Moonlight Graham

Yes that was a pretty horrible thing to say.

It wasn't the same deal. The Jews got a lot more land out of the 1947 UN plan.

How can you be an American hero if you're not American? This writer also doesn't represent the entire "right-wing", he's just one guy.

I don't know about the exact statistics really (yes sources would help), but everything else he put in that list that I'm aware of (maybe 1/3 of it) is correct. ie: Zionist leadership did reject the Peel Plan in 1937 because they indeed wanted all of the British Mandate Palestine (or at least the vast majority of it) to themselves (though the exact same story for the Palestinians/Arabs).

All I can say is that you may indeed be right, it's a strong argument, and many things lead to the need to strict laws and a central government in order to maintain a semblance of order. I do think a state with no central authority would be more violent. Maybe some comparison to how native North Americans lived would provide a bit of insight to how anarchy would work, since there was obviously no central government uniting the different tribes. Also, the international system of states is also anarchic. There is no "world government" and no global police/army, only individual states existing together and able to attack each other with no central authority to punish them, only alliances as well as collective security institutions like NATO and the UN.

I think it would be beyond gang violence. That would exist, as it does seemingly in every country, but I would also see larger communities or factions being formed within an anarchic state. Large factions are more powerful than smaller gangs. Each faction would have people working as enforcers/protectors in order to protect their faction from outsiders, or from internal violence etc. A huge problem I could see is in defending the country from foreign armies, who make wish to invade for resources or territory expansion. With no central government and unified/coordinated army, it would make defending the state much harder.

I qualified this assumption so that in this debate people would imagine themselves in the anarchic society, and not simply state that "well, look at Somalia, it had no central government for years and look what happened". Simply stating Somalia as evidence of a view on anarchy is difficult because the country had a certain historical context (including civil war), culture, economic level etc., that was unique.

All laws are a form of coercion. If you don't obey them, you are physically forced into jail by government. It would be interesting if people had the choice to move to an independent territory (like a state/country, but a state implies government) with no central government and no enforced laws. An anarchic state. But what would such a state be like? How would society function? How would property and personal safety be protected (from both domestic hooligans & foreign armies)? What is your vision of what this society/state would be like if it existed in the current geopolitical world we live in? (Let's make the assumption that this society was started/inhabited by people like us of western culture to avoid recent comparisons to Somalia).

Where did I say I had no issue with what Mitt did?

Why? Foreigners aren't Canadian citizens so their opinion doesn't mean much to this topic.

Or people can donate directly to the charity of their choice, bypass your 20% cut, and end up giving 20% more to charities.

An interesting debate. Some corporations are indeed too big to fail (at least without horrible market & social consequences). Does that mean they should be broken up into smaller units? Who decides this and under what measures? What about the freedom of the market?

You're right, it wasn't an "inside job", at least not entirely. You're right, the film did glance over the role of ordinary Americans involved in the bubble. It also didn't quite focus enough on the role of government and its deregulation of the market and of banks. I've concluded the housing crash was caused by 3 actors, and I think they're equally culpable, and the film should have focus on all 3: government (for its role in deregulation & fooling with interest rates, among other policies), wall street & (predatory lending, trading toxic assets, rabid casino speculation etc.), and ordinary Americans who took out mortgages they couldn't really afford or had too much hope in the market.

So Mitt was a jerk when he was in high school or whatever. He was young, though that doesn't excuse him, but this was over 45 years ago. 45!!! If he did this at age 30, then a bit of a different story. This situation is good to know but I think there are way bigger issues at stake in deciding who should be president than some idiotic high school/college pranks half a century ago.

What is this? Tell me your secrets.

But by convention, they very often go with what was voted for. All heck would break loose if not.

Wondering if anyone has seen the documentary "Inside Job" (2010)? It shows how the 2008 US financial crisis came about. It's well done, and includes interviews with politicians, CEO's, former US gov officials etc. The interviewer poses very tough questions to some of the players involved. A bunch of tense moments, and also ones where these players are clearly lying to save face and the interviewer calls them on it. One interesting thing is how it shows the big credit rating agencies (ie: S&P) being basically a joke when it comes to assessing the ratings of the big banks etc, making their ratings virtually meaningless. Trailer:

That cover photo is really gross.

What`s he supposed to do though? It is largely a state issue under their jurisdiction if I'm correct. I'm not sure what he can do with gay marriage, other than give his support. Would be awesome to see him at a gay pride parade though, that would be a great photo-op!

Like mother, like daughter.

Why?

Interesting. If most of the big chains start charging in full, it would be a great disservice to the ability of Canadians to stay informed. The internet brought the ability to have easy access to a huge variety of sources instead of just relying on the daily paper on your front step & some TV clips. People are again only going to pay for one newspaper source if any, not several. I'd be interested to know exactly how much these newspapers make/lose.

MacKay and the CPC gov know that Canadians aren't the most supportive of spending big dough on military toys and adventures, so of course they must lie. MacKay is a lying sack of potatoes. He's wasting even more taxpayer money having to set up committees to investigate this nonsense. Like those potatoes, he should be sacked, or resign. He works for us, not against us.

You must have missed the part where I stated: Moonlight can admit when he has not been quite fair on an issue, as I was not in the OP. This is a positive thing that he came out and said what he did, as I've stated. At the same time, maybe if he had the stones to stand up and say this a few years ago he would have had more impact furthering gay rights. Why am I even wasting my time responding to this?