Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.
Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?
I believe at least two advertising executives have been convicted of fraud to date, and just a month or two ago charges were laid against one Liberal party worker. The RCMP are notoriously slow at investigating such things.
If the scandal was as wide-spread and large scale as it has been made out to be, my expectation is that more people would have been charged and convicted by now. Given the Gomery Report and all the media attention, I wonder if it wasn't much ado about very little.
Now your partisan leanings are showing.
Not really. I have never belonged to any political party and I have never voted. I prefer to keep my hands clean. Like I said, a pox on all their houses.
All they are claiming is that the Conservatives spent more than the allowed limit during the last election (using methods that the Liberals and NDP also used)
When I was little, my Mom never let me get away with something I knew was wrong simply because the other kids were doing it. Amazing how politicians (who make the laws) see themselves as being above it.
The party knew full well that what they were doing was contrary to the law. It is all the more ironic, since the Tories were campaigning against corruption at the time, yet were doing something corrupt themselves. Mind you, these are politicians we are talking about, so nobody should be surprised...
serious concerns on EC's partisanship and motives.
The RCMP demonstrated some partisan behaviour in the last election, but their reputation is not in tatters. The government still sends EC to monitor elections in other parts of the world. They are just embarrassed for having been caught.
The Liberals aren't fit to govern.
NONE of them are fit to govern!
I'm not convinced they're even fit to serve as opposition.
I agree. IMHO the Liberals have lost the moral authority to oppose the government. They should continue to sit on their hands for the remainder of the term. If they had any integrity, they would resign their seats rather than participate in this farce of a parliament.
Why they continue to poll anywhere above the 10-15% they truly deserve eludes me.
Because the majority of voters do not trust Steven Harper. He can only blame himself for that - the policies and principles he has articulated in the past are greatly at odds with what he claims to represent now. Small wonder people accuse him of having a hidden agenda.
I may strongly disagree with the NDP, but I can respect that they are (most of the time) a principled political party who articulate alternate policies. Today's Liberals fail on both counts.
The NDP used to function as the conscience of the nation. I do not believe that is the case today. Jack Layton has sold his votes to both Steven Harper and Paul Martin, and as a result may be the most dis-honourable member of the House. He's no Stephen Lewis that's for sure.
While I realize the likelihood of a law such as this would be difficult to pass in the US,
Umm... This law is based on the DMCA, which was passed in your country some time ago. The worst-case-scenario for you is that this (and similar laws in Europe) might be used to justify "updating" the DMCA in the future. You can be sure those updates won't be in your favour...
Not likely. They've been talking about it since last christmas, when it was originally supposed to be tabled. Seeing the actual bill will just bring new interest. The Canadian media doesn't just forget about stuff like this.
The CBC maybe, but the other newspapers, tv and radio stations are owned by a handful of media conglomerates who overwhelmingly support this legislation. If this mornging's headlines are anything to go by, the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post are in favour of the new copyright legislation.
I am not Canadian, and my first impression is that you guys already pay a CD tax to pay for copying discs, making file sharing legal, how does the new bill affect that? If it prevents you (legally) from making those copies, should the media companies lose that CD tax?
It effectively makes downloading legal. The legality of uploading has never been decided.
I agree, that if the Canadian DMCA is approved, the tax on blank media should be removed, but the media cartels are unlikely to agree. I suspect they would argue the levy should remain to compensate them for past copyright violations...
Liberal-friendly advertising agencies in the province of Quebec had been awarded numerous government advertising contracts for doing effectively no work, and passing sums of money back to the Liberals as donations. One such case was, literally, an envelope full of cash passed to a Liberal party member in an Italian restaurant.
Wow, that's quite the allegation. If it were as cut-and-dried as you say, how many people have been charged with crimes related to the scandal - and how many have been convicted?
I think you have over-stated the scope and intent of the program. Yes, there was corruption but we get that from all politicians, and the current minority government is no different. Their party headquarters were raided by Elections Canada on the grounds that they were using the campaign financing laws to defraud Canadian taxpayers.
A pox on all their houses, I say.
I think your political leanings are pretty obvious given that partisan explanation. I wish you had omitted some of the more gratuitous hyperbole though. Apart from the bias, you have described the situation reasonably well.
The Liberals do not want to force an election unless they believe they will get a majority, but neither do the Conservatives for that matter. I imagine that both Dion and Harper are equally frustrated at the moment. Dion has been unable to promote his image or ideas and remains a largely unknown quantity to the Canadian voter. On the other hand, Harper has tried to turn every policy into a partisan wedge issue to try and raise his own polling numbers, but voters in Ontario and Quebec (where elections are won and lost) simply do not trust him enough to give him a majority government.
Both parties are having a problem adjusting to their current role. The Liberals (who are used to governing) aren't very effective as an opposition party, and the Conservatives (who are used to being in opposition) aren't particularly effective at governing. Harper does not trust any of his MPs to speak on behalf of the government, and he himself has not been able to persuade Canadians of the value or wisdom of his government's policies (c.f. Afghanistan)
The end result, is that the Liberals are sitting on their hands and the Conservatives can mostly govern as if they had a majority provided that they don't piss off central Canada too much.
