jdobbin

I don't mind paying for something if it can be justified. Do you think a no bids contract can be justified in this particular case?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home Think it passes the smell test?

I don't think I understand the last sentence.

Israel has asked for a force that that will oversee the ceasefire. The U.S. has that force. The U.N. and every other nation of the world don't have the authority to what the U.S. can do.

Isn't the military a free service? Wouldn't it be better if it were privatized?

I see. Is there something similar from the federal court on something like the Six Nations claim?

There is always room for improvement but I believe in taxes. I don't know a government on the planet that doesn't.

Which is why the only force capable of quelling what is happening in Lebanon is American forces. The U.S. should send the 15,000 to 30,000 or more troops needed there and be prepared to stay for at least several years.

And yet his popularity in areas where he needs more seats has sunk back to the election day numbers. Minority numbers.

I've never read that judgement. Is Delgamuukw a federal decision?

The situation is not likely to be a peaceful one then.

Australia, a country similar to ours has equalization. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0460-e.htm

Is there a reason that you take the religion of the people that settled in North America? And if no one takes personal responsibility for what they do and say, no one is really accountable.

This is what the Supreme Court will decide this fall. If they do, it will be first time that rights associated to a non-Native group are affirmed by the court. No one is sure what it will eventually mean.

Remember, this was about the Metis originally. Their issues are separate from First Nations issues.

Every country is different with how it transfers money. I have no idea what the percentages are in other nations when it comes to transfer payments. Some people in the U.S. say that defence spending in the U.S. is a form of regional transfer payment because Congress ensures spending goes to all 50 states. If that is the case, then 49% of U.S. transfers go out regionally. http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

But what does it all mean? Does it mean that all non-Natives can be evicted from a province like B.C.?

What does it mean for B.C. if all the titles are legal? Does B.C. cease to exist? Will non-Natives be evicted from the land?

Nationhood has always required some form of taxation since before the Romans. I'd say the responsibilities of the citizen in a nation is to obey the rules whatever they are. And you're making me blush about walking around naked. <heh> I didn't violate the walking around naked bit but my wife did at the public beach (far enough from young eyes I assure you). Nothing stopped her although the RCMP might have put a crimp in her plans. As for the argument about property, I think that only a nation can recognize your personal property and protect it. And the only way they can protect it is through taxation. You can try to protect what you think is your property but if you do not have help recognizing it and protecting it, you won't have it for long.

Yes. There is always room for improvement but given the overall services of the government, we get what we pay for.

Sure. Taxation is wrong because it is collected by force. Nationhood by its very nature is an act of force. I can't opt out of Canada in terms of my responsibilities anymore than I can give up paying taxes. Rules of society keep us from building where we want to, walking around naked, taking whatever food we can find, not recognizing someone else's property...well, I could go on. I would be thrown in the clink if I disobeyed any of these rules. And I would be forced to comply. So is it wrong?

This is pretty bad. It doesn't help the level of trust that is needed between the American military and the Iaqi people. It certainly doesn't help Bush either when he trying to say that the U.S. is force for good in Iraq.

I think the Labanese made peace with themselves which basically meant let each side do what they want in a certain part of the country. That was enough for Hezbollah to being arming itself for a fight because they know the Lebanese army wasn't going to go to war with it. I think at some point that the Isrealis will want a ceasefire but Hezbollah won't. So whatever troops are there will be conflict with Hezbollah. I can't think of who would be brave enough to step in for what could be years.

Is there evidence that there is more anti-semitism in today's Europe and that is guiding their policy on asking for a ceasefire?

Do you think that both sides want peace and wouldn't attack the preacekeepers?