Charles Anthony

That depends on what you call innocent does it not,I classify the children inside the compound as innocent victims particularly when the compound was surrounded and the "criminals" could have been starved out instead of attacked. I will not comment on the all of the adult Branch Davidians. No. I do not believe the hostilities would stop. I believe history would either continue or repeat itself.

That sounds like blind reflexive prejudice to me. How much condemnation do they have to do to avoid your punishment? Their religion does stay with the laws of Canada and you are punishing them for the actions of other people. Therefore, yes, that makes you anti-muslim. I am curious to know: what are your thoughts on atheists?

It will be interesting to see if the Church of England treats them the same as it would treat a heterosexual priest who commits fornication.

Not if the Church of England considers fornication a sin among heterosexuals.

SORRY! I went back and corrected those mistakes!

Sounds like you are setting him up for a trick question. <heh> The only way it can be a trick question is if: 1) my distinction (Liberals cater to free-loaders) is correct or 2) there is no difference between the parties or 3) some other "sanity" about the Liberal party that no wants to admit. Who in the current Liberal party supported the corruption of the sponsorship scandal? I need names and quotes of what was said. The people who ran the sponsorship program. Have you forgotten who they are already? Long before the sponsorship scandal, the federal Liberal party throughout the 1970's nickel-and-dimed some Canadians to buy the votes of other Canadians. Please do not tell me you forget something as divisive as the National Energy Program. Nothing was new in the 1990's except that the abuse of taxpayers and the corruption got worse. In what sense? Why did you vote Liberal? what do they offer that the current ruling Conservative party does not offer to you? In your opinion, should Canadians treat them as if they had a completely clean slate? In other words, should Canadians completely forget about the Liberal party's past and treat the Liberals as if it was a completely new party? I agree with that criticism. I hope he does.

Maybe the reluctance to call this a "civil war" in Iraq comes from the fact that the Shia are fighting the Sunni. Perception is everything. What side of this civil war is the U.S.A. on? the Shia (Hezbollah is Shia)? or the Sunni (Saddam Hussein is Sunni)?

Does the Church of England have a policy on how to treat heterosexual priests who commit fornication?

I wonder what would qualify as a "happily married couple" would be in your opinion. Uh.... be explicit. Men are dullards. Also, men hate it when women are cryptic with their demands -- it leaves to much opportunity for women to say: "That is not what I meant!" after the fact.

I stand corrected. I thought more about it and Waco, Texas came to mind. That is exactly what happened and innocent people were taken out. I agree that a state would do that but I would still see immorality in that action.

Everybody who supported the corruption in the past Liberal party is certainly corrupt -- in my book, that includes the people who voted for them. I will briefly explain why. The Liberal party reputation is one of offering something-for-nothing promises. As a result, they cater to free-loaders who think nothing of mooching off of their neighbor. The Liberal party elite exploited the naivety of the Liberal electorate (as they have done in the past long before Adscam) and the Liberal electorate repeatedly gave them the power to do so. If more Canadians did NOT look to their government for pie-in-the-sky handouts, there would be less corruption. Now, I have an other question: what is the major differences between the current Liberal party and the current ruling Conservative party in your opinion?

I have no evidence. I have a question though: are you happy that your money went to make rich millionaire "friends" of the Liberal government even more rich with the Adscam?

Hmm.... Why start a new thread???

Guys, surely our efforts are better spent feeding the pigeons instead, right?

I imagine if the mafia started bombing people (nice racist comparison there, btw) the police would go in and arrest them.You are missing his point. His point is that the American authorities would be selective in their attack. They would go in and arrest the culprits. The would not create "collateral damage" to attack the Mafia. By the way, I did not take his comparison as racist. Yes, he could have said "little asia" or "little latina" or "little eire" or "little whateverania" but the Italian mafia in America is real and we have a LOT of movies and novels based on its history. It is a good analogy to illustrate his point.

- as it is in any other smaller scale situation. I think you are completely wrong. Taxation has always existed. Are you associating taxation-public-spending economies prospered directly as a result of taxation?? the proserity would not have been as great without taxation? No. Most third world nations are poor because of powerful people coercing and muscling around weaker people.

I have that same hope and belief too. This is exactly what we see elsewhere in history. If we went back about fifty years ago, who would have thunk that Japan and the U.S.A. would be friendly trading partners?? Nobody! If we went back about one hundred years ago, who would have thunk that France and Germany would be back at business?? Nobody! However, they did and they drove the development of the European Union. If we went back a few more hundred years ago, who would have thunk that France and England would be side-by side in battle against Germany?? Nobody! The reality is that when heads cool off, as suggested "to find a peaceful solution they first need to be seperated and given quite some time to heal" people of all races do not want to hate eachother. It is easier to be at peace with other people even if you disagree 100% with their religion.

In general, yes. However, I will still argue that the mechanics of it make it wrong. If I am a beer producer and I ship my product to beer stores, my business benefits if taxes subsidize gasoline prices. No. That is where you are very wrong. I will explain how an understanding of "lawlessnes" contradicts your premise with simple modern examples. The classic examples are the plastic bank/credit card and the soda can. Every wonder how it is that all of the different companies make them the EXACT same size? Try to explain that with "rules" that must be enforced. Yes. The distinction that I am making is that if we all have a more profound understanding of how competitive and true capitalist economies operate, we will realize that there is a lot of harmony that does not need coersion and the enforcement of rules. A lot of cooperation occurs naturally. However, a lot of cronyism requires coersion.

