is still available?

You will never be able to draw that conclusion. You will never know whether people vote DionLiberal based on the environment or based on a Liberal-promised free lunch.

lassooed back into the corral from Outside of Alberta, Canada is cheap -- Another indication of a distinct society? With all due respect, I honestly think that is too bad for you.I do agree CA, I've never had to really do without, so it's hard for me to imagine what others go through. I come from a rather privledged upbringing, never were super rich... I still went to public school... but I've never gone hungry or didn't have Christmas/birthday presents. I'm likely a shallower, more materialistic person because of it.I think it's just devasting to think that a child could see that. Maybe it makes people stronger, a year possibly. But if it's a consistant occurance for the kid, they lose sight that their life can be better and later on follow the same path as their parents. If you give them a taste of success, I truly believe they will chase it. I really like that last sentence. I believe it is a perfect focus for successful charity. The problem with a Toy Mountain is that, at best, it does NOT provide a taste of success and at worst, it provides a taste of dependence. Some people succeed at overcoming those obstacles. However, I concede that not everybody does and thus, I understand the benefits of uniforms and lunches. You are right, such conditions are not enjoyable. However, do not make the mistake of believing it is a one-way course to failure. The cycle of financial-poverty does not have to be real. Based on post #56 above, I am sure TheLone&Us-FleaBag would agree too.

I find Toy Mountain peculiar because there is an over OVER abundance of toys in all of the used (Salvation Army, Goodwill, Value Village, etc.) stores. New toys are not necessary. I grew up with used, second-hand and charity toys. We had more than we needed. With all due respect, I honestly think that is too bad for you. My most memorable Christmas (and truly one of the few that I can recall) was one in which we each got a box of coconut-cream chocolates, an orange and a handful of walnuts and pecans. It was only years later that my oldest sister explained how truly desperate my parents were financially at the time. To this very day, my eyes well up each time I think back. I doubt that I will ever appreciate how heartbreaking that Christmas must have been for my parents. Toy Mountain only accepts brand-new still-sealed toys.