PatM

CFR plan to integrate US, Canada and Mexico The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter." Full Story Interesting that even the right wingers are starting to understand just how BAD "Free" trade is for everyone except multinational corporations.

I think it's fairer to say that humans and human nature, rather than either a religion or a non-religious ideology, create conflict. Religion and other philosophies may be used to justify the conflict in question (everyone says "God is on our side"), but there are usually other forces at work: political; the need for space, raw materials and resources; control of trade/trade routes/taxation, etc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, whatever the "spoken reason", the real reason is usually "I want your stuff".

Once again the religious dogmatics are trumpeting the "Evolution is just a theory" crap. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. You confuse evolution itself with the attempt to explain how evolution happens. Evolution is the change in life forms over time. We can, and do, observe this happening all the time. Why do you need new fly shots every year? Because influenza virii mutate and evolve. The lifespan of a single virus is very short therefore you see many, many generations in a single year - evolution in fast forward. Fruit flies are also excellent for observing evolution in action as they go through many generations in a single year. 200 years ago there were fewer than 15 dog breeds, today there are hundreds. That is evolutionary process in action. Humans directed the form their evolution took but it is still the evolutionary process. Evolutionary theory is seperate from evolutionary process. Theory is an attempt to explain what and how evolution does what it does. Religious fanatics like to characterize the word "theory" as meaning "conjecture" or "hypothesis". This is flat out wrong. A Hypothesis is a suggested explanation that has not been proven in any manner. A hypothesis becomes a theory when its basic assumptions are PROVEN to be correct. Once a theory is explained to the point where all outcomes can be predicted with 100% certainty, a theory becomes a law. Theories attempt to explain FACTS. Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory is the attempt to explain that fact. Evolutionary theory's basic assumptions have been proven time and time again but, it still lacks accuracy in predicting all evolutionary results. For example, if you feed many generations of rats a low-dose poison that kills only a certain percentage of that population, you can be 100% certain that only rats that survive the poisonings will procreate and they will produce offspring that tend to have the same traits that allowed the rats to survive in the first place. The species evolves to survive. What evolutionary theory cannot predict is exactly what survival trait will become dominant. It might be that some rats simply didn't like the taste of that particular poison and therefor didn't eat it. It might be that some rats were more resistant to the poison's effects, or it might even be that some rats procreated earlier and more often, allowing the species to continue even while being poisoned and killed. Evolution happens, it is real, it is a fact.

Actually, Nazi's were very religious, Hitler talked constantly about how god was on their side.

Holy rationalizations batman. Its fine if 10% of the population croaks due to lack of healthcare and healthcare workers should just eat cake? Do you even realize what you are saying? More money IS the cure, Martin has been stealth-nerfing healthcare funding all along. He'd announce extra money for healthcare then either not deliver OR deliver publically and remove money through other (unreported) cuts for a net decrease in funding.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html While the original Downing street memo could have its meaning spun into something less damning, this Blair cabinet briefing is as clear as ice. The war was going to happen no matter what and it was there job to "create" a legal circumstance for war (which they never managed).

Don't expect Martin to actually do anything to "fix" our healthcare system. He joined Mulroney in the long-term goal of starving the system to death. Make it so unpalletable to the general public that we'd roll over and plead for privatization. Our system isn't "broken", its chronically underfunded. The talking heads all use phrases like "throw money at it" to discount the idea that lack of money is the problem. Fact is, throwing more money at it is EXACTLY what is required. Can't get enough doctors and nurses since nobody wants to work the massive overtime for the relatively low pay. What is the mainstream politician's solution? Bust Nurses union contracts, freeze doctor's pay, and generally tick off everyone in healthcare. They NEVER do this when recruiting management types - they offer HUGE salaries and massive severance packages. Yet when it comes to those delivering healthcare, pay and benefits cuts along with snide characterizations are used to lure more workers? Wake up - healthcare is "failing" because that is what the Liberals and Conservatives WANT to happen. Martin, Mr. former Power Financial Corporation which just happens to own insurace companies that want to sell health insurance, would love for Paul Desmarais to become a major Canadian HMO supplier. Wikipedia Entry on Martin and Power Corp

Sorry, but you fail the conservative test - you are in fact a closet liberal. Or rather, should I say the neo-conservative test. True conservatives are a rare breed these days. Most are re-packaged Reform party types. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (Red Hand), a US backed, supposedly socialist dictator who killed millions of people. Typically anyone seen as a liberal, schoolteachers, politicians and the like. Those lucky enough not to be murdered outright were sent for re-education. If they didn't seem to be responding to the brainwashing they were killed anyway. Pol Pot was a staunch US ally against the USSR and North Vietnamese, which is why you probably never heard of him. Mass murdering dictators only get talked about in western media when the US administration doesn't like them. The "friendly" mass murding dictators are left alone. Wik entry

