poochy

Tell us more about what we want, and then tell us why we want that, tell us why it isn't acceptable to think in any other way, tell us why your thoughts must be our thoughts, tell us why if we don't agree that we think they are ""uppity niggers" who don't know their place." You need a break.

One might think that accusing others of racism for simply having an opinion different from their own would be unacceptable.

Imagine i there was any real evidence that you could point to that might support your 'argument'. Fortunately imaginations do not make for arguments. Our lifespan and standard of living has done nothing but increase, mostly due to oil.

Yea, you probably honestly believe that, which i find very sad.

Have you finished patting yourself on the back yet? Anyway, I know it's bad form to do this, and of course my personal abilities, education, vocation etc, I cannot prove, but since you seem to be willing to judge others so harshly i will only say that in my opinion you might be the least knowledgeable person posting on this forum, on any subject.. Either that or you are just trolling. You come across as almost a caricature of the person you claim to be, in other words, not real, so if that is your goal, well done.

Well, maybe it is time for someone with a more teenage like understanding of and ability to discuss important issues to run the country. Seriously, maybe it is, personally i give that notion a 1 chance in 100 of being aligned with reality but who knows, perhaps those who support him are on to something.

The difference being that people have been conditioned to take the CBC seriously, it's our national broadcaster, it must be credible..The CBC has over the years used that position, either intentionally or just as a by product of becoming mostly left wing itself, to present the news and push certain opinions towards that left wing point of view. Of course a lot of people don't see it, or will excuse it away. There is no question that sun news is right wing, it's obvious, of course that also doesn't mean that it's always wrong, but to someone who has been conditioned by the CBC into believing that only it's organizational pov is 'Canadian' would probably think it always is. I still watch CBC news, it is still the best in general, but it should be easy for most to see how dismissive some of the coverage, or the presenters themselves can be when what might be considered a conservative point of view is discussed. I have seen one in particular scoff on air at the very notion that their could be conflicting opinions on AGW, and at someone being interviewed who wasn't at all denying the existence of AGW, but debating the finer points of how bad it might or might not be, and it's fine for the presenter to have that opinion, but you aren't there to defend any particular point of view, you are there to present them. The CBC however seems to have an organizational beleif that they exist not only to report the news but also to tell us the proper, or Canadian way in which is to be interpreted, far too many people have bought into this idea that only they have real Canadian beleifs, those people are almost universally on the left and are very willing to tell the rest of us exactly how we should think on almost every subject. For example, they seemed to think it wasn't Canadian, wasn't polite, to publish the offending cartoons from France, when among the people i know almost everyone i spoke to thought they should have, anyway, I guess I and they just aren't good Canadians, or aren't the right kind at least.

Who said it was "glorious"? What's being said, many, many times, is he was a racist, but that wasn't uncommon, so he wasn't special. It's sort of like a math equation with Mcdonald's role in creating Canada on one side and most everyone else, and their accomplishments on the other, both being divided by their racist divisor. Being more or less normal in his racist opinion you could cancel out the racist divisor and compare the real differences. That's all. But you already know that. What compels your need to somehow lower what he or anyone did without considering (actually, really, truthfully, honestly, if you can) the time in which they lived is your hang up. He did what he did, what happened happened, his role in creating the country doesn't need to be dissected in every way that might somehow diminish it. Does it seriously matter so much to some of you that you just can't help yourself with the but, but, but's? When, two hundred years after he was born we acknowledge his contribution? This is somehow too much of an affront to you beliefs? This relatively small acknowledgement, you have to tear him down and the country he helped create? For what exactly, is your life not just the way you imagined it, is that his fault too? You must cringe at every 10 dollar bill that comes your way.

Watch the blasphemy. You're upsetting the faithful.

Agree completely, the first post is ridiculous, it says nothing at all.

What?.

So then you should agree that while his behavior seen through our eyes was abhorrent in some ways, in the context of his time it was normal, we are more enlightened, but that is irrelevant. He wasn't special in those ways, he was special in others, for example, playing a large role in the creation of this country. So because we should agree that in his time he wasn't much different than every other man we would also have to agree that judging him in particular for those beleifs, or using those beliefs as a way of detracting from his other much more special accomplishments is really a pointless thing to be doing. Which begs the question, why do it? Why must you, or anyone, do it? It comes across as more of a reflex than anything else.

They are an essential service which will greatly limit their ability to take any sort of job action against their employer, union or not.

Its pretty simple, the extraordinary things he accomplished stand far above that of most men's accomplishments, the bad things, like being a racist, and a drunk, were accomplished by many, many more men, making them normal and not worth mentioning. There is nothing to be learned from those things, we already know it was wrong, but in the context of his time, they weren't. Over complicating every issue is not a sign of enlightenment, some seem to think it is.

