xul

Because the greatest enemy of democracy is not Stalin, Mao, Khomeini or Bin Ladin but the witless people who has no idea to distinguish what is a ballot box and what is a trash can.

But what do you suppose Obama could do on these CEOs without touching the ground of the "system"? He can not throw them into Guantanamo Bay prison and let CIA kick their asses.

I think what I said suit for all politicians, include Obama and Bush. Bush was the president, so he is responsible for the consequence caused by the decisions he made during his term. For example, Bush told public that Sadaam was making nuclear bombs, so he had to be responsible for misleading public. If he told the congress that Sadaam was making a nuclear bomb, and several minutes later he corrected his words, said it's just a mistake made by his teleprompter and Sadaam had not the ability to make a nuclear bomb, it would just be a gaffe, not misleading. Making a gaffe is embarrassing, but if public downplays the harmless gaffes politicians made, it will make politicians spending more time on essential of political affairs not on verbalism, so they can serve their countries and people better.

Trying to say something seriously: I think public and media should give our dear politicians a little tolerance when they made accidentally mistakes or gaffe so that they can make themselves more human than machines, or we'd better ask them pluging the loudspeakers in political rallies and the microphones of reporters into their TelePrompters Audio Output socket to make sure minimizing any mistakes of them.

Thank heaven nowaday politicians only use TelePrompter.....if one day some scientists invent a way to embed microchips into politicians's head, it may be the day that Hollywood film TERMINATOR becomes true.

Honestly, if it is called as a constitution not an Is**mic Law in some countries, I think it would be better your politicians amend it and put such terms in somewhere more suitable if they still wanted it.

If her majesty lends America several hundreds billion dollars he also will bow to Queen Elizabeth. In any case, I think it's just because Obama is taller than King Abdullah. I remember when I was a kids, every photo in Chinese newpapers showed American President, British PM....bowed to Mao when they were visiting China. Japanese PM was the only guy who didn't bow to Mao...because he just showed looking up to Mao.... (Mao is 1.8m, taller than most Chinese and Japanese.) It looks like a photographic trick, maybe don't need to take it seriously.

If you know the way that America rules the world is just the same way that the CPC rules China, you will understand why though CPC is not popular in Chinese people(just like America in the world) but its rule will not end up in several years later(just like America ). Please let me make two examples to explan how these kind of dictatorships work: Example 1, the American President in White House (telephone ringed and the president picked up the receiver) "Hellow, my dear Israeli PM....yes....yes...of cause, I strongly support your efforts of fighting back millitants and please allow me expressing deep condolence to those kids died in the rocket attacks.....what?...oh....no,no....it is not at the best of time to achieve a exclusive victory especially I don't want all thresholds of oil pipes only handled by one hand....no, I can not back you on this, I'm sorry....you must consider my suggestion seriously...this is my final words. " (several minutes later, the telephone ringed again) "Hellow, my dear Caliph.....yes....yes....of cause, I strongly support your peaceful efforts of calling for Israel giving up some territory to trade peace with Palestinian and please allow me expressing deep condolence to those kids died in the Israeli aggression.....what?...oh...no,no....it is not at the best of time to shut down all oil pipes especially most of these pipes lead to my country not Russia.....no, I can not back you on this, I'm sorry...you must consider my suggestion seriously....this is my final words" Example 2, the CPC boss in old emperor's study of Forbidden City (telephone ringed and the boss picked up the receiver) "Hellow, my dear Chief of Upper River Province....yes...yes...of cause, I strongly support your effort to pump up water from the river to relieve the drought your peasants suffering....you know, I count on their GDP to increase national GDP to prove the legality of my rule....what...oh....no....you can not pump every drop of water up and left nothing for Down River Province.....you know, I also count on their GDP ...I'm sorry, I can't back you on this...you must act precisely as what I have dictated.....this is my final words." (several minutes later, the telephone ringed again) "Hellow, my dear Chief of Down River Province.....yes....yes....of cause, I strongly support your effort to call for share water of the river to relieve the drought your peasants suffering....you know, I count on their GDP to increase national GDP to prove the legality of my rule.... what... oh.... no.. no... you can not shut up your harbours to Upper River Province for revenge....you know, I also count on their GDP....I'm sorry, I can't back you on this....you must act precisely as what I have dictate....this is my final words." In both two cases, there is a one thing works the same way---both the conflicting two sides failed to compromise their conflicts by themselves, so they had to depend on something "up" to do for them. Sometimes they may whine about the judgement of the "up" thing's, but they have no choice....until one day they have leant that tolerance and compromise are the best interests of themselves rather than others.