Afghan elections: You conveniently forget that the majority of Afghan "politicians" are actually local warlords. Their "free election" campaigns consisted of telling towns and villages that if the warlord didn't win, he would come back and kill every last person there, man, woman and child. As usual, the US Administration considers these people to be their very good friends, turning a blind eye to the increased opiate production in exchange for cooperation with Unocal's Karzai in getting the caspian pipeline up and running. As for the rest, holy crap. You cannot really believe all that, can you? Are you just pulling a Hannity? When confronted with a truth you can't handle, lie kill the other guy's mike and lie your ass off? Lets see, The Afghan riots in which 16 people were killed were because of Newsweek's liberal bias right? Karzai refutes Whitehouse spin Scott McClellan, white house press secretary, now says he never said the deaths were Newsweek's fault McClellan's nose gets longer Everywhere you turn, there's a Bush administration lie being debunked. Whether its WMD, Biological lab trucks, anti-missile missile effectiveness, or the "free" elections it seems the neo-con wannabe's just eat it all up and blindly dismiss all dissent as being "commie pinko" lies. If ya can't prove the evidence wrong - shoot the messenger!

Yes, in every left winger lives the soul of Pol Pot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pol Pot? He was about as anti-liberal as you can get. Liberal motto: Live and let live Conservative motto: Live my way or you're a useless liberal Pol Pot Motto: Live my way or die (Or maybe just die cuz I don't like your face). You confuse left with totalitarianism - which is neither right nor left in itself, but evil no matter which way you slice it.

This is a caracture of history and a bizarre attempt to justify nonsensical policies today. Am I wrong in noticing that the left increasingly uses fear to garner support? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The left? Have you listened to any of the neo-cons speeches at all? Every one uses the same format: The world is a terrible place. Aside from us, the world wants to kill you. Only by letting us control your lives can you remain safe. Trust us, Believe us, or the boogeyman will get you. We on the "left" remember and honour the words "Never again".

Chilling

What I am telling you is that acts which we view as criminal in our society are not necessarily criminal in another. Afghanistan practiced Sharia, islamic law. Under that law those are the punishments alloted for specific offenses. You and I many not agree (And I think I speak for both of us when I say we don't) but that does not make them terrorists any more than the US using the death penalty makes the US terrorists. AFter all, the death penalty is illegal in Canada, should we invade the US and impose a moratorium on death penalties? (Not that we wouldn't get our asses kicked, or maybe just laughed at - its the principle). I consider burning a woman alive for some perceived "cheating" as a crime, not a terrorist act. The two are worlds apart though I don't really see one as less serious than the other. Going back to WWII, what do you call the fire-bombing of Dresden which the Associated Press called Terror Bombing What would you call Israeli military personnel that dress up as arabs and wander around shooting random arabic looking people? Like this The French resistance killed MANY vichy frenchmen, police, military, and plain old every day innocent civilians. They regretted killing those not actively supporting the german occupation of france, but collateral damage is almost impossible to avoid when waging guerilla warefare. If you had read french papers or listened to french radio, you would have heard exactly the same type of stories about them that you hear about iraqi insurgents today. Some of the stories were almost entirely true - just omitting certain facts that would explain why the resistance sabotage killed so many civilians. Resistance scrapbook Even the neo-cons stopped calling Afghan and Iraqi fighters terrorists, they're now called insurgents - which is yet another misnomer. Insurgents are those people that rise up against legitimate government. The people fighting and protesting against the US in those countries are a resistance to occupation, not a pile of terrorists.

Except for the "if", I totally agree. Iran isn't stupid, it knows guerilla warfare is its only hope against a technically superior invader. They will disperse and wait for all the support to roll in from the muslim world. Saddam was a sadistic bastard and the muslim world saw him as a sadistic bastard. The out-of-country support for the Iraqi resistance isn't all that large really - it consists of those that thought Saddam was good and those that thought he was a saddistic bastard but see a chance to fight the US directly. Iran is quite different, they enjoy a much better reputation in the muslim world. Attacking them will rile up a lot more people. Even those that wouldn't take action if it were just Iran may rise up against what is seen as the US design to rule the entire middle east - either directly through military occupation or by proxy such as in Saudi Arabia. Common sense says Bush cannot be stupid enough to start war in a third country, but bush has defied common sense many times already.

In other words, you're posting from work.