Black Dog

So Hitler was wrong not because he invaded countries and killed millions of people, but because there was someone to enforce the rules? And this contradicts me...how? Since I don't own guns, I don't really care. I don't understand the near sexual fetishization of firearms by some segments of the population, but hey: whatever floats yer boats.

No one is denying Emery sold seeds in the States, or that it is illegal to do so. The issue is whether Emery can be extradited. For a crime to be extraditable, it must be an offense in both nations. Both Canada and the United States consider it a crime to sell marijuana, but since Canadian police have long turned a blind eye to seed sellers like Emery, there's an argument to be made that, since Canadian authorities chose not to prosecute, then his offense was not severe enough to warrant extradition, especially in light of the insane punishment he could face.

Methinks you've watched "Red Dawn" one too many times. Sure, I suppose a theoretical airborn invasion could be undertaken. of course such an invasion would require an enormous force and a tremendous amount of supplies, as the invaders would be a long ways away from their home base. Then there's the small matter of holding onto such a vast amount of territory. Even a small military like Canada's could mount an effective resistance against such an invasion. Because if they go down, we go down wih it? And because we're not really all that similar. Not twisted, just applying your logic. When you take away any rule of law or moral guideline and adhere to such "survival of the fittest" thinking, you surrender the right to make moral judgements, simply becuase the law of the jungle precludes morality. If survival of the fittest is the only rule, then Hitler's invasion and occupation of other weaker countries was justifiable, as was his attempted genocide (after all if the Jews et al were too weak to resist, then that's the way of the "law of the jungle.") Naive? Nope. Consistent? Yup. Can you say the same?

Sure, whatever. I guess the point I was trying to make is that gun control is not a necessary element of tyrrany, so the equation of a gun registry or gun control with naescent tyrrany is specious at best. Saddam Hussein's Iarq had a high percentage of private gun ownership, but that did not make Iraqi society any more free.

Letting them keep the guns. Heavy-handed measures like firearms confiscation are unneccesary when propaganda and misdirection work even better.

Sure. But if the government/cops/army decided to confiscate all the bolt action .303's, chances are a few guys with bolt action .303s wouldn't be able to stop it. Beats me. then again, if one is a responsible, law-abiding gun owner, what's the big deal with registering your guns? I'm still not clear why a tyrant would confiscate guns in the first place when there's so many other, easier was of pacifying the population.

But can someone who doesn't know how to stop a sentence be trusted to stop a car?

The War of 1812 was and American attack on British territory.

Are you suggesting that illegal semi-automatic weapons (like the kind Roszko used to ambush the four RCMP officers) are the norm on Canadian farms? If so, why do "law-abiding" citizens need such weapons? Clearly, Jim Roszko was not the norm when it comes to gun owners. Anyway, the bigger point here is that a tyrrany minded government wouldn't dick around with trying to confiscate guns. There's far easier ways to do it.

Well, given that Jim Roszko was one of those criminal types you were talking about, I don't see how he has any bearing on the discussion of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

This particular tack always cracks me up. Like a tyrrany-minded government, with its virtual monopoly on sophisticated weaponry, is going to worry about a bunch of crochety duck hunters with .303's.

No, it's realism. Who is in a position to take on such a logistical nightmare? How can you, on one hand, acknowledge the danger of a closer relatonship with the U.S. and, on the other, call for an even closer one? You're contradicting yourself. So the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC were justifiable! Hitler should be celebrated! One giant blue state.

Israel attacked first in 1967. That is beyond dispute. But the situation between 1967 and 1990 are analagous. Iraq and Israel both attacked first. One was allowed to keep its spoils, the other condemned and forced out by a multinational force. Again: why the hypocricy. Barbarism.

So why was Saddam Hussein ousted from Kuwait? He won (that's W-O-N) and so should have been allowed to keep the spoils of war. Yet somehow I expect you supported his ouster from Kuwait. In both cases, we have an example of territory seized in a war of aggression, so why the hypocricy?

Um...there's only one nation that poses a viable threat to Canada's terrotory, and that's the U.S.A. Three oceans and thousands of kilometers of empty tundra make us immue to invasion by anyone else. Otherwise, I really don't see the point here. That Canada should simply toe the Yankee line because "the U.S. is our friend"? That close relationship is a an albatross around our neck. We've become over reliant on the U.S. economically, which severely impairs our ability to act as a soverign nation. Also, should teh U.S. econmomy ever bottom out, then they'll drag us down with it. I think our energies would be best devoted to diversifying our economic partners (anyone know Mandarin?).

Well, there's no way to prove that Emery has wrecked a single life by selling marijuana seeds, so for the state to use that as a basis for determining punishment would be a step towards totalitarianism. So you're basically be wanting to punish Emery for the choices your kid makes. Not only that, you seem to have a lot of weird ideas about marijuana which is a far less harmful drug than the widely available alcohol. Anschluss here we come?

Well, duh. That's not really the issue. But a poster stated that "the occupation" (meaning the post 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) was a "smokescreen" and that the real motivation was the destruction of Israel. I merely stated the viewpoint that , given the historical realities of Israel's formation, such antipathy is understandable.

There's no such implication being made: What's more, the DEA has stated that Emery's donations to U.S. lobby groups are one of the reasons he was targetted: Backgrounder with business history But the penalties he face have a direct bearing on whether he'll be extradited. Here's what the Extradition Act says: I think 10 years to life for a misdemeanor could be considered "unjust or oppressive".

Sorry to challenge the orthodoxy, but Israel was founded by military colonization and ethnic cleansing. Deal with it.

Nonsense. Your contention that Bush's election win vindicated the reasons for the Iraq war is utterly fatuous and I gave it the response it deserved. If you are prepared to expand on it, do so, but don't cry when your empty conclusions are treated with contempt. That's a serious allegation. Can you back it up?

But if you launch an attack and win, then its okay to keep the land? So conquest and invasion should be rewarded? The occupation really began in 1948. The occupation of additional territories was merely an extension of the original crime.

Well,s eeing as how I don't exactly have access to his recipets, that's the best we got. And, given the distinct lack of support you've offered for your own opinions, Emery's word is as good as yours. Dopism? Are you for real? Do you think 10 to life is a reasonable punishment for his crimes?

Oh right, I forgot your mantra "Don't worry, be happy." Aw diddums: did the widdle smiley hurt your feewings?' I think the rolly-eyes was actually more of areply than your vacuous response deserved. Dubya's sinking feeling.

You're a crank, mf. I thought you right wingers were all for business and entrepeneurship. Here's a guy who built a hugely successful business by cornering a section of the marketplace. He did so without using violence (unlike the Hell's Angels, and other violent organizations who are kept in business largely because of drug prohibition) and he paid his taxes. Emery should be the toast of the right (and indeed, in some free-thinking conservative circles, is). So I 'd have tyo say your virulent overreaction to his actions can only be ascribed to some kind of moral judgement on the products he deals in. i wonder if you are as equally quick to condemn the scumbags in teh tobacco and liquor industries, who's products cause more harm and suffering than any manevolant dope dealer could dream of. Somehow I doubt it: after all, their poison is legal! Non sequiter. Drug kingpin? Link.