I smelled something funny early on! Who is abusing this dicsussion board...!Be on the look out for someone called SAGA4 later on. I would say how I found out but that will just tip the culprit off.

I feel like I am getting caught by friendly-fire here in this thread!!! This generalization is like sweeping dirt under a rug without focussing on anybody's responsibility. Show me how any single person agrees to the "mutual commitment" at all. No, we have not. That is like saying "as a society, we have collectively determined that when it rains, the crops will grow." Unfortunately, the only power that YOU have on how your government conducts itself is by holding up a single umbrella or alternatively, dumping your rain-barrel. In other words, you have to pay your taxes and shut up. You have no practical influence at all. That is not fair at all. You skipped over the true extent of the injustice. YOU may be happy paying back but your decision to support taxation policy is not just: "This is my fair share. I will throw it into the pot to "help" everybody." Your decision is more accurately: "This is my fair share and that is your fair share and this is his fair share and that is her fair share and so on and so on and EVERYBODY MUST throw all of that into the pot whether they are happy with the amount or not." This just means "let's cut taxes".No. It means more than that. [or at least I am trying to make it mean more than that! it is my fault for not being clear...] What I am suggesting is that we understand how economies operate WITHOUT government taxation and focus tax cuts in those directions. I am suggesting a decision-making model on how to trim the fat where none exists. Lo an behold! Here is an example of how to apply it: This can also be extended to public schooling and education. A lot of jurisdiction still require parents to pay for public schools even if their children go to private schools or are homeschooled. In a purely non-publicly funded (in other words, zero taxation economy) health care, we would see user fees and privatization. Understanding how they work, even if they are hypothetical, help to integrate those policies into a combination economy. A lot of arguments against user fees and privatization in health care are thin: "No! That will create two tiered health care!" like as if we did not have multi-tiered health care already. Those arguments are as intelligent and workable as saying: "No! They are bad!" despite the mechanics of user fees and privatization objectively reducing the burden on the system. Combining the mechanics of both systems will reduce the burden of taxation.

Yes -- like any other business. The difference is that they do not expropriate funds. I have no doubt that the true demand for charity can be met. CAVEAT: I am being nitpicky here. The "amount" means nothing. The result and delivery of service is the important issue. Of course not. They can all be met by business. They do not need to expropriate funds. I agree. In fact, my belief is worse. I believe that much of your baby (military and infrastructure) should rightly be thrown out. I will explain. Very little (if not all) of what we call "infrastructure" needs to be built or maintained by public works. Private enterprise can do the same if "government" did not monopolize various markets. Most military expeditions can be paired down to serving commercial interests. Thus, rather than crony-capitalists using politicians or conscription or making people feel guilty for not serving their country, private companies should hire militia and mercenaries to do their dirty work instead. Furthermore, if the corruption of government can be taken out of the picture, I believe warring factions can be paid off to avoid war. Everybody has a price. ------- I realize zero taxation is practically hypothetical. One issue is repeatedly never being addressed. I fear that I am not being clear enough. I will preface this issue with the following analogy: a school test score. We all aim to get an A+ on a test by studying all of the material and getting NONE of the answers wrong. Most of us are not going to get zero wrong on the test. Nevertheless, 100% is still our baseline for judging our performance and improvement. Admittedly, people will not relinquish the comfort of taxation, I am proposing that we evaluate our current taxation and public spending using ZERO taxes as our baseline even if we accept some taxation. Rather than thinking our taxman and the "government" are entitled to our money, we should see it as the reverse: we can get our services privately, therefore, "Taxman, the onus is on YOU to serve us and to serve us fairly if not better." The gun registry and Adscam and polls such as Federal Taxes, Do you feel you get your money's worth? and charity, just to name a few, demonstrate room for improvement and the need for a change in attitude.

A nation of one. Feels like a breath of fresh air to me! I am saying more than that. I am suggesting a baseline from which to gauge current taxation patterns and how to plan tax changes. I believe that a clear acceptance of taxation for what it truly is -- an imposition -- makes for a wise starting point. Defining taxation as an obligation to a nebulous social contract is perfect for hiding waste and duping the tax-payer. Our current taxation is less than a century old. I doubt that public waste and cronyism is much younger. I will paint it for you: I believe in charity and I recognize charity. I have a lot of faith in my fellow man to be charitable to one another. I recognize charity today succeding at helping people who are truly in need. Charities do not have the irresponsible budgets and revenue sources of the gun registry nor of Adscam.

If the "U.N." and "most countries" is our authority on military action, let us use those rules. Has Canada officially declared war against Afghanistan? Has Afghanistan officially declared war against Canada?

Neither. I am a fool who believes military propaganda and lets history repeat itself.

What exactly do you mean by collusion? Do you think that the gas stations speak to each other and decide on a price? They may also be struggling to survive. Since their products are exactly the same, the only way they can increase sales is by decreasing price.