segnosaur

No it doesn't. I don't think anyone here claimed that the video told the entire truth. It's a short video which cannot detail everything. That particular piece of video ran less than 6 minutes. A youtube video can be roughly 10 minutes. There was more than enough time to illustrate Palestinian aggression within that video if they wished. Its only "short" because they want to give a distorted picture of the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Really? Gee... the moment any of us started to deal with this horribly biased video you accuse is of being "storm troopers" (while at the same time ignoring the points we brought up.) Doesn't sound like you have much interest in 'discussing' things. You see, if you well and truely believe that Hamas was wrong in launching missiles, you should immediately stop posting. Why? Because the missiles were clearly launched before the Israeli incursion into Gaza, and in general a group which initiates hostilities should receive little sympathy if/when they end up having more damage inflicted on them than they inflicted on others. (This of course has been pointed out to you before. However, rather than you trying to 'discuss' the issue, you resorted to name-calling.) First of all, as I pointed out, any interviews that were carried out were done so with Hamas people present, not exactly a situation where people can talk freely. Secondly, and most importantly, I have provided evidence (in the form of an article in a main-stream media source) which shows that yes, indeed Hamas did use human shields. See post 5 for details. (There is no guarantee that any 'investigation' will uncover all the evidence, and that is especially true when it is run by "useful idiots". In this case, it definitely looks like they've overlooked evidence. That "opinion page" was from a main stream media source (i.e. the Sepectator) by an actual journalist who has done the research in order to point out specific actions and events. Do you have any evidence that the events and/or quotations provided in the article are in any way incorrect? In fact, did you actually read the article? She goes into detail about: - The initial mandate (Giving an actual quote from a UN release) - The fact that members investigating the committee had previously signed letters condemning Israel (suggesting a bias on their part), and that there were significant ties between the investigation group and groups with a known anti-Israeli bias By the way, do you, in any way, find it hypocritical that you would complain about my source, yet you started this thread with a Youtube video, bastion of 9/11 truthers and other such questionable sources. No, it covers only part of Hamas' war crimes, since obviously they didn't feel it necessary to, you know, interview people when Hamas solders were not around. That's not true. Actually, yes it is true. Sorry about that. By the way, here's a suggestion... go to Post #5. Read the references I provided. They show that, regardless of what the report says, human shields were used. The references I provided came from PBS, an organization which is generally viewed as honest. What? Where do you come up with these things? By, you know, actually having a clue what is going on in the world. The U.N. is composed of member states, any one of which could have intevened to defend Israel if they so chose. Silly. No one allows themselves to be attacked. If you want to be taken seriously, stop making comments like that. Actually they do. U.N. "peacekeeping" missions are notorious for not taking action. (Some are mentioned on Wikipedia; unfortunately, while the wikipedia article does contain references to UN documents, the UN site had removed/archived the articles.)Another example is how the U.N. allowed some of their peacekeepers to be killed during the Rwanda genocide. By the way, here are a few quotes, from the U.N. itself regarding the actions of Hezbollah: http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=630 Asked about Hezbollah tactics near UN positions, the spokesperson said that Hezbollah sometimes uses UN positions as a shield. Really? So you don't think having thousands of rockets/mortars raining down on your country, or of being subject to suicide bombings and kidnappings makes someone a victim? What exactly does it make you then? Well, its about real-estate in the sense that Hamas has made it a goal to take all of Israel's real estate away from them. Its actually in Hamas' charter. Here's a little history lesson... In each of those wars, it was the Arab nations that were taking offense (usually starting the war themselves). If one party decides to instigate a war and looses (i.e. the Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries) they cannot go and complain "unfair!" Had Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and all the other Arab neighbors decided to just sit around and not attack Israel, then Israel would be a lot smaller than it is today. Actually, no they're not. Yes, civilians die as the result of Israeli actions, but they are not specifically targeted. Don't you think that if Israel really wanted to kill civilians, with all their firepower, that they wouldn't have racked up a much higher body count? Really.. apply a little logic here. Try Occam's razor. It works wonders. So we've gone from moral equivalence to a 'signed' treaty. So if Iran pulls out of the NPT, you would be okay with Iran having nuclear weapons? Nope, because: A: They were members, benefiting for years from whatever the treaty provided them B: They are a murderous theocratic dictatorship who's leaders have expressed a desire to "wipe Israel from the map". Most people would consider that a "bad thing". Actually, its more accurate to say they get accused of "violating laws", mostly by "useful idiots" such as your self who are only too happy to act as a pawn and parrot whatever anti-Israeli claims are made without examining context. No one here is defending Iran's government. Yet you're claiming they are somehow "nicer" than Israel (e.g. wouldn't use nuclear arms.) I see... so a country that has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", who has had its own long history of fighting border wars (repeated skirmishes with Iraq, leading up to the Iran/Iraq war), who is run by religious fanatics, who has regularly resisted/defied the U.N. (over its nuclear program, human rights, and attempts to stop wars) is somehow a 'safer' country to have nuclear weapons than Israel. Just out of curiosity, since you don't think being subject to 8000 rocket attacks is worth fighting back over, tell me, just how many rocket attacks/suicide bombings/kidnappings should Israel be expected to put up with before you will think its justified in fighting back? Got a number? (edited to fix grammar)

