Figleaf

And how would you organize thought processes and communities? Thought Processes: Thought processes organized themselves before there was religion, and untutored as they then were, they produced religion. Fortunately, as human knowledge accumulated and more minds applied attention over time, we recognized that logic and reason were our most reliable methods of truth seeking and we now have them available to help us with our thought processes. Communities: Human communities organized themselves before there was religion. Human communities today organize themselves without religion. Frankly, I see no case to meet in this part of your question. How would we? By just carrying on without it. No problem.

Crrrrrrap! Well, I can't speak for leftists, but I sure know a specious generalization when I hear one. And I just heard a big one.

Harper DOES hate Canada, they never ran the ads about the army in the streets, and never said he was a baby eater.

You want government to get into marriage??I hate to ask: where do you need the help? No I don't want government directly getting into marriage either but they have anyways with SSM big time. The government is no more involved in marriage due to SSM than it was before SSM. Marriage is a federally defined and legislated matter. It still is, and is no more regulated than it was before SSM. Less, in fact, since a previous restriction has been removed. I agree that if a declining birth rate is a concern, then government should act on it. But then it needs to promote childbirth specifically, not pursue your marriage tangent.

You want government to get into marriage??I hate to ask: where do you need the help? Interesting concept. If only we could apply that to everything else the "government" does. It is kind of like how FigLeaf talks about everybody being involved with government without mentioning the fact that the government dominance came about through the systemic exclusion of other services. Riiiiight, because we live in a totalitarian state and government IMPOSED those services on the people, rather than people electing those governments to carry out such activities. There's an air of unreality around Libertarian complaint frankly, that ignores the fact that people want their governments to do things.

Just one more thing for all of us to ponder. Who was PM in 1961 ? Diefenbaker What Party was in power in 1961? The Progressive Conservatives. So what does this mean?..."rules made by unelected judges following the perculiar political ideology of the elitist, ivory tower liberal." It means exactly what we all know quite well. Argus and most of his rightwing pals are just so full of it.

Two things: First, Canada's stance on capital punishment wouldn't mean very much if if didn't apply to people likely to be subject to capital punishment. Second, who's to say it was such a bad thing carrying out a coup in Bangladesh? Would you complain if he'd done it to Saddam?

Being homeless in my opinion is hell, no bed, no warmth, no guarantee of food. At least in jail you get these. I'm not surprised more bums don't commit crimes, they'd go to jail, they'd get warm food, a bed, a warm home which in my view is better than living on the street. Do you this maybe, just maybe, this indicates that prison may not be that great an experience after all?

I think we can do that here too. And that is something that I feel should not be allowed to happen. Far too many times this seizure law is used incoorectly. Indeed, the police use it as a way of imposing an extra punishment, and just as you say, the process of getting property released (whether you are ultimately found guilty or not) is arduous and expensive.

These were the only two possiblities I could think of.

No one promised you any social privileges because there are already an abundance of social privileges that were simply there for the taking. You just don't appreciate what Canada has to offer that you automatically gain in the way of social privileges living in Canada. You have lost the thread of this topic. You said, why would anyone get married since there are no privileges related to it. I say, I got married for its own reasons, not extraneous ideas of marital privileges. Your hatred for the Charter is illogical. The Charter is the outgrowth of the same founding and guiding Canadian principles that you extol so vehemently before 1980. The Charter didn't change Canadians' principles, it simply forces the government to respect those principles. Seriously, what can you dislike about the Charter? Freedom of expression? How awful! Freedom of conscience and religion? Yuck! Equal rights for everyone? BARF! Yeah, Leafless, that Charter is really full of total insanity, eh. Give me a break. Are you calling for a federal social engineering effort?

Well, what logic do you use to conclude marriage is failing?

Give us an example, or indeed any other sort of support for that assertion, if you can.

That is not the message. Just as in Viet Nam, we can not control a country half way around the world for eons, we can not control Iraq or Afghanistan for decades either. You can only push them into a direction hopefully they would want to go. The fall of VN did not mean the end of lifestyle in the west as was predicted (domino thoery) back then. The common problem in all these areas seems to be there is no way to disarm the populace because of (un)friendly neighbors. If "the West" didn't find ways to meddle and inject itself into these places, we wouldn't have all these problems.

And if you take away anyones right to do just that, then you become the oppressor, and you become what you hate the most. Oh. Come now! You don't think Argus hates oppression, do you??? Really, it depends on who is doing and who is being.

Pfft! This is a free country, not August's private preserve of pettiness.

Inane drivel. Prisoners are turned over to the Afghans, who, to put it mildly, are not the most organized bunch. Two years ago? That's an eternity in a system with few, if any written records, where people change jobs every other month, and where bribes get you in and out of jail without any paperwork being filed. Argus, one quick point here ... didn't you mean to put a colon ( : ) after the word 'drivel'?

But in public, in the central square? That's OK, I suppose, at the Vatican, but not in a secular country such as Norway. EXCUSE me? What's wrong with praying in a free democracy? Norway is a free democracy and supports normal Western-style freedom of expression. If a Muslim prays in a public space, so what? Now, cordoning off or setting aside part of public space for someone's prayer would be a different story, but simple prayer is just as much a protected form of expression as making a speech, or painting yourself bronze and pretending to be a statue. If Muslims want to take offence at Craig's choice of activities, that's up to them. But no government should let 'offence' become a signal for action by the authorities.

If it were real, sure. The idea of such a program would have to include avoiding such an outcome.

That's a horrible thing to say. Yeah, but it is typical of this generation of tories. No blow too low, no level to which they will not stoop.

Pretty dangerous thinking. I really don't know much about Dion, but after that comment, I am looking a little closer at him. Anyone who advocates this should not be Prime Minister. Wonder what ties he has to pharma companies. What the heck is wrong with that proposal??? The idea is to buy the poppies from the farmers before the Taliban can get their hands on it an sell it for illegal heroin. It should be a win-win-win-win ... Aghan farmers still get to sell their crop, the developing world gets much need pain relievers, poppies get diverted away from illegal drugs, and the Taliban get shut out. Why in heavens name would you oppose such a policy (other than the kneejerk need to oppose Dion)?

Is that the only quote you have a problem with? If so, I don't see the problem -- since he's trying to become PM, wouldn't you think he'd think he's who we need? If he doesn't think he's who we need, then why would he be running? To give us what we don't need? It wouldn't make any sense.

Ummmm.... I think that is what he was complaining about. Also, consider: this guy is the son of a bigshot, probably educated, probably with some English. Imagine how the same scenario goes for a poor uneducated innocent Iraqi who gets on the wrong side of Uncle Sam's trained killing forces -- longer than 11 hours, I'll bet you.

Chavez is pounding the war drums. !!!?!?!?!!!! The WAR drums? Since when it talking big and shooting off one's mouth cause for international war?

For you to ask the first question suggests you have absolutely no knowledge of European history to ask such a question. Or that she doesn't buy the narrative offered by the certain history ... that a holocaust in Europe somehow justified the imposition of an unwelcome state on the innocent inhabitants of Palestine. Whoa! You're 100% wrongo there Rue. Catchme's comment there is totally apt and bang on the point in regards to how international law works. It sustains the right of people to stay where they live and have self-determination there, but it says nothing in favor of people claiming a right to take a territory based on habitation there in the remote past.