Well, plants might have an ability to consume CO2 at a slightly higher rate but maybe it's like humans taking vitamins, there is only so much your body needs or can absorb.

Yes, it's cowardice, how can the CBC that has gone to court on many occasions to ensure its freedom of the press choose to ignore freedom of expression? A freedom obviously under attack. Btw, Mohammed doesn't exist, he may have, it would be wrong for me to say either way, but you can't attack him now. You can mock a religion, you can mock him as part of mocking that religion, but no one is actually harmed in that mocking. We however are harmed when we allow our freedom to mock that religion, or any other, to be taken away by murderers. The issue of who chooses to, or not to mock a religion couldn't possibly be any more irrelevant, the point is having the unfettered freedom to do so, the CBC being our national broadcaster has a duty to represent the values for which we are supposed to stand, not to protect the unwarranted sensibilities of any particular group.

As i said, it wasn't passed in May 2013, and yes the average hasn't passed 400, all of which I said, and was in response to things said in the op, such as, "In May of 2013, for the first time in at least 3.8 million.....possibly even 16 million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels broke past the 400ppm mark." So, whats your problem? I didn't say we hadn't passed it at all, clearly the op is an alarmist exaggeration, being obviously wrong on some of the basic facts and not mentioning others, like the average, goes to show that. Anyway, despite the alarmism it will go above and beyond 400, our ability to adapt to that future is far more important than our ability to play make believe with the present. Feel free to attack the op's "other holes".

First of all, there was doubt that we ever reached 400 in may 2013, second, the yearly average has never reached 400, and third, it's below 400 again today. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513-story.html "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revised its May 9 reading at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, saying it remained fractions of a point below the level of 400 ppm, at 399.89." Not that it matters, what does 1ppm of CO2 feel like anyway?

I find it a bit strange that some of the people here who in anyway defend some peoples right to believe in subjugating women, punishing homosexuals (possibly by death), beheading as criminal punishment, death for idolatry, and any other number of pretty abhorrent things, would be the first to condemn Christians for even mentioning that say gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Yes, bombing abortion clinics is bad, killing abortion doctors is bad, i think their have been 8 total murders like this in the USA, maybe US/Can combined. No reasonable person thinks that most Christians support this, i doubt that most Muslims support the murdering of 12 cartoonists either, however, that does not mean that the ratio of those who do, from either religion, must somehow be the same, or close to the same. It's a comparison that just doesn't need to be made. There isn't much point in arguing details because some will simply never be convinced, but there are plenty of obvious reasons to think that there are far more fundamentalist Muslims in the world than fundamentalist Christians, far, far more. And of those, far more of them are ok with violence, look at the places where most Muslims live and tell me it isn't likely that their beliefs are more reflected in the terrible laws of most of those places. Where it gets scary is if or when you no longer have the luxury or rationality to decide that you can suffer the relative few who might be violent in order to protect the majority who aren't.

Freedoms? But it's so comfy here, behind the wall, so safe.

Considering it always goes back to childish insults from that particular poster, i would have to agree.

Considering the conservatives, despite their evil empire like nature and despite the wailing of the more sensitive among us have done almost nothing that has significantly changed the country, I doubt that even the boy who would be king would fair much worse or much better when it comes to affecting the lives of Canadians. We sell ourselves a bit short when we worry too much about who our leader is, but from my perspective there is much more hand wringing from the left about Harper than there has been from the right about anyone, but I wasn't really present for Trudeau the first so I might be wrong there.

You can't dig yourself out of that hole, no amount of silly comparisons will do it, we have the right to free speech, or should, and people have the right to take offence, that is all. There is nothing more, purposefully not displaying the cartoons is giving murderers what they want. Maybe you just can't grasp it, if they can't live among western society because they cannot suffer this indignity and must kill people to avenge those indignities, those are people that we should not allow to live here. I will not trade my freedom for your broken ideology, that you seem to be so entrenched in that you are blind to what is right and wrong, no the world isnt always grey.

There is a difference i think, between a natural disaster and people who look at killing like it's a way of life, Ebola has gotten it's share of attention, though perhaps it should have gotten more, tyranny and murder is every day life in much of Africa, i think most people shrug and move on from the stories.

If you refuse to defend what you have out of fear of reprisals than you in fact have already lost, and it is precisely your attitude that has lead us to this point, they come to our countries and take advantage of our good graces and then demand that we change, we must give up our right to free speech for them, and some of you are willing, that attitude does nothing but embolden them. Shame on the CBC and others for not showing the cartoons, shame on anyone who beleives we should placate any scum that thinks a cartoon is worth killing for, whether they themselves do it or not. We should shove our rights to free speech right down their throats.