No, not insane. A desire to provide for yourself and your family is certainly not "wrong". It is only "wrong" if you choose to do so by illegally taking property/assets which are not yours. Ummm... because, a desire to be 'rich' can be an incentive for people to work harder, invent, and create items that eventually enrich us all. If you tell people "regardless of how hard you work you will never be better off" then why would many people bother starting a new business (which often involves considerable risks/long hours)? Why would I want to invent new things? Nope, but we can leave luxuries to our children. Many people like to know their children will have a good life. Except of course the fact that those 2 cannot be separated. We will always be a product of both our generic and social histories. Not to mention the rather naive idea that you could get everyone to agree to such a nonsensical "be generous to everyone" concept. Ever hear of the "Prisoner's dilemma"?

Really? Then why were you claiming (quite incorrectly I might add) that all government debt payments go "to the banks"? And why were you claiming that it was necessary for the government to issue loans directly so profits go "to the people" when that is already happening? Sorry, when you make huge blunders like that, its going to be assumed that you don't really know how the economy works. Ummm... so? First of all, we have a cyclical economy. We will always go through periods of hot-and-cold. I myself can guarantee that, even if the economy got really hot (GDP increased, unemployment fell, lots of fun throughout the land) that eventually we will run into another recession. Secondly, I find it extremely ironic that you would refer to Schiff... From the looks of it, he's actually against government regulation and control. Your idea that banking should be run directly by the government would be something he would be strongly opposed to. (See: http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?from=home&id=14566) So, what is it... is Schiff some economic genius, in which case we should follow his advice and cut government regulations (and let the banks do whatever they want)? Nope, only trying to put the situation into its proper context. For better or worse, that's human nature. Unless you can reverse a few million years of evolution, you will never end up with a species where altruistic intentions are universal. Given the fact that most people have a biological predisposition for improving improving their own situation in life, the capitalistic system is the best for harnessing that imperative.

Ummm... really? Do you honestly think that, if Israel stopped taking U.S. aid, that the rest of the middle east would jump right in and make peace? (I could point out that Israel was attacked pretty much from the start, long before people started believing Israel was some 'puppet' of the U.S.) Frankly, I think most middle east governments don't really care about Israel or Palestine, but Israel serves as a convenient 'whipping boy' that governments in the region can use to distract people from their own brutal oppression. And that would go on regardless of whether the U.S. supported Israel or not. Frankly, I think it should also be hard to be against a country that actually is a functioning democracy, when they are surrounded by oppressive theocracies and other dictatorial regeimes. Please point out which of the Arab-Israeli wars that Israel was guilty of starting. (The only one which Israel 'started' was the 6 day war, but given the fact that Egypt, Jordan and Syria were all massing their forces, had partially blockaded Israel, and given the fact that leaders from at least some countries had expressed a desire to "destroy" Israel, Israeli actions are usually viewed as pre-emptive.) Kind of ironic that you would suggest that Israel shouldn't have "special treatment". The fact is, there are brutal dictatorships and human rights abuses all over the world. The Palestinians themselves are subject to more abuse from their own leaders (lets face it, Hamas is just as willing to kill Palestinians as it is to kill Israelis) than they are from Israel. Your average Palestinian living within Israel itself probably has more rights than your average Iranian or Saudi Arabian citizen. With all the tragedy in the world, the U.N. still has the time to single out Israel, with repeated attempts to pass anti-Israeli resolutions, and running conferences that were widely seen as excuses for anti-semitism. Your right, Israel shouldn't receive "special treatment"... That should also mean that it shouldn't be singled out for special condemnation.

And I've already pointed out that while there was the testimony from multiple groups, many of those groups have repeatedly illustrated an anti-Israeli bias, and have often made allegations that were later found to be incorrect. Multiple testimonies from individuals who all have similar flaws is not really that convincing. You know, its kind of ironic that you would praise him for being involved in Yugoslavia and Rwanda issues, considering in those situations the UN failed to act. Similarly, when UN personnel were being used as human shields by Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon and failed to act. The fact is, the U.N. has repeatedly shown itself to be inept, often siding with despots and dictatorships around the world. The U.N. and its support of the Palestinians in this case is just another example of that. All I can say to that is... Who cares? Really... please show me where its written that an individual, once they do something 'right', will always continue to act in a correct manner. Frankly, the world is filled with people who have made great contributions at one point in their life, only to later go on and make incredibly huge blunders. No, the attempts have been successful. Its just that you're so incredibly biased in the issue that you would automatically grasp at anything which supports your view of the world.

