Black Dog

I don't think anyone would dispute that notion, least of all those with loved ones in th emilitary. the question is, however, whther they died for a good reason. Did Casey Sheehan's death make his country safer? Did he help stop the threat of WMD (oops!) ? And don't give me any bunk about turning Iraq into a beacon for democracy in teh region balah blah blah. The government isn't even buying that.

Actually, the West Bank and Gaza strip were captured in the one war Israel started, the Six Day War.

Oops. i meant != which is shorthand for "does not equal".I also fail to see why the onus is on the occupied to end their struggle and not on the occupier to end their occupation.

Nope. I stated Emery was operating with the knowledge of the authorities. I pointe dout that given the size, scope and visibility of his business, plus his previous run ins with the law, there's no doubt that the authorities were well aware of his actions. The assumption that they choose not to act against him is a reasonable one, which can be inferred from the known facts. You are proposing that, despite the facts above, Emery was operating on the fringe, without the knowledge of law enforcement. Your interpretation has even les sfactual support than my assumptions.

If true: so what? Hamas =! the Palestinian people. Plus, with Israel out and the settlements gone, there'd be even less support for terrorist activities against Israel among the general population, thus depriving Hamas of a base of support.

Well, my opinionsdon't really count for much, but the vast majority of Palestinians and a growing number of israelis support a two-state solution, wherein both exist side by side. In order to get there, though, Israel would have to withdraw completely from the West Bank and Gaza. Then and only then could real peace be negotiated. Israel's policy is being dictated by a small group of fanatics and is not in its broader interests.

Documents contradict police version of tube shooting.

I think their allowance of his activities had more to do with a general loosening of attitudes towards such offenses.

I see Sharon's shell game worked. All eyes are on the Gaza pullout, even as Iasrael consolidates its hold on the far more valuable West Bank, leaving the Paelstinians with a chunk of land surrounded on all sides by Israel, with Israel controlling its borders and airspace. All the talk of the bloody handed Sharon as being a man of peace is laughable.

So you actually believe that Emery was able to conduct his buisiness in the open, and, given his previous run ins with the law, the feds were oblvious? I'm not asking you to do my homework, but support your position. It's clear that you can't.

Emery's seed selling emprie is alleged to be the world's largest, with annual revenues claimed at around $2.5 million US. It was profits from the seed company that allowed Emery to finance the BCMP, as well as publish Cannabis Culture magazine and operate Pot-TV on the Internet. Emery himself has been arrested before for amrijuana related offenses. Hardly someone operating on the fringes. Not true. An assumption is not a wild guess, but is a conclusion drawn based on circumstansial evidence. For example, you haven't produced anything to counter my claims, so I can reasonably assume you have no such evidence to present.

Come on. You complained that I was sterotyping Alberta and then proceeded to reel off a litany of traits that constitute a "real" Albertan that came straight out of "Okie from Muskogee..." For example: Sounds like a place where even squares can have a ball. I'm not scared as internet threats are pretty meaningless. However, your behaviour does little to counteract the image of Albertans as ignorant knuckledragging hicks: indeed, it confirms it. As an Albertan, I have no interest in seeing such sterotypes perpetuated.

Emery Seeds presumably had a business licencse and, as Emery has not been chargesd with any tax evasion or other such offense, I assume that he was, in all other respects, a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen. He conducted his business in the open (he had a public web page for selling seeds, for crying out load) so its ebntirely reasonable to presume he was doing so with the knowledge of the authorities. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means...

Well, that's where you're wrong. I challenge you to find any time where I've said anything complementary of the Democrats. I consider them to be no different than the Republicans on matters of policy or in whom they are beholden to.

Hitler wasn't socialist in ideology or in deed. But rather than continue down this path (pointless as it is), I'll instead point out that, by attempting to demonstrate that fascism's fundamental charateristic is the abrogation of individual liberty, you've validated by previous use of the word! I mean, you can ignore fascism's roots as a right-wing ideology, more akin to feudalism tahn true socialism, but I maintain that, in labelling as fascist individuals who wish to expand the power of the state, suppress individual freedom and dismantle liberal traditions, I am but calling a spade a spade.

It can be, sure. If a "crime" is so insignificant that it can be carried out with the full knowledge of the authorities, in which no individual was harmed and, indeed, the domestic authorities benefitted from (Emery's business pays its taxes, after all), then I would say a case where said individual can face anything from 10 years to life in prison in another country for the same offense is victimization. You'll note I hasd no examples of incidences where law enforcement was prevented from carrying out their duties. Obviously, given the size of the bust in which Emery was grabbed, the resources were always there. No, prior to Uncle Sam's request, Emery was allowed to go about his business, again with the full knowledge of the authorities. Which says a lot about the seriousness of the offense and the viablity of the law in question.

