CrazyCanuck

I don't get the point of the thread. Are you trying to say that because the National Post misquoted a pro-global-warming scientist, admitted their mistake, it somehow bolsters the claims of pro-global-warming scientists?

Does anyone else find it disturbing that global warming/climate change/weather variablity, or whatever you wanna call it, has taken over as the number one "problem"(and i use the term loosely) in the developed world? What happened to people caring about people and the human issues that affect most of the world? I know that the climate-is-changing-oh-my-god-! crowd wants us to believe that it is the most severe human problem we face with their doomsday predictions, but doesn't that seem a little extreme, especially since most evidence they have to support this claim is based on models of assumption and speculation? I would think that struggling to eat and drink and not get sick should be considered by most rational people to be the most severe problem facing the human world. Since when has health care and the ability to eat and drink safe food and water become so irrelevent? If it is truly a global issue, how are we expected to even begin to combat it when most of the world is ravaged by civil war, crazy dictators, political oppression, famine and an inability to compete in a globalized economy? Most people in this world are struggling to live each and every day. And most of this struggle is caused directly by other human beings. How are we supposed to fix a problem concerning our relationship with the earth without first fixing the problems concerning our relationship with each other? I know....we can fix the famine issue by....converting our food crops into fuel crops so we can continue to not use the bus or the train. That should fix things, right?

Everything that Stephan Harper does serves a purpose. These "smears" are calculated attempts to make Dion look foolish and weak, and its working very well. Harper is so far ahead of Dion in his ability to control the spin and create favourable optics, I'm starting to feel embarrassed for the Liberals. They are crying and whining and nobody is listening anymore. Ignatieff seems much more composed and capable than Dion right now.

Are you planning on proposing an actual, viable solution, or just continue to preach like all the other global warming advocates and add to the hypocrisy that encompasses the entire issue? Stop whining, pointing fingers and start leading, my friend.

And how did the "first" NEP destroy the whole world oil industry, lower world oil prices? How did the NEP cause the world economic slump and world wide production to drop? How did the NEP cause the stock market to slump? How did the NEP cause the technology market to drop? Stop allowing liars to feed you their baloney. http://www.seeta.com/articles/bubblesarticle.htm None of what you said are in his statement that you are arguing against. I believe the issue with the NEP is about federal/provincial jurisdiction over resources and the democratic process with regards to policy making concerning the resource-industry sector. I know this is a little off topic, but why does our country exhibit such jealousy against Alberta? Maybe if the rest of the country decided to work as long, or as hard, or as effectively as the people in Alberta, they could enjoy the prosperity that results from such work. I've never once heard, in my entire 25 years, an Albertan criticize or claim that a prosperous person in Ontario, or Quebec, or BC shouldn't have that right to be successful. I've never heard anyone in Alberta claim that they should get a cut from, say, the massive manufacturing sector in Ontario, or the diamond mines in the NWT. I've never heard an Albertan claim to be entitled to the benefits reaped by any economy located in some other part of the country. Why can't the rest of the country just accept that the only thing we should be entitled to is the opportunity to make a "good" life for ourselves and that in Canada, we have that opportunity; each and every one of us.

Trudeau's reputation is also different depending on which part of english speaking Canada you are referring to.

The clauses themselves are a check, not an admission of fault. Since there has thus far been no abuse of power or exploitation of the new laws, how is it reasonable to allow them to expire right when they are to be utilized for the first time; when they are necessary in order to conduct a criminal investigation? The Conservatives aren't trying to renew them because they have been sitting around collecting dust. They believe that the legislation works to protect national security and allow the police to better deal with the threats of terrorism. Why do so many people on the left fear the police? Overall, I am quite proud of the RCMP. I don't believe that the RCMP are gonna start violating the human rights of Canadian citizens. We have a very honorable and trustworthy police force in this country. You should try and find out what its like to live in a country where you can't trust the cops. Just imagine it: being as scared of the police as you are of the criminals. Of course, there could be an abuse of power, but that fact is relevent to almost any law. If potentiality for abuse is a precursor to abolish laws, then we really wouldn't be able to have any laws at all because there would be no way to be certain that those assigned to enforce the laws would NEVER abuse the power given to them? Certainty is generally unattainable. Therefore we must rely on faith in the goodness of things, if we seek to value anything at all.

the legislation could also be used positively at any time, and may never be used in a negative way. so what? do you honestly not see what is wrong with what you are trying to say?