The stormtroopers came in and denounced the video as biased without giving any specific reason why. More demonstration of your inability to consider the details in a rational manner. The reasons that we have denounced the video are given by multiple posters throughout this thread. For example, go to post #5 (by me) or post #6 (by Gabriel). Which, of course, as we already explained, does not tell the entire truth. That there were Palestinian deaths (in fact more Palestinians than Israelis) is not in dispute. That there were civilian deaths is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the reason for those deaths. Israel had been subject to on-going rocket attacks for years. Those rocket attacks were not aimed at military targets. Strangely enough, your video did not mention that. The party controlling the Gaza strip has, as their policy, the destruction of Israel. Your video did not mention that. Hamas fighters regularly used human shields, thus putting civilians at risk. Your video did not mention that. Multiple posters have already pointed out the fallacy of laying the blame at a country engaging in self defense. Ah, where exactly shall I begin? So much stupidity, so little time... First of all: Goldstone (as well as others in his little 'fact finding' mission have regularly been accused of exhibiting bias. (Heck, there is even evidence that he lied about his mandate... See: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5322971/the-goldstone-showtrial.thtml) Secondly... even if there is truth to this inquiry, strangely enough, your video did not indicate the Palestinians war crimes, only the Israelis. Why do you think that is? Thirdly, keep in mind that the group wasn't even initially mandated to investigate Palestinian aggression. Lastly, the 'information' used is rather suspect. For example: - The report does not include claims of the user of human shields, but any civilians that were approached had Hamas soldiers watching them (can you say "indimidation"?) - Many groups testifying in front of the group had long histories of making anti-Israeli statements (many of which had since proven to be false.) If Israel follows international law, it does not mean that they would be eliminated. Well, lets see: - When Israel was first formed, they were attacked, multiple times... The U.N. did not defend them. They had to defend themselves - When Israel went into Lebannon last time, the U.N. repeatedly allowed themselves to be attacked and used as human shields by Hezbollah (see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/30/20060730-093558-9976r/) So, why exactly should any Israeli assume that the "rest of the world" will come to its defense if they are subject to attack? It allowed Israel to be created. On the other hand, despite repeated aggressive actions by its neighbors, the U.N. has not taken any steps to actually defend Israel. Iran support for Hezbollah is not much different than U.S.' support for Israel. Ummm... this shows a rather idiotic sense of moral equivalence. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. It is behind suicide bombings against civilian targets, kidnappings (and summary executions), and is a religious organization. (If you lived in a society controlled by Hezbollah you would not have the same freedoms you have now.) While Israel is not perfect, they are far and above more moralistic than Hezbolla. Well, mainly the Nuclear Non-poliferation treaty. Any party signing on to the treaty agrees not to pursue nuclear arms, and in exchange they get assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear power. Thing is, Iran signed the treaty, therefore they should be subject to its terms. Israel, on the other hand, never signed, so they are not subject to its terms. I could also point out that Israel is a democratic country, controlled by the rule of law. (This country has, in the passed, offered humanitarian aid to Iran!). Iran is a brutal dictatorship, run by Islamic extremists, who's leaders have made comments regarding a desire to "wipe Israel of the map". Now, given those 2, ahem, political situations, which country do you think is more likely to actually use nuclear weapons?

And keep in mind that this 'analysis' comes from someone who doesn't even understand that Canadian banks are not the main holders of Canada's debt, and doesn't understand that bank profits already get distributed to the "people". Ummm... why? There are a lot of economists, with widely varying opinions. Why should we particularly care about these? (By the way, I did a quick search on Schiff... found out that he tends to be wrong more often than right.) Even though there are inequities, we still have an extremely high standard of living. Well, how about the fact that we've had decades of relative economic stability (with minor boom/bust cycles that have not had lasting impacts), and an ever-increasing standard of living? Sounds like we do have a lot going for us. Yes, some people are in poverty. But the standard of living for the population has continued to increase. (In fact, I rather suspect that even the poorest Canadian/American has a better standard of living than a middle-class individual from a century ago.) Poor people today can usually afford food, get basic health care, and often get 'luxuries' (like TVs). Those sort of things were probably unheard of a hundred years ago. Because, people need an incentive to create new things, and in our society we've decided that the work in coming up with a new 'idea' is just as valuable as the work needed to build a house, sew clothing, etc. If there were no such things as patents, then why would an inventor bother trying to create something new? After all, your 'invention' would just get stolen and manufactured by others. As an inventor, you'd be better off not wasting your time trying to create something. Well, lets see... according to Wikipedia: An oligarchy is a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, intellect, family ties, military might, or religion hegemony. That certainly doesn't apply to Canada/The U.S., nor most of europe. (We have democratic institutions, none have any sort of religious mandate, none are controlled by military, etc., and our politicians have been from across a wide band of the social strata.) Yeah, there may be countries in other parts of the world who are "oligarchies", but guess what? They don't have the same banking/economic/political system that we have in Canada. So, you can't suggest Canada's system is 'bad' because events in the other systems don't apply here!

