Sir Bandelot

Yes indeed. Argus is full of eyes round about

It depends on what is being taught, at what age. One thing that would be useful is to teach the young ones what is sexual abuse. IE that its wrong for someone to touch you in sexual places, or invite you to touch them. this would be a good education to begin at a young age.

Hey, it's not nice to insult us Banjo pickers! :angry:

Yeah he's ok with it, as long as he gets his cherry coolers

I know the point of this thread, I can read. I don't think you get what I'm talking about. We're obviously on two different wavelengths, you and I. Try thinking outside the box once in a while, a little unconventional thought wouldn't hurt. It's not all about the money all the time. A human being should deserve to be free. That's idealism, I know, and I'm not sure I agree with the EU that it should be a basic human right. But maybe they want to take humanity beyond the basics. Moreover, someone has to stop the capitalists from inflating the cost of everything to the point that only the elite get to live with some dignity. Ever think about that

Who is Germany. A serbian shot the prince of Austro-Hungary. Thereafter they attacked Serbia. then Germany made a move on France, and then the whole house of cards came down. Th Russians jumped in at the same time, all so called great powers seeking to expand or protect their colonies. There is little doubt that the whole of Europe was a powder keg ready to blow off as soon as anyone made the first move. To say germany started it is a simplification.

People have probably always used drugs, throughout history. Why? It's hard to answer. Different for everyone but people get addicted to pleasureful experiences, whether chemical or physical. Some seek to escape the misery of their daily existence, to forget about their problems. Some like to unwind after a hard week at work with a drink. Tobacco is one of the most destructive substances, yet it is legalized. So the principle of preventing self-harm is a bit confusing. even if marijuana is a harmful substance, the question still remains, is incarceration the right approach to that or any of the drug problem. Or is incarceration even more harmful... plenty of people, doctors, politicians (as is evident in the Jaffer situation) are able to perform reasonably well in their jobs despite being drinkers, smokers or tokers. But once they've got the criminal record, it becomes a life sentence preventing them from holding a good job in the future, even if they never do drugs again. How is that justice

Well, since I'm not JBG, I can afford to make mistakes... ;^)

If you want to keep comparing to WWII one can also say that the Versailles treaty and forcing Germany to make reparation payments in effect created the need for an Adolph Hitler. In other words, when people are forced to endure continued injustice.

Was reading on CNN an article about how some kids were poisoned by mint flavoured tobacco candies. The kind people chew when they don't want to smoke cigarettes anymore. of course, they still can cause moth cancer. Right next to it there's a headline that says "Most in US don't want pot legalized". The irony of this was not lost on me.

What is a human being. What should our rights be. In the industrial revolution, people had to work up to 16 hours per day, every day. Since that time there has been legislation introduced to protect leisure time, to prevent exploitation of workers so that people get guaranteed breaks during the day to rest and replenish themselves. Vacation time is protected, at least there are minimums. And in Europe as I understand it, many companies do not require their employees to work as many hours as we do here in North America. There is a different attitude there as to what the human being is and what we deserve. I myself prefer not to be a corporate slave to be yoked up to the machinery. Hence I have negotiated with my own employer to work something like "European hours", lots of flexible time and less than 8 hours per day. This is only starting to gain ground in north america, not accepted as the norm yet. Thanks to people like me, one day you or your children will have more freedom too, if they wish it. But don't worry, others can continue to embrace economic self-whoredom, whatever turns your crank

I don't know why you consider it a disgrace, but evidently they have more tax money to play with than they have real problems to solve. If I recall correctly, the Nazis also had a similar program in pre-WWII Germany, where all workers were entitled to some kind of subsidy that allowed them to take a cruise on a German ocean liner. Those nutsy Nazis...

So Obama is saying, "Like it or not, I am going to continue with the US wars of aggression wherever we see fit." while many of the other leaders are sitting on their hands. Apparently some of them must have a different view of how international politics should be run, and he's trying to convince them to keep to the same old military/ aggressive model.

To all you spin-meisters and deluded ones who proclaim victory is at hand, completely without substantiation. I wish you were right, but based on recent admissions by President Obama and General McChrystal, I doubt this announcement has anything to do with major "kicking ass" on our part. These folks have just come out and said, we can't win this way.

Yep, cant affrd to make a mstake now

The Sunnis, who are a smaller population are considered more moderate than the Shiites. They used to be empowered under Saddam, who was himself a Sunni and must have made sure that the minority Sunni sect had more sway. Majority Shiites were repressed. It's the other way around now. Iran by the way is a country dominated by Shiites, the Ayatollahs. So in one sense the Iraq war gave more power to the Shiites who are the more harsh fundamentalist group, and this is good for the Ayatollahs.

Says you. We don't even know how many civilians died. Was it 50,000 or 500,000? Either way they paid the price. I wonder how many Saddam would have killed in that time? To quote Jean Kirkpatrick, a woman whom I admire for her intellectual capacity: "Autocrats do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in that society, learn to cope ." Meaning that it is CHANGE that is actually more unbearable. And that is what was done to them. They are closer to harsh theocracy now than they ever were under Saddam, despite his dictatorship. Meet the new boss...

Thats ok, I used to be like you. Once you get as old and wise as me, then you'll learn whats really important. Meanwhile, you do what you gotta do, I'll do what I gotta do.

I dislike them all equally... Actually it's not about the level of dislike. It's about me. I only give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, the taxes they demand to feed their greedy mouths. In fact I wish I could give them so much, they would choke on it. But I won't give them my vote of support. Ahh such a bitter old man I've become!

I didn't say I wanted to fight it, I just don't want to willingly endorse liars by putting my name to them. The voters are easily swayed. A few glitsy tv shows, a nice smile, smooth talker with a nice hair do, who knows how to say the right things. Whatever. "Let them have democracy." If Obama went too far off the script he would be eliminated, either by violence or political marginalization. But judging from his performance so far, I'd say he is an excellent successor to GWB, especially as a "Democrat".

Of course I do, that was what I said. I think it's gotten to the point that it makes no difference who a person votes for. If it ever did Thus, I do not vote.

So what, you expect me to defend that, or something? lol That would be for people who are naive enough to believe they have meaningful say in the process. But the premise that only American citizens get to decide who is elected, or should have an interest in who gets elected is false. To contribute to the question here all I can say, I hope whoever it is would be someone who appreciates Canada as a partner. I don't expect that to happen. More likely, expects Canada to be a genuflecting lackey. A better question is, who would you like the next Canadian PM to be, and my answer would be obvious! someone who can say "NO" to the United States.

"Let's play 'merikans." Oh, you fools. Don't you realize, this type of thread only gives him a rise?

Because honest people cannot make it in this game. Being corrupt is the only way to play, if you want to win. So let us now go out and vote for which of the criminals will rule over us

Citizens of other countries don't have any say in the outcome of the US election. But big businesses could