How much longer before we give up the pretense of being a sovereign nation? Out of economic considerations, our foreign policy is written with US interests in mind, and now the same can be said of our domestic policy. We have a branch plan economy, and now a branch-plant government. I know it has been that way for some time, but previous governments at least tried to give the appearance of being a little independent from time to time. I guess with Tony Blair retired and John Howard defeated, Steven Harper has chosen to make his move and become the US' new bitch^H^H^H^H^Hbest friend.
OK, that is perhaps a tad over-dramatic, but it is clear that this proposed law was not written with my best interests at heart. The same cannot be said of the US-based media cartels who probably had more to do with the authoring of the bill than any particular civil servant or party hack.
I would like for the opposition to show some spine and vote this bill down, but I doubt that will happen. The Liberals have abstained from so many votes on issues they claim to be fundamentally opposed in order to not cause an election. As a result, I do not believe that they have the moral authority to vote down government legislation until after the next election.
It's not like the Liberals would have done anything different - this legislation is quite similar to what Sam Bulte was preparing when she had that ministry.
It sucks when your nation's legislation is written by foreign corporations, for the benefit of foreign corporations - and it really doesn't matter which party introduces it. I fully expect the government to claim that this is a great day for the Canadian consumer and how the enhanced copyright protection will benefit any Canadian shareholders of those foreign media cartels. It probably isn't good politics to tell the voters the truth at the best of times...
BTW - I wonder if the phrase "public domain" appears even once in this bill which supposedly modernizes and improves copyright?
you've also insulted the people in the military in the same snobbish, elitist way John Kerry did. Anyone who joins the military is too poor or dumb to do anything else, eh? I mean, none of them could have joined out of a feeling of service and duty,
If duty and service were the over-riding reasons why people enlist, you would expect to all classes represented in proportionate degree. But that does not appear to be the case. Lower-class people are overwhelmingly over-represented in the military. You reject my analysis, so what's yours? Are lower-class people more patriotic or service-minded?
Or maybe they do not have much by way of options...
Chiefly, the role of government is to protect our freedoms fromt he abuse of others. It is not, however, there to provide every service we need or desire.
A typically american attitude. I view government as a means to achieve national goals and aspirations. Of course, I come from a country that has no colonial past or imperial ambitions, so our goals are more modest...
Not only that, but I've put away a nest egg of about $24k over the last 4 years which can be used for any medical services I need or continue to grow for my retirement.
Well, let's hope you remain healthy. I can tell you from personal experience that $24K will not go far if you need extensive medical treatment.
but it is not my job to care for every person out there. It's my job to take care of me and my immediate family, not someone 3000 miles away.
Given that point of view, I do not understand why you aren't demanding publicly funded universal healthcare. Publicly funded universal health care is demonstrated to be cheaper and provide better results than what you have now (unless you are independantly wealthy). Even if you don't give a damn about other people, it is in your own self-interest to have it...
it's the working stiffs who can't afford to buy medical care because they're paying taxes out the ass for the non-working to live a lifestyle equitable with their own.
Do you really believe that? Dude, you have been sold a bill of goods! You are paying taxes because bush administration's tax cuts have pushed the tax burden on the middle and working class. The same government is pissing away millions of dollars every single day on a pointless war of aggression, and you think your taxes are high because of welfare?
I would agree taxes in the US are high, but only because you don't get much in return! Citizens of other nations pay more in taxes, but receive much more in the way of health and education.
Compared to what how people are treated in other first world nations, the only good thing that can be said of medicaid is that it is better than nothing...
Have you never heard of Filegate?
From the link you provided:
The matter was investigated by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, who found in 2000 that there was no criminal activity by anyone in the matter,[7] and that there was no credible evidence that senior White House figures or the First Lady had requested the files or had acted improperly or testified improperly regarding Livingstone's hiring
Ken Starr wasn't able to find any evidence of wrong-doing. It sounds to me like a tempest in a teapot...
I'm sure you'll be at the front of the lines to complain about things like warrantless wiretapping, but you're content to let just whomever paw through your medical history?
For all I know, that has already happened. All they would find is that I need to lose some weight and take more exercise... Nothing I am proud of, but nothing to be ashamed of either.
How strange that you know what's best for my health even though you don't know me...
So, if we institute compulsory military service, like Israel does, will you accept the trade-off as being part of a civil society when you're sitting on the front lines in Iraq against your will?
Had there been a compulsory draft, I do not believe that Iraq would ever have been invaded. Right now the "professional" army is largely composed of members of the working poor. They enlist because they have no other career options. So, when they are killed, the middle and upper classes simply don't care. However, if middle and upper class kids were sent over there to die, it would be a different matter altogether.
Oh, and before you suggest Vietnam as some sort of counter-argument, the wealthy found any number of ways to ensure that their kids were kept safely out of harm's way: studying at McGill or in state-side non-combat postings. There were not many doctor's or lawyer's sons in Vietnam...
the fact that I earned my money... just like if you buy a house, joe squatter doesn't have any right to come in and kick you out of your bed
I was thinking more along the lines that you don't appear to have problems with taking the benefits of civil society, but you seem to object paying for them. TANSTAAFL...
possibly in the sense that, it is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to buy insurance. Possibly, I don't want it. Possibly, you do. That's called freedom.