Does anyone else find it ironic that naomiglover is accusing someone else of believing the conflict is "black and white", when they themselves started the thread with a video that was completely one sided, and that totally ignored any transgressions that the Palestinians have engaged in? So, would you rather see one of the few modern, democratic states in the Middle east (i.e. Israel) eliminated, and replaced by a nation run by Hamas or Fatah, groups that have been, ahem, far from democratic (Hamas is known to kill political rivals within the Palestinian population and Fatah was widely seen to be corrupt, often run as a dictatorship)?

Ummm... you do realize that, even if we believed your claim, that doesn't necessarily mean that such disapproval is either A: Widespread (good chance that you just tend to 'hang out' with those who would disapprove), and B: correct. OK... I'll bite... Just what exactly do you think is an appropriate defense against rocket attacks? You seem to think there is some simple, non-violent solution to stop them, so please, lets hear it. I'm sorry, but this totally illustrates a lack of understanding of reality. If you have Hamas soldiers hiding amongst the civilian population in places like hospitals, then the people to blame are Hamas. The Geneva convention specifically forbids the use of "human shields". Granted, war is never really 'civilized', but I think it speaks volumes about the morality of both sides when Hamas actually takes actions like that. (Also speaks volumes about you, when you're willing to justify the use of human shields.) And as I've pointed out, I have sympathy for any Gaza resident who truly has tried to live in peace. Its too bad there aren't more of them, who might actually be willing to rise up, get rid of Hamas, and tell Israel "We don't want any more trouble". So, why don't you tell us what exactly should be done? Just let Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups continue firing rockets, sending suicide bombers and engaging in sniper activity? Beg them "Please please Hamas be nice to us"? Ahem, "single criminal acts"? Since 2001, there have been over 8000 rocket attacks on Israel. Even during 2008, when Hamas supposedly agreed to a 'cease fire', there were still dozens of rocket and mortar attacks. Ummm... it does? Please point out the passages in the Old Testimant that makes "over reaction" necessary? Then why don't the Gazans do the smart thing, stop lobbing rockets into Israel, and see what happens? Tell me, does your next-door neighbor routinely take shots at you and your house? Well, gee... the fact that Arafat was the head of a terrorist organization that engaged in suicide bombings might have something to do with it. Or how about the fact that even after he supposedly recognized the right of Israel to exist, he continued to incite Palestinians to engage in violence. Problem is, there is no god. Sorry to break the news to you. I see... Does that include taking the life of children? (After all, those rockets that they keep lobbing into Israel aren't necessarily directed at military targets... they often hit schools, etc.

Yes. Israel is sitting innocently in a bar, doing nothing. Yeah, I guess naomiglover's response is not too suprising. Almost Pavlovian. Nothing illustrates that someone (e.g. naomiglover) fails to understand issues as when they immediately label people who disagree as 'storm troopers'. (Of course, I could also point out how distasteful it is to use the term 'storm trooper' when dealing with an issue involving a Jewish state, considering the historical use of 'stormtrooper' in nazi Germany.) The fact is, several issues were raised which illustrate continued Palestinian belligerence. Rather than actually try to deal with those issues, you go and insult anyone who might have a problem with you posting your one-sided video. Shows a lack of reasoning ability on your part. You DO realize that, rather than being able to convince us of the 'nobility' of the Palestinian cause, all you are doing is making us realize just how many Palestinian supporters are "useful idiots". Perhaps if you were able to actually state your case in a logical, rational manner, without relying on cheesy one-sided videos, and without resorting to insults you might actually be more convincing.