I ignored your first premise because it prevents one from ever being able to determine the value of something that has yet to be utilized. You should thank me for that because if i did consider it, your argument becomes the antithesis to itself. I'll explain. You're saying that if something has yet to be proven to be good, and it also can potentially(potentially meaning that it hasn't been, but it could be) yield bad results, then it is bad. Could you not you argue, then, that if something has yet to be proven to be bad, and it can also potentially yield good results, it is therefore good? And.... since this legislation has yet to produce negative results, and it could potentially lead to a positive result (ie/ solving the crime), it is therefore positive.

sorry, but your deductive argument is very flawed. By your logic, anything that could possibly have a negative consequence, is therefore negative by nature. Driving, for example, can POSSIBLY result in bad things happening(like accidents), therefore driving is bad? Voting can possibly result in a negative outcome if an evil man (or the NDP) is voted in, therefore, voting is bad? Drinking water COULD result in poisoning, if the water is not clean, therefore drinking water is bad? Breathing air presents an opportunity to be bad if the air is contaminated. Therefore, breathing air is bad? Hospitals are havens for bacteria and infection, and it is known that sometimes person will get more sick from going to the hospital. Therefore, a hospital presents an opportunity to be bad. So by your logic, hospitals are bad?

Harper accomplished exactly what he intended to do and I say, from a political perspective, good on him. He ensured that the Liberals will oppose renewal of the legislation. The Liberals are now the party that is seemingly preventing the RCMP from conducting a complete and full investigation into the worst terrorist attack in Canada. The worst thing for the Liberals is that they have no reasons for their opposition. They were the party that put the legislation in place, and not a single person in this country has thus far been affected, positively or negatively, by these "controversial" legislations. Its a pretty hard sell that renewal of these provisions are somehow in violation of anyone's rights. It is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians for the Liberal party to perpetuate this "poor me" facade. People won't buy it. What people will buy is the actual question the PM attempted to bring up: why ARE the Liberals suddenly opposing this legislation? The general public loves to believe the unbelievable (look at all the 9/11 conspiricy theories, for example), and that can't bode well for the Liberals, who are desperately seeking something; anything they can use to define their party. Harper is blurring the lines of partisanship, and diligently taking the lead on all issues. Issues that were once associated with specific parties primarily, are now being tackled with a pragmatic approach directed by the leadership of the Prime Minister. I'm very impressed that it took so little time for Harper to realize this necessity for political success. He is showing that although he has his own opinions and beliefs, he is willing to go against those beliefs, if necessary, to make the right decision. This is a direct contrast to the way Dion is leading the Liberals right now. He is directing his party to act on a basis of opposition to Harper, instead of on a basis of what is the best thing for the country.

Isn't celebrity-marriage much more of a threat to the institution then same-sex marriage?

And I suppose you were the only good person there? Where did you shit? Why won't the Nepalese government raise the ante a few grand and pack garbage removal clauses into the permits or hire out and reflect that cost? Not to mention airfare, work lost in training and the trip itself, aclimitization, equipment, and such. In reality, Doug Hansen paid a hundred thousand to do it plus lost wages. It took him years to save the money so, is two years work the value of human life at 27000 feet? I'm sure everybody would have dropped the guy off a bottle of oxygen if they had five or ten to spare but they don't. And there are no 'spare' Sherpas or staff. To save this guys life if it were possible would have meant people who have sacrificed not getting to the top or jeapardizing their saftety. Are you, as the tour operator going to go bankrupt to make a call? What are you going to do when your client says 'fuck you, I'm a thousand feet from the top of Everest' and goes off without you? If I went, it would be very hard and very expensive for me to do so. I wouldn't go there to see my reason for the trip be washed away by somebody else. If you wish to bitch and grip about the humanity, don't blame those who paid but rather those who are making the money - the Nepalese government for not having contingencies and the Sherpas and tour operators for same. Last trip I made was the Nahanni. Cost me a few bucks. Flew in rather than take a month to drag the boats up stream a couple hundred miles but was fun. A trip up to Everest would be a hoot too. I certainly wouldn't do it for glory and am sure many don't either. Well, at 49, I cvertainly doubt I would be in any kind of shape at 27 thousand feet as an amatuer to do anything other than hope that I made my next footstep so can only surmise you are blaming the Nepalese government, Sherpas and tour operators. The later two have responsibilities to their clients first. Don't know. Were you there? Did you shut down a forty some odd person tour costing millions of dollars to save this guy or just let the amatuers off on their own hoping they all made it either to the top or survived period? I don't want you to think I'm a hard case that doesn't believe in purity or nature, just that in this argument you are blaming the wrong people. The ones that have sacrifieced and paid money which they have had to work long hours for (and in some case were simply given) are not at fault here. Everybody wants to get what they want for the cheapest price, least amount of effort and such. They are merely doing what humans do. Those operatring the thing are also doing what they have to do and are under pressure to have the best record for getting people to the top at the cheapest price. Call off the tour and you go out of business as the next operator takes your clients. They will, in order to survive cut prices, take chances, leave oxygen bottles, poop packs and whatever debris they have to in order to keep costs down. The only way in which things will change is if it is regulated and to a degree where it is level for all operators and, still profitable. As we all know, businesses do not do this on their own until they smell the winds of change. Then it becomes an advertising gimmick like 'Ernie Everest's Eco Tours' - We go up, but on the way back, we save lives and pick up poop packs. Later, the Nepalese government places conditions. Something they should already be doing. They are the only ones that can change the track on this railroad, as much as others on the thread would like to give blame a more greedy and human face. Typical leftist view, its not the people's responsibility to act properly and to take responsibility for their actions, its the governments responsibility. If people act like degenerates, we should blame society, government and all institutions, because, obviously, people are incapable of acting like anything other than braindead idiots unless someone forces them not to.

