Figleaf

Criminal recklessness.

Where on earth are you getting this stuff?

The difference is that the banks do not force you to do business with the banks whereas the government threatens you with imprisonment if you do not pay the government. The banks will initiate forcible confiscation of your goods if you don't pay them.

Good luck. What kind of status would they have? Would we have six more provincial governments to bicker with Ottawa? They'd all be provinces with equal status. They would provide better government because they'd have more sensitivity to the local issues of their smaller territory.

I'd split BC into three: the Islands including Vancouver Island, the Mainland, and the Greater Vancouver Area and it's immediate hinterland. I'd split Alberta into two, North and South. I'd split Ontario into North, Southwest, Center-East, and Greater Toronto. I'd split Quebec into Greater Montreal, Lower Canada, and Nord.

Personally, I'd like to see the regulator establish a simple market-based but externality capturing method. In each delivery framework allocate 10% of the pipe capacity to a 'public tier' funded by a set formula of income from the 'private tier'. Then, A-Exclude the public tier from competing for advertising, and regulate it to provide whatever the regulator imagines is needed for public purposes; and B-Don't regulate the private tier at all (except for necessary technical standards).

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Achievements (partial list)

So is each snowflake, but they are all snowflakes.

Of course not everyone would use this as their voting criterion.

Care to prove this? Prove to me that homosexuality is more than preverted sex. Yeah cybercoma, show him the loving side.

Stalin and Hitler weren't militant ABOUT atheism, the were militant about their power and ideologies. So using them as examples of militant atheism is faulty. If we turn around the question, the choice should be obvious. Militant Atheists are least likely to interfere in non-faith aspects of choices and behaviour. All the athiest wants is a denial of god(s). He doesn't want anyone to have or not have abortions. He doesn't care whether teenagers masturbate or stay virgins or whatever. He doesn't want to tell you not to play cards or drink beer. The Militant Atheist would be the best choice because his militant agenda is the most narrow.

That's "crap English".

To hear you whine, that strategey has yet to be a rollicking success for you. But the more curious thing about your comment is the claim of injustices and slights against Alberta. What injustices or slights? You guys just keep making these things up, but whenever it gets questioned your reasons make no sense ... NEP boo hoo, equalization blah blah.

To the detriment of their fellow farmers further north. So Harper's going to help out some farmers against other farmers. How does he pick? $$.

Man alive! The Liberal party, pragmatic, ruthless, an almost magical political machine has done it again. Sorely in need of a renewal, the party recruits two outsiders (Iggy and Rae) to be its campaign front-runners, links them thoroughly to the existing establishment, and annoints a former cabinet minister and sitting critic as their new face of renewal. What a manouevre! Now, Harper faces another intellectual with better credentials than his, a native quebecois but with better federalist chops, and a man of impeccable integrity. Today's poll shows 62% (!) of Quebeckers think the Liberals made the right choice. So much for hatred of Dion in Quebec -- say one thing for them, Quebeckers like a candidate who stands up for what he believes in, even when they personally may believe differently. The neo-con dream of capturing Canada is over folks.

I would agree. If someone was going to ram an agenda down peoples' throats, a militant Muslim agenda is the least appealing. -k That's how I see it, but I'm not totally sure there would really be all that much room for distinction between a Christian and Muslim totalitarianism.

deleted in protest

deleted in protest

:puke:

Jezus dude. Just what you say here makes the act ILLEGAL. Please tell me what I am missing,. Last I checked passion does not equate justice. There are people from the army.ca forums that would be very interested in what you have to say on this subject. Shall I invite them over to browse on your comments? What the hell does that mean?

He is not protected by the Geneva convention, but as long as he targets military installations he is not committing a war crime or crime against humanity. He's acting in the course of war.

Cite? There's nothing inherently less moral about suicide bombing per se, versus any other act of violence. It's a tactic and launching an organization to oppose suicide bombing makes about as much sense as launching a war on an emotional state of being like terror. It's an illegal tactic. Because you may say there is no difference does not make it so. You have to learn that your 'opinion' as legitimate or in this case as preposterous as it is, does not count for squat. "Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces. In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2) In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)" Link: http://www.genevaconventions.org/ Unfortunately for your argument, the cited material (though very interesting) doesn't make suicide bombing against military targets illegal, it merely excludes suicide bombers from guerilla status under the Geneva convention.

The initial justification for the CRTC was the advantageous allocation of limited bandwidths to broadcast operators. This mandate has been agressively interpreted by subsequent incumbent commissioners, of course. The scope of the mandate also grew drastically when new delivery technology expanded the relatively small number of usable broadcast frequencies to include the full big-pipe panoply of access technology now employed. The question of the CRTCs relevancy in the new paradigm is a fascinating one. I would not be surprised if a Harper majority were to radically reconfigure the CRTC, given the opportunity.

I fail to see any purpose in this proposed measure. A suicide bombing (conducted against civilian targets) is already a crime. (It's legitimacy if used against military targets depends on the legitimacies of the overall conflict.)