JerrySeinfeld

Yea. Really. Sucks. I hate it here.

That says more aobut the thugs and the thug-apologists (europe) in the rest of the world than it does about America, my friend.

That says more about the thugs and thug apoligists (europe) than it does about america, friend.

I tried watching the show last night. I'll be hoest - I went into the viewing looking for evidence of a muslim bias and an anti-prairie-folk- bias. But as I was watching it I realized something. This is not a political statement, nor is it pro or anti muslim. It's just bad television. Really...REALLY bad television. I meant to watch the entire episode but I just had to change the channel - I was missing a Mento's ad on another channel. Not only was the acting bad, the entire story line was completely retarted. I'm not sure who's making the decisions in TO but this has got to be a new low for CBC badness. Picture married with childeren with thoughtful brown houseguests and you'll have an idea what this show is like. Bad jokes, meaningless plot, bad acting. I think this show is trying to pull a "Fresh Prince of Belair" juxtaposition but it just ain't funny. The transition from scene to scene was so bad - there was no set up or "wide shot" to let the audience knowthat we had moved from one place to another (same people having a conversation).... Just bad.

No, he is not. He IS Commander in Chief of the armed forces but has no authority to declare war or make treaties. Moreover, he is bound by law and constitution against a number of actions and activities he has already taken/engaged in. America was led to the Conquest of Iraq by way of a very large fraud, perpetrated by the Bush admin. Beyond that, was there a point to your question? I think you're off on that.

You can call it a fraud if you want to but the last time I was in Manhattan, it cost me almost as much to park my car as it did for a hotel room. IOW, I had to pay for the use of space in Manhattan.Unfortunately, the same is not true of the world's oceans and the world's atmosphere. As a result, the world's atmosphere and oceans are quickly turning into the streets of Rome (or more accurately Teheran or Lagos) where nobody pays for anything and it's a free-for-all. Tell that to the guy at the pump filling his vehicle with gasoline.

It is only an intellectual exercise not a suggestion. But using your idea this shows that only a small part of a corporation is used in decision making, sort of like having a ....brain. So when you are at work what part do you work in.......and does the sun shine on you??? I work in the same part that everyone else does: the part with awkward xmas parties, birthday cakes, crass emails, clueless management and off-colour gossip now get back to work - big brother is watching!!!

I am hoping this starts a much more frank and public debate about what's going on in Iraq - the quicker we address this, the sooner our boys will be removed from the deadly peril created for them by the Bush administration Isn't GW Bush Commander in Chief of the United States?

Train 48 wasn't that bad - a little quirky but that was it's charm. BTW did you know it was largely improvisation? That's what I heard, anyway.

Of course I don't have a mechanism for how farts cause global warming. What I do have is a mechanism for how carbon dioxide causes global warming, all of which is based on irrefutable facts: 1) Sunlight (energy) enters the earth at a particular wavelength. At that wavelength most of that "energy" passes through. 2) That sunlight heats up the earth. 3) Energy is radiated away from the earth at a different wavelength that it entered. At this wavelength much of that energy is absorbed by carbon dioxide. 4) Thus, the energy is "trapped" in the atmosphere 5) Thus, there is more "energy" (heat) in the atmosphere Which of these FACTS do you care to refute? Farting produces GHG.

Moustaches? This is the non-sequiter thread, yes? I really miss "DaVinci's Inquest". (pssst...kimmy: Train 48 was a Global production) Da Vinci's inquest - killer show (pardon the pun). Best show on TV.

Do you have a mechanism for HOW farting causes warming, which is backed up by irrefutable facts? No I don't - and neither do you. That's my point.

No it's not. It's a relevant discussion of facts and reality versus "policy". The other threads discuss whether global warming is natural or man made. This thread is an entirely different issue - that of Canada's government's role, importance and past effectiveness in fixing the problem. It also reveals those in Canada who position the issue as "critical to the future" as frauds given our overall contribution to CO2 emissions. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the two issues and threads. But that's your problem, not mine. FACT: Various governments in Canada (primarily the Liberals) have put forth countless new papers, policies, actions plans etc. and spent $6 billion on "climate change" initiatives to no discenrable effect. FACT: Canada contributes very little to the overall CO2 emissions in Canada. FACT: The Kyoto protocol excludes the largest polluters in the world. ergo: FACT: Whichever policy our government "implements" (read: publishes, then ignores), it will have virtually no effect on whether or not the globe warms up. so: FACT: Any thread about Harper's or Layton's stance on global warming is a thread abuot fairy tales.

And this is why the USA under Bush has cut emissions far more effectively during it's tenure than have the enviro-centred euro Kyoto crowd?

People like you who use words like "all" you can do... either don't have a command of the english language or see the world in black and white - either way it's simply not true. But in this case, since I am using the article to spurn debate about a current issue, I stand guilty as charged Now unless you hav something to say about politics, I'm not sure how your opinions about my opinions represents and original opinion

I think you should have hung aruond and engaged in a real conversation. People who truly care about the other people they run into would stop and have a real conversation showing genuine interest in their lives. If it's a 30 second "hey nice to run into you - by the way how is your cancer?" - that's shallow and inappropriate. But if you have genuine interest in the person and finding out how their life is going - in all aspects, then you will stand there and have a good talk. If the comfort level is there an you have reconnected and established true human concern for the other person (as opposed to the shallow "great to see you" BS that we're all guilty of from time to time), then I think you can ask how things are going with the illness. Nobody who is ill has a problem with genuine concern. But some don't like the morbid curiosty Q&A that they often must endure. My two cents.

