Figleaf

And the CBC ran with it and produced the show to harp on the stereotype of Western Canadians being uneducated hicks. Western paranoia is running rampant, I see. Imagine the bitter outrage there'd be if CBC had rejected this home-grown western creation!

I challenge anyone to write anything actually funny about Toronto.

Speaking of stereotyping!

[

Was it drugs? Fraud? A sexual offense, perhaps?

Why don't you just move there?

Well, it's ruled by an unelected junta that deals in jingoistic propaganda to sustain a military-industrial complex whose interests run counter to those of the populace at large.

Good post, Argus. (Not 100% correct, but definitely a good dicussion.) One thing to do would be to add tons more med-school positions. We need Recall -- make voter-discipline as meaningful as party-discipline. Why? I don't know about radically halting it, but it sure could use some focussed improvement. I have the impression that progress is being made on this one. Our policing dollar would go a lot further if they didn't waste it on silly things like drug prohibition or spying on harmless citizens (e.g. Tommy Douglas). I want us to keep our tax money at home, period. People who think we should help foreign lands can donate privately.

There is no reason to think that Palestinians would be upset or violent if they'd never been victimized by western-colonial-zionism in the first place. Any criticism Israel levels against the Palestinians falls against the ineluctible backdrop of that original wrong -- it's just further extension of the essential contempt an aggressor holds for the victim.

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either: a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or b- would never get organized initially without government? Such as? Oh, piles of things. But I prefer to deal with the abstract point, rather than particulars.

I didn't. I spoke ABOUT fundamnentalists, not FOR them.

Hmmm. What about things that COULD be done privately, but which either: a- are massively less expensive if done governmentally; or b- would never get organized initially without government?

It's comments like that by which you demonstrate your own intense ridiculousness. Arar is indisputably a Canadian citizen and that fact was known to the officials who renditioned him for torture. Particularly when nothing is discovered! Yes, there should be some investigation into why The Zaccster changed his story.

Could you please explain why expensive RCMP a$$-covering should convince us to change immiGration policies?

Did you read this thread before commenting? 'Cause the other poster is complaining that there's not enogh Newfies in Alberta.Do you know how to read? Do you understand what "not enough Newfies in Alberta" means? That means that Newfies are in Alberta. That means Newfies left Newfoundland. That means Newfies chose wages (and the work that goes with earning those wages) in Alberta OVER your subsidized non-work in Newfoundland. That disproves your point. Your point was: Thus, your point makes no sense (unless the intention is deception or politics) after reading this thread. ??? I still have the strong impression that you've failed to follow this thread. You're impression that you've disproved my point is incoherent. You mean the idiot-sons of millionaires?Now you are diverting and twisting your own words. These roundabouts are fun. Yeah, whatever. If you expect me to respond to you, I urge you to try making some kind of sense first.

[

Exagerating!? It's already beyond extreme, so who would need to exagerate it? Thousands of Americans dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis. Billions of dollars squandered. American military might shown to be a paper tiger. Middle East peace a pipedream. The U.S. tagged as a rogue state. The constitution p!ssed on. All because of Bush.

Thank you, Canadian Blue, Renegade, and ClearWest for your replies, but I don't think any of you have really addressed the issue I have raised. Why is certain gov. activity thought good, but others not? How does Libertarianism draw its lines? What theoretical or conceptual framework allows a libertarian to determine that government should protect property from theft, but not protect common interests from devastation, for example?

Fundamentalist Christians support Israel because they think it will lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy of the End Times. Supposedly the final apocalyptic battle will happen at Megido (Armageddon). I'd suggest to Israel that they should regard the 'friendship' of fundamentalist Christians as purposive and instrumental, rather than heartfelt and enduring.

That doesn't really explain much though. Why limit gov. to only protection from force and fraud? How are they to be defined?

Why just libertarians? That's everyones dillema. Some people thing more government is better, some think less is better but I doubt any of them know the answer as to how much. It's libertarians who's sole point is the size/scope of government. Other philosophies are about other things.

No, that is not liberalism, that's social democrats or further left. I've never heard that libertarians are particularly interested in social change, except reducing the scale and scope of government (which presumably requires collective, not individual, action.) That's meaningless. Libertarians don't want to destroy all government, so they are for SOME level of government. But what is that level? How do they draw the lines, theoretically, between enough and too much government?

I already know social conservativism doesn't make any sense. My point about libertarianism is not about outliers misnaming themselves, its about the movement itself having no meaningful distinguishing content.

Uhh, your attack seems a little pedantic. What "attack"??? "Deal with"??? "Facts"??? "Personal insults"??? What on Earth are you yammering about??? Have you been drinking before posting again? At the very least, you appear to have misinterpreted the motivation of my comment.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the skyrocketing costs of health care, primarily caused by the skyrocketing costs of drugs, which in turn a caused to a large extent by skyrocketing advertising costs (roughly 3 times the costs of R&D of the pharmaceuticals). And what's that got to do with my comments?