Sir Bandelot

That was a different time, different leadership and situation. Well before Deng Xiaoping.

You yourself indicated what's happening in London, in another thread. Those people are seeing the same type of things in their economy as is happening elsewhere. What happens in one country affects what happens in others. What happens with the US economy is perhaps most significant of all. We don't know yet what the coming cuts are, for Americans. Some kind of committee is going to decide that in the coming months. But there's going to have to be cuts. And regardless of what they are now, I suspect this will only be the first round. This forum is all about interpretation. You and bonam disagree with mine. When bonam says "Perhaps they are just content and feel no need to protest?", I'm not talking about the people who are content. I'm not talking about the people like him who are doing well. So that is side-stepping the issue. I NEVER believed in Obama's promises for change. I hoped I was wrong, but sadly was right. The very nature of power and politics means that you must be dishonest in order to succeed. It doesn't take a gifted child to figure this stuff out. Else, it's a bullet in the head. Maybe I'm just more pessimistic about who pays for the mistakes made by other people. But yeah, that's my interpretation.

China is playing a very smart game. They smile and quietly go about their business. Unlike us, they do not engage in useless wars that waste money and resources. They shore up their strength and let their opponents expend energy. Much as with the taoist yin-yang philosophy, they let their opponent use its own strength against itself. Using the momentum of the aggressor, it requires almost no effort to topple a mighty giant. China will take over the world without a single shot being fired.

I don't think he meant that but Since I raised the reference let me explain what I meant. I empathize with those people who, coming from meager beginnings and having worked hard to achieve what they can, now lost their jobs as company executives outsourced, then cut and run with big, big money. Some lost their life savings in Madoff-like scandals while the investors and banks got bailed, using tax money collected from working people. Despite their failure the top execs still got bonuses. Now facing the prospect of huge cuts to services, which their tax dollars paid onto while they were working. Does that mean they pay, by proxy, for the huge deficits created by years of irresponsible leadership? To blow this off by saying "I'm alright Jack", and denying that the problem even exists, is either foolish or ignorant.

For you it is. To each their own

When they're lying, I know that the opposite is the truth.

Pray for justice.

It's not that great.

"I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off my stack..."

Yeah, and now that I've told you about it, you'll be ready!

Yes the link and the picture are from the same article. Sometimes they change the picture displayed on MSNBC, so I thought I'd put two links there. Looks like lots of people/ countries are having financial problems around the world. Wages have been frozen for years for many, who are asked to tighten their belts. But not so for the upper eschelon, who have actually made more profit in recent times than ever before. Most people are not even aware of that. It takes a lot to get ordinary people that riled up in Canada and in the United States, it seems. Those two incidents you mentioned before, Vancouver and the G20 were both set up by black flag anarchists. But Joebob average is too beaten down psychologically to take the chance and speak out, for fear of getting arrested and consequently losing their jobs. Young people are more willing to take the chance and go to a protest. But wouldn't be surprised if this starts to happen here or in US soon. Shit coming to hit the fan near you

Here's a piture you might like beter, bonam- 250,000 Israelis march for economic reform Thousands of people march in the streets of Tel Aviv, Israel, Saturday during a protest against the rising cost of living.

Haha, yeah. I don't think they're, you know going crazy in their protests or something. But I've noticed when protests take place amongst our own, we tend to downplay it in the media a lot more. All it takes is a picture.

Perhaps. But given a choice, we want to get our food from someone nice. Most of all we want a system where no one has to suffer unwillingly in order for us to get our share. The problem is in how our opposition to war-loving hawks is expressed. "Americans, damn them, they're screwing everything up" shouldn't condemn all Americans. But there is no alternate word convenient to substitute, and seeing as these actions are promoted by the government which represents a country, it just becomes easier to say "Americans". It is right to oppose that kind of thinking. We who oppose war in principle know that there are good people in the United States too, and we see the same struggle going on within their borders. Sadly, the majority rules and the vast majority are not able to see it, or don't really care, as long as they keep getting their "sandwich". That might change soon. It's changing in places around the world now, even in Israel. What we need is our own awakening.

It's not surprising and I don't think it's purely based on anti-Americanism. It's the foreign policy. People wanted to believe what Obama was saying during his campaign. People want positive change. Obama was going to shut down Gitmo, reach out to others around the world and try to reconcile differences without the immediate military response. He was supposed to roll back all the things that president Bush did that so many liberals disapproved of. But, once elected Mr. Obama, if he ever really intended to do those things must have come up against that wall. Whatever his excuse, all the people in the world who hoped he would live up to his word are now disappointed. Obama did try to do some positive things but he was thwarted, and finally he capitulated to the party that still supports those ideas of GWB. And Obama is not such a believer in solving problems by peaceful means. He maintains the same aggressive posturing, and the war grinds on. He has favoured politics over justice. We can argue about my criticisms here but the main point is, this is why people wanted to like him and why they don't like him now. He didn't change things much.

