Toronto gun violence leaves two dead

[Mr.Canada]

But you are worried that the "Canada I know" wont be around much longer.

If true then you certainly cannot agree with your own post. How loud will you scream when its one of your kids mistaken for a gang member.

Awe c'mon guyser. Did you watch "V for Vendetta" tonight or something?

Be fair.

[Sir Bandelot]

And they are also one of if not the most homogeneous modern nations on the planet.

Sorry M.Dancer, you lobbed me a softy, I had to take it.

EDIT- Also have some of the most strictest immigration policies on the planet. There are even signs up in many of the bars to this day that say "No Gaijin" No foreigners.

What, you want to be Japanese now.

If you know anything about their society you would know, corporations rule every aspect of the peoples lives. To the point that the laws of the corporations overrule the laws of the land, because simply put, if you want to live there you have to work, and you better do what your employers tell you. Otherwise you get blackballed, and no one will ever hire you. No room for 'mavericks' there. The big companies call all the shots, right down to the last detail for the lifestyle of the little man. All designed to improve the efficiency of the worker.

Fascism, utter fascism.

And you want to talk about housing prices? Forget about it. Some of the working class there live in a 5x7 foot cube. Just big enough to lay down in.

And don't they have one of the highest suicide rates, for youth and adults. Yes they do.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[Mr.Canada]

What, you want to be Japanese now.

If you know anything about their society you would know, corporations rule every aspect of the peoples lives. To the point that the laws of the corporations overrule the laws of the land, because simply put, if you want to live there you have to work, and you better do what your employers tell you. Otherwise you get blackballed, and no one will hire you. Fascism, utter fascism.

And you want to talk about housing prices? Forget about it. Some of the working class there live in a 5x7 foot cube. Just big enough to lay down in.

And don't they have one of the highest suicide rates, for youth and adults. Yes they do.

I'm just relating my experience, nothing more, nothing less.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm just relating my experience, nothing more, nothing less.

No problem. I'm not criticizing you, just sharing my point of view.

I can even be wrong... it happened once

;^)

Edited October 30, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[Mr.Canada]

No problem. I'm not criticizing you, just sharing my point of view.

I can even be wrong... it happened once

;^)

lol.

[M.Dancer]

To the point that the laws of the corporations overrule the laws of the land, .........

Cite

[Argus]

A person doesn't choose where his or her mother gives birth. If they can support themselves, why shouldn't they bet allowed in?

Are you aware that some stores sell products which lose them money with every sale? You probably are, and probably know why.

Similarly, there are citizens, many of them, who are not net fiscal contributors insofar as taxes are concerned. Tons of people who don't pay income tax, or who pay very little, actually cost the government more than they pay. The government functions because of those of us who pay more in taxes than we get in services to make up for this. Bringing in masses of immigrants who work as taxi drivers, security guards, cleaning staff, and car park attendents means higher taxes on the rest of us to provide the government services to these people because they are not paying for them due to their low incomes.

So being "able to support themselves" is not good enough for an immigrant.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to show that immigrants are making $8/hr to do jobs that Canadians would be paid $20/hr for? Also, is it so that the majority of immigrants to Canada live in public housing, where are those numbers?

Are you seriously going to try to argue that immigrants will not do most jobs for a considerably lower wage than most Canadians would accept? As for public housing, find me anywhere I said the majority of immigrants are in public housing. I said that public housing is filled with immigrants, but that does not imply the majority of immigrants are in public housing.

No one has argued about what the numbers should be at. Maybe we need to restrict immigration, maybe we need to open it, maybe we should leave it where its at. What I'm trying to understand is where you get off broad-brushing all immigrants as welfare collecting neanderthals that are destroying the quality of life for born Canadian citizens.

I don't believe I've argued any such thing.

[Sir Bandelot]

Cite

What am I, a dog?

[M.Dancer]

What am I, a dog?

Because the burden of proof is to the positive claimant. You claim that:

To the point that the laws of the corporations overrule the laws of the land

It is either a fact or it is an opinion.

It is either a a valid opinion or an unfounded one.

Please help me decide.

[Sir Bandelot]

Because the burden of proof is to the positive claimant. You claim that:

It is either a fact or it is an opinion.

It is either a a valid opinion or an unfounded one.

Please help me decide.

Oh, facts. Those are hard to come by, ironically in this age of information.

It simply comes down to, which propaganda do you WANT to believe.

Providing links, in particular ones that criticize western governments is not easy and there will be counter-links, so I use my own judgement from many sources, news and history.

You must know what fascism is, and how it works with the state to produce efficiencies, maximize profits. The workers are simply a tool towards higher production.