Quite true. In fact, here you're pretty much dead wrong. By the way, I seem to notice you glossed over a few rather important mistakes of yours that were pointed out, such as: - Bank profits already get returned 'to the people', through dividend payouts to average citizens who happen to have bank stock in RRSPs, retirement plans, etc. So the money is already "helping our standard of living", even without having the Bank of Canada issue loans directly - Canada's debt is not "held by the private banks". Much of it is held by Canadian citizens (e.g. through Canada savings bonds), or internationally. So when Canada pays interest on the debt, it doesn't really do much to benefit those private banks Why haven't you addressed those issues? Or at least admitted you're wrong. Democracy has nothing to do with 'learning'. You learn through education and experience. Except that's not what's happening here. Canada's debt is spread amongst thousands of people, both nationally and internationally. No single person or company has significant power over our public debt. Those 'private banks' have been a part of the U.S. (and Canada) having decades of an increasing standard of living. Yes, we get occasional boom-bust cycles, but we always end up better off. And as someone else has suggested... what would be the point of some 'evil bank' trying to 'bring America to its knees'? They benefit from a strong economy too. Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with whether Americans were borrowing from private banks to fund their purchases, or borrowing from a central government bank. Again that has nothing to do with who owns the banks. I could also point out that the stimulus is not supposed to last forever. The concept is that the government goes into debt now to cover an economic downturn. Once the major crisis is done, people start being productive and regain consumer confidence and the Stimulus can end. When the economy gets too hot the government can slow things down by further cutting its own spending to repay its debt. From the Bank of Canada Website Ultimately, the Bank is owned by the people of Canada. Which of course is irrelevant. Go back and read what I wrote... I pointed out that we the people would not be running/controlling the bank on a day to day basis. In fact, I have more control right now over our privately run banking system than I would over any central government bank. If I don't like the services that my current bank offers, I can take my business elsewhere. I have personal choices. With a single government-run bank, I'd have no such choice. I don't like our democracy. We should vote on ideas not politicians, so the overall idea is thought up by the people to benefit the people, the politicians would then only be the administrators of the peoples idea. First of all, its a totally idiotic idea. Given the number of issues (many of which have complex interrelationships) it would be impossible to vote for "ideas". Secondly, you seem to ignore the key point I was making... Whatever is voted on by the majority may not be what you as an individual want. If 51% of people vote for a politician (or an 'idea'), and you are stuck in the 49% who are opposed, you ended up getting your 'wishes' ignored/trampled on. (edited to fix tags)

Yeah I gotta agree here. Consider this: In World War 2, Japan had roughly 580,000 civilians killed. (This wasn't even including more than 2 million military deaths). There were 400,000 American casualties (including military and civilians), far less than the number of Japanese dead. So, does that make the U.S. "Wrong"? No, Japan was the aggressor in the war; America was justified in taking actions against an aggressive enemy.

Yeah, gotta agree here... the video was blatantly one sided, chalked full of pro-Palestinian propaganda, and a total waste of time. You know, I do feel sorry for the truly innocent Palestinians. However, lets consider some of the relevant facts: - Israel has been subject to various terrorist activities for decades, including rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and kidnappings - The Gaza strip is controlled by Hamas (a group with the openly declared goal of the elimination of the state of Israel) was voted into power by the residents of the Gaza - Gaza television continually shows TV shows oriented towards Children that have anti-Israeli messages (like Tomorrow's pioneers) - During the military actions on the Gaza strip, Hamas was actually using human shields (for example, they were stationing soldiers within civilian hospitals... See: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/blog/gaza-er-hamas-hiding-in-shifa-hospital/4086/) Given the fact that Israel was the recipient of terrorist attacks from an area that was run by a hostile organization that had popular public support, why exactly should Israel just sit back and take whatever deaths have occured?

I do tend to listen to CFRA quite a bit when driving, partly because their frequent traffic/weather updates during rush hours, partly because there doesn't seem to be a radio station that features music I like, partly because I like to keep up to date with news from different sources. Keep in mind that CFRA does tend to feature commentators that sit on the right of the political spectrum. (Perhaps not all, but the main ones do.) I do tend to hold libertarian views on many things, so sometimes I agree with the commentators, sometimes I disagree. The best commentator (although he doesn't have a show on the station) is John Robson. Frankly, I find John Consel to be one of the biggest idiots that ever came down the turnpike.