I have no problem with putting a woman on top

A lot of the reports I read these days indicate that the greatest problem in Afghanistan is corruption, and it exists at the highest levels of government. Whoever they voted in, democratically or not, is probably our biggest impediment to success in winning this war. And by the way, awareness of this problem goes back years. Our own politicians and generals know that without solving the problem, all other accomplishments will be nullified in a short time. These people have a long standing history of criminality and disrespect each others rights as human beings, and they have come to accept that as part of their way of life. That we should project our desire for a society modeled after our own and based on fairness/ equality is pure, naive folly!

Leader of the US imperialist superpower is a decision that holds many consequences. I wouldn't want to see Sarah Palin or the other wacko chick get the job. And no I can't vote for it but people still keep their fingers crossed, hope that the lesser of the evils is the one who gets elected. Hard to say if Obama was a better or worse choice than John McCain. Seems to me some Americans practically wanted to commit suicide when Obama got elected. They needed depression therapy. Others went so gaga with glee that they thought he was the second coming of Jesus. Not this poster. I, like other sensible people preferred to wait and see, as we know a lot of promises get made that never become reality. As it was, I started my "NOBAMA" campaign pretty early. Those people who went over the top in their response were perhaps foolish, easily mislead by media hype but the fact that they could later change their mind based on reality is at least something. It's the ones who remain dogmatic right to the end, despite facts that really have the mental problem.

Emily Murphy played an influential role in her position as first woman Magistrate, with the publishing of her book "The Black Candle". The book argues that chinese and blacks are a threat to white british society in Canada and throughout the empire, and that they are prone to use drugs and spread drug use into white society. The perspective contained in her book, the Black Candle (1922), is considered the most consequential because it played a role in creating a widespread “war on drugs mentality” leading to legislation that “defined addiction as a law enforcement problem.” Using extensive anecdotes and “expert” opinion, the Black Candle depicts an alarming picture of drug abuse in Canada, detailing Murphy’s understanding of the use and effects of opium, cocaine, and pharmaceuticals, as well as a “new menace,” “marihuana.” Race permeates the Black Candle, and is intricately entwined with the drug trade and addiction in Murphy’s analysis. She refers to the Chinese man as a “visitor” in this country, and that “it might be wise to put him out” if it turns out that this visitor carries “poisoned lollipops in his pocket and feeds them to our children.” Drug addiction is “a scourge so dreadful in its effects that it threatens the very foundations of civilization,” and which laws therefore need to target for eradication. She does not depart from the view that “races” were discrete, biologically determined categories, naturally ranked in a hierarchy. In this scheme, the white race was facing degradation through miscegenation, while the more prolific “black and yellow races may yet obtain the ascendancy” and thus threatened to “wrest the leadership of the world from the British.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Murphy#Drugs_and_Race Doesn't that view sound so familiar to what we have going on today.

"Babylon is fallen, is fallen!" (double-dip)

Way I see it, there's two issues here. Whether substances themselves should be illegal, and whether actions like using the substances should be illegal. There's no way to stop people from using something like paint in a harmful way that it's not intended to be used for. Stuff like solvents and gasoline. If the thing in itself has a useful, non-destructive application, then it makes sense that as a substance it should be allowed. We need these but some people will use them to hurt themselves. Far as I know it is not illegal to sniff paint or gas. Some substances are just poison and have no non-destructive use. Things like crack and ecstacy. I think that's where I'd draw the line on legal vs. illegal substances. Decriminalizing self destructive behaviour is a start. But criminalization of substances is a tough call, and I'm not yet convinced that keeping them illegal would help anyone.

I don't accept it carte- blanche. It depends on what illegal means, ie. for whom. Illegal to produce and sell. Not illegal to consume. I say this because, the SUBSTANCE should be illegal, because it can only be used for destructive purposes. Other substances such as paint solvents are not illegal, but can also be used for destructive purposes.

The comment about prohibition wasn't directed at that, it was when you stated that it won't remove effects of organized crime. We can talk about whether taking something is harmful to the user, but here you have moved the goal posts.

Is that you, Saipan

I have read about this and it seems that the pill and the droplets taken sublingually are not as effective as smoking, because the uptake is less efficient. Smoking is faster in relieving pain. Breaking laws to fund bad habits is a seperate act and is clearly a crime. Not the same as wanting to smoke weed in the provacy of your own establishment. And legalization of alcohol after prohibition proves you wrong. However in my view this is all a moot point. It's clear the majority of Canadians know the truth that criminalizing a person fro grug use is completely the wrong approach. Despite that and coulteless studies confirming it's the wrong approach, it still does not change the law. And there is a very powerful reason for why that is.