The Terrible Sweal

You amuse me, little man! I can see you're out of ammo. Ammo? Don't be absurd. What I'm out of are worthwhile targets.

... A lot of people sincerely believe that those who grow, sell and use illegal narcotics are criminals who damage society. To blithely state this crime had little to do with marijuana is disengenuous, to say the least. Whatever some people may think about drugs, it's disingenuous to launch a fresh crusade against marijuana just because a criminal lunatic happened to have marijuana on his land. Did he have a bottle of vodka too, maybe? Better ban alcohol then. The police went there to seize property. They waited there for auto theft investigators. The marijuana investigators had already left. Well, not the reports I've heard. What is 'my side' of 'the divide'? In fact, I raised the same complaint when feminist advocates appropriated the Montreal tragedy all those years ago. It seems that you are trying to yet further politicize my simple humane reaction against using tragedey politically. It is not perfectly understandable to make it the centrepeice of a tragedy which factually had little to do with it. That would, as I said, be sleazy politics.

Because they "resolve disputes", as you put it. No. Mediators help parties find solutions. They don't provide them. Not the same thing at all. Nothing, you're mediating. According to you, that's government! Would you PLEASE stop fabricating things and attributing them to me. It's an intensly objectionable and dishonest tactic. :angry: See here. Oh, very informative. You really showed me how much you know about what you're talking about. (Zip.) Here's a notion for you. Instead of posting your ill-considered notions in prose, why not just confine yourself exclusively to posting links to whatever you think amounts to an argument. HERE, for anyone interested is what you get when you google it. Even an insane gibbon could see that in actual fact it utterly rebuts Hugo's claim of non-governmentalness.

You amuse me, little man!

Fantasy and ignorance are poor bases for you to try to conduct a discussion. You have a faulty understanding of the consequences of division of powers. The Crown stands before the division. But I doubt that any amount of information will sway you, so I'll decline to waste my time. Cheers.

Not yet resting in their graves, the four dead mounties have been appropriated for the political purposes of anti-marijuana fanatics. (Even though there was no 'grow-op', only a few plants kicking around.) I suppose we should expect this kind of low opportunism from the sleazy likes of Tory MP Randy White. But I have to say I'm sickened by RCMP cmmissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli being so quick to flog his agenda in the face of this tragedy.

Those particular sources, and the stories you have quoted so extensively fall far short of 'documenting' anything. BTW you're mistaken about copyright as well-- it's not plagiarism if you cite the source, but unauthorized use will still violate copyright.

RB, As best as I can decypher your reply, it seems that by 'permission' you mean to refer to social acceptibility, and by 'deviance' you mean any behaviour you disapprove of and choose to ascribe to men. RB, I think you're full of the dung of male bovines.

You're mistaken, I'm afraid. In fact, the crown-in-right-of-Canada is sovereign over the whole territory of Canada, and every citizen shares the same right to each and all parts of it.

Word to the wise: If you want notice taken of something, I suggest that you digest it first. Very few people have sufficient interest to wade through these endless reams of insinuation looking for something (ANYTHING) approaching a point.

Here's an idea. For provinces wishing to leave Canada -- let the provincial government BUY the territory and sovereignty at a price representing the fair markt value as though the territory were being sold to another state. Then the feds could distribute a special dividend to remaining Canadians.

How can that be when private mediators do not exert monopoly? Are marriage counsellors monopolists? Are they agents of the state? mediators? counsellors?? what the heck are you dragging them into this for??? No, they are not. If you see two people fighting and you step in to break it up, does that make you an agent or licensee of the government? again, your example does not match your position. what do you think you are enforcing when you break up a fight? equifax "exists" because the gov. provides for corporate status. never heard of it. where and how is it enacted? how is it enforced? usually you go a few round before making erroneous imputations of others' positions. i guess you're just getting more efficient. just for starters, I'm not talking about "mediation". (and neither were you.) try a dose of intellectual integrity sometime.

Then your definition of government is wrong. Government is an organisation that exerts a monopoly over the services of law and justice within a geographical area. I don't know which of us is the monkey or the weasel, but we've been around this cobblers bench before. Try this then in your terms: the 'monopoly' the government asserts includes all forms of dispute resolution, either direct, or delegated. They are merely agencies or licensees of the monopolist. What, utter, stuff and nonsense! Equifax is an INCORPORATED entity, it operates within the REGULATED financial services industry, it reports on your performance of LEGAL debt obligations, it must comply with federal or provincial privace LEGISLATION. Equifax's entire environment and substance is governmental.

Well, what is your evidence?

Nothing Gomer has said amounts to suffient bias for him to be removed. But a lot of what Gomer has said amounts to showing he's a goofy blabbermouth.

I would say rather, that any agency which purports to resolve disputes is an appendage or variation of government. All of those things are underpinned by either or both of: 1-underlying government law 2-residual or delegated government enforcement authority.

Well, I feel bad for the families and the dead. But this is a kind of a weird story, isn't it? If this was a grow op bust, why did the marijuana squad leave the premises (leaving the four dead to guard the site)? And are there any reports of marijuana seized? Meanwhile, how did one guy kill four armed mounties? Sniping? Then how did he die himself? Also, generally, I'm kind of disgusted with the way public prohibition advocates have latched on to this tragedy for political advantage.

That's not it at all. He's angry at how the government established some who can charge for it and some who must pay for it. You should care, not who owns it, but how they own it. I thought you were in favor of the market, August. What has changed? I find it astonishing that you roll a legitimate concern for corruption into the same list as thinking about hand-outs. When did you begin to favor entrenched cronyism as a public policy stance?

"heading"??? BTW to Tawasakm ... your politeness is undeniable, but generally any convo on a forum is fair game for anyone's comments, I would think.

No. I propose that the US will not ask for Canadian permission before using their BMD system over Canadian territory, any more than some hypothetical rogue nation would ask Canadian permission to fire their hypothetical nuclear missile over Canadian territory in the first place. Ah. Alright. So you're acknowledging a parallel exists between 'rogue states' and states that ignore the sovereignty of other states. I agree. I wonder if by 'assert' you actually mean 'enforce'. A state can certainly 'assert' its sovereignty through diplomatic means.

Yeah, because all 'real' Albertans wear big silly white cowboy hats and hate faggots and poor people, right?

Will you answer my question, or are you incapable or unwilling to do so? Remember, I want you to explain: What deviance you say men are "permitted" that women are not?

Here, I'll even show you how ... In my view, I am not macho Word meanings evolve from the use they are given in social discourse. I.e. Society decides what a 'man' is. Very likely. Unless something changes rather drastically I am likely to become a corpse after my stint as a man. 'Possible'? Who knows. Probable? No. Probably being a man stems from hormonal infusions in the womb followed by passage of about 18-20 years time. I can only speak from my direct knowledge. Women I know sleep, toss and turn, and have sex in bed, among other things. Same answer as for men. I think it's a combination of nature and nurture. How do you know I don't? I have not canvassed their views in this respect. No it's not impossible. I don't know what this question means. Probably pride would vary on a case by case basis, depending on the reasons for the change. Again, I don't comprehend your question. That's not a question. Using the title Dr. has the same meaning for everyone though, doesn't it? I'm not aware that they do. 'Cause they enjoy it maybe. Yet again, I cannot make sense of your convoluted syntax here. I don't think that's correct. I don't see that happening. Dunno. Good question. Now, I look forward to you answering my question. Remember it's: What "deviance" are men "permitted" that women are not?

In all that you didn't bother to answer my question. Care to extend that courtesy for a change? Here ... What "deviance" are men "permitted" that women are not?

No prob.