Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

bluegreen

Members
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bluegreen

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. What a keen and penetrating observation! So what's next? Bank notes are often used as currency to buy things I don't like as well, like hard drugs, or votes for the Conservative Party, or kiddie porn. Currency should be criminalized because it's often used as currency. What this whole debate boils down to is that a large minority of Canadians want to imprison the small majority who want to do things to themselves that the above mentioned minority doesn't want them to do to themselves. The oppressive minority dresses up their arguments with circular arguments, and spurious logic, but it doesn't
  2. That's a great threshold for locking people up, 50/50 so we might as well imprison a few tens of thousands of people. As long as there's no upswelling of opposition? How many historical examples of muted protest do we abhor today? What's at the root of the issue is, at what point does a majority, or in this case a plurality have the right to imprison their neighbours? I was under the impression that our shared values state that when peoples activities bring harm to others, we protect ourselves by imposing sanctions. Failing that, the individuals rights to make their own choices trump the opin
  3. Please, you have to stop being so reticent and shy with your opinions. If you feel something, you should just out and say it.
  4. Hmmm. America doesn't seem to be too embarrassed at standing face to face with Mexico. Incidentally, do you know how the States of Texas and California were founded?
  5. I'll reiterate a prior quote: "Nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests." It may sound cynical, but it has guided statesmen's actions for all recorded history. In this matter, Canada has no friends, only shared interests. I don't think we share interests with anybody involved, except the Scandinavians who would like to exert sovereign control over 'their' slice of the Arctic, and have a similar strategic, and geographical position to Canada's.
  6. Now Smallc is wrong and right. Everything the Conservatives do IS for personal game . You're right that Russia has many reasons, and we shouldn't like it. They aren't our enemies any more than the americans are. They are competitors in the Arctic though, no less than the americans are. ( And Danes, and Europeans, etc..)
  7. Yes, and No. The Great Game played out between Russia and Britain over Afghanistan was so called because of it's complexity. The stakes here are just as big. Mackay was playing for the camera's, sure, and that's what politicians do. Doesn't mean that there's not something serious underlying his silly grandstanding. These are some of the strategic implications of global warming, and they are now with us. Conservative, Liberal, Green, whatever. The opening moves of this very important 'game' have been made, and 99.9% of Canadians have little true knowledge of what's happening. This is a great
  8. Argus, go to the department of Justice link and look again. Possession of a single pot plant is punishable by a minimum 6 months in prison. If the 'crime' is aggravated by growing the plant in a rental premise, then the minimum goes up to 9 months. This is not for trafficking, it's for growing a plant. If the 'offense' is aggravated by being for the purpose of trafficking, then the jail term goes to a maximum of 14 years. 14 years!!! People who grow a single plant for their mom's MS are now traffickers, and face up to 14 goddam years in prison! I am sickened by this abuse of power. I am outrag
  9. These links are pretty dated. Digging up links on long dead and dated political talks does not support a case that Russia is anything other than a competitor. Please note that access to Afghanistan was withdrawn long ago. Russia has been pressuring their central asian neighbours to close the US bases granted in the early days of the NATO-Afghan conflict, and those neighbours have been complying. The fact that Bear's are crossing the Arctic again is a small part in Russias changed stance towards NATO. It is clear that Russia deems NATO to be a strategic threat to their interests, (and incidenta
  10. That's a weird stance to take. Only profitable industries and companies should get subsidized? Why should my money go to them? They already have all they need. What the hell is so deserving about mining, oil, and gas companies, that earn a profit based on world commodity prices, and access to publicly owned resources that they happened to get their mitts on first? There are very damned few cases where subsidies should go to privately or publicly owned companies. I have owned and operated manufacturing businesses for most of my adult life. I accept that when I invest my dough, I take risks. I
  11. How about a bill to criminalize living sheltered lonely asocial lives? If you live alone, and don't know anybody, then why should you care if other people want to smoke dope? I really wonder why you want to put people in prison who never have, and never will do you any harm?
  12. I just did a quick google, and found: http://communities.canada.com/calgaryheral.../28/286815.aspx here's a very well supported condemnation of the new act by the director of the John Howard society: http://johnhowardsociety.blogspot.com/2009...o-suppress.html It should really be obvious that the more criminal sanctions are enacted against tiny producers of dope, the more likely people are to stop growing their own, and resort to the black market. No sanctions will stop, or even slow down commercial production. It is axiomatic that increased sanctions will improve the profit margins of com
  13. Outrageous! This in a country where a majority of the populace would like to see dope decriminalized! This conservative Party has absolutely nothing to do with libertarian principles. Less regulation for business, more chains for the citizenry. Fill the prisons, and free businesses. No intellectual rigour there.
  14. Just in passing, I followed your' link, and in my estimation, every single country on the top 39 list has at least some conventional threat facing them, which would possibly justify their level of armament. There is not a single country on the list which is in as safe a position as we are, provided you accept the proviso that the USA poses no military threat to Canada. Even if the US did pose such a threat, we would be better served by massively stockpiling small arms than conventional force upgrades.
  15. Mexico hardly has us beat. They cannot reach us, and we cannot reach them. There are very very few nations with the ability to project power in any significant way. Those which pose a credible threat to Canada currently number one. Russia. Hardly a credible threat in the face of NATO, and they have proven that they are not stupid enough to fry the whole planet in their imperial quest. Why do we need more military? So we can project power? It is useless to have a little bit of power of this sort. Either you have enough to thump someone big time, or you don't. It takes air, sea, land, amphibio
×
×
  • Create New...