It should not be like this, fuck government incentive, it should be the peoples incentive. Unfortunately, it would not be 'the people' who control a central government-owned bank directly. It would be the government (not to mention mid-level government officials) who would be running/controlling the bank on a day-to-day basis. And it is those people who often "lack the incentive". Not only that, any politician who is involved in making decisions regarding such a bank may not necessarily make decisions you agree with, depending on what he feels is the best chance at getting reelected. As I have already explained... the bank 'wealth' (i.e. profits) is already being redistributed to the people, in the form of dividends to shareholders, many of whom are average citizens who happen to hold bank stock in their retirement plans, mutual funds, etc. So, it already does "increase the standard of living". Not to mention the fact that even when the bank spends money 'friviously', such spending does help provide jobs in various sectors of the economy. One again... do you think bankers just burn the profits they collect? Do you think all this money sits under a giant mattress somewhere? Never mind the fact that it would be pretty much impossible to 'stop electing corrupt officials'... After all, nobody is a mind reader, and we have no way to tell before hand whether a particular politician is honest/uncorruptable.... The problem is, as I've mentioned before, politicians play to their particular voter-base. If you are not a member of that voter base, there is no guarantee that any politician is going to listen to your concerns/ideas about how the bank is run.

Nope, there's your first big mistake right there. You see, Much of Canada's debt (at all levels of government) is actually in the form of Government bonds and similar securities, often held by individual citizens. (Some debt is also held by foreign countries.) So, you don't even know the basics of how our economy works. Actually, if you want to split hairs... they earn billions from service fees and interest charges, which result in profits. Well, for one, the 'Bank of Canada' is not a bank in the traditional sense, in that it has tellers and other services available to the public. If the Bank of Canada were to set up such services, it would require significant overhead. Secondly, most people would favor at least some competition. Banks often offer similar services, but there sometimes are differences (in interest rates, fees, details, etc.) Were we to have a single monolithic 'Bank of Canada' you would loose the ability to go to a competing bank because you happen to like their hours of operation, their interest rates, etc. Actually, profit from the private banks does go back to the people. Much bank stock is held by private citizens, either directly, or more often through retirement plans/mutual funds. I myself hold some bank stock in my RRSP mutual funds. Those profits are going to help people when (for example) they reach retirement age. What exactly do you think was happening to money earned by the banks? Think it was just disappearing? Being stuck under a giant matress? Burned by the executives of the bank? Simple... it doesn't The Bank of Canada has never been in the business of handling individual financial transactions. The role of the Bank of Canada is to issue money, buy/sell currency (if they need to change the value of the Canadian dollar) and to hold a certain portion of money for banks to guarantee stability. (Actually, not even sure if they do that last one anymore.) Bank of Canada already controls the issuing of currency. There are also regulations regarding the issuance of credit. The fact that we are in a 'debt based' economy has nothing to do with the banks. Government debt is a result of politicians spending more than is collected. Consumer debt is the result of individuals spending more than they earn. Both debts would still occur regardless of who actually served as 'banker'. Just out of curiosity, are you someone who claims to know the monetary/banking system? Because if so, your education really is lacking. (Right from the start, when you claimed that 'all this money (government debt interest) goes to the banks', you've had significant errors.) Do you automatically assume that everything the government does is correct? I trust the government enough to know they're not going to, for example, kidnap me and harvest my organs. However, that does not mean I will trust them to always act in my best interest. Yes it does.... - Much of those billions ends up going back to the people, through dividend payments to shareholders. Those shareholders include millions of Canadians who have retirement plans/mutual funds. (It wouldn't surprise me if you yourself received some of those 'billions'.) - It gives us choice, options on where we want to bank Well, lets see: - That 'private jet' you are complaining about may actually have been assembled here in Canada, thus helping our manufacturing sector. The sale of aviation fuel helps our petrochemical industries. Plus, you also have to employ pilots, ground crew, etc. So, the private jet isn't just some 'dead end' for money - That private jet may also allow bank executives to function more efficiently (instead of them sitting in an airport departure lounge for 2 hours, they can be flying to their meetings) - Why exactly are you assuming that a government-run bank would be any better? Granted, none of our government executives use their own plane, but how often have we heard of government waste? (Spending huge amounts on food/wine/entertainment, buying equipment and not using it, etc.) Money already is controlled by the people... - We (as citizens) have the financial freedom to invest in banks if we so choose, lend to the government, buy savings bonds, or even store it under the mattress. Not everyone will make the same decision, but you still have the control - The federal government still controls the M1 money supply, and they still set banking regulations Problems with that plan: - Bank of Canada is not set up to deal with individual loans - Where do you think they will get those 'bank of Canada' notes? Freshly printed? That would drive down the dollar and increase inflation. Although there is a kernel of truth to this particular sentence, you seem to have omitted the fact that there are limits to the amount a bank can loan out. Frankly, its pretty much irrelevent. The government knows how much money is 'created' based on such loans. (Its part of the M1 money supply.) Its already been factored into the economy. And frankly, the U.S. (and Canada) went many many decades with no major melt-downs.

