TheKwas

Not to mention, the whole point of causing destruction is to get across a point. Mainly that you can't simply ignore the protesters and push them to the side, they mean buisness. It's a cry for attention.

Which, of course, results in a party with 32% of the vote get (for all intents and purposes) 100% of the power. Acccountable to the voters? Or just 32% of the voters?

No argument there...except that the inherent (and perhaps well deserved) distrust of riot control officers by protestors will make them a target of some degree of hostility no matter how they go about their duties. True. That's exactly what the Black Blocs are doing. It's their "job" (for lack of a better word) to take the intial shots and to confront the police when needed and push the protest further, despite police intervention. They are tring to tap into the potential the protest has in it's numbers and basicly, provide a counter-balance to the advantage the police have. The police arrest people, the Black Bloc un-arrests people. The police set up barricades to block the protest, the Black blocs break down barricades to make way for the protest.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be there. I'm saying they should be there as POLICE, and not as defenders of the state. They should be observing the protest, not being the counterweight to the protest. I like black blocs when they actually do their job(counter-policing, pushing protests to the next level if needed). It doesn't even need to be a full-blown revolution, sometimes just merely pushing a protest further and not allowing 100 police deny 100,000 people their right to protest. To send the message to the state that they are a serious threat that shouldn't and CAN'T be ignored and pushed to the side. Meh, He's got a gun, I've got numbers.

Often when marches or protests get violent is when the police try to control the protest in the first place. I can't really speak on this one too much because the arcitle hardly provides details, but I know the G8 meeting in Montreal turned violent when the police wouldn't even let the protesters come close to the fence (thus restricting the protesters movement on public property). If I was a protester, I wouldn't let any police obstruct my right to protest in any way. He's got a job, I've got a right.

One massive jump for mankind that likes mankind.

Yet, protesting is a right. I think rights trump jobs.

Fucking Black Blocs have to learn the difference between counter-policing and just being assholes.

Twenty bucks says you'll find an FLQ terrorist network, before you find a Hezbollah terrorist cell. Considering that the whole point of Hezbollah is to create a Shiite Islamic state in Lebanon, and their foriegn policy doesn't extend much further than "Give back our Shebaa Farms Israel!" and "Don't invade us again Israel".

That's becoming my motto when it comes to discussing Belinda.

If they ever tried to gain formal independance. Under the status quo, China as no plans for an invasion of Taiwan, such a premature move would be horrid for China.

Am I on crack, or weren't you anti-Layton (Yet pro-NDP) before?

Most of Hitler's solutions to the depression were short term and were nothing but basic Keynesian economics implamented via the Military. Had the war not broken out when it did, most economists predict that the German economy would have collapsed. Autarky doesn't work.

Actually, even during Mao times, the two really disliked each other and often experienced border conflicts/attacks. Only such news often wasn't broadcasted to the western world because they both wanted to create an image of communist unity.

Except Germany's entire economy would most likely collapse due to debts, a massive sitting army, and an autarky. And people, Bush, for all his faults, is not hitler. The Nazis tried really hard at being evil, their efforts shouldn't be downplayed by comparing them to some petty politicans like Bush and co.

Not internally. Corportions exchange goods from branch to branch via command economy. If one branch needs more, they get more.

I don't see that big of problem with it, as long as the tax doesn't bring in more than the estimated healthcare costs of fat people. I don't see this as any different than a sin tax on tobacco.

Corperations work the whole command/centralized economy thing just fine.

Why wouldn't it be appropriate? Anything less than the truth would inappropriate.

I really have no problem with communism in pratice or on paper. However, Leninism on the other hand...

Correct.

Meow. ...

JM's arguement wasn't "eww". Yours was.

JM beat me too it. Ignore this post.

Only if you do the ironing.