Yes, I agree with you. . I remember, since June 4th, 1989, there has had no one dare to challenge or merely correct authority in China, do you think it's good to China? The consequence what I have seen is almost all CPC officials have become the corrupt so-called "village emperors"(honestly, in 1980s, the CPC officials might be more stupid, but also less corrupt than today). The authority which has the power of "I can do what I want to do" is absolutely a nightmare of any nation.

There is another case. I think it's totally unnecessary or...insane. It seems these officers were just enjoying the power of absolutely domination to the people whom they are supposed to serve to. B.C. man pepper sprayed when he asked border guard to say 'please' I think there do have needs to set up some restriction on police officers and their kinds using unnecessary violent force against unarmed civilian....before the countries here become more likely police states.

I think the statement I quoted above from your post strikes the right note of the event. Not only a Taser can casually kill a person, even if all policemen were merely armed with staplers they still could kill Robert Dziekanski by the way of throwing the staplers on his head before any tryout of calming down him with other means which "are likely to cause less damage". There are a lot of posters talking about training and shame. Though I don't know how these officers were trained, but I'm sure most of posters under this discussion are not polic officers and have never been trained anytime, but obviously they know the correct way to deal with the circumstance more than those police officers....or I would say, on the other hand, If your comments about Robert Dziekanski are correct, the IQ of those police officers and the investigators who have concluded that no one needs responsible for the tragedy is not "up" than Mr.Robert Dziekanski's too much---this is really a shame.

On this point, I generally agree with you. Rashly and simply taking children away and jailing their parents mostly have not positive effects to solve the problem. It just continues the tradition of politicians who deeply believe in that taking away children from "uncivilized" environment into a "civilized" environment to teach them is a goodness to these children . But they are wrong, just as they was wrong. But on the other hand, I strongly disagree with your other points. I don't think without spanking (saying nothing of "physical punishment") parents can not teach and correct their children. My son is 6. I have never spanked him but he is still pretty good in his classmates and, of course, my parents have never spanked me either but I'm also well in my peers. Most spanking cases happened are just because the parents don't know the ways and skills to teach their kids without spanking. It is why I think simply taking away their children is not a good way to both parents and children. Of course bruise on arms and arse are harmful to children, but tearing off a child from his or her parents may be more harmful on their mental world then a physical bruise does. I think sending a teacher to teach and instruct parents the skills of how to teach their kids without spanking are moe effective than sending a policman to handcuff them(especially in front of their kids) . Teaching kids by Spanking is just as America bombing Afghanistan. It may work at first time, then effectiveness bates on second and third times, and eventually becomes effectless routine just for people thinks doing something might be better than doing nothing.

Most Afghan tribe peasants live on growning marijuana and they know if Americans win their "business" will end, so American can hardly win without finding another harmless and profitable business for them.

Ironically, it seems this thread proved another seemingly irrelative thread in this board. Afghanistan war un-winnable?

Not all foreigners going into a international airport are immigrants....

I'm just wondering why Mr.Harper isn't wise enough to see through the alleged Chinese scheme and make all such suggestions of his supporters here into his government's policy to protect Canadian interests...

Exchange Rates Bank of China February 18th, 2005: US$100=RMB827.65 February 18th, 2006: US$100=RMB804.93 February 18th, 2007: US$100=RMB774.08 February 18th, 2008: US$100=RMB716.67 February 18th, 2009: US$100=RMB683.63 I agree Chinese currency is not entirely on the open market like western country because China government still keeps the political power of intervention of financial market if any possiblely large-scale monetary speculation happened which could crash financial market like what happened in several Asian countries during Asian financial crisis. But before China government uses the political power to intervene the market, the exchange rate is mainly the reflection of the real value between RMB and USD. (Since 2005 up till now, Chinese government has not used the power once yet.) Today in China, each citizen can exchange USD50,000 each year for non-business purpose, and if he could offer evidence to prove he needs more for proper use(such as buy goods from foreign store, enroll in foreign school or university, treatment in foreign hospital), there are not limits. To those business owners, there are not limits if he can prove the needs is just for trade(not for monetary speculation). Usually if a government manipulates market, there will be a huge so-called black market to reflect the real value of goods or currency, even Brezhnev and KGB could not crash such black market in Soviet. But where is the currency black market in China today?(There did exist one before 2005, but has vanished.) How much is its exchange rate? And not every Canadian will gain from the appreciation of RMB. Those works in agricultural, logging, fishing, oil....sectors will lose because China can buy their goods with less money and they must pay more money to exchange less China made goods.