I've been to the Everest base camp, and i can tell you that the climbers have literally destroyed the entire region. They shit wherever they want without burying it, they leave their garbage all over the mountain, they disrespect most of the sherpas who basically do all the work for the climbers and they couldn't care less about a single other person on the mountain with them. Its unfortunate that Nepal has no other source of revenue, otherwise they might start restricting the number of permits they give out. And based on the other responses here, i guess the value of a human life is set well below $40 000 (the cost to do the climb), isn't it. How much glory does one get from climbing Everest anymore anyways? I would think that one would feel a much greater sense of gratification from at least TRYING to save a dying man. Are we supposed to give up on anyone who looks like they may die?

In New York or Geneva? Doesn't matter really, it's funny either way - discussing a global ban on private gun ownership in the two first world countries least likely to comply with the ban. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Banning civilian guns planetwide sure sounds like a resonable start to resolving the problem. But it is in our homes where the real work needs to be done. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Reasonable?!? You can't honestly say you think trying to ban guns worldwide is a reasonable step to address the non-problem you're talking about. Thats gotta be one of the dumbest and funniest posts i've read on here. Why don't they also try and ban the world from using any fossil fuels to reduce the negative impact on the ozone?? You know why?...cause those ideas are thoughtless and silly.

"How can one prove such a thing as culture? You'll note, at no time did I indicate Canada was culturally rich: only that Alberta is as culturally barren as the RoC. Alberta is not a distinct society." I would have to disagree. After living in Alberta, BC, and Ontario, from my own experience, i would say that ALberta definately is a distinct society. Regionalism is one of the most prominent features of the "Canadian experience" and although we are all Canadians, we all live in very distinct regions and the differences between the regions are quickly revealed as you travel across our oversized Country. I lived in 3 different provinces so far, and i found that there were 3 very distinct societies. So i'm curious as to why you think ALberta is just the same as the rest of Canada (or that Ontario is the same, or Atlantic Canada, etc)?

QUOTE Germany was no more responsible for WWI than England, France, or any other nations that formed the alliances that defined the two sides of the war. I never once said that Germany had no fault in the war. Dont put words in my mouth. Of course they did. What does your above statement suggest. -------------------------------------------------- It suggests that Germany is no more responsible for the war than any other nations fighting in it. How is that hard to understand? ************************************************************ No France did not have to go to war, but they are entitled to defend themselfs, let me ask you a question do you defend yourself if a thug is smacking you ? Are you to blame for someone else actions.... England had a defense pact with France, and they were being attacked by germany. Explain to me why Germany had to attack France and Belguim in the first place. ---------------------------------------------------------- Germany obviously recognized the situation in Europe and saw that a war was inevitable. Its not like the European empires weren't already prepared to go to war. The Germans were trying to get the upper hand on things. I'm not saying that it was right, i'm just saying that thats what happened. But if England is excused from fault because they were just fulfilling their pact with France, why isn't Germany excused considering they entered the war to fulfill a pact made with Austria/Hungary? ******************************************************************* So as you can see be the mid 1920's british and french ottomen territory had been divided and the arabs looked after. How can you say they did nothing. ------------------------------------------------------------- Don't take sentances out of context to misrepresent my position. All I said was that as far as fulfilling their deals made with the arabs, they did nothing. ******************************************************************* as for my argument that germany is reposnable for it's actions in WW I prove me wrong. --------------------------------------------------------------- Don't shift the burden of proof. Its not my job to prove you wrong, its your job to prove you're right. If all you're saying is that Germany is responsible for their actions, i completely agree. Thats not really what you've been saying until just now. You stated that the Paris Peace Conferences were fair and Germany got what it deserved, nothing more and nothing less. News Flash: The treaties signed at the conferences placed all blame for the war on Germany! If you agree with them, then you must believe that Germany was at total fault. Thats what i disagree with. The post-war negotiations should have been aimed at peace, and not simply revenge. It shouldn't have been about blame. Now I know it was tradition that the losing side pays for the war, but this wasn't traditional war, and England and France should've acknowledged that. Rather than trying to change the structure of Europe to address the problems that caused the war, the allied side simply made things worse by trying to humiliate and devestate the German people. This, I believe, was a significant factor that caused WWII.