Given that law enfocrcement bodies have the final say on whether or not to priosecute the law, they are, de facto, the final arbiters of the law. Am I in favour of this? Not necessarily. But in this particular case, we have an individual arrested at the behest of a foreign government for a crime that was not deemed by the local authorities to be worthy of prosecution, which makes a strong case for his remaining here. In general, though, I support wholesale reform of Canada's drug laws, not technicalities and hold this as an example for the need for such reform so that Canadian citizens are not victimized by another government for activities their own government can't be bothered to halt.

That could explain, then why your argument is so weak. Let's take Hitler and Stalin as a couple of our examples. These are both ideologically based, authoritarian, and anti-parliamentary democracy. But the purposes for which individual liberty was suppressed and the idealogical motivations behind them were polar opposites. Hitler's earliest acts were to suppress the Communist and Social Democratic movements in Germany, crush organize labour and align the state (embodied in his person) with the Army and the industrialists. Business was allowed to go about its, well, business without the interference of labour and pursue profits in the service of the Reich. Contrasted with Stalin's policies of collectivization and direct state ownership of resources and means of production. Basically your analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep. But then, I would expect nothing more from an indivisdual who dismisses the preeminent authority on Nazi Germany as a "fiction writer".

As Hugo would say "Read your Shirer". Fascism was an extreme right wing ideology rooted in nationalism, militarism and sprinkled with theories of racial superiority. Any resemblance to socialism or communism was purely superficial. Both place collective good oabove individual freedoms, but in fascist states, the indvidual's loyalty was to the State or the leader (the "fuherpriznip").

Or it could be because there's more people in the GTA than in Alberta and Saskatchewan combined? As for the "wine and cheese set" stereotype: please. It's boring. Give it a rest. Fair enough. They dissapprove of different behaviour (which alone torpedos the notion that of Albertans' robust individualism) to the point where they are willing to legislate against different behaviours (ie. SSM). That makes them restrictive. Of course, legislation aside, Albertans are also prone to other means of expressing their dislike of different opinions: just look at the number of times I've been challenged by fellow Albrtans to "walk into a bar and say that" or how about, not two posts above yours: "Plus voting the way he does, it's a wonder he doesn't get run over by one of my crew trucks!!" I expect they look a lot like Ralph Klein and his posse, albeit with nicer suits. Actually, most of Alberta's urban elite lives in Calgary, judging by the per capita income and number of corporate HQs down there. See, in my book, "elite" status depends more on real power (political and economic) than it does fancy book learnin'. I'll refrain from explaining the necessity of unemployment to the capitalist system and instead point out that you're just proving my points here. As was already pointed out, I was born and raised here. And I would also point out the irony in your accussing me of stereotyping Albertans, even as you trot out ever single tired cliche in the book. (By the way, why the constant threat of violence with you people? Are your opinions so weak that they can't withstand dissent? Or are you just trying to show what a big tough manly man you are?) You need to get off the farm, son. Stop perpetuating every sterotype about Albertans there are and open your eyes. Alberta, for all its faults, is a modern and diverse province. It's people like you, who cling to outdated stereotypes and wax nostalgic for the bygone days who are the are relics and dinosaurs that are holding us back.

I went to a Catholic school and invoked religion all the time before a test. Though I don't know if exclaiming "Jesus Christ! Not another test!" is praying per se...

Wow, that was weak, even for you. See, I know what fascist means. I know what the characteristics of fascism are. So when I use the term, I don't use it likely. When I call someone a fascist, I don't do it to simply denigrate them, but because their beliefs, or actions are characteristic of the historical fascist political movement. Now, your buddy Shad there does not have a grip on the word. He ascribes the "notion that if one disagrees with the policies of the country, you must leave" solely to the left (ignoring for a moment that such "love it or leave it" sentiment, a sentiment not expressed on this thread, was originally the product of right-wing anti-liberal thinking) and ascribes it to some kind of fascism on the left. Of course anyone with any knowledge of fascism knows that, historically, extreme nationalism, while a trait of fascism, is contrary to the principles of progressive thought and social democracy. In short: fascism is, by definition, a extreme right-wing ideology, which is why I'm comfortable using it to describe those with extreme right wing beliefs and Shady is wrong for using it to describe the left. You'll have to try a lot harder than that.

Well, as the validity of laws are dependent on their enforcement, for the authorities to not enforce a law (remember: this isn't simply a case of not getting caught: the authorities new what Emery was up to and chose to do nothing about it), then logically a law that is able to be volated without consequenses is, in effect, null and void.

I wouldn't say that is the case, probably because that hasn't entered the discussion. What I am basing that on is your partisan sloganeering. Examples, por favor.

I had no idea that there was a correlation between Alberta's material wealth and the validity of its social beliefs. As for "urban elites": that describes more than 2/3 of Alberta's population. If only it were true. However, that is less Alberta's culture as Alberta's enduring myth. For example, why is a culture with such a "robust sense of personal freedom" also on eof the most socially restrictive parts of the country? As far as other myths go, sure Albertans believe in responsibility and freedom from regulation...until times get tough, in which case Albertans are always right there jostling for their spot at the trough. Finally, when it comes to "political elites", you don't have to look much further than the insulated pashas under the dome of the legislature.