Correct, but totally irrelevant. Yes, people only elect their local MPs so its not a direct vote for the PM. However, trying to word things to satisfy any picky attitudes people may have is a waste of time. People know how the government works. Saying "Chretien got X% of the popular vote" is a useful shorthand, rather than have to write "The Liberal party under Chretien got X% of the popular vote". I see you're still ignoring the main points: - Even most Majority leaders don't earn the "hearts and minds" of a majority of the population by having their party gain a majority of the popular vote - Some Majority PMs end up having shorter terms than minority PMs. So, rather than trying to waste time by trying to describe the minute details of our electoral system, why don't you deal with those 2 issues?

In the 2000 election, Chretien only received around 41% of the popular vote. That means less than half of all Canadians voted for his party. Almost 6 in 10 people did not want the Liberals in power. So, should Chretien have been able to move into 24 Sussex? After all, Chretien never showed the Liberals were the party "Canadians want". Chretien also called an election after 3 1/2 years. This is actually less time than some Minority governments have run. What does that do to your "long term" argument?

All right, lets take a look at all the mistakes you made in your opening post, m'kay? First of all, you're complaining about "minority PMs". But keep in mind that even when a party has managed to land a majority, their percentage of the popular vote is almost always less than 50%. (In fact, its even possible that a minority PM might have even obtained a higher percentage of the vote than other PMs who managed a majority on lower vote percentages.) So, your argument that the PM has to "capture the hearts and minds of Canadians" falls flat. Secondly, 24 Sussex drive is not just the Prime Minister's residence. It is often used for informal meetings with other government officials, visiting dignitaries, etc. Thirdly, you seem to be belittling the effort that it takes to even win a parlimentary minority, and to maintain it for a significant length of time. (Heck, some of the minority governments that Canada have had have lasted longer than one of Chretien's majority governments.) Lastly, you seem to have not considered all of the ramifications. What are you going to do about security? (24 Sussex has established security systems; you going to have the RCMP re-design security setups ever time a new minority PM has to find a new house?) You going to let 24 Sussex sit empty, possibly for years at a time, costing taxpayers money (not to mention the fact that it will have to be maintained, and heated. Not exactly very friendly to the environment.)

It is true, NZ and Australia did have very mild flu seasons. But keep something in mind: The start of the flu season in Australia was a lot closer to the time when the virus was discovered, and Australia is relatively isolated. It might have been a logical assumption (at least at the time) that the reason their flu season was so mild was because H1N1 didn't get a chance to "entrench" itself prior to the full onset of the season. Compare that to the U.S. and Canada, both of which are geographically closer to Mexico (the possible source of H1N1), and both of which had later-starting flu seasons. That might have meant more opportunity for the virus to get established in the population. Yes, I have to agree with poth your points... people are under-informed when it comes to seasonal flu, and people may now be more complacent if/when we have similar outbreaks.

I'm going on the assumption that ZenOps actually does have doubts about the "moon landing". (Its possible that he was joking when he made his earlier comments.) If you're talking about the moon landing, remember, you're not only dealing with the President. The moon landing involved the work of thousands upon thousands of scientists, technicians, engineers, etc. working for the Apollo project. Even today, they can actually view the moon landing sites using probes. In order for some "moon hoax" to be carried out, you'd need thousands upon thousands of people to lie, convincingly at that, without one person having a change of mind and ratting everyone out. Given the fact that the government couldn't even keep Bill Clinton's infidelities or a break-in at the Watergate hotel secret, why exactly do you think they'd be able to keep a much larger plot "hidden"? Heck, if they did fake the moon landing, why exactly do you think the Russians actually went along? Given cold-war politics, you'd figure the Russians would have ever radio telescope (as well as every other resource) dedicated to proving the American's were "wrong" and weren't able to land on the moon. I think you're mis-using the word "skeptical" here. Being a 'skeptic' does not necessarily mean assuming "everything you hear might be wrong". Let logic guide you. Ever hear of "Occam's Razor"? In a simplest form, its the idea that "the simplest solution is usually correct". So, what is more likely: - That there is a global conspiracy, involving possibly millions of people even in possibly hostile countries to fake the moon landing (as well as all the evidence... moon rocks that were returned, pictures taken both then and now, equipment left on the surface of the moon that broadcast scientific data for years), and not one person has come through with evidence that it was a hoax? - That humans really did land on the moon Thing about traveling in space... once you escape earth's gravity well (as we've done time and time again with various space probes, etc.) you don't need much fuel to keep going. So? It also only took them about a decade to go from the first jet engines to launching Sputnik. Sometimes, society is just successful at things.

