dre

In all your examples (welding, mining, etc) the risks should be carefully weighed and reduced whenever possible. Also, youre missing a point with some of your examples. The risks in welding and mining are inherent risks that are central to those activities. You cant weld without some of these fumes being produced. You cant mine without the risk of collapses and injuries. You CAN however serve food or alcohol without cigarette smoke, and the thousands of carcingenic compounds found in it. People in any workplace have at least some baseline standard of air quality. Also Im not buying your "People can just CHOOSE not to work there" argument at all. No matter how much unneccesary danger an employee inflicted on its workforce they will always be able to find staff... often by drawing from people who arent aware of the risks, or are too desperate to turn down the paycheck. The reality is that when we allow employers to poison their workers in large numbers, joe tax payer is the one thats left to pick up the tab, so we absolutely do have standing in that question, and an interest in enforcing air quality and safety standards in the workplace whenever its possible. In any case this seems off topic, and unrelated to the terrible precident set by our own government persecuting Canadian citizens on Canadian soil for laws in foreign countries (many of which border on obsene by our standards). I wonder what people here think that chances would be of the US government extraditing an arms dealer who had shipped a handgun to Canada to serve a five year prison term? About... zero?

I personally think theres nowhere near ENOUGH investigations into our government, and that nowhere near ENOUGH documents are siezed and inspected. I think we need about 100 times as much of this type of activity as we have now, no matter WHO the sitting government is. Id like to see something similar to the drug testing they have in the Olympics where government officials are chosen at random, completely audited and frog-marched in front of the judiciary. If every politician operated under the premise that at ANY TIME all of their activity could be completely and publically investigated without warning then we would have a more honest and open government.

Seems all fine to me. We can allow seal hunting in Canada all we want... by the same token the EU and others should have the right to not import products they feel conflict with their values. I personally think its silly to treat the seal hunt any different than any other animal harvest, but if EU countries feel differently then thats their perogative. I DO think theres intrinsic value in treating animals humanely... and if theres a better way than clubbing then Id probably be in favor of that. Id still rather be a baby seal in Canada than a sheep or a cow.

Doesnt matter what anyones opinion on Marc Emery or Marijuana laws is, this is a terrible decision and it treads on a very slippery slope.

Despite your amusing obsession with false "left/right" dichotomy, the reality is that people on both sides of the spectrum are beginning to realize that our entire financial and banking systems are built on theft and fraud, and for whatever reason they arent too thrilled about it. This is probably just the beginning. As for your broken leftist / anarchist comparison, those two concepts are not even loosely connected. They are actually literal opposites with the "left" favoring a publically controlled and centrally planned economy, and anarchists favoring little or no central control and planning at all.

What about getting rid of the concept of parties entirely. Have all members sit as independants, and allow people to vote directly for which one will be the "prime minister". He would then have to sell his ideas to majority to enact them. Coalitions of sorts would still popup and dissappear on a case by case basis, but they would be different for each issue and each piece of legislation, as opposed to the static and divisive party politics system. Being forced by a "party" to vote along "party lines" is pretty much the exact opposite of democracy. I think "party politics" is starting to cause a lot of problems because its so polarizing and divisive, and I think its inevitable that our system will consolidate into the same two-party left vs right polarization machine thats destroying the United States.

I couldnt bring myself to vote for any of our parties right now. Ill probably abstain or piss on my ballot.

There is no singular cause. All the people in the world who inspire violence have their own sets of motives, their own beefs, and their own issues. They just wrap these things in religious rhetoric because its an effective way of getting other people to support their causes.

I dunno... George Bush said that god told him to invade Iraq, and Afghanstistan, with his mostly Christian army complete with Chaplins, preists etc. And Christians supported those acts of violence in much higher numbers than other denominations. Just about every act of violence is wrapped in religious rhetoric, and has been for a long long time. The question is... Is religion the underlying cause of these events? Or do the perpetrators of these events merely exploit the "follower mentality" to enable them... If OBL lived in an area that predominantly subscibed to some other relgion my guess is he would wrap his message with the matching brand of religious rhetoric, but his actions would still be the same. I think these people exploit religion for their own personal ends in much the same way a televangelist uses religion to steal money.

Yup. And since I see lots of stories in the news about Catholic priests raping little kids, clearly Chistianity MUST be the Religion of Child Rape

Thats because terrorism is the flavor of the month and thats what gets ratings right now. Step back, and look at ALL of the killing and violence going on. Hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq. Ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur, Serbia, and various other places. Seems like killin the fuck out of other people isnt the proprietary domain of any group of theists.

First of all theres no such thing as a "religion of peace". Religious people have a "follower mentality" that often makes allows them to be lead down the wrong paths by the wrong people, but this is true of all religions.