What rubbish. If the american people are too stupid to see the economic and personal benefits of a publicly funded universal health-care system, so be it. But please don't think it boils down to freedom. The Hobbesian state of nature is allows individuals the ultimate degree of freedom, but I don't think any sane individual would ever want to experience it.
If anything, not being insured is hypocritical and selfish. The first, because it shows contempt for the notion of personal accountability, and selfish because others will have to cover the costs if you should need health care and are unable to cover it yourself.
Do whatever, but be honest with yourself, even if you can't be honest with me...
I believe your counter-examples are atypical, and have been refuted by other posters. For what it's worth, I believe the measure of a society is in the way the least of it's members are treated. How many americans cannot afford any health care insurance, and what happens to them if they get sick?
nevermind getting into things like your personal health records showing up in the hands of people who would like to use them against you
Have you seen someone to help you with your paranoia?
much like FBI records of hundreds of political enemies showing up in the Clinton White House.
Whatever. Show me one administration that hasn't resorted to dirty tricks, regardless of political affiliation.
No, I consider it a wise economic move, allowing me to invest my money into other things that I deem more important, like my house and private retirement. Since Social Security will never pay me a dime, I'd guess I'd better have something planned to avoid that nanny state plan as well.
How strange that looking after yourself does not include looking after your own health. Good luck with that strategy.
Wait a minute... it is a tangible object which can be traded for another object... why... that sounds like property!
No, it's just an item. In and of itself, money has no inherent value. It is merely a means to an end.
So long as you can spend my money how you think is best...
Again, when did selfishness become such a virtue? As social animals, human beings would never have achieved anything if your attitude were commonplace...
In the same way you fail to understand why government c
Compulsory means that I no longer have a choice but to pay for health care.
So what? Welcome to civil society, and the trade-offs that come with it. If that does not suit you, please accept my sympathies, and learn to deal with it.
If the government takes away my right to keep my money, by forcing me to pay for care I possibly don't want
Two things:
What "right" do you have to keep your money? What is so special about you that you are entitled to a free ride?
Only possibly? Is there a list of ailments you would be prepared to cope with, assuming you could pay less?
BTW - You are aware that publicly funded health care systems have been shown to provide a higher quality of care and are less expensive to maintain that the current US model?
I currently deliberately have no health care plan
And you consider that to be some kind of virtue?
it IS taking away my property, in the form of money. Money itself is a tangible asset, a property if you will, that I am compensated with in return for my labor.
Money is nothing more than pieces of metal or paper that we have collectively agreed can be exchanged for something else of value.
presumably a freedom loving liberal, you're going to tell me how to live mine.
Was that supposed to be an insult? Kids these days...
For what it's worth, I haven't the slightest concern for however you choose to lead your life provided that you aren't doing anything illegal or harmful to others.
Are you still failing to understand why the government controlling an industry does not equate to socialism?
Given how overly broad some of those definitions are, I suppose that only Iraq and Afghanistan qualify as being non-socialist nations...
Even so, it seems to me that the world is much more "socialist" now than it was 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, or 100 years ago. It also seems to me that life is demonstrably better as well. As such, I fail to see the point of your bitching...
Everyone has a right to property they freely acquired from other freely-acting individual. When the government (or anyone else) starts forcefully taking away that property, that right is being violated.
That's one opinion. My opinion is that there are no natural property rights - they are purely an invention of the middle class. Those who struggle daily for survival have no interest in such trifles, and the moneyed class have always acted with a sense of entitlement.
As a member of civil society, one transfers some rights to the government, and outright relinquishes others.
The benefits of civil society significantly outweigh the loss of those rights. As proof, I invite you to pause and look at your surroundings. I suspect that few (if any) of the infrastructure we take for granted would exist in a world where your perspective was the dominant philosophy.
I cannot help but get the impression that libertarians simply do not care about other people and use rhetoric to try and make a virtue out of selfishness...
4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage"
And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%.
This is what passes for +5 Insightful? Feh!
Would you be kind enough to explain how compulsory (but not necessarily universal) healthcare implies losing property rights? AFAIK, pretty much the rest of the first world has publicly funded universal health care, and yet people still own homes, cars, and other possessions.
While you are at it, please explain why you believe that publicly funded healthcare == socialism. Maybe it's just me, but I do not see the connection.
And, when push comes to shove on the highway, we will survive while the Civic drive bites the dust. Too many hot rod kids out there driving like assholes. I plan to walk away from the head-on.
That's odd... When I look at the ncap ratings, SUVs (particularly and especially older ones) do not get the highest ratings. While they are commonly perceived to be safer, that does not seem to be the case.
Those who own SUVs are welcome to them - they will finally be paying something closer to the true economic cost of owning and operating them. I do not think it is necessarily true that SUVs are safer for the occupants, or for the people on the other end of the collision...
Would a Spanish person who is told to think of "coche", have a similar brain scan of an English person told to think of "car"?
Agreed. I suspect that true mind reading will be impossible because everyone will have different internal representations of concepts and ideas. Even amongst individuals who speak the same language, we should not assume that everyone will have the same representation of "car", even though people may have similar levels of brain activity in the same parts of the brain when they think about one.