But there are some sources for my claim, such as

http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C4903.aspx

"Fifty years ago, a new alliance of Japanese elites sparked the miraculous transformation of their country from a land decimated by war to an economic superpower that would become the envy of the world. These elites represented the best and brightest of Japan and they were willing to make great sacrifices for the prosperity of their people. Now, this same elitist system may be the nation's downfall. The new elites who replaced the pre-World War II "zaibatsu" elite have formed their own brand of upper class rule based on corporate control and domination of the state."

This book can be read online, or parts of it at least.

We are talking about a different culture too, which makes it harder for us to understand. I dont want to pick on Japanese particularly, because relative to some others I believe they are actually a more civilized society. The people have a very powerful sense of loyalty, as evidenced by the events of world war II, for example. So maybe they like it this way, I don't know.

[M.Dancer]

But there are some sources for my claim, such as

http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C4903.aspx

We are talking about a different culture too, which makes it harder for us to understand. I dont want to pick on Japanese particularly, because relative to some others I believe they are actually a more civilized society. The people have a very powerful sense of loyalty, as evidenced by the events of world war II, for example. So maybe they like it this way, I don't know.

Okay...an opinion to support an opinion. At least that is something but I was hoping to see some tangible evidence showing where a corporation's policies supersedes the law...you know...dead hookers and such...

You must know what fascism is, and how it works with the state to produce efficiencies, maximize profits. The workers are simply a tool towards higher production.

I know what fascism is and that is certainly not a definition of it. If it was, every nation on earth would be to some degree, fascist.

[Sir Bandelot]

I know what fascism is and that is certainly not a definition of it. If it was, every nation on earth would be to some degree, fascist.

Every western industrialized nation is, to some extent as they give legal powers to corporations.

There are many interpretations of what fascism is, including "islamo-fascism" by George Bush. The word is used to invoke fear because of the nazis, who were not really so much fascists as they were socialists. So pick your poison.

I prefer to go with what Mussolini said. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

[Sir Bandelot]

We have certainly gone beyond "Toronto Gun Violence", hahaha.

Wheres the guy who always wants us to stay on topic...

I must go to work now for my fascist bosses, talk to you later.

[Mr.Canada]

Cite

M.Dancer. I understand why you say this but do you really believe that if something, not this necessarily, isn't on the news that that means it isn't true?

Seems a little naive to me for someone as smart as you.

I know that you only say this because it is an instant win button to any argument.

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer. I understand why you say this ...

Apparently you don't.

[Mr.Canada]

Apparently you don't.

Can you please answer the question I really want to know.

M.Dancer. Do you really believe that if something, not this necessarily, isn't on the news that that means it isn't true?

Seems a little naive to me for someone as smart as you.

I know that you only say this because it is an instant win button to any argument.

EDIT- If I am mistaken please tell me why you always do it. Say "cite" or anything else along those lines.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer. Do you really believe that if something, not this necessarily, isn't on the news that that means it isn't true?

EDIT- If I am mistaken please tell me why you always do it. Say "cite" or anything else along those lines.

1)Things happen all the time that are not on the news. Mostly becuase they aren't newsworthy.

2.A) Because I want to know why they believe something, if they have evidence for their belief.

2. Because I believe they don't know what they are talking about and I want them to do their homework

2.C) Because sometimes people bullshit.

[Mr.Canada]

1)Things happen all the time that are not on the news. Mostly becuase they aren't newsworthy.

2.A) Because I want to know why they believe something, if they have evidence for their belief.

2. Because I believe they don't know what they are talking about and I want them to do their homework

2.C) Because sometimes people bullshit.

Hah. Thanks for the reply. Your answer makes sense to me, which is naturally the most important thing. I wasn't sure if you'd answer me since I'm truthfully an idiot...hehe.

Thanks again.

[eyeball]

Japan uses what is called "community based policing" where they have booths where the active duty officer stays. It is quite successful. I highly recommend this method for policing, especially as gas prices rise. In the winter it may be more so issued but building a good solid shack that uses solar heating ain't too hard. People will drive safer too if they have to drive past cops every four blocks.

As for the military.. that is a totally different issue. I don't think the military should be involved in policing the public, unless they are especially trained to do so. I think they could be far more productive doing other things. Where as the police really are there to respond to issues.

Thing is though police tend to have good pay rates, and there are relatively few of them. eg. the 200 cops in this city arn't enough to fill every four blocks. So what it means is that the whole idea towards community service, through block programs or otherwise needs to be taken to the digital age. Eg. Cameras every four blocks. And potential rotations of police to high crime areas.

I know this game its called whack-a-mole. Hit them in one spot and they pop-up or rotate as you put it, somewhere else. The cops always lose and our soldiers don't know how to win this game either. See Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc.

Going after drug dealers in a war on the supply-side of drugs is a complete waste of time. The Fraser Institute has compared this attempt to thwart the law of supply and demand to trying to repeal the law of gravity.

