Remiel

This may be thread drift, but I think that in measuring the effects of a libertarian government (or any government, for that matter), one should also examine the indirect consequences of a certain style of government. We can imagine, in theory, the ways in which a libertarian government might work. But there are also good reasons (not proofs, but reasons) to believe that a libertarian government would lead to the abuse of private power.

How does this follow from your other premises? You have staked yourself on the premise that foreign affairs do not matter to domestic politics, and then suggest that someone who is (supposedly) strong in domestic politics is the best person to manage foreign affairs. This ignores the fact that outside of the la la land of domestic politics, foreign affairs do matter, and that the goal of foreign affairs is to manage relations with foreign actors. Thus, the qualifications for a minister of foreign affairs are, in part, dictated by what makes sense abroad, rather that what makes sense at home.

While that is technically true, it is spiritually false. All of the changes that have been made since 1982 are of the sort that do not require the full use of the amending formula.

Might it not be somewhat problematic if the UN baldly puts out "hits" on state rulers? May be better for the mandate to not encourage it so much as not ecourage not it.

Maybe; maybe not. It was, however, completely true.

While I suppose there is a minute chance that you could just be really bad at satire, most of the signs point to your being an idiot.

Funny; with an attitude and a mouth like that I don't reckon you are much of a Canadian either.

I am sure we can all thank God for that, .

From a certain strategic viewpoint, I suppose there is one sense in which they might be better off with Al-Qaeda: other allied nations (of Israel) might be more willing to join in the bloodshed.

Well no, obviously; but their plots do. Their international scope is a different sort of beast that the more nationalistic Hamas.

Stoffer in Veterans Affairs? Is that a sign that Veterans Affairs is important to the NDP, or that Peter Stoffer is not?

Not exactly. We know exactly what Al-Qaeda is: worse.

Given how things seem to be going in Gaza right now, I kind of wonder what sort of effect this will have not just between Israel and Hamas, but equally importantly that between Hamas and the other emerging factions in Gaza, like Al-Qaeda, and some of the other breakaway factions as well. At the end of the day, I do not think it is in Israel's interest for Hamas to fail if it means the rise of some even less trustworthy enemy.

Not only do you manage to make another completely unsupported jump from the power of Rome to Italy's culture being entirely dependant on it, but you also manage to demonstrate how you have no idea what "superpower" real means in the same sentence! Wow.

Have you ever heard of a lot of crap that happened between 476 and 1871? Modern Italy is not the Roman Empire, and the culture of the former is not the culture of the latter.

Hahahahaha... You move the goal posts and then accuse me of being the infant? Let me remind you of what you said: "Global superpower," is NOT the same thing as "former superpower" or "near-superpower". And frankly, it is false anyway. Italy gets a lot of coverage and it is not anywhere near a superpower. Jewish culture gets a lot of coverage too, and they are not superpowers by any means. And never mind that there it does not even follow from a culture not being an important export commodity that it is not an important domestic commodity. Begone, thoughtless drone.

No, I love to point out that stupid opinions are stupid. Here is a simple argument the truth of which is obvious to everyone except you, apparently. 1) The United States is the World's only superpower. 2) The United States's culture is not the only culture people foreign to that culture care about. 3) Therefore it is false that no one cares about foreign cultures other than those of world superpowers.

Do you have any talents other than making completely baseless assertions?

Actually, I was asking about the scientific inaccuracy, . That is why I addressed the question specifically to Bonam, given his background.

In what I was reading yesterday, his self-aggrandizement went much further than that. Amin al-Husayni at one point attempted to make a bid for Caliph. The guy had serious delusions of grandeur. Logically it does not follow just because something may have historically developed for one reason is necessarily maintains that same meaning over time. A mundane example of this would be of how the snowman is sometimes reported to have had its origin in anti-Semitism. But are you going to suggest that children everywhere are aiding the cause of the Nazis in this apparently subversive annual ritual? Somehow I doubt it. The world is littered with nations that have their origin in leaders whos primary skill was killing people. In fact, I bet you would be hard pressed to find a major nation whose national mythology does not include connections to such people.

Looking at the definition, there is one other question I would like to ask; an angle, though probably incorrect, that occurred to me: Is there not a certain sense of plain English, though not necessarily the conventional constitutional one, that the highlighted sentence would imply that anyone who was a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of an amendment to the constitution would, in fact, be eligible? When a constitution is amended, is it not in some sense re-adopted as a whole document?

How is this not contradictory to you? Either you can say that being born in the country ensures the stronger loyalty, or you can say that having parents born in that country ensures the stronger loyalty, but you cannot say both.

I just checked to see where McCain was born, and here is what it said: Correct me if I am wrong, but are military bases (as well as embassies, among other things) not considered the sovereign territory of their respective country? That would make them distinctly different than any other place that is not in the United States proper.

And by your logic they are horrible over-represented, given that Ontario has three times the number of people and about 25 extra seats.

And yet that is its origin. That is obvious enough. It is not the kind of belong where they could pick it up and sell it if they want to. The Cup is under the control of the trustees, and in the counterfactual case where the international hockey and the NHL dissolved, there would be a strong argument for rewarding it, once again, to the best Canadian club. And the Stone of Destiny is not the "property" of Scotland, but every inch of it is Scottish.