PoliticalCitizen

Try reading the thread you're posting in from the beginning, when you have time. You will find that many points you're bringing up were already discussed. But then it never hurts to practice your English, bratello

To think that we do NOT change our world by polluting it is to show the mental capacity of bacteria that multiplies and excretes until the substrate cannot sustain life and the whole colony dies. Carbon Tax is just one of the ways of addressing the issue. It has been employed by some European countries for many years and resulted in companies actually caring and reducing the amount of CO2 they emanate.

Everyone has their own right and wrong. Some go by the bible, some by the koran and some by their feelings. That's why all talk about some "general" or "common" moral is absurd. It is especially devoid of value when we do not practice what we preach. I figured you wouldn't. That's OK. I'm sure most people don't. Because if we did we'd stop driving. We'd start thinking we fuel our cars with the blood of the innocent... Very sad indeed... Islamic countries have made a choice to form a society where religion is before everything else. It is their choice. They have the right to make it. I was not referring to the aboriginals that lived on USA territory but to all that lived in North and South Americas. I always found it both funny and vainglorious when USA citizens called themselves American as opposed to Canadian or Mexican or South American. They don't own America(s). We are not Australian. Anyway - what happened to Aboriginals cannot be called anything other than GENOCIDE - and THE worst in the history of humanity. We (collectively) killed them and took their land. We live on it. They're dead (most of them, anyway). The Good Old Socialist philosophy never employed extermination. That's why even today Russian Federation is one of the most mixed countries in the world. In Soviet Union the "Natives" were not forced into reservations. They were educated in the spirit of Marxism-Leninism Do you approve of killing people? Your government and your tax money sais you do as our army is killing Afghanis. Do you approve of forced labor? Your government and your tax money sais you do as the lowest-income layer of the population is forced to slave for peanuts. Nothing is black and white unless you're a fanatic who has given up his ability to think, judge reality and make own conclusions.

I had gone through the same thing about 4 years ago after smoking for 16 years non-stop. I have to say that government's anti-smoking campaign was a very successful example of social engineering. Same could be done with the drugs, but the first step would be legalizing, controlling production and distribution.

Would you please come up with some arguments as to how regulated sale will be worse than what we have today?

I love you too

Nah, you go first, dude. I'm in a great mood

Here's a definition for you: Hatred = inability to accept; Civilized = non-violent. Each man defines for himself, but at a very general level definitions are same everywhere.

Yes, and you should also admit that indiscriminate screwing for free also spreads diseases and is perfectly legal. The desire to have sex is not "ingraine by the media", all of us with balls and ovaries have been programmed to procreate (or engage in the acts resembling procreation) even if it kills us. Sex is the single most potent driving force of the LIVING, from single-cell organisms to plants and humans. Psychotropic substances wreak less mental and emotional havoc on the person than alcohol, and some even less than nicotine. Narcotics should never be legal as their use is pretty much a death sentence for the addicted (that includes alcohol).

Moral is a tricky thing... Do you feel guilty of the deaths of 1.2 Million Iraqis when you fuel up your car? Do you feel guilty of exterminating the Aboriginal Americans living on their land? About the destructive nature... Birth causes death... driving causes accidents... alcohol causes alcoholism... sedentary lifestyle causes cardio-vascular diseases... It is all very relative. If your choice doesn't doesn't harm other people then it shouldn't be restricted.

That's true, dont the Conservatives help the rich get richer I'm sure all Green campaigns are run at a small fraction of Conservative ones...

So then your city is a good example of how Canadian semi-socialism works. What is important that we do not forget how we achieved this state of affairs and keep improving the well-being of the lowest classes.

The Greens are not attempting to run the country (yet, anyway). But they are in an excellent position to be part of the opposition thus ensuring the Environment won't be forgotten in the endless Con - Lib power struggle.

To all of you good conservatives above - legalization of both recreational drugs and prostitution cannot harm you or your children. The opposite is true - they will be protected from the "criminal element" selling drugs because drugs will be sold in a government-controlled way, just like sigarettes. Same is true for prostitution. If you don't want your kids to use either - just make them understand why it's bad. But if they decide to go ahead and try it anyway - the quality of the product will be assured by the government and they won't be at risk of overdose or other chemicals mixed in, or venerial diseases.