Hussein was a bad man, Hitler was a bad man, the funny thing is though, the same people who lament that our government didn't do anything about Hitler until it involved the US (who killed his own people and invaded other countries) are the same people who think that we shouldn't go after Hussein (who killed his own people and invaded other countries).
Any powerful nation's foreign policy is based entirely on perceived self interest. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Even better. I have a Ford Focus and two toddlers who tend to leave half eaten apple cores on the back seats.
Dude - if you have figured out how to clone yourself, you should let the world know about it in a big way - not post it in an un-related article like this!
I don't have authority and I'm not appealing to it.
Really? What about those years you spent doing research from sources all over the planet? Isn't that why you are able to discard dissenting opinion, because the person stating that opinion has (according to you) an insufficient pool of knowledge and experience?
I hope you enjoy the taste of crow...
There is no single, magical source that proves everything. The subject is too vast.
I do not recall asking for such a thing. What I did ask, is for you to provide even one reputable peer-reviewed journal in which acknowledged experts provide justification for your opinion. Given the nature of the opinions you have expressed, I am not the least bit surprised that you are unable to do so.
"Reputable peer-reviewed journals" are probably in short supply since it's extremely taboo to say or suggest anything negative about Islam or Muslims, especially among academia where the "Islam is a Religion of Peace" axiom seems to be accepted by most people without question.
What a terribly predictable comment. There is plenty of room in academic circles for research that is controversial, if not utterly wrong. To name but one example, Phillipe Rushton is still a tenured professor at the University of Western Ontario. He is still conducting research with the aim of demonstrating that within the human race, some ethnic groups are genetically superior in terms of intellect and cognitive ability. Furthermore, his work continues to be published in peer-reviewed journals.
I believe that it would be reasonable to state that Rushton's research is far more offensive than your Islamophobia, and yet his research has not been suppressed, he has not been silenced, or driven out of the halls of academia.
Fortunately for us non-academics, reality continues to exist independently of reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Spoken like a true crackpot! I don't suppose you happen to an expert in Elvis sightings, the paranormal, UFOs, and government conspiracies as well?
It is said that the powerful and the ignorant have one thing in common: both change the facts to suit their opinions, rather than change their opinions to suit the facts.
If a person doesn't like Nazism, does that make him a "xenophobe?"
Have you ever heard of something called irony?
To further refute your accusation of xenophobia, I have an active interest in foreign cultures.
And yet you fear that Islam threatens the future of Europe? Why? Presumably because the practitioners of Islam are too different from your accepted norms. Check out a definition of xenophobia and let me know if you recognize anything familiar...
I am, for instance, currently learning Korean.
Proving what?
This isn't maths where one counter-example (even a dubious one) can invalidate an argument. Your interest in other cultures may be admirable, but that does not in any way justify the intolerance you have demonstrated in other posts.
BTW - I wonder if there is anything to be learned from the fact that I refer to "other cultures" whereas you refer to "foreign cultures"...
My notions about Islam developed gradually, as a result of things that Muslims did in Islam's name.
I am not a religious scholar by any means, but even I know that Islam is not a monolithic whole - there are various sects and sub-sects which have different beliefs and practices. No one individual or group speaks on behalf of Islam or all Muslims, although there are a number of mis-guided souls who think that they can, or should. I am also aware that Islam has been very successful in accomodating local customs and beliefs within a wider framework. The unfortunate side-effect is that there are a number of unfortunate cultural traditions that have been incorporated into some interpretations of Islam that appear to be quite contrary to the stated principles of the religion.
Perhaps you have read about what _some_ Muslims have done in the name of Islam based on a particular interpretation of that religion. Regrettably, you appear to be unable to contextualize that information and instead choose to view all of Islam through that faulty stereotype.
Your position, on the other hand, is preconceived, since it's something that's simply been absorbed from the prevailing cultural atmosphere. It's not something you've ever critically analyzed or thought about. It's just there.
Or not. You may believe whatever you like about me.
I was just like you about five or six years ago.
I wonder what caused you to regress? Oh well, perhaps there is still some hope for you.
The site I mainly go to is Jihad Watch (and their subsection Dhimmi Watch), which presents you with a problem because they cite a very wide variety of news sources, including the usual MSM suspects like BBC, CNN, Reuters and so on, as well as local newspapers and channels from all over the world.
Actually, it doesn't present me with any sort of problem at all, and I am confused why you would suggest otherwise.
A selection of opinion pieces taken without context can reinforce one's preconceived notions without the unpleasant side-effects of cognitive dissonance. However, there are other sources of news and information for those of us without an axe to grind.
As an added bonus, there are people out in the world that you can meet and interact with. I don't think you would have to meet many Muslims before you realized that that maybe, just maybe your stereotype of the people and their religion is inaccurate.
In other words, they are simply an information hub that gathers news from other sources.
So is slashdot, but one should not automatically assume that slashdot is a reputable source of information. There is a lot of insight and knowledge here, but there are a lot of GNAA and goatse posts as well.
I would know this because I've read about it for years. All the information I've accumulated has made it painfully obvious.
All that is painfully obvious is that you are making unsubstantiated incendiary claims and trying to pass them off as truth.