Here's a question: What exactly did you say in the other thread? If you claimed that H1N1 was "over hyped", you were probably right. On the other hand, if you claimed that there was "nothing at all" to worry about, then you were still wrong. Some things to keep in mind: - Yes, this flu season has been relatively mild. But people still get hospitalized and still die. At least some of those deaths are preventable if more people had gotten vaccinated. The fact that not as many died as expected shouldn't be a reason to cheer; instead we should look at the people who did die and ask "could those deaths have been prevented". - Yes, the flu season was relatively mild. But, keep in mind that roughly half the population got vaccinated. That would seriously cut down the number of infections/deaths. Granted, its not always possible to play "what if...", and I doubt we'd see a replay of the "Black death", but we would still be looking at significantly more casualties if we hadn't gotten mass immunizations It is unfortunate that there was such 'panic'. Ideally, people shouldn't be scared into getting vaccinated; they should get vaccinated because its the smart/logical/right thing to do.

You know, you keep saying that, but you have not yet provided proof. Repeating a statement multiple times does not automatically make it more true. (And, from the looks of things, I'm not the only one who has doubts about that particular statement... at least one other poster has dealt with your issue of costs at grocery stores vs. butchers/bakers. You know, that really should be the end of your argument there.... Maybe it doesn't exist because, well, it really doesn't exist. I am not "hung up" on convenience/selection. I think its an important issue, but not the only one. Well, one of the supposedly "unethical" activities of Wal-mart is having stuff supplied from China. Yet many grocery stores also get their products from the same suppliers that Wal-mart does. (Remember the pet-foot recall from a few years ago? Grocery stores were hit by the problems too.) So yes, grocery stores are taking part in at least some of the "supposedly" unethical practices of wal-mart. To be honest, I wouldn't even consider what you've given as even an "anecdote". Its a very vague, unsupported claim. You haven't given any indication of exactly what products you're talking about, what the actual price difference was, etc. Of course, that's assuming you accept vague, unsupported claims as "proof". Not all of us are so easily convinced. Ya know, you could have made that clear a bit earlier in the thread.

Probably because you decided to bring up some useless irrelevant topic which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue that was raised, and even after this fact has been pointed out to you multiple times, you still refuse to acknowledge the subject. Actually, keep in mind that at no point did I suggest farmer's markets were more expensive than grocery stores. What I've pointed out was that bakeries and butcher shops likely do not have the same choice of "basic" low end merchendise that is available in grocery stores. (Farmers markets may indeed sell produce cheaper than supermarkets, but the number of people who have convenient access to such produce year round is very very small.) I can get a loaf of no-name white bread at my local grocery store pretty darn cheap. The last time I was in a bakery, I could not do that. Why? Because they specialize in higher-end goods. (There's nothing wrong with that, but it means you can't compare what you get at supermarkets and bakeries/butchers.) You made the claim that Butchers/bakers are cheaper than supermarkets... those who make the claims are generally responsible for providing evidence. Hey, if you want to pattern your life around the procurement of basic food, it is well within your right. But that's what you ARE doing... Some of us don't actually see having to arrange our schedules to fit in with the limited opening times of some farmer's market as a "good thing". As for a better time/day to get your groceries, how about, oh, on your way home after work? Or Sunday afternoons? Heck, there are some 24 hour supermarkets near me... I've actually done my grocery shopping at 1am on a Saturday night. The point is, I do it when I choose. I don't have a desire to set my schedule so that I can only get my groceries on a particular day of the week because "that's when the farmer's market is open". (Heck, assuming the farmer's market actually would be open... any ones I've seen around here aren't open in the winter.)

Overly broad assumption. Yes, Wal-mart does get a lot of customers due to its low prices. That doesn't mean that it is the only motivation for all customers.... Many sales may be generated due to factors such as product availability, store hours, return policies, etc. Once again, that is a statement of yours for which, at this point, you have not provided evidence. (At the very least, you have done absolutely nothing to address the issue that your local bakery/butcher shop may not have the same selection of mass produced items.) You know, perhaps before you get on your high horse, you should actually try to understand a few basic concepts: - People shop at grocery stores for whatever reason - Grocery stores sell some of the same products that bakeries/butcher shops sell - Since some people shop at grocery stores for meat/bakery products, those bakeries/butcher shops loose customers - Therefore, anyone who complains about wal-mart "destroying business", yet who still shops at Sobeys/Loblaws/etc. is a hypocrite. Why exactly do you think that bringing up irrelevant (and possibly incorrect) information) is actually useful? If you want to appear relevant, why don't you try dealing with the issues that were raised? So, I guess because you live closer to a farmer's market than a grocery store, then everyone in Canada similarly lives close to a farmer's market (one that actually has fresh produce available year round). Oh, and nice that you have your Saturday's available for going to do your shopping. Some of us find it more intellectually rewarding being able to spend our Saturdays going to museums, reading books, etc. and doing things to expand our minds.