The only way to really rid society of drugs is to kill the demand instead by going after all the users. This could be achieved by simply filtering society through a mandatory drug screening process. I suppose we should give this a serious sounding military name like Operation Clean Sweep or something. Every man woman and child in the land should be thoroughly drug tested and given two choices if they fail, either take up drinking instead or face summary execution.

[ghandaff]

Shall we decriminlize everything else while we're at it. Maybe keeping some of the repeat offenders behind bars where they belong instead of out on the street might reduce these things. Organized crime exists no matter what, the coddle approach is an abysmal failure.

The Criminalization of Cannabis has actually eroded the Institution of Justice. Cannabis was outlawed not because it was harmful, but because it was a weed and could prosper anywhere. In other words, it didn't require Human intervention to produce. The public use of Cannabis would have alcohol consumers switching over for if anything, the reduced cost of consumption. This would have resulted in masses losses of Taxes collected in the Governments coffers.

The Cannabis Prohibition resulted in youg people comparing the act of their parents consuming Martinis to smoking a joint, and they recognized the Hypocracy of it all. With that, the young started questioning the Governments motives and the rationality of the Laws it implimented.

If they had legalized Cannibis right from the start, they probably would have had much more control over Prohibition of Harder Drugs. Now look where we are.

Stupid Laws only erode the system of respect for it.

[Kitch]

1)Things happen all the time that are not on the news. Mostly becuase they aren't newsworthy.

It's even more likely that something isn't newsworthy because it might interfere with a company's (either owned by the media corporation or one that provides a lot of advertising dollars) ability to sell some product.

I think Mr. Canada has a crush on you.

[Mr.Canada]

It's even more likely that something isn't newsworthy because it might interfere with a company's (either owned by the media corporation or one that provides a lot of advertising dollars) ability to sell some product.

I think Mr. Canada has a crush on you.

Nah, I'm too much of a homophobe I respect him, that is all.

[M.Dancer]

It's even more likely that something isn't newsworthy because it might interfere with a company's (either owned by the media corporation or one that provides a lot of advertising dollars) ability to sell some product.

.

Doesn't happen, I can attest to that personally.

When I think of the news about corporations that were heavy adverstisers, Like Nortel....who dispite spending millions in media, did it stop the stories about mismanagement and irregularities? Not even once.

Are stories about scAir Canada pulled in fear they will pull their ads? No.

GM? Ford?

Did the Globe or the Star stop stories about Matthew Barrett's lavish lifstyle over concerns the BMO might pull their ads? No.

The reason for this is simple. PR people know that threatening to pull ads is a no win scenario, it will either raise suspisions for the journalists to dig deeper and if they do pull, the stories will be published anyway.

Stories don't make the news for one of a few reasons. They aren't enough facts to confirm it above rumour (sometimes they will be mentioned as rumours). Stories sometimes are just too wingnutty (North American Union anyone?) Or they just aren't newsworthy or interesting enough.

[Kitch]

Doesn't happen, I can attest to that personally.

When I think of the news about corporations that were heavy adverstisers, Like Nortel....who dispite spending millions in media, did it stop the stories about mismanagement and irregularities? Not even once.

Are stories about scAir Canada pulled in fear they will pull their ads? No.

GM? Ford?

Did the Globe or the Star stop stories about Matthew Barrett's lavish lifstyle over concerns the BMO might pull their ads? No.

The reason for this is simple. PR people know that threatening to pull ads is a no win scenario, it will either raise suspisions for the journalists to dig deeper and if they do pull, the stories will be published anyway.

Stories don't make the news for one of a few reasons. They aren't enough facts to confirm it above rumour (sometimes they will be mentioned as rumours). Stories sometimes are just too wingnutty (North American Union anyone?) Or they just aren't newsworthy or interesting enough.

Then why did Fox News pull the story about Monsanto's bovine growth hormone drug... Posilac, I think?... which causes infections in the cows necessitating antibiotics which have been found in the milk and cause serious health problems in people that drink it? I'm assuming this is well known enough to not need to reference this. Canada also banned the drug here.

Also... Chomsky described 5 filters that information must pass through before it can become 'news':

1. Ownership of the medium

2. Medium's funding sources

3. Sourcing

4. Flak

5. Anti-communist ideology

Before dismissing these immediately as liberal/socialist garbage, have a read:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%2...Prop_Model.html

[bush_cheney2004]

Then why did Fox News pull the story about Monsanto's bovine growth hormone drug...

Because Monsanto threatened to bring a legal suit against them. Not very complicated...

The Fox station was promoting the story aggressively until the night before it was scheduled to air when the Monsanto Corporation threatened Fox. Fox then demanded that Akre and Wilson change their story. They put them through 83 re-writes and eventually fired them just before Christmas 1997.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/7/25/mons...for_advertising

Edited November 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004