Appeals to your own authority mean absolutely nothing. Show me something from a reputable peer-reviewed journal that validates your statements. If you unable to do so, kindly go away and play with your toys and leave the serious discussion to the adults.
You're saying it's ignorance to actively seek information about a subject?
It is ignorance to selectively filter the information you seek on a subject when you are looking to reinforce existing prejudices rather than gain wisdom and insight.
I'm guessing you read 1984 and thought that "Ignorance is Strength" was meant to be taken literally.
That's rich, coming from you.
Based on what?
I'll try to make this as simple as I can: you reject dissenting opinions on the grounds that the person stating that opinion has an insufficient pool of knowledge and experience. However, when scrutinized, your own opinions appear to be based solely on ignorance and inaccurate stereotypes. Bigotry is typically based on an insufficient pool of knowledge and experience, hence my comment.
Ooh. That really put me in my place. I congratulate you sir - you are clearly a master of debate.
I'm not ignorant, but I am afraid for the future of Europe.
Your comments indicate otherwise. I think you may qualify as xenophobic as well.
Quoting from another post I made, for the second time already:
Dude, you can quote yourself as many times as you like, but doing so will not make any of your claims any less ridiculous. At best, it seems that you actively seek out sources of information that reinforce your pre-conceived notions and dismiss out-of-hand any dissenting point of view. That's fine, you can believe whatever you want - but please don't try to pass it off as enlightenment.
I never said every single member of the group is the same.
Oh really?
Generally speaking, Muslims do not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions
Perhaps you might want to reconsider one of those two statements...
You seem to have problems distinguishing between people whose views are based on evidence and rational analysis, and people whose philosophy is no more complex than "damn towelheads."
Presumably you believe yourself to be of the former, even though your posts indicate that you are a slightly more polite version of the latter. But that's the key - your entertainment value is that you are desperately trying to portray bigoted opinions as the product of reason and wisdom.
I suspect the only person you are fooling is yourself...
Generally speaking, Muslims do not believe in peaceful co-existence with other religions.
And you would know this how?
Generally speaking, it is far easier to appeal to your own authority and make unsubstantiated generalizations than to engage in any intelligent discourse...
there's an infinite amount of information available to anyone who wants it. That's what my views are based on.
Since when did ignorance become a valid point of view? I must have missed that memo...
Simply put, your pool of information is too small to be worth anything.
It's possible that white people attacking racial minorities (well, minorities for now) will become an issue in the future, but the only reason it will happen is because people will be given no choice. Their government has sold them down the river, and aside from voting for parties like the BNP they have no legal means of resistance. The cultural, religious and racial segregation enforced by Muslims inevitable and unavoidably results in violence and instability. Possibly even civil war.
Hello Mister Troll. How are you? It looks like you have been very well fed today!
The alternative is not so kind. I have a difficult time believing that any sane individual would believe the nonsense you are posting here, but stranger things have happened. I suppose some sympathy is called for - it must be terrifying to be so ignorant and afraid.
Perhaps if you actually met some people who come from a different culture than your own, you might realize that not every member of a group will conform to every aspect of the stereotype for that group. Hey - you might even learn that the stereotype you have using is inaccurate.
How you deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance would your own problem, but giving up on the hating is certainly an option you should consider...
IPods full of American music smuggled past Canadian customs? I'm sure that's exactly how Canadians are getting illicit copies of American music. (And vice versa.)
When will this ever end? The Canadian Government has apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions.
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from the torture?
Source?
I've been an airline passenger, and that isn't saying much!
Source?
Source?
Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?
If the scandal was as wide-spread and large scale as it has been made out to be, my expectation is that more people would have been charged and convicted by now. Given the Gomery Report and all the media attention, I wonder if it wasn't much ado about very little.
Not really. I have never belonged to any political party and I have never voted. I prefer to keep my hands clean. Like I said, a pox on all their houses.
When I was little, my Mom never let me get away with something I knew was wrong simply because the other kids were doing it. Amazing how politicians (who make the laws) see themselves as being above it.
The party knew full well that what they were doing was contrary to the law. It is all the more ironic, since the Tories were campaigning against corruption at the time, yet were doing something corrupt themselves. Mind you, these are politicians we are talking about, so nobody should be surprised...
The RCMP demonstrated some partisan behaviour in the last election, but their reputation is not in tatters. The government still sends EC to monitor elections in other parts of the world. They are just embarrassed for having been caught.
NONE of them are fit to govern!
I agree. IMHO the Liberals have lost the moral authority to oppose the government. They should continue to sit on their hands for the remainder of the term. If they had any integrity, they would resign their seats rather than participate in this farce of a parliament.
Because the majority of voters do not trust Steven Harper. He can only blame himself for that - the policies and principles he has articulated in the past are greatly at odds with what he claims to represent now. Small wonder people accuse him of having a hidden agenda.
The NDP used to function as the conscience of the nation. I do not believe that is the case today. Jack Layton has sold his votes to both Steven Harper and Paul Martin, and as a result may be the most dis-honourable member of the House. He's no Stephen Lewis that's for sure.
Umm... This law is based on the DMCA, which was passed in your country some time ago. The worst-case-scenario for you is that this (and similar laws in Europe) might be used to justify "updating" the DMCA in the future. You can be sure those updates won't be in your favour...
