The Terrible Sweal

Space development is the future of humankind. We are crazy to keep all our eggs in this fragile little basket, and the economic growth potential is staggering. So yes, Canada should do more in space.

Wait, Kimmy, you're confused now. The court said the feds can't tax provincial owned assets. That's a much more restricted issue that the question of taxing resources, for two reasons: 1) The provinces don't OWN the resources; and 2) as I noted in the prior post, the feds can still tax non-provincially owned activities.

Good on you for looking into it Kimmy. We now have the facts about the division of powers on oil, and in general. The federal government cannot tax a provincial government. *Inferentially, then, a federal tax on non-provincially owned oil industry participants IS legitimate.* I guess if King Ralph wanted to nationalize the oil industry then the feds would be shut out of taxing it. Somehow I don't see that happening.

Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.

I don't understand. Spare me your passive/abusive rhetoric, please. In some cases there are explanations which involve an action by the apparent victim, other times the apparent victim is indeed simply a victim of someone's bad conduct. The point is there are both kinds of cases and it's necessary to make the distinction. Look here, let's get real, shall we. If Russia had granted independence to Chechnya years ago, it's highly unlikely this situation would have occured. This is not a question of 'blame', it is a simply factual question of whether some choices lead to some outcomes. Value judgements come later.

It did. I have academic proof, but I can't post it because it's copywritied and the link is behind a firewall (hefty subscription). Those are the facts. Facts! HAHAHAHA! "Fact" because its in some academic argument? Facts that you cannot produce or cite? Hi-larious.

We should be a little more sophisticated than this rigid concept of either/or 'blame'. To say French policies helped lead to WWII is not exonerating Hitler of his crimes, it's simply explaining part of why/how they were carried out. Consider a situation ... you're in line for the theatre. Ahead of you, a woman suddenly shoves a guy. It seems like aggression ... until you realize that he was standing on her foot.

No, he didn't.

We're not talking about 'right' and 'fair' here. We're talking about 'legitimate', which is a much clearer concept.

Well, we don't know what might have been decisive factors in that election, since Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court who decided the election should not proceed.

The same might be said of Iraq. Indeed, the same was said of Iraq, by the Bush I administration, among others.

I fail to see how the geographic location of someone has any bearing on whether they are perceiving something correctly or not. That's a stand-alone question. Furthermore, I am not from Quebec. BTW, anyone, did the Alberta government even try to challenge the NEP in court?

There are several possible explanations for why there have been no new cases including that the source no longer exists, that occurences are extremely rare, or that our testing is not capturing the situation (...shoot, bury and say nothing down on the farm, anyone?) The point is that the "science" cannot at this point tell us which. Of course prions occur 'naturally'. The idea that they appear 'spontaneously' is a different question. Maybe they can, the "science" isn't telling us that, now, is it? If you mean we have stopped feeding animals to herbivores, that is mistaken. We have changed which parts of which animals can be fed to herbivores on the specious assumption that some parts are less dangerous than other parts. The "science" behind that is simply ludicrous. Demonstrated it!!!?? To whom? By doing what?

Should you be angry? There is not enough information in your case to decide. I think we need to know: (1) how did it come to pass that one begins with $9 and the other begins with $1? (2) from the time we begin working together, what did each contribute to the process? Whose input was the greater in terms of effort and ability? Until these two parts are clarified, a sensible answer to your question is impossible. Well, since the poorest of the poor are the children of the poor, in 10 years time, it will indeed be new people who are in the bottom 20%. I.e. their children.

Was it declared illegal by a federalist, Ontario-Quebec dominated court? No. That doesn't make it any less illegitamate. So now the courts are illegitimate too, are they? I have the feeling the only legitimacy you recognize is whatever matches your personal prejudices.