Even if there were not problems with trade rules or WTO measures, the "Buy Canadian" Policy might still not work properly. To those simple products such as knives and spoonds, it may works, but I don't think Canadian economy mainly depond on such kind of industries and there are a lot of Canadian works as knife makers. To those complicated products the policy can not work. Cars, for one. Auto sector in Canada employs so many Canadian workers that no politicians dare to say not to bailout this part of industry, but most these auto comanies are American companies and I guess the parts of their products comes from everywhere in the world. In fact Canada government is raising money to bail out these foreign companies and it seems Canada is the only main country in the world has to bail out foreign companies and I'm afraid Canadian government has no power to force these American companies only buying Canadian parts. I think it is the price that Canadian chose to give up their own high-tech industries to trade integrating into American economy as well-payed machine parts suppliers 50 years ago. Things are always easy earlier but hard later.

I agree with you that only blaming unions responsible for all problems here is unfair, but I guess you may agree with me that robots cannot run itself automatically when their operators strike. Just imagine, if you were the owner of a toy store, and just several weeks before Christmas, your Chinese toy supplier told you that he could not consign the goods you ordered in time because his workers was striking, would you be cheered by the news that Chinese workers eventually have the rights to strike and wait for some day the strike would end, or would you just turn to an alternative supplier in somewhere such as Vietnam? Taxes are really problems and I'm afraid that after so many bailout and stimulus, Canadians will have to pay more tax henceforth than ever. I don't think "China has a ridiculously low currency which it has steadfastly refused to adjust or to allow to float" is entirely correct. I have just checked the data in Bank of China's website. On February 18, 2008, CAD100=RMB712 but today,February 18,2009, it is CAD100=RMB554, but I don't suppose the goods Canada exports to China will have a significant increase. There are lots of other things which can stop Canadian exports benefiting from currency devaluation. This, for one: Canadian Embassy Beijing website Considering most people here can not read those Chinese words in the website, I'd like to re-translate them into English: "English and French are Canadian official language, though some of contents of the website has been translate into Chinese for convenience of Chinese visitors, but it dosen't mean that Canadian Government will offer services with other language." Wish Canadian firms don't use this way advertising in Chinese TVs and newspapers.(exactly I have never seen any Canadian firm's advertisement in Chinese newpaper except those immigrant lawyers's.) And there also are a lot of stupid barriers set by western politicians against their own countries's exports. I have a Dell x51v PDA bought from a Chinese computer store several years ago. After I submit application of Canadian immigration, I found it is very helpful as a dictionary to learn English but the touch pen is too thin for hold, so I ordered several touch pens from Dell website and prepared to fix them into ball pens's hull for better hold. A day later, I received a urgent call from a clerk of Dell China. These are the conversation between us: "We can not deliver the pens your ordered yesterday. " "Why?" "Becasuse your delivery address is your office address." "Yes, but what's the problem?" "Your company's name include a word 'aerospace', that's the problem. Our law forbids to export anything which would help Chinese aerospace technology." "My company belongs to Chinese aerospace industry so it has a title of 'aerospace', but I just work on automobiles and vehicles. We make lots of products without any relative with aerospace at all. Just as not every GM worker is the F-16 maker, isn't it? and evenif I was a rocket maker, I still cannot see how Chinese rocket technology would be improved by these several plastic stick. " "I knew...I knew..., but I'm afraid our senators don't know these. Could you please replace your office adress by somewhere else, such as your home address?" Several minutes later, I had to give up and feel very sad for those Dell shareholders. I don't know how much profit Dell can gain from those cheap plastic pens, but I guarantee the phone call will cost more. There was another story. One of my colleague ordered a pair of American made electric motors. They are just common motors used in electric vehicles, not those special ones used in gyroscope. Fully sure there was no problem of buying such motor, he began to design his mechanism according the technical specification in the website of the American company. But when it was nearly the delivery date, the Americans faxed him that they might not deliver the motors in time because some of them worried that this motor could also be used as military purpose(It's totally nonsense. A McDonald hamburger also may have military uses if it is in the mouth of a guy who wears a bloody uniform.), so they needed time to report authority to make sure the purchase would not harm American national security. For he had almost finished his design and lazing to make any change to fit an alternative motor, my coleague got an idea. He download a technical specification of a German made motor from internet and faxed to Americans telling them if there was any delay he would turn to German. Such action eventually helped him to persuiade those American MBAs pissed off their studpid politicians's measures and delivered goods in time. But after that, anyone don't surpose he will still use any American products if there was German, French or Japanese alternatives.