The CBC maybe, but the other newspapers, tv and radio stations are owned by a handful of media conglomerates who overwhelmingly support this legislation. If this mornging's headlines are anything to go by, the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post are in favour of the new copyright legislation.
It effectively makes downloading legal. The legality of uploading has never been decided.
I agree, that if the Canadian DMCA is approved, the tax on blank media should be removed, but the media cartels are unlikely to agree. I suspect they would argue the levy should remain to compensate them for past copyright violations...
Wow, that's quite the allegation. If it were as cut-and-dried as you say, how many people have been charged with crimes related to the scandal - and how many have been convicted?
I think you have over-stated the scope and intent of the program. Yes, there was corruption but we get that from all politicians, and the current minority government is no different. Their party headquarters were raided by Elections Canada on the grounds that they were using the campaign financing laws to defraud Canadian taxpayers.
A pox on all their houses, I say.
I think your political leanings are pretty obvious given that partisan explanation. I wish you had omitted some of the more gratuitous hyperbole though. Apart from the bias, you have described the situation reasonably well.
The Liberals do not want to force an election unless they believe they will get a majority, but neither do the Conservatives for that matter. I imagine that both Dion and Harper are equally frustrated at the moment. Dion has been unable to promote his image or ideas and remains a largely unknown quantity to the Canadian voter. On the other hand, Harper has tried to turn every policy into a partisan wedge issue to try and raise his own polling numbers, but voters in Ontario and Quebec (where elections are won and lost) simply do not trust him enough to give him a majority government.
Both parties are having a problem adjusting to their current role. The Liberals (who are used to governing) aren't very effective as an opposition party, and the Conservatives (who are used to being in opposition) aren't particularly effective at governing. Harper does not trust any of his MPs to speak on behalf of the government, and he himself has not been able to persuade Canadians of the value or wisdom of his government's policies (c.f. Afghanistan)
The end result, is that the Liberals are sitting on their hands and the Conservatives can mostly govern as if they had a majority provided that they don't piss off central Canada too much.
How much longer before we give up the pretense of being a sovereign nation? Out of economic considerations, our foreign policy is written with US interests in mind, and now the same can be said of our domestic policy. We have a branch plan economy, and now a branch-plant government. I know it has been that way for some time, but previous governments at least tried to give the appearance of being a little independent from time to time. I guess with Tony Blair retired and John Howard defeated, Steven Harper has chosen to make his move and become the US' new bitch^H^H^H^H^Hbest friend.
OK, that is perhaps a tad over-dramatic, but it is clear that this proposed law was not written with my best interests at heart. The same cannot be said of the US-based media cartels who probably had more to do with the authoring of the bill than any particular civil servant or party hack.
I would like for the opposition to show some spine and vote this bill down, but I doubt that will happen. The Liberals have abstained from so many votes on issues they claim to be fundamentally opposed in order to not cause an election. As a result, I do not believe that they have the moral authority to vote down government legislation until after the next election.
It's not like the Liberals would have done anything different - this legislation is quite similar to what Sam Bulte was preparing when she had that ministry.
It sucks when your nation's legislation is written by foreign corporations, for the benefit of foreign corporations - and it really doesn't matter which party introduces it. I fully expect the government to claim that this is a great day for the Canadian consumer and how the enhanced copyright protection will benefit any Canadian shareholders of those foreign media cartels. It probably isn't good politics to tell the voters the truth at the best of times...
BTW - I wonder if the phrase "public domain" appears even once in this bill which supposedly modernizes and improves copyright?
If duty and service were the over-riding reasons why people enlist, you would expect to all classes represented in proportionate degree. But that does not appear to be the case. Lower-class people are overwhelmingly over-represented in the military. You reject my analysis, so what's yours? Are lower-class people more patriotic or service-minded?
Or maybe they do not have much by way of options...
A typically american attitude. I view government as a means to achieve national goals and aspirations. Of course, I come from a country that has no colonial past or imperial ambitions, so our goals are more modest...
Well, let's hope you remain healthy. I can tell you from personal experience that $24K will not go far if you need extensive medical treatment.
Given that point of view, I do not understand why you aren't demanding publicly funded universal healthcare. Publicly funded universal health care is demonstrated to be cheaper and provide better results than what you have now (unless you are independantly wealthy). Even if you don't give a damn about other people, it is in your own self-interest to have it...
Do you really believe that? Dude, you have been sold a bill of goods! You are paying taxes because bush administration's tax cuts have pushed the tax burden on the middle and working class. The same government is pissing away millions of dollars every single day on a pointless war of aggression, and you think your taxes are high because of welfare?
I would agree taxes in the US are high, but only because you don't get much in return! Citizens of other nations pay more in taxes, but receive much more in the way of health and education.
Compared to what how people are treated in other first world nations, the only good thing that can be said of medicaid is that it is better than nothing...
From the link you provided:
Ken Starr wasn't able to find any evidence of wrong-doing. It sounds to me like a tempest in a teapot...
For all I know, that has already happened. All they would find is that I need to lose some weight and take more exercise... Nothing I am proud of, but nothing to be ashamed of either.
