benny

I'm living on a planet where resources are very badly shared and thus very badly used. Convenient store owners put a lot of video cameras in there stores because they prefer safaris than visiting their stores.

To me, the Harper government looks like a bunch of homeless addicts judging by all their wavering and erratic behaviors around any stimulus package.

Steven is luckier than Sarah here because he understands better than her the (very very deep) reason why games where players are allowed to speak together before choosing their strategy are simply called cooperative games.

Sending people to prison is very expensive and not very productive. Importing our food and making border agents of Canadian subsidized farmers is better.

Bottom line: The more frustrated honest gun owners are, the more they will feel incentives to keep their eyes opened on criminals and potential killers. Societies will come out victorious on crimes only when they will put more pressures on those that are more likely to ever cross the paths of (would-be) criminals than on those that are not. Rifles owners have more chances to cross on their paths (in isolated fields, in practice clubs, etc.) handguns smugglers and potential killers than a non-gun owners. For instance, in practice club members share a lot together. Sharing information about what people have in mind is how we prevent crimes. I also imagine easily a discussion forum full of frustrated gun owners arousing soon-to-be killers to reveal their projects.

When he was still young, Black inherited of several millions dollars and of a part of the Argus empire from his father. The other part of Argus went to Ms McDougall and Phillips, Black has stolen this other part from these old ladies in 1978. In 1969, George Black and other principal shareholders formed Ravelston, a private holding company representing half of Argus's voting rights. George Black had become an increasingly reclusive and bitter figure. His final words to his son, according to Peter Newman, Black's first biographer, were: "Life is hell, most people are bastards and everything is bullshit." After his father's death, he found books on depression in his father's library that had been heavily underlined. Conrad Black was appointed to the boards of Argus and Ravelston in his father's stead. Aged 33, he pulled off a takeover of Argus that caused Fortune magazine to christen him "the boy wonder of Canadian business". Tutored by his father, Black knew that under the original 1969 Ravelston contract, any shareholder who amassed 51% of its shares could force the remaining stockholders to sell him theirs. Black held 22.4%. He enlisted the support of two women -- the widow of Argus's former chairman and her sister, who together controlled another 47.2% -- and took over. The widows got $10m each and Black got control of a company with $4 billion in assets. http://clublet.com/why?ConradBlack

Deliverer Of Evil Take down the master Take down the throne Bring them their heads Send a message to the world Take out the king Take out the kingdom Paralyze their power Send a message to the world Gave you the power Gave you control Fail the people And you will fall Faiths collide, social unrest Clear the air, force the change Dusk will bring the serpent's kiss Never see another dawn Take down the master Take down the throne Bring them their heads Send a message to the world http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2WsSSGT3cQ

Read this thread page.20: "Bill C-301 is proposing to allow licensed owners to buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated to them. While there would be little to prevent owners from giving those guns to individuals without licenses, it would also be nearly impossible to take preventive measures to remove guns when risks are known and to enforce prohibition orders." http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed...1330/story.html

One doesn't need to own a gun to be pro-gun.

Tarnished Spoil the soul, Spoil the flesh Inhaling sin to survive Leaving grace behind Long gone is the purity Lust and indulgence thrive Your heart's now black and dark Fouled by your selfish ways, Fouled by your arrogant bliss Fouled by the mistakes you've made, Fouled by the poison you take Banished by the ones you loved, Banished by the ones you trust Banished from your house of faith, Banished by the God you praised You are the guilty You are the shamed You took the good Threw it away Destroyed your life And those you've betrayed You have been tarnished A life now tarnished Desperate now to cleanse your soul, Desperate now to save your soul Fallen down you've lost control, Fallen down you've failed them all Tortured by the envy that grows, Tortured by the anger that flows Hurt is now all you will know, Hurt is now your only absolute You are the guilty You are the shamed You took the good Threw it away Destroyed your life And those you've betrayed You have been tarnished Forever tarnished

Because the LPC still show some respect for Canadians.

Get real now! Why rural land owners feel so innocent worldwide? Because they like to forget that, for centuries, they have forced the population to migrate in city ghettos.

Brigitte and John Robson are homeless conservatives because the CPC has substituted that kind of tactical considerations to matter of principles (balanced budget, prioritizing the armed forces, etc.).

Killing the messenger?

There is not much difference in between the financial sector's lobbying to allow bank mergers and the homosexuals' lobbying to allow gay marriage, they both give rise to this kind of maneuvering on the part of MPs.

Pro-gun posters here show they don't mind wasting their time, how could they credibly criticize the register for wasting their money?

