Figleaf

With numberless wrongful convictions that have been perpetrated all over Canada, I'm trying to figure out why they happen.

She believes the Bible commands people to admonish and correct their 'neighbor' to save him from God's wrath.

That's ridiculous. CSIS, sure, but not the CIA. What do you think the Census is for?

How do you figure that? Why don't you read the rest of his post, being: "Quebeckers are merely rationally using this unsustainable law to their advantage, at the cost of the have provinces." I read it; it tells me nothing of what he's talking about. What is there in the constitution that is causing Steve to bribe Quebec with federal money? What parts do you mean?

So is this thread meant soley for partisan hack's, or is there gonna be an actual debate beyond the usual wishful speculation of partisan hacks. Hey buddy, if you don't like it, why don't you go over to a tory thread and harangue them instead.

Because if you're right that Israel proper is built on top of the former "homes" of Palestinians what place is legitimate for the people now living in Israel proper to live? Israel has some laws discriminating in favor of Jews, such as the right of Jews to move to Israel without certain of the formalities of immigration. Alright, let me be more specific. "Jewish state" could mean 'homeland for people of Jewish ancestry', or it might mean 'state where Judaism has become the form of government'. Or something else. A person might think one quite appropriate and the other quite the opposite. The difference between these meanings might make quite a difference in the answer to your question.

He'll probably have to go back to scoring wrongful convictions as a prosecutor.

History isn't over yet. Ergo, history hasn't proven this. Some history has happened. Within that portion of history is a demonstration that it was wrong.

She sure gave the Amish a going over! Again 100% right ... artificial lines around 'good' technology and 'bad' technology are pretty silly.

And yet, apparently, Marx thought there was. And as I've pointed out, this thought of Marx contradicts his theory of history. A dictatorship of the proletariat contradicts the principle that under communism, the state withers away. According to Marx as I understand it, the dictatorship of the proletariat precedes the withering of the state. I tried to point out earlier that it is not a contradiction. It is inevitable that SOMEONE will do these things. Inevitable doesn't mean there is no human participation, it simply means that the humans involved will certainly do it. No. To state that it is "inevitable" means not that someone will do those things - but that they will absolutely be successful doing it - one cannot fail - it will be. You're going tangential. You're criticism initially challenged a percieved contraction between Marx positing on the one hand human agency and on the other hand inevitability. I tell you that there is no contradiction: inevitability does not preclude human agency. No. The vanguard is merely the group of people tasked with establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. The concept is highly related. Related they may be, but they are not the same concept. One was part of Marx's predictions from the historical dialectic, the other, apparently, is Lenin's prescription for carrying it out. True. I think it's fair to observe that history has proven it wrong. History has 'proven' nothing of the sort, and that wasn't my point at all. That is MY point in reaction to your point. I'm surprised you disagree that history has proven an absurdity wrong, but anyway, it has. Indeed. History has proven it wrong.

I hear complaints from Danny Williams (That's new? And as Bluth noted in reference to Paul Wells, sso what?). Saskatchewan too. Sask and NL have what, 17 seats? Meanwhile Ontario is happy and Harper may well have killed the PQ/BQ, or at least made them a laughing stock. I'm a little surprised that Alberta is not "up in arms". IME, Albertans are kind of naive about politics. Does that explain it? Quebec politics are genuinely competitive. Albertan politics seem to be, uh, Cuban. I wouldn't write off those 17 seats like that. I think Harper's next majority will be a razor thin one. In order to get his majority, he will need every seat he can get his hands on. Harper will win the next election, but if he wants his majority, he should have the same mindset as his 06 victory in that every seat counts. Of course quebec politics have to be competitive, that place NEEDS change, it hasn't found a status quo yet. Alberta on the other hand has a really good thing going for it, why rock the boat? Harper will never get a majority government. N e v e r. Even if Alberta is pathetic enough to keep supporting him while he teams up with the BQ to ship tax$$ to Quebec, who else will? What's in it for Manitoba or Saskatchewan or British Columbia or the Atlantic Provinces? Will Quebeckers vote tory out of gratitude? Is the middle class bribe really big enough to swing much of Ontario? I doubt it.

So, what do YOU think? (P.S. One day after the Federal budget that announced a huge bribe for Quebec and no tax relief, Charest is making a campaign promise to cut taxes in Quebec. Is it just me, or is that kind of ... disgusting?)

How do you figure that?

Good post, geoffrey, and not just because I agree. It's well thought out and comprehensive.

The term in question is used only by Marx in some letter of a relatively late date. Yet apparently Engels knew of it. And yet, apparently, Marx thought there was. I tried to point out earlier that it is not a contradiction. It is inevitable that SOMEONE will do these things. Inevitable doesn't mean there is no human participation, it simply means that the humans involved will certainly do it. Except it is established that Marx viewed it as very important to his predictive model of the formation of the future society. I still think you are confusing yourself by mixing the Vanguard concept with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat concept. Indeed. Marx may have believed this, but to me, this is pie-in-the-sky pronouncement that does not have anything substantive to support it - only Marx's emphatic enunciation of it. Yeah, well, we ARE talking about Marx here. I like to say that he was an excellent observational economist, but a disastrous political theoretician. True. I think it's fair to observe that history has proven it wrong.

Did any of you guys get to the end of it? The pay-off is the atheist's editorial comments after the interview. He's 100% right.

I nearly fell asleep. Visually stunning in a Matrix-meets-Seven Years in Tibet kind of way, sure. But the script was thin, the tactical/strategic exposition was slight, and the verisimilitude spotty at best. The acting was one-note, and the political themes were anachronistic and tin-eared. And why did all the Persians look like orcs?

So you're admitting that your position is that a Jewish State of Israel should not exist? I would advise Myata or anyone before they attempt to answer that question to determine what precisely you assume in the term "Jewish State of Israel". Care to elaborate some specifics?

Like I said. It is a survival tactic. The one common bond between all those who pursue issues they deem as moral (though self mutilation is beyond me) is that they all believe they are doing the right thing to ensure the survival of a certain group. What makes the "right thing" be so different in execution is our freedom of perspective, i.e Holy Way and Martyrdom, where the participants have a firm belief that their actions are calculated for the survival of their ethnicity or religion, and therefore take part in said actions to prevent other "threatening" groups from dominating them. I thought you were trying to describe a universal and subjective morality, but based on what you're saying here I can't see the universal part.

Watch this right to the end, it's worth it.

Well, that's a relief, considering...

Well, actually perceived self-interest is the motivation for all actions, good or ill. No, it won't lead to that because people look beyond the short term interest of grabbing something from someone and consider the long term relationships that apply. It is religion that undermines completely all other silly thoughts and assumptions about the universe… Blah blah blah. Religion told people made-up, useless, fake, sometimes corrupt answers. Science is not an animated external actor. Science is the method of human progress. IT didn't wait; WE took time to find it. Religion thrives on ignorance. Without ignorance religion would be a footnote, a fad that people sometimes indulge. Name one. Humans surely are limited creatures. Thing is, those same limitations exist among both the humans who claim to know what God wants and those who don't claim that. Which holy books? I am somewhat familiar with the Christian Bible, and indeed, I did find much of it surprising.

Because Pinocchio is vulnerable on the integrity front, and integrity is one of her strong cards.

Nope. But some of way it is spent smells. Gotcha politics. And why should Dion worry about being taped? Is there something he wouldn't want us to know? Don't worry. If there isn't, I'm sure there's a tory team working on making something up.