PatM
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PatM
-
-
eureka beat me to the punch, but I think he hit the nail on the head. Religion has been nothing more than an excuse for many conflicts, however, there are equally horrible acts if not worse that have had very little or no ties to religion whatsoever.
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.
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.
-
eureka beat me to the punch, but I think he hit the nail on the head. Religion has been nothing more than an excuse for many conflicts, however, there are equally horrible acts if not worse that have had very little or no ties to religion whatsoever.
Actually, Nazi's were very religious, Hitler talked constantly about how god was on their side.
-
What this means is that the needs of some individuals will ALWAYS fall though the gaps in the system since sacrificing the lives of a 10% of the indviduals in the system is acceptable in the name of preserving the system for the 90%. The 'sacrifice' that the 10% is caused in many ways including restructions on new drugs and treatments, limits on access to diagnostic equipment, and waiting lists.
However, those people who falling into this 10% obviously would put a much higher price on the value of their own lives even if the government decides that society would not benefit enough to justify the expense. This is why it is absolutely necessary to allow participation of the private sector in healthcare because it allows individuals to make thier own choices about healthcare. This why the supreme court ruled the way it did.
Futhermore, I have read some human resources studies that show that the effect of money on the moral of workers is short term because within a few years the workers feel they 'deserve' the new pay levels and start complaining about the same things again and demand even higher pay. This is another reason why 'throwing money at the system' will not fix it in the long term.
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.
-
Excuse me for being ignorent, but who/what is Pol Pot?
And also, may I ask why all conservatives are generalized as having a motto like that? I consider myself conservative but I in no way want everybody to believe my beliefs... if everyone conformed to believing the same thing there would be no diversity and original thought. I think that for the most people, no matter their political tendency, just want their views to be understood, respected, and taken into consideration. If that's your view of all conservatives then so be it but I don't think that you should generalize a whole political contingency like that.
Anyway, if you could maybe define "Pol Pot" then I may better understand your point and why you would label all conservatives like that. Thanks.
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.
-
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!
-
Maybe we need to quarantine some folks here.
In Cuba I have herard that they quarantine you if you have aids.
In Canada perhaps we should quarantine people if they veer too far right of the political mainstream. Then after a reasonable period of time with some deprogramming, these right wingers could be released back into society and hopefully they will not do so much damage to society after being quarantined for a few years.
Yes, in every left winger lives the soul of Pol Pot.
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.
-
From link above:Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
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?
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".
-
-
I hope you not telling me because they are from a different country, have a different religion that those acts are excussable...makes it all right ....
They are crimals but when they use those acts to send a message or to terrorize others it is called terrorism...making them terrorist.....Jugding by what you just said i can join the KKK and still not be a racist....
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.
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.
-
The Iraqis were actually better armed during the first Gulf war...but theythe (Iranians) firmly believe that there's will be different and they can beat the US.......they will not stand up to a conventional attack if that is the route the US takes a big IF as i don't see it happening at all....
And i agree with you that thier only hope is a long drawn out Iraqi style fight...
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.
-
It is not hard to tell who the Liberals & NDP are. They are the ones who only post during the day. They use work time to post on these forums instead of working. That is why we are short on Conservatives on these forums. Most of the Conservatives are working.
My reason for being here is that I am self employed and in the oilfield and right now it is slow in the oilfield.
In other words, you're posting from work.
-
I like Canuks! That was funny 8)
-
Odd, though, how no one ever dares to even suggest there might be something to look at when a wild crowd of Indians or Pakistanis or Sikhs or Chinese swamp a local riding association and vote in one of their own. No one ever suggests that these candidates might not be at all representative of the community, and might have aims and agendas which appeal to a narrow group of supporters.
Actually, when that happened here in Vancouver that was EXACTLY what people were saying. Dunno where you get your news but it was all over the airwaves here in the GVRD. It was blatently obvious since people were admitting to getting paid to come join the party and vote for some guy they never heard of before.
-
And for the record you can call the Taliban anything you want ....i call any group of people that stone a young girl because she showed her face in public a terrorist...i call any group that public excutes people for entertainment terrorists...
I call any group of people that regularly sets fire to young girls because they were talking with boys or men Terrorists...
