Moonlight Graham

Agreed. Unfortunately, Obama apologizes for American wrongs of the past, yet commits similar b.s. himself or allows it under his watch. He is a sell-out and a hypocrite.

Welcome to globalization, open trade borders & deregulation, and all that jazz. I read a bit of the Conservative election platform on their website. They are promising to secure free trade agreements with the EU and India. CPC likes thems some trade liberalization.

Where is the evidence this isn't an issue? How about some poll numbers?

Wow. linky dinky Talk about lax (and likely corrupt) security. If Afghan guards can't prevent an escape like this by insurgents/Taliban, we are expecting to train these guys to secure their country and government? Training their military is a waste of time, let's just cut a power deal with the Taliban and come home.

There are already covert troops working inside the country. But of course they wear slippers, not boots right?

That is far from inevitable. These are war hawks calling for the boots, not the majority of Congress (so far), and Obama can ignore them. Libya is certainly looking like its going to be a long drawn-out affair. Looks like NATO countries didn't anticipate this going in, and now they stuck between a rock and a hand place.

Things look ugly in Syria. Interestingly, Obama and some other European leaders (not sure about Harper) have been very outspoken about the situation, much different to how they initially handles Syria. Guess they don't same interests with them.

I think it's going to be a hell of a fight. It will be amazing to watch these guys if they get on the ground. Shields is a ridiculously amazing grappler and submission expert, and everyone knows about GSP's ground/wrestling skills. I just watched Shields' last fight, and he was impressive on the ground, but yes no stand-up game whatsoever. It could be just as you say, GSP stuffing takedowns and trying to box with Shields all night.. I think GSP will win, but I think Shields presents an excellent challenge for GSP because he basically negates his biggest strength.

Yuppers. Conservatives like to cut taxes, yet like to spend as much as anyone. Tax and spend vs cut taxes and spend.

Good point Pliny. I guess the medias found more interesting things to report this winter.

Ya wanna get this eventually. Great puzzle/strategy games are a nice change of pace from all the shooters out there.

According your source, Iggy absent for 66% of votes. Incredible. In Harper's defense, he is the PM, and must do some travel overseas and whatnot, so him missing a few votes is understandable. But still. What are we paying these guys for?

CBC said after the debate that Jack Layton's # was incorrect. Iggy was absent for like 55% i believe they said. Still a horrid number.

I'll agree with that. This is one of the reasons i dont believe in dual citizenship. Pick your country and be done with it. If you choose to become a citizen of another country, then you must renounce your Canadian citizenship.

I disagree. You say he's disinterested in morality, but he actually denies it within himself altogether, since he told me in another thread that he was "no sense of morality". Which is, of course, absurd. Unless he's the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz or something. His focus on rational self-interest is his own morality. Rational self-interest is right/good, sacrificing my own self-interest for the benefit of others is wrong/bad. He has criticized me for being "selectively moral", which is valid. Anyone actively trying to "do the right thing" or judging as "wrong" will always encounter things that go against this and they aren't acting on or judging, whether they are aware of them or not. But I'll argue it's better to try and do the right thing and be labeled a hypocrite, than to be consistent at not trying at all. I'll counter this by saying that BC is "selectively amoral". Amoral rational self-interest dictates he must steal, cheat, lie, murder, rape etc. when the benefits outweigh the risks. I doubt this is the case. If "economics trumps virtue", then he must be consistent in this, therefore supporting slavery, economic imperialism, war, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. if there is net economic benefits to him that outweigh the disadvantages. Again, doubtful...but beyond the realm of possibility

Who do you intend to vote for in the 2011 federal election? (or have already voted for if you went to an advanced poll) And yes i'm aware you vote for MP's, not parties, we all know the deal.

Personally i think the purpose of government should be to ensure i get laid as often as possible with as many different hot chicks as possible.