If no murder has happened at a gun clubs, it is certainly in part because club members share a lot together. Sharing information about what people have in mind is how we prevent crimes. I imagine easily, for instance, a discussion forum full of frustrated gun owners arousing soon-to-be killers to reveal their projects.

Since polygamy as immigration issue is close to human trafficking, we have to relate it to former Liberal Immigration Minister Judy Sgro’s exotic dancers program.

Courts have fewer contacts than MPs and Senators with Canadians. From there, courts can cater to the needs of capitalists which benefit from a lax immigration policy.

When a cultural question (polygamy) becomes scary because of its economic effects (immigration of a lot of poor women), one needs to understand what is the cultural turn. The cultural turn describes a shift in emphasis towards meaning and on culture rather than politics or economics. This shift of emphasis occurred over a prolonged time, but particularly since the 1960s.

Sunk costs cannot be recovered by scraping the registry.

Jane Creba's life is no more important than the next victim. What you want to be scraped may save the life to this person.

Societies will come out victorious on crimes only when they will put more pressures on those that are more likely to ever cross the paths of (would-be) criminals than on those that are not. Rifles owners have more chances to cross on their paths (in isolated fields, in practice clubs, etc.) handguns smugglers and potential killers than a non-gun owners.

Bottom line: The more frustrated honest gun owners are, the more they will feel incentives to keep their eyes opened on criminals and potential killers.

Unfreedom of choice As to freedom of choice: the pseudo-choice offered to the adolescents of Amish communities who, after the strictest of upbringings, are invited at the age of seventeen to plunge themselves into every excess of contemporary capitalist culture—a whirl of fast cars, wild sex, drugs, drink and so forth. After a couple of years, they are allowed to choose whether they want to return to the Amish way. Since they have been brought up in virtual ignorance of American society, the youngsters are quite unprepared to cope with such permissiveness, which in most cases generates a backlash of unbearable anxiety. The vast majority vote to return to the seclusion of their communities. This is a perfect case of the difficulties that invariably accompany ‘freedom of choice’: while Amish children are formally given a free choice, the conditions in which they must make it render the choice unfree. The problem of pseudo-choice also demonstrates the limitations of the standard liberal attitude towards Muslim women who wear the veil: acceptable if it is their own free choice rather than imposed on them by husbands or family. However, the moment a woman dons the veil as the result of personal choice, its meaning changes completely: it is no longer a sign of belonging to the Muslim community, but an expression of idiosyncratic individuality. In other words, a choice is always a meta-choice, a choice of the modality of the choice itself: it is only the woman who does not choose to wear a veil that effectively chooses a choice. This is why, in our secular liberal democracies, people who maintain a substantial religious allegiance are in a subordinate position: their faith is ‘tolerated’ as their own personal choice, but the moment they present it publicly as what it is for them—a matter of substantial belonging—they stand accused of ‘fundamentalism’. Plainly, the ‘subject of free choice’, in the ‘tolerant’, multicultural sense, can only emerge as the result of an extremely violent process of being uprooted from one’s particular life-world. The material force of the ideological notion of ‘free choice’ within capitalist democracy was well illustrated by the fate of the Clinton Administration’s ultra-modest health reform programme. The medical lobby (twice as strong as the infamous defence lobby) succeeded in imposing on the public the idea that universal healthcare would somehow threaten freedom of choice in that domain. Against this conviction, all enumeration of ‘hard facts’ proved ineffective. We are here at the very nerve-centre of liberal ideology: freedom of choice, grounded in the notion of the ‘psychological’ subject, endowed with propensities which he or she strives to realize. And this especially holds today, in the era of a ‘risk society’ in which the ruling ideology endeavours to sell us the very insecurities caused by the dismantling of the welfare state as the opportunity for new freedoms. If labour flexibilization means you have to change jobs every year, why not see it as a liberation from the constraints of a permanent career, a chance to reinvent yourself and realize the hidden potential of your personality? If there is a shortfall on your standard health insurance and retirement plan, meaning you have to opt for extra coverage, why not perceive it as an additional opportunity to choose: either a better lifestyle now or long-term security? Should this predicament cause you anxiety, the ‘second modernity’ ideologist will diagnose you as desiring to ‘escape from freedom’, of an immature sticking to old stable forms. Even better, when this is inscribed into the ideology of the subject as the ‘psychological’ individual, pregnant with natural abilities, you will automatically tend to interpret all these changes as the outcome of your personality, not as the result of being thrown around by market forces. http://libcom.org/library/against-human-rights-zizek