Do I
Had there been a compulsory draft, I do not believe that Iraq would ever have been invaded. Right now the "professional" army is largely composed of members of the working poor. They enlist because they have no other career options. So, when they are killed, the middle and upper classes simply don't care. However, if middle and upper class kids were sent over there to die, it would be a different matter altogether.
Oh, and before you suggest Vietnam as some sort of counter-argument, the wealthy found any number of ways to ensure that their kids were kept safely out of harm's way: studying at McGill or in state-side non-combat postings. There were not many doctor's or lawyer's sons in Vietnam...
I was thinking more along the lines that you don't appear to have problems with taking the benefits of civil society, but you seem to object paying for them. TANSTAAFL...
What rubbish. If the american people are too stupid to see the economic and personal benefits of a publicly funded universal health-care system, so be it. But please don't think it boils down to freedom. The Hobbesian state of nature is allows individuals the ultimate degree of freedom, but I don't think any sane individual would ever want to experience it.
If anything, not being insured is hypocritical and selfish. The first, because it shows contempt for the notion of personal accountability, and selfish because others will have to cover the costs if you should need health care and are unable to cover it yourself.
Do whatever, but be honest with yourself, even if you can't be honest with me...
I believe your counter-examples are atypical, and have been refuted by other posters. For what it's worth, I believe the measure of a society is in the way the least of it's members are treated. How many americans cannot afford any health care insurance, and what happens to them if they get sick?
Have you seen someone to help you with your paranoia?
Whatever. Show me one administration that hasn't resorted to dirty tricks, regardless of political affiliation.
How strange that looking after yourself does not include looking after your own health. Good luck with that strategy.
No, it's just an item. In and of itself, money has no inherent value. It is merely a means to an end.
Again, when did selfishness become such a virtue? As social animals, human beings would never have achieved anything if your attitude were commonplace...
So what? Welcome to civil society, and the trade-offs that come with it. If that does not suit you, please accept my sympathies, and learn to deal with it.
Two things:
BTW - You are aware that publicly funded health care systems have been shown to provide a higher quality of care and are less expensive to maintain that the current US model?
And you consider that to be some kind of virtue?
Money is nothing more than pieces of metal or paper that we have collectively agreed can be exchanged for something else of value.
Was that supposed to be an insult? Kids these days...
For what it's worth, I haven't the slightest concern for however you choose to lead your life provided that you aren't doing anything illegal or harmful to others.
Given how overly broad some of those definitions are, I suppose that only Iraq and Afghanistan qualify as being non-socialist nations...
Even so, it seems to me that the world is much more "socialist" now than it was 1000 years ago, 500 years ago, or 100 years ago. It also seems to me that life is demonstrably better as well. As such, I fail to see the point of your bitching...
That's one opinion. My opinion is that there are no natural property rights - they are purely an invention of the middle class. Those who struggle daily for survival have no interest in such trifles, and the moneyed class have always acted with a sense of entitlement.
As a member of civil society, one transfers some rights to the government, and outright relinquishes others. The benefits of civil society significantly outweigh the loss of those rights. As proof, I invite you to pause and look at your surroundings. I suspect that few (if any) of the infrastructure we take for granted would exist in a world where your perspective was the dominant philosophy.
I cannot help but get the impression that libertarians simply do not care about other people and use rhetoric to try and make a virtue out of selfishness...
This is what passes for +5 Insightful? Feh!
Would you be kind enough to explain how compulsory (but not necessarily universal) healthcare implies losing property rights? AFAIK, pretty much the rest of the first world has publicly funded universal health care, and yet people still own homes, cars, and other possessions.
While you are at it, please explain why you believe that publicly funded healthcare == socialism. Maybe it's just me, but I do not see the connection.
That's odd... When I look at the ncap ratings, SUVs (particularly and especially older ones) do not get the highest ratings. While they are commonly perceived to be safer, that does not seem to be the case.
Those who own SUVs are welcome to them - they will finally be paying something closer to the true economic cost of owning and operating them. I do not think it is necessarily true that SUVs are safer for the occupants, or for the people on the other end of the collision...
Agreed. I suspect that true mind reading will be impossible because everyone will have different internal representations of concepts and ideas. Even amongst individuals who speak the same language, we should not assume that everyone will have the same representation of "car", even though people may have similar levels of brain activity in the same parts of the brain when they think about one.
Any powerful nation's foreign policy is based entirely on perceived self interest. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Dude - if you have figured out how to clone yourself, you should let the world know about it in a big way - not post it in an un-related article like this!
Really? What about those years you spent doing research from sources all over the planet? Isn't that why you are able to discard dissenting opinion, because the person stating that opinion has (according to you) an insufficient pool of knowledge and experience?
I hope you enjoy the taste of crow...
I do not recall asking for such a thing. What I did ask, is for you to provide even one reputable peer-reviewed journal in which acknowledged experts provide justification for your opinion. Given the nature of the opinions you have expressed, I am not the least bit surprised that you are unable to do so.
What a terribly predictable comment. There is plenty of room in academic circles for research that is controversial, if not utterly wrong. To name but one example, Phillipe Rushton is still a tenured professor at the University of Western Ontario. He is still conducting research with the aim of demonstrating that within the human race, some ethnic groups are genetically superior in terms of intellect and cognitive ability. Furthermore, his work continues to be published in peer-reviewed journals.
