Shwa

The context and background of the facts I cited are with the conflict itself, i.e. WWII, as described in popular historical narrative. I never predicted a war, and you have no idea what my education background of historical knowledge is, so you are constructing a stawman. To me, that is intellectual laziness. According to who's analogies? Your own? You'll have to do much better than that. Kind of like Chamberlain's epic fail and he had more than a high school's worth of historical knowledge and passing notion of current events. Firstly, let's clear this up. In effect you are saying there is no chance of a European War at all, ever, never again. That is forward thinking. I would like to agree with you. However, IF there is a European War, the chances are very high that the old antagonists will be involved. Not necessarily in the configuration of WWII, but in some configuration. The reference to 1812 is a joke, obviously. I am not saying that there will be a European War, but with the right kind of analogy, there are some pretty good reasons for people to be a little nervous about the implications of rampant inflation or a major economic depression since these events generally are associated with WWII. What do you think the main preventative against war in Europe. Let me guess: the European Union? "I believe it is peace for our time."

At least I give facts. All you are doing is giving a meaningless ad hominem likely because you can't counter the facts, provide insight, or you are too intellectually lazy. Go ahead perfesser, what is the "weak historical knowledge?" The 21 years part or the economics part?

You mean like leaving sensitive government documents on your girlfriend's coffee table?

There was only 21 years between the most horrific war of all time, which Europeans learned and "knew better," and the next horrific war of all time. The Germans are very pacifist until they're not and they lack military power until they don't. The last horrific war of all time had an economic situation at it's heart, so it is no wonder the concern over massive depression in Europe has people a little nervous.

Name me one government, in all of history, that has never paid attention to people's "manners." Just one August. Or does the concept of social animal complete elude you? ---- Human rights legislation pertains to public displays of discrimination, so your examples are irrelevant. Your analogy isn't applicable. Now you get it. In fact, the state doesn't "stop private discrimination" and I am not sure why you think it has ever tried. Think of the CBC. OK, so cite some example cases where the CBC - a public broadcaster - has been taken to task by a HRC. This will show you one of two things depending on if you can find cites or not: a) if you can't, then you are simply getting a boner over the CBC. Again. Or that the HRC is working as it ought. ----- So conspiracy to commit murder is OK so long as it is only between "individuals?" In general, it should not be a criminal offense to offend someone else with words. In general, yes, but in specific instances where such offense has been proven to cause hatred to an identifiable group or to cause immanent danger to individuals and groups, that's not OK right? Irrelelvant. Red herring. Absurdity, since this is mere carry-over from your red-herring above.

Cite or you are making shit up.

Facepalm of the day!

What a wimp you are becoming, for believing in your own nonsense.

As long as we have trade relations with the US, it is our "business." I note the US has no problems pointing out the human rigts violations in other countries, especially their trading partners.

And you forgot to add the link to the post where I said, "they can live anywhere they wish." I am still waiting for you to show me where I said this, you haven't forgotten have you grogy? You aren't trying weasel out of it are you grogy? Reminder Go ahead grogy, provide the cite.

You mean, like the unemployed, the many more public servants the CPC hired, automakers and more MPs? Harper Government - bigger, more expensive and hiring more nannies.

Yet "big nanny government" is exactly what the CPC government is. - economic "stimulus" projects to artificially keep unemployment down - a yearly increase in the bureaucracy - corporate welfare for automakers - wanting to increase Parliament by 30 more MPs If it weren't for the extreme right wing lunatics identifying their slavering fealty for the CPC, I would say that this government is more like the NDP than even the Liberals. That is, the CPC is more socialist than the LPC. No wonder the CPC were willing to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc in 2004. It is hard to tell them apart except for their fringe elements.

Honestly, I doubt you could distinguish a first year philosophy student from a PhD, but when you can't stick to the ideas and have to divert attention away from your failure to do so, no one blames you. It's just typical righty discomposure.

Then the first year philosophy student easily outmatches you because your only responses to the charge of fallacy has been more fallacy in the form of ad hominem and red herring. Good luck with your rectal exam! I hope they find a way of prying your head out of there.

Thanks to the CPC and their tens of billions in stimulus money they keep handing out every year for their socialist work programs and corporate welfare, not mention them bloating the bureaucracy. Again. No, we have the money to build a refinery. If we need some extra, we can borrow from China.

No way. We could plow the marijuana tax money into refineries!

Hudak who?

What makes you think we don't have the money? Because we didn't buy postashcorp or build a refinery already?

If I get what you are saying then IF the Liberal plan and procedures were to be correct and the courts DID rule that Section 44 included the ability for Parliament to make Constitutional amendments in relation to the composure of the seats in the Senate and House of Commons, then you would be all for the redistribution of the presently allocated seats? Edit: It appears that there must be an amendment, but with altering the number of senators, only the 2/3's rule is invoked. It might be more prudent, and cost less to simply up the number of senators before redistributing the seats in Parliament.

And dirty dancing while you are at it because we all know what dirty dancing leads to, *gasp!* Or we could simply take the billions the Omnibus bill is going to cost and use that to convert the population to Free Methodism.

We have the coin. We spend billions on stimulus and a refinery in Canada is one stimulus I think we could afford. If we can build nuclear poewr stations, we can build a refinery.

Like I said, you are wrong on your first point and both points are covered in the article. Unless you have some evidence contrary to the information given in the article or change your mind, you will have to remain wrong. Sorry. That is how it works.

You are wrong about your first point and the second point is covered in the article.

Occupy Toronto: They can’t evict a conversation A good sensible piece by Catherine Porter that likely reflects the majority view IMO. It would be nice if, the Occupiers won the decision on Monday and then volunteered to remove themselves as a show of good will.