Wow, that's a pretty strong argument... I think you've outperformed Master Bush!

Alcoholics were treated forcibly and then labored in rehabilitaiton camps. Sometimes I feel like that's really needed here

You tell us - you're the one from the south reading this thread

You seem to be a person capable of critical thought and independent analysis. Isn't it obvious that big Pharma today is profiteering by treating the symptoms of the sickness rather than adressing the root of the problem? Have you considered the fact that for many diseases the root cause is simply unreacheable by modern medicine and pharmaceutics? Are they not trying to make you dependent on their "fix", so you consume more of it and cannot live without their product? Are they not trying to discredit and prevent the widespread use of natural and homeopatic solutions which cut into their profit?

All right, your point is noted and we're cool (as long as you don't shout ). And since you're obviously in love with the Conservatives there's no reason for you to consider other parties. But then the title of the thread clearly sais disenchanted - are you having second thoughts?

Well thank you for not shouting and using bold fonts in this post. That only speaks about how limited your tolerance is. 500 years ago that could have won you some points. Not today. Oh, so you hate Muslims too? What a surprise... No, you didn't wave the bible (at least I didn't see you doing that), but all these MORALS you mention stem directly from that 2,000 year old book. In these 2,000 years it has done wonders to our civilization by educating it not to kill, steal and fornicate (not withouth the help of the Holy Inquisition); but it has also taught not to THINK but believe blindly. These times are gone. If you prefer to cling to the crubmling values (which were always for the show, as the worst sins were commited by the preachers) - that's up to you. But trying to get support will be tough... unless you convert to Islam - they're so good in turning the wheels of time back... Decaying morals plagued all empires on the brink of collapse... For a family guy you're quite hateful... How will legalizing prostitution harm you? Are you afraid they will rape you? Or just unsure of yourself? Crime rate and violence - that's exactly what we would undermine by legalizing habitual things instead of criminalizing them. Guilty as charged

Don't even try to mention those sordid things to our brothers down south... elections are about habits and morals, pigs and lipsticks, old fish and paper...

Don't forget that the stuff they come up with was not invented by them and the ideas didn't pop into their heads out of nowhere after a joint or two... The Greens are international and they have a Global Charter: http://www.global.greens.org.au/charter.htm Do you honestly think that the society benefits from pharmaceutics? Think of antibiotics. Think of chemotherapy (which is nothing but poison). Even when 'pharmaceutics' do work, they can have very nasty side effects, or can work in unpredictable ways. In the worst case scenario, a big Pharma wonder may kill you instantly, but may either have nasty side effects, or may prevent someone from getting proper treatment. Because that $20 pill A: cost at most 20 cents (unlike 'natural medicines', which cost much less), and B: has been sold at speculative prices to the health system that we all supprot through taxes (i.e. lobbyists have bribed the health officials into adopting their rip-off invention). Sorry for parroting, couldn't help it

Your statement was too general. I could only WISH that we had what you're describing. I already said in another post that I'd like the minister of Health to be a medical doctor and the Minister of Finance to have graduated in Finance or at least accounting, the defence minister to be a retired General etc... However in the real world we have to work with what we've got, and that is true for any party. Oh, I see... The "science" you're referring to is the one that serves big Pharma companies Of course natural remedies are bad - they grow from the ground... how could that be of any good to you? Why don't you instead buy our clinical trial verified pills for $20 a pop?

How many Israelis were killed in the 9/11 attacks on WTC? When I searched (and that was a long while ago) I found 3 and their names were not Jewish. How can you blame someone for stating something obvious?

Again, the rule that you're describing is a Dictature of majority. Below is Wikipedia's definition of Democracy: 'Democracy' is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by people who were elected in a electoral system. ... In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy include. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. The riding system is undemocratic as it denies people who are in a minority in each riding the right of being represented in the parliament. My argument is simple: if you're willing to sacrifice the interests of minorities to have a "working government" then why not opt for authoritarianism so that there will be a little discussion as possible in the parliament - all will always vote unanimously.