As remote as the possibility of American invasion might seem, nukes would be an effective deterent. I didn't 'compare' our relationship with that of North Korea and Iraq, I pointed out that the US treated North Korea differently than Iraq because of the fear of nukes. Do you disagree? What territory? Baffin Island? How would they get here. Baffin Island is part of Canada too, y'know. Anyway, for Russia, it would be strategic parts of the Arctic. France or Britain, I'd think Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe parts of Quebec. How would they get here? By boat and plane. Your talking likely threats; I'm talking potential threats. My point is that when it comes to threats, you want to be safe rather than sorry, and that nukes are a relatively cheap way to get 99% certainty about some admittedly unlikely, but catastrophic threats. And remember, I'm thinking of dangers other than straight up invasions. A country with nukes will not be used by a rogue state for WMD target practice just to prove a point. So encourgaing more states to get nukes seems a little counterproductive. I'm not encouraging more states to get nukes ... I'm encouraging my state to recognize that all the encouragement necessary already exists. Not at all. I'm using the freedom loving gun owners personal argument... If I am armed, I have an option for dealing with someone who steps out of line. And stopped. Why do you think that is? Look at their situation realistically ... Absent nukes, if India wanted to take over Pakistan and was willing to pay the price in lives and money, there is little doubt about the final outcome. With nukes, Pakistan knows with substantial certainty that India will never consider accepting the price it would take. Absent nukes, one country must live with the possibility that their enemy will conquer them. With nukes, neither country needs to worry about that. Or zero, depending on what you believe.

It was all over the news for a few days ... Trifecta More Trifecta Well that argument doesn't hold. If you believe the straight story, Osama pulled it off without any multi-level cooperation, so how necessary would it be? The interesting thing is how quick everyone was to credit the 9/11 attackers with some great logistical genius. But in fact, the attacks were childishly simple: Send out 5 teams to each get on a air flight one morning. This is the kind of 'sheer brilliance' it takes to do what?... Run a travel agency, or a courier company? Ooooo!!! I guess what I'm surprised at is that plausible deniability is enough for so many voters.

Sorry, IMR, but I don't get what you're complaining about...

Perhaps you should petition Greg to move it to the proper place. BTW, IMR, regarding this: Who on earth were you talking to/about?

And would nukes deter that? No. Not to mention that, if the U.S. really wanted to get their hands on Canada's resources, there's easier ways then invading and occupying a country this size , full of 30 million future Democrats. How would you account for the U.S. delicacy about North Korea compared to Iraq, then? And as for future democrats ... occupied people don't get to vote. Like who? Russia, China, France and Britain are all capable of occupying and holding Canadian territory, though not all of it, and not without substantial logistical difficulties. Too late. Rogue states already have nukes.

Broadly speaking, immigrants are welcome in Canada. There are some who have a policy preference for limiting immigration, but only a lunatic fringe of them would let their personal interactions with immigrants be driven by these policy beliefs. I would imagine that Alberta would be particularly welcoming to American immigrants, but many there may not care much for your sensible political views.

The U.S. is perfectly capable of invading Canada, is led by a dangerous religious fanatic, and may soon need our oil. Other countries are also capable of invading us, but are detered from doing so by the United States. Can we continue to sponge off this relationship? Can we afford to be beholden for our very safety to another country? I don't think so. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to simply fear of invasion. Our nukes could serve to protect us from acts of WMD terror by rogue states as well.

Well the obvious question to ask is, who exatly are we suppossed to be deterring? What threats does Canada face that can be relaistically tempered with nukes? I'd posit: none. First and foremost, as you noted, we are detering rogue behaviour by the United States, and then there's Russia too. In a broader sense we would be detering anyone who may come to pose a threat to our interests. Are these dangers highly speculative? Certainly. But the nature of danger is that you don't see it until it's too late. A nuclear deterent capability is within our technical abilities and need not be very expensive for simply deterent value.

I think the different handling meted out by the US vis a vis Iraq and North Korea shows distinctly that a nuclear deterent is effective. If the nuclear non-proliferation regime was holding up, I would agree that adhereing to it is the responsible approach, but since it's not holding up, I can see no advantage in being the only sheep among the wolves, so to speak.

These are dangerous times. Nuclear weapons are proliferating among tin-pot regimes around the world, from North Korea to Israel. Canada has substantial quantities of important resources that nations are known to fight for, such as hydrocarbons and fresh water. Canada's nearest neighbor is a nuclear powered state with a leader who claims the right to attack other states at will. In my opinion, a properly responsible government of any country is justified in seeking nuclear deterent capability. States with special strategic needs such as Israel, Iran, North Korea, and Canada especially.