It is only an intellectual exercise not a suggestion. But using your idea this shows that only a small part of a corporation is used in decision making, sort of like having a ....brain. So when you are at work what part do you work in.......and does the sun shine on you??? The same analgoy could be drawn for a society, a nation, a church, a home or virtually any organization. What's the point?

Awhile back I posted this article which I think does a great job of summing up the situation re: Canada's "global warming reaction". Exceprts from Andrew Coyne: In other words - if you don't think "action on climate change" is more political than it is reality, you're drunk. and THIS is a great passage:

Picture the following scenario: Before you were born, all days were not the same temperature. Some days were cool and some were warmer. Then you are born. One day you fart. Then the next day it gets warmer out. Based upon "logic", you take credit for warming the day by farting. If you agree with the above click here If you don't, click here

A second look: My first prediction was that it would make fun of both Muslims and Prairie folk in roughly equal amounts, but using more tact when teasing muslims so as not to arouse the more..ahem...adamant in the muslim faith. I'm changing my prediction after seeing a more extensive trailer on CNN (yes - making some news down south!). The clip had 6-7 clips from different scenes and every single one of them was a mockery of the white/prairie folk. I still may stand to be corrected, but what I saw was a shameless characature. For example: A muslim guy talks on his cell phone while waiting in line to check into his flight. During his conversation he talks about suicide, bombs, paradise or something to that effect. The conversation is taken WAY out of context and he is detained. I think the show was trying to demonstrate how "misunderstood" muslims are and how obtuse and kneejerk non-muslims are. The scene mentioned above is a particularly bad attempt in this way: anyone who thinks a conversation in an airport line up about bombs, suicide etc. is not going to set off red flags is clearly out of touch with reality (although, in the scene the Muslim guy is smart and articulate, whereas the guards who detain him are real dumb). The problem with the premise of the show (that muslims are badly misunderstood) - if that's what the premise is (I may stand to be corrected), is that it misses the whole point of today's "hysteria": People don't have a problem with peaceful Muslims. What people have a problem with is the non-peaceful ones, and the tolerance of the non-peaceful ones in their own community. I don't think europeans would be taking the hardline they are (now) if they were overrun by peaceloving muslims in the subrubs of paris and london and brussels. Th problem is the fanatical ones - and the fact that the peaceloving ones, while in the majority, seem to acquiesce to the more hardline version.

And the alternative fuel companis don't finance global warming paranoia? GIVE ME A BREAK! Imagine the nerve of someone actually paying a scientist to QUESTION the widely held misinfomation about the world!!! I'm sure you're right - we should all walk in lockstep with the enviro-pot-heads. I'm sure we should stake our econonies and way of life on a 30-year blip on a 700,000 year history of continuous global temperature fluctuation. So self-centred and egotistical are the enviro-mooks - thinking we actually have control over the world.

Unfortunately for your theory, Saturn, the world's complex environmental system is not a bucket of water involving one variable - the amount of salt. Although you have been successful in revealing one truth: The enviro-climate-change crowd certainly would like us all to believe it's just that simple. It's revealing that our economic and policy decision-making could indeed someday be made by people like you and Al Gore who see something as infinitely complex as the global environment as "a bucket of water". Aren't these the same people who were ranting and raving about the "hole in the ozone layer"? From what I understand that hole (and the commensurate fanatacism) has been shrinking. Aren't these the very same "most of the world's scientists" who, in the 1970's, were in general agreement that the earth was cooling down and headed for another ice age? Certainly temperatures and climate of the globe change and have done so for tens of thousands of years. Some reports show the change in CO2 being a RESULT of the earth warming up, not a CAUSE. Similar to the idea of relative humidity I suppose (to use a crude explanation). Whatever the case, I would echo what others on this thread have said: if they can't even predict the weather for next week a relatively EASY task compared to the next century), how much merit should we place on it? As for your David Suzuki link I offer this retort from PJ O'Rourke:

Corporations are owned by shareholders (people), are governed by a board of directors (elected by the shareholders) which appoints a CEO, CFO, COO to manage the affairs. There are many people invloved in the decision-making of a corporate entity, but almos generally it's groups of people, not one person.

I felt sorry for Romo. The cowboys MIGHT be my second favorite team - Seattle my first. Part of me wanted to see the Cowboys go all the way just so Owens could "in your face" to the media. And I like Romo too. The guys is a jackass, but so what? The media gets riled up anytime a player doesn't give canned answers during interviews. I like guys that stir the pot - although the spit in the face was way over the line. It was a great game, though.

Yea - that's why Vancouver is consistently ranked #1,2 or 3 in the world for best city in the world to live in. Where does Edmonchuk rank? Oh yea - it doesn't.