Before you stand up for them animals you should atleast know who your defending... But you don't care as long as you can slam the US....
Ah good, thanks for clarifying. So anyone you don't like is a terrorist, gee, thats what I said before.
The people you describe are all people from a different country, a different religion, and a different country. In our eyes the types of people you describe are criminals. Terrorists are all criminals but not all criminals are terrorists.
-
hersay at best.
Everything Ritter said about Iraq was proved correct. Everything Bush and the mainstream media said was not only proved wrong, but there is much evidence that Bush knowingly lied about it and the press published without comment even though they knew they were lies.
Methinks I trust Ritter more than these corporatist warmongers.
-
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector (on of the people that were RIGHT about Iraq not having WMD who the US smeared in an attempt to discredit, claims US to bomb Iran in June. With Iran cooperating in European nuclear arms talks, the US has no excuse to take out Iran.
That won't stop the neo-cons. as PNAC said, they need a new Pearl Harour. US warships in the Persian Gulf may just be sacrificed to create one. Iran, a bridge too far
-
Army, for consistancy - better change all those names of Islamic groups fighting the soviets to "terrorists". After all, these are all the same people using all the same tactics against the US that they used against the soviets. The only thing that has changed is who they are fighting.
-
There was a time when the US was a democracy. That time has sadly passed. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, it is now guilty until proven innocent. Since you can be arrested and held indefinately without charge or access to council, proving yourself innocent is pretty close to impossible.
Also gone is the idea that you have to break a law to be arrested. Now it is enough for someone to think you MIGHT break a law sometime in the future. Just how are you supposed to *prove* you wouldn't do something at some future date - particularly whe you aren't told the charge in the first place?
The USA is a democracy in name only. The mainstream press is only marginally better than Pravda of the cold war. Diebold machines were used to fraudulently delcare bush a winner in two elections yet the mainstream press refused to do anything resembling investigative reporting.
Jeff Gannon/Guckert, a gay male prostitute was granted a press pass by the administration and used as a planted "reporter" in white house press conferences - whenever reporters remembered their role and started asking real questions, staff would cut them off and call on Gannon for safety - he would lob softballs and break the line of uncomfortable questions.
Anyone in the press that says something the Whitehouse doesn't like earns the wrath of the Whitehouse AND the rest of the mainstream media. The Newsweek report that a southcomm investigation revealed Qur'an flushing was spun into "Newsweek lies about Qur'ans being flushed causes riots and death in Afghanistan", despite the Chief of Defense Staff saying a week earlier that the Newsweek article had little to do with the riots. Now that Karzai himself has weighed in and said the Newsweek article had little to do with the riots and killings,
McCLellan lies and says he never said that!
Patriot Act II, soon to be passed, gives the FBI the right to issue its own warrents for search and siezure without judicial revue. I guess the ability to get secret warrents in secret courts that anyone served is bound by law to keep secret isn't enough.
Want a book from the Library - Be ready to be fingerprinted. The librarys say the records will be confidential. Consider the latest FBI attempt to get the Names of all people that read Bin Laden's biography. Only a police state makes it a crime to "know your enemy".
The USA is not democracy, it is no longer the land of the free.
-
I'm happy to see the Reform party taking a beating but...
1500 people are supposed to reflect the true feelings of all Canadians?
How many times have the polls been way off despite claims of being within +/-5% 19/20 times?
I believe that polls are more about directing opinion more than reflecting. After all, nobody wants to back a losing horse.
-
The "real" conservatives see through this washington consensus group masquerading as conservatives.
Why I wont vote conservative by David Orchard
-
Lies, damned lies and statistics ;-)
First, that chart shows the absolute value of the debt. It is not adjusted for inflation nor is it compared to the GDP.
Second, Mulroney inherited a debt and a large number of spending commitments from Trudeau that could not be cut without severe political consequences (same thing would be true if Harper got in today). So a lot of the debt added in the Mulroney years was created by policies that Trudeau put in place.
Invalid excuse - Martin also inherited debt, 10 times larger than Mulroney did and with the spending commitments he couldn't break without political repurcussions. He turned it around pretty quick and got re-elected all the same.
He did it the wrong way, but at least he did it.
Start practicing the Star Spangled Banner
in Canada / United States Relations
Posted
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.