Not entire exact. America also worries about India's ambition to become a worldwide superpower more than Pakistan. They also offer military and economic assistance to Pakistan and they impose China to do so to curb India's influence in South Asia. India's Russian arm supplier also plays the same game. They sell India their newest jet planes meanwhile sell Pakistan jet engines for their new fighter jets via China, and konws once Pakistan has these fighters, India has to buy more plane from them. I guess the stratigists of the Pentagon will do nothing to help Indian to improve their economy. In fact they want to curb its development, just as what they want to do to China, for India also has the potential to become a threat of America's supremacy. And in a country like America, government has less power to control where those private investors invest in. Private investors want to invest the countries and areas with political stability. If Inida goes into a war with Pakistan, even if its military force has strong enough as it looks like to defend all its cities and economy certers from attacks by Pakistan air force and missiles, they may also have to face some serious extrame Islamic militants's suicide attacks. Even Israel can not fully protect its citizens from such kind of attacks. India is too big and the border are too long for defence, and it also lacks money to equip high-tech anti-torrorism facilities. Any further massive attactks on civilians in prime cities will scare foreign investor flee away from the country if they have not flee yet. I agree America wants to impose on India against China to curb China's development and influence, but their problem is both China and India governments know the scheme, so neither of them will not fall into this American trick, though they may use this trick to improve their own interests. What will Inida gain from confrontation against China? Nothing. The dispute territory is bleak moutainous area, there are no mines, no oil, almost no people, the only gold visible is on the roofs of Lama's temples. Why they wants a confrontation which may cost high and gain less? I guess what Indian politicans' scheme is counter-trick Americans----"you want us against China? Good. We will make nuclear bombs, because China has; we will develope ICBMs, because China has; and we will buy some Russian nuclear submarines, because China has....what? you say it is not necessary to have so many weapons? How can we confront them without weapons matches with them?" The essential problem of America's plan is they don't really want India to be a great power in the world, that's what Indian wants, and Indian knows America dosn't allow them to get what they wants but merely a puppet, so they will not be a obedient puppet but a mischievous kid who will make his sponsor headache. The other problem is some Americans might questions the necessity of the plan. There is not any sign that China wants to challenge America's supremacy except the part of America meddling Chinese domestic business, such as Taiwan and Tibet. Is it wise to help to creat a new possible threat to curb a imaginative threat? I guess even in American government, there also are a lot of men have asked the question. Iranian rulers are more smart than Sadaam, they know where the redline is. I guess they will dance beside it, but never across it. The cost of a war can not only be judged by how many missiles, planes, tanks and soldiers were lost. In a multiplayer game, when you struggles with a certain side, the others will gain and reduce your chance to win the whole game. I agree with you. Military force is efficient to achieve a tactical goal, such as capturing a city or occupying a country, or knocking down a dictator and his regime. But without a achievable political solution, the military victory might become a nightmare of bothside, the conqueror and the conquered. This is why I think India will not make a war with Pakistan. Obviously India has the military advantage so it is easy to began a war. But the problem is it is hard to end the war, I mean eliminating the threat of terrorism not make it worse.

India will not invade Pakistan becasue it is not good for Indian economy and its relationship with America who wants Pakistan concentrating it military force in North to protect their supply line. A war is only good for Russian ammunition industries. The US might want it but will not invade Iran, for the Iraq war has burned every buck Clinton left for Bush, so Obama has no money to make a new war while he is trying to cut the budget of Iraq war. China will no longer threaten to invade so-called Formosa, for former Taiwan separatist President Chen has been thrown into jail for corruption or something by their new president. Now both side of Taiwan strait are talking peace and improve economic ties to curb economic depression. North Korea will not invade South Korea. Several years ago, one of my colleague made a tour in North Korea, he told me the train stoped on the way because there was a power cut. The dictator is not fool. He might not care a passenger train stop on the way for lacking electricity, but he obviously full awares what it means to him if his tanks stoped in the battle field for lacking fuel. America and China will not give up any country and trade any country, because these countries you assumed to be trade are not the properties of America and China. The people in these country also have self-esteem and also know how to play the ball to benefit their own interests. Iraq war has proved that any country, even if it is as powerful as America, can not achieve it goal merely depend on its military force, and most countries will learn from this and will manage to settle their arguments by negotiations rather than by wars.