From the CBC report: It appears even the conservatives are admitting irregularities. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn't that like asking for a beating when you refer to a CBC report to back up a claim.

I never once said that Germany had no fault in the war. Dont put words in my mouth. Of course they did. However, WWI is in no way a black and white issue, so were they solely responsible? Of course not. France never HAD to go to war, under your way of looking at it. Neither did England, nor Russia, nor anyone for that matter. If germany's to blame because they are responsible for their own actions, then why isn't France and England and everyone else in the war? Nobody HAD to go to war did they? Why didn't England choose one of these other options you speak of? Why does their decision to go to war not place the blame for it on them? And with regards to the Ottoman situation, you don't know what you are talking about. Great Britain promised the Arabs, led by Sharif Husayn, in the western lands of the Arabian Peninsula, an independant Arab state. This promise of a new independant state was a condition for their revolt against the Ottomans in 1916. However, England did not live up to their promise and instead, under a deal made with France, decided to divide the territory between England and France. They labelled the different regions as mandates to remain under British and French rule until they were "capable" of ruling themselves. Now if you really wanna get into great detail about the Paris Peace Conferences, Wilson's recommendations, Germany's mistreatment, the causes and results of the war, etc. I'm all for it but unless you show a little more objectivity and knowledge of the events, you may lose your "Germany's to blame" argument pretty quick, my friend.

Its nice that Alberta recognizes the fact that not all opponents of SSM are religious nuts. I don't care enough about the issue to examine all the details, so if someone could clarify this for me: Is bill C-38 forcing people to marry same-sex couples if their beliefs against SSM aren't religious?

Why are people still arguing over the USA's justification of the Iraqi war? Who cares, its over and done with. I get so sick of everyone still bashing the States for going there. WE KNOW THEY FUCKED UP. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THEY FUCKED UP. What are they supposed to do now, just leave?!? Why doesn't the rest of the world step in to help fix the situation? I've heard so many different reasons why they went there and how wrong it is but has anyone offered up some reasonable solutions or constructive ways to help the Americans fix their problem? No, instead we continue to bash them for their foreign policy until we need their help, in which case we praise how they are always the first one's there to give a hand (you can try and deny it but realistically, for every bad thing the Americans have done to other people, they done a lot more good for other people). The double standard we all have with regards to the USA is really pathetic. You can hate the Americans for whatever reason you like, but the fact still remains that they're the ones people call on for help when they need it. If the Americans choose not to get involved , they get criticized for it and when they do, they also get criticized. Now I don't agree with the war either, but i think the issue has gone well beyond whether or not they should be there. Its unfortunate but with regards to Americans, us Canadians still sound like typical teenagers who are always pissed off with our parents, yet are always quick to accept any help our parents are willing to give. And not only do we accept it, more often than not we expect it and demand it.

This is a futile argument. You are obviously unwilling to look objectively at the situation in Europe during the first half of the 20th century. Any person with real knowledge of WWI and its causes and outcomes knows that it is very ignorant to argue that Germany was the only responsible country for the war. You should research President Wilson and his aims and goals and speeches at the Paris Peace Conferences and you will see clearly that he did not blame Germany alone, but he blamed the whole political structure of Europe at the time. This is historical fact and it is also fact that he did not sign the Treaties and the USA returned to isolationism because he wanted no part in what France and England were doing to Germany, not to mention the Arabs and the Africans (which you seemed to avoid referring to, meaning that you don't even know what i'm talking about and should therefore research yourself. Hint: A good starting point would be to look up Syria during and after WWI) Any historian would simply laugh in your face if you tried to deny these claims and until you are willing to base your argument on facts, I will not waste my time on this any further.

Not to nitpick, but if everything were pefrect, wouldn't everything have to be perfect? Thats kind of like saying "If Alberta was the best province in Canada, then there couldn't be a best province in Canda." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, its like saying that if every province in Canada was the best, none would be the best. Because to be the best, you must be better than worst. Without something being the worst, nothing can be the best. Just like to be perfect, you must be without imperfection, however if there is no imperfection, being perfect loses all value. Don't worry, i'm the one thats nitpicking anyways.

Imagine the hockey rivalry between the two countries. That alone is a good reason for seperation!