I agree with this. As pliny eluded, if a system is too redistributive and able-bodied people can live comfortable lives without working very hard (or not working at all), you corrode the incentive to work and produce, and in a way corrode people themselves, and will have a net negative effect economically and socially. There is definitely a line, for a "just" yet prosperous society in my opinion, where there is enough of a welfare system to provide for those genuinely in need or to ensure basic rights (some believe healthcare is one), yet still make it necessary for healthy, able-bodies people to work in order to enjoy a decent standard of living, and also to ensure one the fundamental aspects of capitalism, being that if you are smart/talented and hardworking you can make a hell of a lot more money than if you aren't.

So basically you reject the entire word "destroy/destroyed" and its definition. Got it. Name me one thing that can be destroyed?

Then you see all taxes as slavery? Even if taxes are 5%, you are legally forced to pay or punished by the state. The people you named were dictators. Under a democracy, it's the people who decide how much coercion is ok. In many circumstances yes. It's the same here in Canada. But if people are too stupid, selfish, and short-sighted to see the unsustainability of that, eventually they (or their grandkids) will have to deal with the consequences. I bet a country like Greece will likely be much more vigilant in the future about paying for the things they can't afford, just like a relative of mine is after they went into big credit card debt by charging for luxuries they couldn't afford. No, it's called a social democracy. Why do you deal with things so much in black and white. If it's not laissez-faire capitalism or a libertarian state then it's fascism or communism? Again, those are all dictators. Like I said before, in a democracy it's up to the people to determine this, not 1 person.

Yes, all humans suffer. But there are vast differences in the suffering and quality of life of different people within and between states. A significant portion of human suffering can be reduced or prevented. I believe in the Golden Rule, and the more people who follow it the more humanity as a collective will prosper. Tell that to Grand Moff Tarkin and the people of Alderaan.

Keep in mind i'm not saying Nader is the almighty and i agree with his other views, i'm saying he's pretty bang on in what he says in the video. I'm not even that aware of many of his positions. Yes, coercion (taxes) seems the most effective way to spread wealth within a state, as far as i know. I don't agree with the comparison to slavery. It's coercion. Generally, slaves are people who are legal property of others, with little or no rights for themselves. Besides the communist countries, aren't most of the countries you mentioned having financial problems because of their debt? They obviously didn't balance the books well. There are many industrialized democratic countries with socialist elements that have done fantastic under a system of capitalism mixed with a substantial welfare state. These countries always seem to consistently be at the top of the Human Development Index rankings every year. Though i wouldn't describe myself as a "Utilitarian", this system seems the best system to ensure "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people". I'd replace it with something more democratic. Where the number of consenting people, not number of dollars, determines policy. I don't have the solution to do this, but it would start with changing some of the campaign/party finance & lobbying laws.

I find it more than ironic that people are debating equality of rights when in comes to the monarchy. People shouldn't be debating whether or not girls should have the same chance as boys to lead the monarchy, they should be debating whether the monarchy should have any political power or relevance whatsoever. The monarchy really has little power in Canadian politics, so debating succession is moot. Male or female, if the king/queen ever meddled out of turn in Canadian internal affairs it would OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

Are you freaking kidding me? If you're a PM of a minority gov't, you should be well aware that most of the electoral ridings DID NOT vote for your party. That means you should respect what a minority parliament represents, meaning you must work with other party's in order to pass legislation and respect some of the demands of the other parties because they represent the majority of the electorate (in terms of ridings). There's a fine line between having "balls" and being an asshole. That line is about 4-inches long and is called a "taint". Harper has been break-dancing all over this taint for the last several years. And can somebody please give me a trophy or something because, yes, i did just successfully use the word "taint" in a political analogy.

You fashion yourself an admirer of Ayn Rand? Without an answer, you certainly seem to follow an Objectivist point of view. This would explain much, and would also explain why we seem to bump heads so often since i suppose one could call me a proponent of altruism as well as not agreeing with laissez-faire capitalism. I also believe that self-interest is at the root of much of the world's preventable human suffering & environmental destruction. edit: altrium = altruism