Shwa

I am not comparing it to drugs, I am using heroin as an analogy for the type of argument you are presenting in order to sort it out. So what you are saying is that the user is "more morally bankrupt" than the supplier, so to track it back to the selling of asbestos, you are agreeing with olp1fan that Canada is indeed "morally bankrupt" the only difference being, in your eyes, a mere matter of degrees. And, when talking about bankruptcy - again, an analogy - those matters of degrees are very slight since bankruptcy tends to be an end state before some sort of change is introduced. See? It isn't very hard for you to agree with olp1fan after all.

That's one way of putting it.

But you get the analogy right?

Except for the problems directly attributed to Marxism. And then there were the economists that were advising unproblematic people such as Stalin, Franco, Hitler and Mao. Etc. I am betting there is more than a passing influence in presentism and ethnocentrism in this statement. But tell me, when did "modern economics" start. Let me guess: the 1950's right? Other than poor being a relative term, surely you do not include petroleum in this scarce-resources/trading-only model? Oh, to return to simpler times when it was only bananas. Well economics is a social science afterall, so who can blame the politics/nationalism from making their point? One could even say that politics has been bastardized by economists just as easily. Take Stalins economic programs in the Ukraine in the 1930's for example...

Ha-ha Battletoads, "after the budget is balanced"

So you are actually for legalized heroin then?

Interesting that you should say this without a qualification. Well, here's your chance. The government is bloated, because for the past 5 years or so, the CPC party - arguably the party that appears to be most friendly to the interests of the wealthy - has allowed it to swell. Why do you think they have done this?

No shit Sherlock, good clue! However I doubt a "crash course in economics" is going to solve the world's problems especially when plenty of them are caused by peeps highly "educated" in "economics." As opposed to, say, politics?

No, the right for occupiers to camp there would be tested against the Charter. Or are you intentionally misreading things again? Is there more to say?

Can you provide some more information on this please? Like a cite or something?

Well to be fair, it is half a billion. And to add, we already spend billions on infrastructure, health care and education.

What makes you think that? I mean, where were the Russians when Libya was getting bombed? Another way of looking at it is from a much larger perspective than a regional one.

double post deleted

Syria's human rights record has been brutal for decades. Everyone knows this, but had other stuff to pay attention to. If the regime wants to keep opressing their population like this, we can arm them and let them duke it out and send in planes to support the rebels. Domino effect perhaps. Or perhaps it has something to do with their geographic disposition.

Really? You thought the "whole point" of Occupy is about camping out?

It seems like the contract was awarded to a Canadian company. So the US, saying, hey WTF, if you are going to use this, and we're awarding some of this to a Canadian company, how about kicking in a bit of change? So the Canadian government, seeing that a decent chunk of that change is going to be spread around the economy, went, sure man, here's half a bill. Stimulus comes in many forms. As for the secrecy, well, cat's out of the bag now innit?

Meh, I am not so sure. After the example in Libya, perhaps the Syrian government might be seriously weighing their options when the threat is placed at their doorstep. At this point, that threat could be motivation enough for them to change their tune.

It appears "people on the" Right are cool with making hasty generalizations from a single poster on MLW. Yes, that is odd. And it has been that way for decades.

Where does it say that the protesters must leave? The Star is reporting that only the tents must go, but the protesters are welcome to stay and protest (during the day).

Peter Schiff is a rock star! All the way to the bank. And I think you are on to something Blueblood: all of the world's problems could be solved by a "crash course in economics." You should patent that. Make sure you give discounts for clients in Africa.

Does this sound like satire to you? It would have been completely absurd had I not heard it before, some of the sentiment expressed right here on our beloved MLW. However, just in case, I am looking into purchasing 8k acres near Timmins for some Mexican relocation programs.

Because the angry old uncle is at the wheel and he isn't taking requests from the back seat.

Yep, here's the divide right here: (warning, severe LOL ahead!) Is Canada Hoarding America’s Natural Resources? This was after the author suggested that our boreal forests and tundra would be an ideal setting for all those extra Mexicans that keep flooding into the US. Hey, is that Jesus in Washington or some white hippy Occupier?

Again, it depends on which analogies one is using as their model. Of course, Europe of the 17th & 18th centuries didn't resemble the late 19th and early 20th, and Europe of the 15th and 16th centuries didn't resemble the 17th and 18th, etc. Yet in all of those centuries they have managed to have some far reaching, almost continental conflicts. It isn't smart to extend a historical analogie into the future of course, but would anyone truly be surprised if European countries A & B went at European counties C & D for a few years. That is why I used the term "heart" to suggest a analogy of a body, which suggests interconnected parts. Likewise one cannot isolate and remove the economic causual component either. And at the heart of these causes, you will find ecomomic issues lurking close by. Especially with imperialism. In all fairness, olp mentiones these countries alluding to a form of economic coercion. I am not saying that Germany must "revert to type" but that if there was a European War, it would be hard to imagine Germany staying out of it since they are situated somewhat in the middle of things. Now whether they would be the cause or even a chief combatant is neither here nor there, but history shows us that when push comes to shove the Germans are very resourceful of getting themselves into the game pretty quickly. I am not sure if this is the "type" you are referring to. That was then, this is now. Imperialist aims within Europe - for any country - would not be a good sign. However, who knows, perhaps a modern state like Greece or Italy would agree to a period of consensual imperialism from the haves in the EU, until they get their houses in order. To be fair, olp mentions both France and England and suggests either could be an aggressor. Can't answer for olp, sorry. Do you dispute that Germany would allow herself to be overrun militarily if it came down to it? Again, I can't answer for olp.

You don't have to "guess" what my "answer would be" since I am making that plain in subsequent posts in reference to the article in the OP. You, on the other hand are making simpleton assumptions based on, well, and understanding of the process that appears to be retarded. You may want to read the article and try and be a little more intelligent next time Tilter, as hard as that must be.