I think one cause of the so-called anti-immigrant sentiment is because an individual's interest in a country does not always coincide with his country's interest. For example: Let's presume there is a company named Canada, its CEO named Government, its board of directors named parliament and all its employees called Canaidan and every Canadian has some shares of the company so they can be considerd of the owners of the company, though just as other companies, not everyone holds the same shares. The company is in a plannet where all people, from a CEO to a dustman, are the same. That means they all have same skin color, speak same lauguage, believe in same god, pursue same ideology, vote for same political party..... , so political, ideological, religious and cultural conflicts are not existence there and can be considered as factors. But one day, the CEO and the board of directors decide to enlarge their company's business by the way of hiring more new hands. Their policy might benefit the company, but we could not suppose everyone in the company would welcome the policy and the new comers. Though all personnel of the company are the shareholders so they are supposed to welcome the policy for the raise of the benefits of the company will raise the value of the shares they hold, but they also are the employees of the company and in fact more new comers means more competition which would lead to wage cut. Due to not everyone holds the same share of the company, even if the policy benefits the company as a whole and the most of the shareholders will gain, but someone may still lose for the raise of the value of their shares can not compensate their loss caused by rising competition.

If it is a government, regardless it is a democracy government or a dictatorship "regime", it has the power to do anything to keep the "system" on which it bases existence and growing stronger. Nothing could protect people from its power, include a "charter". A charter just like all things invented by mankind, can also be modified by people who wrote it, so it will protect nothing if the majority of the people wants rewriting it. This is why our world has not a elected government but has a dictator or police, I mean the US. If there is a country that the (rich+middle class) are minority and the poor are majority, the minority in this country only has a few choices: 1. voluntarily give up their "wealth" to majority to build a democracy country, or wish the majority would be satisfied to keep in poor if they have right to vote out a president;(but for it is the nature that people always put the importance of pursuing wealth beyond pursuring democracy, this case is only a dream exists in Marx's or those democratic activist's books, not in reality.) 2. fund a general or something to be the dictator or grease government officials to protect them from poor majority;(Nazi Germany, the dictators in South America in 1970s and today's China all fit this case.) 3. "division of powers", the minority keep democracy for their own, meanwhile they dictate the majority by sheer tyranny.(the old South Africa for one.) 4. instead of funding schools to train educated citizens, fund clergies and temples to fool those poor illiterate peasants to believe that being poor to serve their high ranked lords is their fate designed by their gods and a gateway to be rised to the higher rank in their afterlife. to build a demorcacy system based on the acknowledgment of hierarchy. 5. leave their country to find another country which rich+middle class is the majority in this country. In any case, if a government has not power to distribute from wealth to quota of carbon dioxide emission(if the the majority willingly give it the power), it will not be considered as a government. And if a country has not a government, it will no longer be a country. (The UN and the world for one. The majority of the world wanted to give the UN power to stop America making a war in iraq, but America made the war, just becaues the UN is not a government but merely an organization. And since the UN is only an organization, the world is not a country.)

I think I should be better believe you because I also have a strong feeling that ideology or religion are mostly just a pretty pretext when people think going into wars would benefit their interests. If majority of people in a nation are very sure that knocking down their king, emperor or something will benefit their interest, they will do it and nobody, neither the king himself nor any authoritative hand, could stop it unless the king has bred a million princes to be his army soldiers to defend his royalty. But people would not suppose British would rebel their king just for obeying Napoleon's will. And I guess everyone here does not know that the CPChina still keeping in power in China just works as the same way as the CPCanada still keeping in power in Canada (not offence to any CPC supporters, just a joke). Both the CPCs have not gain enough support from the majority of their people, but since their opposite are divisive and can not compromise their interests each other, they can keep in power just like a capitalist----holds 30% shares of a corporation, then dominates it for others are many small share holders and can not unite together against him. From political point of view, division of power seems like a solution. If the capital of a country could be independent, I think Beijing would be one of the best place in China to fit democracy. But from economical point of view, such division is obviously not good to this country though it may be good to western countries for manipulating some small countries is always easier than manipulating a big country. The another question to the division of power is, if the principle of democracy is "majority rule", why people needs seeking division of power just for they do not agree with or their interests are not coincident with the decision of majority? (I agree division of power has its function, but it is not correlative for settling the debate in a democracy system. Even under a king or an emperor rule, division of power would be adopt if the kindom or empire was big enough.) Just imagine that if God migrated 50 million Afghan mountain marijuana growing peasants to be Canadian and they were scatterd everywhere so any division was impossible; then being the majority of this country, they elected a guy of their kind to be the PM of Canada(someone may think Kharzai is acceptable, but I guess the one they elected might be worse), would you prepare to accept the leadership of this guy?

Not all wars are for redistribution of money. The wars between Israeli and Arabian for one, are becasue of historical and religionary causes. In fact, without tolerance each other, people can not even live together in a smallest "society" such as a family under a democratic system. The division of powers can not entirely solve the problem, though it may partly solve the problem. The key is how many powers the democratical elected leader will have? If his power just likes the Secretary General of the UN, such "democratic election" will be meaningless, just as Canada has a Queen doesn't mean Canada is not democratic.