crazymf
-
Posts
700 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by crazymf
-
-
I'll start...
In 5 years, after China buys it's 4th American oil company, war breaks out over Taiwan and some disputed oil reserves somewhere and all troops are pulled out of Iraq and we never hear about it ever again on CNN. No one knows what happens there for years, or cares.
-
Survival of the fittest would apply if there was no health care at all.
Care should be applied to those who need it to the extent of the resources.
Survival of the fittest would apply again after that.
The issue of withholding care to abusers is an issue that can't be solved and frankly would be wrong imo. Where is the limit? Skiers can't get treatment for broken legs?
We have to care for our sick and dying. That's what I'd want if I was sick.
-
.....all that plus the issue of smokers, for instance. Do we spend the same amount of resource capital on a smoke induced lung cancer as the lung cancer of a second hand smoke patient?
Dollars for lives? Can't answer that. Our dollar may change value with the markets tomorrow so the issue is what percentage of our actual resources should be used perhaps.
-
I know nothing of the media's inner workings. I'm a consumer.
The issue is terrorism, don't really know what it is, but it's bad. George Bush is going to be our saviour because he really goes to bat for the little guy. Somehow, it's REALLY important that they find that missing girl in Aruba, because she may be the missing link to finding Bin Laden. They've been looking for that guy for while because he knows where the nukes are that Saddam misplaced.
You get my point?? I rest my case.....
-
What I'm hearing is what I have felt from the beginning of the thread.
You can find someone who will spin the facts to suit yourself.
-
Yes, since these people are paid to research the issues and become better informed. That is the fundemental problem with gov't by referendum: most people don't have the time to become properly informed even if they have the ability. That is why paying a qualified individual to work full time on our behalf makes sense to make political discisions makes sense.
I agree with you totally.
However, in Canada, as you know, we do not get to elect our leaders further up the chain than our local representative. So I have 2 scenarios;
1. I like my local guy, but not the party leader or the party line.
2. I like the leader, but have to vote for some schmuck to get him in.
In that sense, I like the American system.
My abstract idea was if I wanted to take my decision making power back on a subject I feel strongly about, and have a vested interest in, I could do that. On other nuts and bolts decisions in everyday Ottawa, let them do it.
Somehow and when, the whole idea of countries, government structure, and organisation may change. I believe it has started with the Euro currency.
I'm done.
-
SO THEN!!! Is this how a government operates too?
Are you guys assuming that a government of elected individuals, who formerly were our neighbors and part of the mere commoners walking among us, can competently and consistently make better and more informed decisions than us?
That's a scary thought. I mean it's a scary thought if they don't.
-
Nonetheless, given the chance to vote on each and every little item, people will do so.
But as a group, they will surely not vote wisely.
BUT, a million individuals, in their own home, with a complete information package at their mousetip, oblivious to any other group influence, can make an effective informed educated decision, one million times.
And if you wanted to have your MLA or MP to vote for you, empower him to do so. If there's issues that you want to vote on yourself, do so. My point was that in the age of computers and fast information, this IS possible, if not probable.
-
How about posting some links to your favorites??
-
In Vietnam, the people were fighting a civil war and the Americans were viewed as an occupational colonial force. In essence it was a three way fight where the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.
I see similarities in that simplification of Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. Sunni's, Shi'ites, Kurds. One thing that is different is that there isn't another superpower in the background fighting by proxy. However, Syria, Iran and probably others seem to be in support of the insurgency.
I hope this ends soon, but I doubt it.
-
Duhh, maybe I'm wishing on a star here, but who is the most unbiased news media out there? I can get totally different spins on the same topic depending on who I watch and read.
My observation is that CNN shelters the American public as much as possible from the realities of the world.
Case point: Canada's women won the gold medal in hockey in a game against the Americans at the Salt Lake games.
The next morning, CNN reported how the American women 'won' the Silver Medal.
Where do you guys mostly get your facts??
-
Ok, new spin....
Back away for a sec.
Was Iraq a world threat?
I say no. They were a threat to neighbors and general pain in the a** but not a real threat to anybody 10000 miles away.
Did Saddam harbor terrorists, use terrorism?
I say he used government dictatorial iron fist rule to suppress and murder his own people for his own gain, but not outside influence to overthrow western civilization, other than to try to murder Bush sr in Kuwait, which again is next door. Saddam was too self centered and frankly small minded to expand much beyond his realm. Hindsight of the hole incident showed his true nature.
Did the USA go in there for oil?
Absolutely. You didn't see them run to Rwanda to save those people and you didn't see them topple the regime in Somalia, of which there wasn't one. They left instead. Why not be a beacon of freedom in Africa and sacrifice American lives for them in the name of freedom? Because they don't have the means to pay the USA back later.
Is the world better off now than before they went in?
That's the burning debate. I don't know......
-
But, in the age of fast communication, surely some forward thinking person will think of a way to advance the decision making process.
Of course, people resist change too.
Thanks for the replies. Gave me lots to think about.
-
That is simply their perspective. But when you add in the willingness of some of them to die in this cause, not to mention killing in this cause, which they believe is entirely justified by the Koran and sanctioned by God, well, you get people who are not about to listen to reason or logic.
Ok, so that's the result, killing for God. Something caused them to get this way and so far the easy answer to me seems to be American foriegn policy. Clash of cultures, however you can slice it.
