Shwa

Let's boil it down to this and, since this refers to the Occupy Toronto protest, we can examine how "futile" their "cause" is. Actually, it should be "causes." Familiarize yourself with the concept of culture jamming, the idea that alternative messaging can - and is sometimes necessary - be injected into the public conciousness by groups of people either through direct protest or through some sort of mass media. (here is AdBusters, the quintessential culture jamming advocate) Now, so far, Occupy Toronto has been on the news every night on CityTV, and likely every other TV station. More than likely it has been in every newspaper, radio station and is starting to make the rounds of magazines, blogs, websites, etc. So if their "cause" is to get the various alternative messages out, not only has it not been "futile" it has been very, very successful. For example, one poster making the point about SunTV's low opinion about the protest, all the while protesters get national exposure from SunTV. That doesn't sound futile to me. While the messages might be about change in this or that, there are no expectations of any radical change in anything. The only expectation is that, collectively, the messages have a better chance of getting out when more people are involved in communicating them. And so far they have been bang on. As for those messages affecting the Great Undecided Center, well there is something for everyone isn't there? In their messaging I mean. If anyone were to take the time to carefully parse the various messages being offered, to have a listen, there would no doubt be something that resonates with them. And even IF there is no immediate traction with this person or that person, the idea is to get the messages out and let the ideas do the work even if it takes months or years. And let's not forget the most important message of them all: freedom of peaceful assemnbly and freedom of association. No Canadian in their right mind would quarrel with that message.

Science asks why and supplies credible answers all the time, for the individual and compound elements that make up the universe. Why an eye blinks. Why rocks fall to the ground. Why disease spreads. Are you speaking metaphysically or a 'why' with regard only to the sum of all those constituent parts?

But again, this comes down to how you define a "true god." You define it, then refute yourself. Some people believe they have found a "true god" and they don't debate it. Is your wont of knowledge of the divine an archetype?

So you can't source it either eh?

Not that I don't think your word is good enough, but if you would kindly supply your source...

Do you have evidence of this? Even the company itself is saying 'may have' been 'innapropriately' etc. You are making it a sure thing while Air Canada isn't as sure as you are. Nice try Casey. Whistleblowers should have protection. But this doesn't presume the approval for wholesale theft of company data. "ilk" LOFL! You do too many simple crossword puzzles.

They might be freeloaders, but hardly clueless. If you understood the concept of culture jamming you might not be so clueless. They are getting national TV exposure to get their culture jamming messages out - on SunTV no less, for free! Who out smarted who? In the States, the lack of exposure by the media at first caused some wider spread concern of censorship, which they have quickly backed down from.

That's right, but does there have to be a universal defined concept of 'god' for God to exist? Jung talked about 'archetypes' and the collective unconciousness. Some people believe this as the definition of 'God.'

Whose to say that any taxpayer money was spent on any philosophy degree? I know a young man earning his degree at the U of T solely funded by his parents. So there's one that you are incorrect about... The paragraph where it says there is a teacher shortage for FR language schools. There wouldn't be such a surplus if they lowered the class sizes and people with teaching certificates can also do other things, from clerks to management. If you are saying we need to hire more teachers, that's different and noble (if costly)

Your "basic math" works because you have framed the question simplistically and ignored quite a few factors, among them the multi-national nature of many of the corporations which tap the wealth of Canada. The biggest problem is that you are taking the concept of the 1% literally and by doing so, hope to show that it doesn't apply in Canada. But it is only a matter of degrees and the 1/99% is a symbol for the spreading income gaps in Canada, which is worse that in the US apparently. From Sept: Income inequality rising quickly in Canada From 2008: Income gaps grow, as Canada's have-nots get left behind No one, well practically no one, is denying that people should not be rewarded for their work, or be highly paid for a job well done or that people should have nice things. However, you must admit that when we are constanly being bombarded with constant messages about austerity, cutbacks, poor economic performance, a worsening recession, you might well understand that those poor, who are getting poorer, are eventually going to speak up especially when they see bullshit like the police suppression at the G20, perceive that the rules are constantly being tilted toward the rich, government spending scandals, and so on.

Really, I'll give you a break just this once. Access to Information and Privacy Act

Neither does my choice to watch the CBC or not affect the amount of tax you pay. And if you stopped driving your car, you could still get transportation elsewhere. So your argument is primarily ideological then.

And, as has already been pointed out, the CBC has a legal obligation to respond to the request for information according to the law. Or did you miss that point? Maybe the CBC will prorogue parliament.

Why do you care?

Naw, it's your argument son. If you are too lazy or stupid to find your way, that ain't my work.

Nope. By my "logic" the only thing I am calling into question is your astounding inability to source publically available information, like you are technologically illiterate or something. Where the government spends its money is, by and large, all there on the web. All you seem to do is unthinkingly parrot the usual neocon talking points without even bothering to back any of it up with something resembling evidence, which would take a little effort. If you want to make your case Boges, put up or shut up.

Only so they'll be at your level of intellect. But you still choose to drive your car when you could - and should - take the publically funded bus. On the other hand, there are alternatives to you choosing to drive your car. Why should I have to pay my "hard earned tax dollars" on the wear and tear on roads and all the pollution you cause for what boils down to a selfish choice on your behalf?

There isn't a massive public outcry to pull the funding for the CBC, so you don't have a point. Would they choose not to use the roads then? Go look at the financial and budgetary records and report back to us.

Is it? You say so, but I see no explanation of how it is a false equivalent. I'll just have to take your for it because...? In fact, I am not equivocating the CBC with "public services" at all, even though the CBC is a public service. I am equivocating choices to use the publically available means to one end or another.

Did you actually understand the article, in the context that the CBC has a right to respond to ATIP requests and were exercising their legal obligation?

But it is your choice to drive a car, where you do, which has nothing to do with me, but I end up paying for it out of my "tax dollars." Like it is my choice to use public transportation. What? Now you want to pull the plug on funding for public transportation now?

Your driving habits are basically supported by my tax dollars (since I don't drive). Why should I pay for your transportation choices?

There is a significant leap from the CBC impacting our ability to define out culture to actually defining it. Such is the distinction that words have.

Ummmm, perhaps you didn't notice that this doesn't connect with the inability of anyone to find out financials and budgetary information about the CBC. Did someone file an ATIP request for this and it was refused? Is that what this is saying? You need to dig deeper to substantiate your point.