Figleaf

Bu!!sh!t. Well, maybe you can tell us how Canada became the country it is today, by trading beads with the Indians ans selling fridges to the Eskimos. Canadians built Canada. Who we traded with doesn't change that. Americans have allowed Canadians to build Canada. Somalis, Australians, Nepalese and Cubans have also allowed Canadians to build Canada. What's your point?

It must be a joke of some kind. Check out the FAQ: "Do Genpets bite? Genpets should not bite, however Bio-Genica does sell the tooth remover kit."

[

Assuming she is in Canada illegally, the question of whether she gets free health care should be obviously No, since she should be removed from Canada, thus rendering any provision of health-care impossible anyway. In the rare cases where someone needs acute care during the removal process, that should be provided. But this highlights the biggest problem with Canada's immigration "system", IMO: interdiction and removal is a in complete disarray. A large number of people remain in Canada far to long after it is clear they have not right to stay here.

Whereas Canada cleared Arar to cover their guilt. What guilt would there be for our government, if he wasn't innocent in the first place?

Is Bolton some kind of moron? What does it mean, "replace" the UN? If you 'replace' the UN, all you are doing is renaming the UN. Like changing from the Fourth to the Fifth Republic. For whom?

The mother has the right to have the embryo removed from her body. As long as the mother consents, she can assign the embryo to the father or anyone else for gestation. If she doesn't consent then I would say the father is out of luck despite his wishes. I'm not sure I agree. If the woman wants to be free of the pregnancy, why should she be able to control where the embryo goes after that?

Whereas they've banned Arar to cover their asses.

And yet... Is there an inconsistency here?

.

I disagree. A wealthy, capitalist state in the centre of the middle east is just what the Arabs need. Without the violence, Israel would be a beacon to the rest of the middle east, producing jobs and making large purchases from all its neighbours. I agree with that economic analysis, but don't think it changes my point really, except to add that the radically opposed interests I refered to are each/all blinded to the full picture and reacting viscerally and at times based on bad-motives. And they might be working on their own farms if Israel hadn't taken them. Your reaction to that sentence will be immediate anger, I predict. Why? Because in all these discussions the unwarranted and serious wrongs done to the Palestinian people are the 'elephant in the dining-room'. No, it is the ongoing failure to resolve the initial and continuing injustice that has, fatcually, been visited on the Palestinians.

Interesting statement -- But it begs the question in a way, doesn't it? You suggest that until we reach an 'ethically suitable line' then we must, ethically, place the line where you suggest. I disagree, because, on the other side of the balance from you 'pragmatic' concern for fetuses is the very real fact that any rules the state places around fetuses are direct limits on the human freedoms of pregnant women. I think you need to take that specifically into account in your argument. What your full position amount to is: 'Until someone proves (whatever 'proof' means) that fetuses are not people, I demand that where necessary the state coercively impose childbirth regardless of the wishes of a pregnant woman.' And you need to address and defend the part in italics specifically.

First, Figleaf, good post. I'm favorably impressed. Islam, much like Judaism, is both a nation (in the Stephen Harper sense) and a religion. Their view is that no land that was once Muslim can leave the Ummah, much as no person who is born Islamic or converts to Islam can leave the faith and survive, i.e. not be murdered. The core trouble I see with your comment here is the word 'Their'. Islam is comprised of hundreds of millions of people spread over a vast area, it is a predominating religion in states as diverse as Morocco, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Lebannon. It includes different sects, different leaderships, and different ideas. They do have in common the Koran. So, the only way 'their' makes any sense to me is that you mean 'The Koran says', rather than less specifically 'Their view'. Would that be correct? Anyway, regarding those muslims who would assert religious claims over international law, the answer to them must be the same answer as to anyone who makes that claim. They will not be indulged in such claims.

[.)