I believe that it would be reasonable to state that Rushton's research is far more offensive than your Islamophobia, and yet his research has not been suppressed, he has not been silenced, or driven out of the halls of academia.
Spoken like a true crackpot! I don't suppose you happen to an expert in Elvis sightings, the paranormal, UFOs, and government conspiracies as well?
It is said that the powerful and the ignorant have one thing in common: both change the facts to suit their opinions, rather than change their opinions to suit the facts.
Have you ever heard of something called irony?
And yet you fear that Islam threatens the future of Europe? Why? Presumably because the practitioners of Islam are too different from your accepted norms. Check out a definition of xenophobia and let me know if you recognize anything familiar...
Proving what?
This isn't maths where one counter-example (even a dubious one) can invalidate an argument. Your interest in other cultures may be admirable, but that does not in any way justify the intolerance you have demonstrated in other posts.
BTW - I wonder if there is anything to be learned from the fact that I refer to "other cultures" whereas you refer to "foreign cultures"...
I am not a religious scholar by any means, but even I know that Islam is not a monolithic whole - there are various sects and sub-sects which have different beliefs and practices. No one individual or group speaks on behalf of Islam or all Muslims, although there are a number of mis-guided souls who think that they can, or should. I am also aware that Islam has been very successful in accomodating local customs and beliefs within a wider framework. The unfortunate side-effect is that there are a number of unfortunate cultural traditions that have been incorporated into some interpretations of Islam that appear to be quite contrary to the stated principles of the religion.
Perhaps you have read about what _some_ Muslims have done in the name of Islam based on a particular interpretation of that religion. Regrettably, you appear to be unable to contextualize that information and instead choose to view all of Islam through that faulty stereotype.
Or not. You may believe whatever you like about me.
I wonder what caused you to regress? Oh well, perhaps there is still some hope for you.
Actually, it doesn't present me with any sort of problem at all, and I am confused why you would suggest otherwise.
A selection of opinion pieces taken without context can reinforce one's preconceived notions without the unpleasant side-effects of cognitive dissonance. However, there are other sources of news and information for those of us without an axe to grind.
As an added bonus, there are people out in the world that you can meet and interact with. I don't think you would have to meet many Muslims before you realized that that maybe, just maybe your stereotype of the people and their religion is inaccurate.
So is slashdot, but one should not automatically assume that slashdot is a reputable source of information. There is a lot of insight and knowledge here, but there are a lot of GNAA and goatse posts as well.
Incorrect. They
All that is painfully obvious is that you are making unsubstantiated incendiary claims and trying to pass them off as truth.
Appeals to your own authority mean absolutely nothing. Show me something from a reputable peer-reviewed journal that validates your statements. If you unable to do so, kindly go away and play with your toys and leave the serious discussion to the adults.
It is ignorance to selectively filter the information you seek on a subject when you are looking to reinforce existing prejudices rather than gain wisdom and insight.
That's rich, coming from you.
I'll try to make this as simple as I can: you reject dissenting opinions on the grounds that the person stating that opinion has an insufficient pool of knowledge and experience. However, when scrutinized, your own opinions appear to be based solely on ignorance and inaccurate stereotypes. Bigotry is typically based on an insufficient pool of knowledge and experience, hence my comment.
Ooh. That really put me in my place. I congratulate you sir - you are clearly a master of debate.
Your comments indicate otherwise. I think you may qualify as xenophobic as well.
Dude, you can quote yourself as many times as you like, but doing so will not make any of your claims any less ridiculous. At best, it seems that you actively seek out sources of information that reinforce your pre-conceived notions and dismiss out-of-hand any dissenting point of view. That's fine, you can believe whatever you want - but please don't try to pass it off as enlightenment.
Oh really?
Perhaps you might want to reconsider one of those two statements...
Presumably you believe yourself to be of the former, even though your posts indicate that you are a slightly more polite version of the latter. But that's the key - your entertainment value is that you are desperately trying to portray bigoted opinions as the product of reason and wisdom.
I suspect the only person you are fooling is yourself...
And you would know this how?
Generally speaking, it is far easier to appeal to your own authority and make unsubstantiated generalizations than to engage in any intelligent discourse...
Since when did ignorance become a valid point of view? I must have missed that memo...
Pot, kettle, black...
Hello Mister Troll. How are you? It looks like you have been very well fed today!
The alternative is not so kind. I have a difficult time believing that any sane individual would believe the nonsense you are posting here, but stranger things have happened. I suppose some sympathy is called for - it must be terrifying to be so ignorant and afraid.
Perhaps if you actually met some people who come from a different culture than your own, you might realize that not every member of a group will conform to every aspect of the stereotype for that group. Hey - you might even learn that the stereotype you have using is inaccurate.
How you deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance would your own problem, but giving up on the hating is certainly an option you should consider...
Presumed innocence - what a quaint notion. Back in the day, I am told that some legal systems used to operate on that out-dated principle.
I was going to suggest that must have been before the war on terror, but the Party tells me that we have always been at war with terror...
When will this ever end? The Canadian Government has apologized for Bryan Adams on several occasions.