Figleaf

Reported. It wasn't an insult. It's a diagnosis. Your pathetic evasion is insulting.

What I demand is equal rights for everyone. Again, marriage is not a "right". Equality (as per s.15 of the Charter) is the relevant 'right'. Statutory marriage is a government legislated matter to which everyone has an equal right.

To be defamatory it has to be untrue and serve to damage your reputation. I know nothing about the former, but it's got little prospect of doing the latter, considering.

I think it's because the same immaturity that impells them to be insulting represents a deeper lack of self-reflection which plays out as an apparent hypocrisy.

Reported.

Oh yeah. And what do you have to contribute that can shed any light on the issue?

Reported.

The sad thing is you have no idea how silly that statement is. You are probably totally impervious to the knowledge that your comment there is illogical and self-contradictory.

Hm. How would you know that?

Did anyone notice today that even the normally fellatial Globe and Mail editorial criticised this latest tory outrage as simply an effort smear the Liberals. With Steve in charge, I suppose we can soon expect Layton and Dion to be subject to house arrest and their supporters 'disappeared'.

He didn't really come up with anything new, outside of class analysis. As an "observational economist", all he did was identify value-added and paint it as 5 different types of "alienation" with the help of Feuerbach. In other words, he simply took what Adam Smith and others had already discovered and rewrote it with a scary soundtrack and sinister lighting. I have to part company from you there. Das Kapital is an important and original analysis of economic value that is both different and beyond previous efforts in that direction -- not necessarily determinative or authoritative, true, but substantial nonetheless.

Don't miss your chance to vote!

If you're not Rod Love, how do you know what the ins and outs of each Conservative Party smear or evasion even before they release them to the press? I'll give you credit, Rod, Ricki, whatever your name is ... you're plugged right in to the CPC pipeline.

Scary.

I think you know what Hamas is, but Israel had nothing to do with creating Hamas. Hamas grew as an armed wing of the Islamic fund. Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt in the 1920s. It evolved into a miltant Islamist movement. There is a huge ME industry churning out misinformation which caters to the needs of people who will believe what want to believe, especially when it comes to painting Israel as the bad guy. Oh, well then, that clears that up.

So, what's his name, this new man in your life?

Ummm, if he medicates at all, isn't that manipulating his appearance. Surely the 'unmanipulated' appearance is whatever he's like without any meds at all.

That rather depends on your definitions, doesn't it? Sure does. Marx spawned a "grand theory", in that it explains all things everywhere and always. That is its strength and its flaw in one. It's helpful as a scholarly tool in some cases. Marxian class analysis, by which I mean the simple treatment of people as divisions based on economic groups, is a lens through which to examine social dynamics. It can be very useful, and it's a relatively new way of looking at things. Unfortunately the subtext to both Marx and Engels is thoroughly normative, and it seems difficult for most people to seperate the normative from the analytical. Another problem with class analysis is that it is only one stream of Marxian thought, but it's often taken as a totality...researchers all too often assume the causality of Marx along with the analysis of class, and that leads folks down all sorts of garden paths. Probably the greatest flaw in class analysis is that scholars have taken it and run right out of the ballpark with it. So-called "Marxist feminists" have done an end run around Marx's economic classes by positing women a class by virtue of gender instead of economics. Homosexuals, race activists, handicapped activists and everyone else who can possibly set themselves apart from hegemonic society have adopted the same class analysis, although it has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxian economic class analysis. There is even a school of international relations represented by Wallerstein and others that posits an economic class relationship between nations...this is where the "imperialism" meme comes from. The irony would have Marx doing somersaults in his grave. Having said all that, Marxian class analysis is something new and quite brilliant if it's used as an analytical tool. Everything else about Marxian thought (especially the early Marx) is essentially a rehash of Kant, Hegel and other philosophers. There's nothing new in the so-called "Marxian dialectic". Hegel was there long before and explained it so much better than Marx's turgid attempt. I think you're being a bit reductionist and harsh with your characterization of some of those interest groups, but otherwise that seems like a sound analysis. I agree particularly with the part I italicized. Marx's flaws as a political theoretician are regretable, considering his strengths as an observational economist.

August, if you are complaining about posters who espouse so-called-conspiracy theories, all I can see in your complaint is a form of special pleading. You don't like what they have to say, so you try to characterize them as something unacceptable. But all they are is posters following the rules, expressing political views that you don't seem to like. Before we can indulge your prejudice in this regard, you need to explain why different rules should apply to conspiracy theorists than should apply to, for example, seemingly professional party hacks?

Multiculturalism will not kill society. Ignorance and bigotry can. Poverty and unemployment kills a society. If multiculturalism kills society, then why not just segragate everything again? Have we made no social advancements in the last few centuries? How does the nice elderly Lebanese woman next door destroy our society? Also do you realize that Canada and the US had depended on immigration from all over the world in order to continue to grow. How has it killed our society? I don't see it dead or even dying. And this society is great because of immigration and multiculurasmsmsms... Even other white people have different customs and traditions. And some would offend the skin off you. But you have not complained about that. Even your statement of 'whites built this society', they destroyed another society in the process(native american indians) or are you denying that? There was no chance for multiculturism. White man came and took everything. And now you want to deny what everyone else wants when you cannot even take the high ground because the society that was built by the white man destroyed another. There was no tolerance at all. I can't really do anything but present this post as a superlative example of the mind-numbing naivetee that is leading us down the garden path. It's a product of headinthesand oblivionism.[emphasis added] Then don't bother.

So, now the Harper government has dragged us down to the level of Malaysia where the rulers use the courts to attack their political opponents. Disgusting. It looks like by the time Harper is finished, he'll make Duplessis look good.

Criminal Code of Canada (see ss. 119-134): http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-...al=50&length=50 "Former MP refuses to confirm or deny he got rich payout to vacate seat for Day Canadian Press Published: Saturday, March 24, 2007" http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...7653b90&k=37328 Important excerpts: Former Okanagan Coquihalla MP Jim Hart issued a statement ... But the statement only muddied already murky waters about whether any financial exchange ever took place ... Hart said ... [Stockwell] Day told his first caucus meeting in Ottawa that anyone who resigned early "would bear no financial losses." In 2000, Day had just been elected leader of the Canadian Alliance and was seeking a safe riding to run in a byelection for a seat in the House of Commons. Hart stepped aside and Day won ... [in the fax] Hart detailed the amounts that he had been promised by [Rod] Love and expressed frustration at delays in getting the money. ... Hart wrote to party executive director Glen McMurray. "... My resignation was contingent upon this negotiation."

Well, presumably we would get value for money, so the question is, would nationalizing the oil industry give Canada a positive ROI? Presumably because the oil industry is a better investment. If you believe in the Humboldt Peak theory, then oil is also a strategic asset, as well as being a sure bet investment.

Shares x Price = Market Capitalization: ECA 777,900,000 x 60 = 46,674,000,000 COS 471,000,000 x 28 = 13,188,000,000 PCA 497,538,385 x 46 = 22,886,794,000 IMO 952,988,000 x 44 = 41,931,472,000 NXY 262,513,206 x 70 = 18,375,910,000 SHC 825,662,514 x 45 = 37,154,835,000 Total: 180,211,011,000 (180 billion) This would be quite readily within the ability of the Canadian government to purchase. Canada's GDP in 2001 was 1,080,000,000,000 (just over a trillion)