TheKwas

Because China is soooooo communist...

Yeah, I don't really support the federal greens all that much. I'd support them over the liberals or the Conservatives, but the NDP are an all-round better party on the federal level. Who I'm talking about are The Green Party of Saskatchewan which is alot more (for lack of better terms) "Grassrootish" and "Green" than the federal Greens. They actually outflank the Provinical NDP to the left (they claim they were born due to the right shift the provinical NDP have taken since retaking power). They don't have a single seat in parlament.

Onions are pretty shitty.

Maybe closer to election time I'll do stuff, right now I'm not even sure if the party does anything in the slightest.

All nazis are fascists, but not all fascists are nazis. And fascism can be better described as Extreme-National Merchantalism or National Corperatism. Socialism implies ownership of resources by the public, and since fascism is dictatorship, most argue that the public and the state become two completely different entities, and ownership of resources by the authortarian state can't be considered ownership of resources by the public (most non-anarchist socialists argue that a democraticly elected or controlled government is representative of the public, and thus if the democratic state owns the resources, the public owns the resources). I believe even Mussolini called fascism an ideology promoting a "Corperate Republic".

I'm seriously thinking about getting involved with provinical green politics. But, I'm also really lazy.

I actually disagree. Going sololy from the quoted part (I'm still working on the entire document), it sounds as if the collectivists want to stay collective to keep the movement stronger, even if individuals within the union aren't supportive of the movement. By having unions give up some of their money to these political parties, they are taking individuals' money and spending possiblely in ways they wouldn't approve of, and thus they are forced to give up part of their wages because the majority wants to support some party. Tyranny of the majority. To take the example of the AFL-CIO, they often donated money to the democratic party, even though there was plenty of members of the AFL-CIO that found them to be as deplorable as the Republicans (a stance that I don't exactly disagree with), and those policies of the AFL-CIO have come back to bite them in the ass, as many union groups are leaving due to such political loyalties (amoung other reasons). These members should be free to donate their money in ways they see fit, even if it does mean a blow to the strenght of social democracy as a whole, I consider it a small price to pay for keeping the social democratic movement democratic. Also, we have to come to realize that not all unions are controlled directly by the workers, and that many are directed and controlled by union managers, and considering that many of these managers are much more political/radical than their rank and file, there is a good chance that they will spend money on political parties that don't exactly represent what the rank-and-file want. Unions already have a bad reputation in many parts of Canada, why make it worse by making it seem like Unions are undemocratic and are authortarian in the way they support political parties. With all that said, I think that both Unions and corperations/buisness shouldn't be allowed to donate to political parties, and that prematurely disallowing one's donations before the others is just going to unfairly favour the other. EDIT: Did that make sense? I'm extremely tired, and slightly high.

So... have you made the case that PR = ineffective government yet? Because this is going nowhere until you can back up that claim.

Fair = Proportional. We don't have proportional representation. And how exactly does the current system play to our advantage? What good does it do that couldn't be done under PR?

If there's a conservative movement, then that movement should get fair representation in the government. Are you saying you oppose PR because it favours the centre-left over the centre-right?

I was replying to the statement that claimed America only helped in the Pacific aspect of the war.

It's actually kind of shitty. It reminds me of "We suck young Blood" and those other Radiohead songs that just drag along without anything worthy of note really happening. That said, I really like radiohead.

Well, first off, I'm pretty sure Russia was never an Axis power, they were netural up until OB. Second off, America sped up the First world war by an unbelievable pace. The war would have continued to be in a state of attrition for much longer without America. Third off, I forget all the details, but Juno beach was alot wider and more open than any of the other beaches, and was guarded more sparely. Forth off, The war in Europe wasn't over when the US joined, they are responisble for helping out in the liberation of western Europe, North Africa, and the Medditranian(sp?) Whether or not the Red Army could have countined their offensive so successfully without the German forces being relocated back west is questionable.

Yeah, people like Matt should really be more informed about such things before voting on them.

The stuff I had tasted kinda like Sobe or those other fruit-drinks like Fruitopia.

Don't ya wanna Fhanta? That stuff is pretty good.

You realize that you didn't address any of the points he brought up right?

Even you must admit that voting (in what an angst anarchist would call "bourgeoisie elections") has SOME effect, no matter how small it is. Even just voting for a party for the 1.25 (or whatever) donation can help, or simply sending a message to the donimant parties that they need to change (The more votes for the NDP, the more the Liberals will adapt NDP platforms). I understand that your unsatisfied with that measly voice, and that you want to have MORE say, but I simply don't understand why you would deny yourself the small voice you ARE given. I say run with it and demand more on the way. Your small voice can influence your own voice potential growing. And it's not like not voting is going to change anything for the better.

I like the one that goes "You can go from being a Liberal to a conservative in 20 years without changing a single belief" better. You make it sound as if it's bad having SOME sort of voice in collective affairs. I say run with what you got and demand more at the same time. Adapting an "all or nothing" sort of platform seems overly naive and optimistic to me.

His work visa was expired.

So as soon as French Revolutionaries (who at this time, weren't Revolutionaries but just protesters) raided the Bastile, you stopped being sympathetic to their cause?

Just for clearance, most of the Al-Quaida type terrorists hated Suddam for being secular. Only those that wanted money for bombing Israel really liked him. Iraq wasn't much more of a haven than any other country.

Chomsky>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HeyRabbit. Yeah, the guy has been quoted more than any living man (and I think he's 8th overall).

So it's story or no story then, isn't it?

Because the first thing you want to do to a hornet's nest is stir it up!