Today Israel what? Israel is thriving. Thriving, but embattled. My point is that the barbarians are always taking aim at countries that look soft, contented and peaceful, thinking that they're easy targets. I don't know about 'barbarians', but the reason Israel has enemies is because it was imposed in a place where a large proportion of the population opposed it and since then it has involved further inroads against the self-percieved interests of people in that region. It's got nothing to do with being soft or contented, and more to do with radically opposed interests. It's fascinating to me how every conversation about this subject eventually results in an Israel apologist imputing some heinous anti-Israel bias against his interlocutors. Just FYI, jbg, you've probably forgotten this, but I've posted at least twice before that I support a two-state solution. I can say that the foundation of Israel is a cause of the dispute without implying that I wouldsupport the removal or eradication of Israel. (In fact, I don't see how any such project could be undertaken without criminally violating the human rights of Israelis.)

I don't think that kind of humor is going to take you very far. The conflict around Israel is not really about religion, though it plays a part. "The Jewish People" is a complex notion, even to Jews themselves, regarding in what combination 'Jewishness' is a race, an ethnicity, and/or a religion. But we can leave that question aside, because the issue revolves not around the Jewish people, but about a separate, though related, entity the state of Israel. Israel, like the contending states around it, is a geo-political and socio-economic construct. The conflict between these entities then, is primarily geo-political and socio-economic, not religious.

It's funny you should say that ... I have long thought that the whole 'Swift Boat Veteran' smear campaign against John Kerry was a pretty offensive slight against the very integrity of the Naval decorations system.

How about you stay on topic, frog. The wacky Iranian prez has spoken publically on Israel a good half dozen times. Put all the quotes together and you get an accurate representation of what he wants you to think of him. I no longer think he's so stupid as to utter racist hate speech just because he thinks so. I think it's time to wake up to the fact that Israel is the "canary in the coal mine" here. Today Israel, tomorrow us. Today Israel what? Israel is thriving.

What other translations do you suggest?

How does a socialist determine what is enough and too little government? The topic here is libertarianism, not socialism. Libertarianism, not socialism, proposes that limiting the level of government is a matter of key importance. Whether it matters to you or not, how you draw that line is the whole original point of this thread. But that's my very point. Libertarians have different views on that because there is no central coherence to the 'philosophy' of libertarianism. It's simply griping dressed up with a fancy name.

Congratulations, you invented two new words today. If you could now give some sort of meaning to them, or to the statement, it might make things easier. Sorry, I don't get you.

You can't 'force' a contract on someone. Blacks in South Africa opposed, repudiated, and disproved the asserted-but-false social contract of the Aparthied regime. Apartheid, existed for decades before it was thrown out. So did blacks willingly accept it for 50 years? If the blacks opposed it and repudiate it, how did they do so? Did you miss the part there about "opposed, repudiated, and disproved"? Anyway, there are better sources than me for a comprehensive history of South Africa. In point of fact, they resisted to the point of doing away with the system. That is sufficient. Effectively, the Canadian social contract recognizes only departure and giving up citizenship as expunging the relationship. No, its not the issue at all. I couldn't give a damn whether another party improves my choices. What I assert is you can't call it "acceptance" then. I'm lost then. Do you agree then if an action is practically impossible to achieve it is not reasonable to characterize the lack of acthievement of that action as a choice? There are two choices that will lead to such lack of attainment. On the one hand, one could recognize the nigh impossibility and not make the attempt. On the other hand, one could elect to make the attempt and fail.

Exactly my point. I didnt' agree to territorial sovereignty. The government unlaterally asserted territorial sovereignty. No, the people of Canada assert territorial sovereignty through their government. If you don't like it, the people of Canada wish you well somewhere else. No problem. I don't know specificly. You used the general word "society". So I speak of societies in general. Well, this is another fine mess you've gotten me into! Exactly. Non-territorial societies let me freely leave so I can reasonably be asserted that when I am part ot that society I have "accepted" their rules.Territorial societies which do not let me freely conceptually leave without physically leaving cannot make that same resonable assertion. Well, non-territorial societies actually don't all let you leave freely. But anyway, Territorial societies can't let you leave conceptually but remain physically because the territoriality is a core element of their agreement. I don't see how that is problematic, conceptually. I don't judge it solely from a Canadian point of view, I look at it from an objective point of view. Puh-lease. We all have that fantasy for a while, but let's just get over it, shall we? The barriers perhaps, but not Canadian society.

You said it! I mean ALL that. And the way political reporting is almost universally afflicted by an inability or refusal to form any sensible basis for discourse. Soundbite media encourages people to lob slogans back and forth at eachother.