And Iraq? Simple, old Bush and young Bush around the campfire for a few years sipping whiskey and talking about life and regrets. Old Bush didn't finish it. Young Bush does. End of story.
That's as good a reason as I've heard.
-
This is non-news. Good for her. NEXT!!!!!
-
Problem #3) They can't force their MPs to vote the party line, I mean why trust the people that elected you... its not like they have any right to decide what you are doing to their country right? I hate elitists, and I despise the Canadian political system for promoting them.
Sorry, I don't understand this statement. Can you expand?
-
So you're saying all the Americans have to do is abandon Israel and let the Arab hoardes slaughter them and all will be well with the world, with no more Islamic terorrism?
That's a heavily loaded question. If I had an answer to the Israel thing, I'd be master of the universe. I don't want to go there because I'm sure my intellect will get slaughtered here. I will say this much; It seems to me that Arab states can't get along with each other let alone Israel.
I am trying to understand the opposition point of view of world events these days and am coming up either empty or am finding a lack of info. I just can't believe the idea that people resort to killing civilians just because they oppose western civilization. Have they no forward view of what the world should be, or do they merely want to oppose and destroy with no hope of winning?
-
In the age of computers, why does government have to make decisions by proxy when we could vote on all topics with the click of a mouse?
Gay marriage for instance, no problem, click. Majority rules, one way or the other.
I can see potential problems with minority rights perhaps. Any ideas?
-
I have only one comment.
If someone murdered your family (not held them hostage and threatened to, but actually murdered them in cold blood) would you give them whatever they asked for?
Of course not. This is bigger than that however.
I watched the movie 'The Fog of War' the other day. Documentary or snippets of interviews with Bob McNamera, whichever you prefer. He stated that during the Cuban missile crisis, they put themselves in the Russians perspective to make decisions regarding that matter. During Vietnam, however, they had no idea what the Vietnamese'
perspective was and made decisions based on American interests only. As a result, while the war was fight against the aggression of communism to the Americans, while to the Vietnamese, it was a civil war and a struggle against occupation and colonialism by the Americans.
McNamara hinted that the Vietnam conflict would have been handled very differently had the Americans listened to the right people.
I watch CNN and other news networks report the terrorism these days and I can't help but wonder if we should have been listening to these people years ago more closely. Instead, American foreign policy, which is structured to feed the ever oil hungry American public, bluntly pushes opposition out of the way.
Why is it that the very same people that America gave weapons to 25 years ago always seem to wind up shooting Americans with them.
Of course I am appalled by 911 and the London bombings, but I fear that you reap what you sow.
-
I hear a one sided story of terrorism in north american media, how they are cold blooded killers and prey on 'innocent' civilians etc, etc. That is their tactic of choice, but under all that, what do they want and how did they get there? I found this article to be interesting reading and though it's only a slice, at least it states several key points.
http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm
The simplistic answer is: American Foreign Policy in the middle east and the undying support for Isreal.
As the war in Iraq continues, a crack appears in my belief in the righteousness of the American cause. They are over there promoting freedom and democracy and are very willing to shoot anyone who happens to disagree with them. Seems like a big contradiction to me.
comments??
-
In fact, maybe its the end of the traditionnal definition of a country , we are constantly evolving and we must find way to rethink the way the world is working.
That's the most sensible thing I've heard for a long time.
-
I absolutely agree. Then we don't have to pay taxes to support a bloated federal (Ontario) government. Don't have to ship natural resources east on a wholesale basis. It would be justice for the government abolishing the Crow rate. We'd have a great buffer between us and Quebec. We could actually vote in elections.
Please do it. Take your vast wealth with you. You can use it to buy our natural gas and oil at prices WE specify. Oh, and did we mention the 15% oil tax payable to Alberta then, over and above world price.
Again, please do it......save us the hassle.
Oh yeah, one more thing, everybody this side of Sudbury thinks they're in the west so they'll be with us. Have a nice life with Quebec because after they're done with you, you'll be talking French ONLY.hehe
-
I think the real reason that very young people are encouraged to work is that there is a demand. You know 'supply-demand'. They are filling low paying jobs that older kids or adults won't do. Or the job would be merely vacant for lack of people to do it.
In a country that promotes higher education such as Canada, I believe as more and more people move up the ladder technically, that leaves a void of unqualified personnel. Unlike the USA, we don't have Mexico to fill the entry level jobs and form a lower class in our 'classless' society.
Agree with it? I'm not sure.
-
I run a small business in Nisku, heart of oil development country. The local county raised my land taxes by %38 this year. Why? They tell me land values have gone up and I'm competing in a market with rich oil companies. Even though I run a service business and am not oil related, I'm cast with same mold.
My point is that governments do take a lot of money off us here. Natural gas and energy prices are skyrocketing upwards. We stand here with gas seeping out of our water wells but pay world price for it.
Maybe our government is rich, but we all aren't. I agree with giving some money back to us.
This is a nice site. I'm doing lots of reading and learning.
Ex-Cdn World Com Exe Gets 25 Years Jail
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
That's an abrupt twist from corporate to religion in one sentence. Wasn't watching for that one!
However, to comment on your post. Good for him. As he's older, they said it's more than likely a life sentence. It's not the money that's the real impact, but no doubt many employees retirement 401k's and lives that he wrecked.
Rot in jail old fella. Maybe they'll save a cell for Ken Lay too. Come to think of that, is he in jail yet? I don't remember hearing.