The crux of this case seems to be the cost... In order for any medical system to work there has to be some level of rationing. Unfortunately at some point cost has to be a factor, and its probably just a matter of the threshhold. This project cost 5 million so far.... Would you be ok with ten million? what about 100 million? What about a billion? So people trott out the usual "I dont want forced government abortions!" argument, as if the only two choices are spending utterly limitless ammounts of money on cases like this, or sending government "death squads" down to the hospital each time a child is born to assess their potential healthcare costs throughout their lives. Thats a bullshit choice. A false choice. But the government HAS to ration healthcare, and EVERY healthcare system does. So its just a matter of deciding how and when. In cases where theres zero chances of a person ever being able to live unplugged from the system sometimes tough choices should be made. We already discontinue treatment for cost reasons all the time.

Youre trying to make this an either or thing but in reality its not like that. All the countries on our side of the cold war enjoy unprecidented economic success in part because we give up part of our money to spend on things that keep society stable, promote commerce, and facilitate transactions. In not a question of public spending vs private spending its a matter of striking a balance between the two. The rich and everyone else make MORE money in societies that use limited socialism to promote stability. Youre wages are much much much HIGHER than they would be if we ended welfare, healthcare, and other types of social security. Social stability is one of the core attributes of a healthy transactional framework. More business happens as a result of these things, not less.

I dont even think handguns are relevant. Most of our problems with crime stem from the fact that we restrict multi-billion dollar industries like marijuana farming to criminals instead of allowing honest regulated businessmen to participate. The criminals then take the massive proceeds of these industries and branch into extorsion, racketeering, sexual slavery, human trafficing and just about anything else you can think of. In any case even with a criminal justice system that rewards crime, Canada still has a relatively low crime rate and relatively low violent crime rate. I dont see much reason to change gun laws, just to better enforce the ones we already have.

Welfare isnt about the poor, its about the rich. It was designed BY the rich, implemented BY the rich to SERVE the rich. Poor people vote in very very low numbers and have almost no say in society... as long as they are kept just above abject poverty and desperation. If you got rid of programs like welfare, then yes... some of them would find employment. Many others however would turn to crime or fall into abject poverty. What happens then? They turn activist and start voting, and this would be very bad for the rich, because they would vote for the first party that campaigned on more pure and aggressive socialism and wealth redistribution. The way things are now, the poor are kept a step above abject poverty and are essentially disinterested in society. This has left the middle class and upper class to build a society thats entirely centered around the accumulation of wealth, and the protection of private property rights. A good example of what happens when the poor arent thrown their table-scraps is Venezuela. The underclass grew very large, and fell into abject poverty to the point where they lived in massive tent cities. And what happened? They started voting!!! And they voted for the first guy that campaigned on socialism and wealth redistribution. He won (oops!) and immediately set about nationalizing resources, siezing companies and banks, etc etc. The middle and upper class failed to understand "the arrangement" that is modern democratic society and they paid a heavy heavy price for that. Limited socialism has been using by every single major industrialized democracy in the last century to provide stability and act as a firewall wall against pure socialism, and to keep the poor out of the voting booths. Its been extremely successful and there isnt a single thriving democracy that doesnt use it.

Touche... youre totally right. •United States = $162.9 (+30%) •Hong Kong = $124.5 (+23%) •Japan = $84 (+14%) •South Korea = $35.1 (+26%) •Germany = $32.5 (+37%) •Netherlands = $25.9 (+40%) •United Kingdom = $19 (+27%) •Singapore = $16.6 (+31%) •Taiwan = $16.6 (+22%) •Russia = $13.2 (+45%) My point stands though. Pretty silly to bother with some stupid little monument when we support communism, totalitarianism, and nohumanrightsism with our hard earned dollars.

Hilariously ironic that were arguing about some stupid monument while we support the worlds largest totalitarian communist regime by patronizing them and being one of their biggest customers.

Both Canada and the US should do business with countries whos behavior we support. Our current trade policy is creating a totalitarian communist super-power, and we are going to seriously regret it when all is said and done.

Right... but you need to fix the law before you do that because it doesnt match societies reprehension for crimes in the first place. Especially where some drugs are concerned. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300 A majority thinks pot should be legalized, so cracking down on marijuana "crimes" would not at all be an example of the "sentences and parole matching socieities reprehension". Im all for taking serious crimes seriously, but the criminal code needs a lot of work before any big crack-down happens. We criminalize a lot of people needlessly in ways society is not on board with.

I dont think Bush got critisized for playing too much golf. He got critisized for that one flippant "Now watch this drive" comment while talking to some reporter. Bullshit. Heres your OP...

Stop ripping on Somalia! Its a true libertarian paradise!

As a taxpayer I dont support ANY indefinate military obligations. So can you pay for my share since you like this policy so much? You could just re-imburse me directly through my paypal account or something like that.

I need to see a cost/benefit analysis for the mission to see what Im getting in return for the money Im contributing. How about the people who support the military being used for global socialism pick up the tab instead of me?