sharkman

I beg to differ on the GST, how soon we grow accustomed to a new wound! Reducing it as promised will put more into the economy as it is tempted to slow with rising interest rates. Most of the surplus( and it's gigantic) should be used for debt retirement which reduces the amount of interest that must be paid each year.

It's like those folks that said I shouldn't operate on my dog and should take him to a fancy veterinarian instead. I side with the folks on that one too. Put the dog down if he's suffering instead of sending some vet's kid to college, and get a new one.

It must be Clinton's fault, right? In listening to right-wing wackos like Hannity and Limbaugh, it appears as though everything from the price of gasoline to the Iraqi war is solely Bill Clinton's fault. It is obvious that Hannity called in expressly to attack and sabotage Baldwin't interview. One small correction, perhaps you don't listen to the right wingers enough: It's all the liberals' fault.

I think it goes too far sometimes. There was a suicide at one of our local high schools and the school board offered grief counselling for the student body. Maybe I've got it backwards, but wouldn't it be more effective for the student in need to be comforted by their owns parents/loved ones than some stranger in a spare office? You can't grief counsel someone anymore unless you 'learn' how in a university program?

That's utter BS. No Rx can make someone chnage from gay to straight. Don't you think the Christian Coalition would have put this substance into our water like fluoride years ago???? No, it's not utter BS. Why, just because you don't like what happened? It may not jive with the doctrine the gay movement pushes, but people can change.

I haven't seen many comments on this thread addressing the premise that started it. Would anyone care to comment now? The idea is that some of oil producing countries are trying to manipulate the oil market upwards by making repeated scary or controversial comments, Iran and Venezualia to name a few. These two, among others, hate the U.S. and the infidel West and love to see it struggle under these cartel like prices. Having the wealth of the U.S. pour into their coffers when the U.S. can do nothing about it makes them giddy with joy. So am I wrong?

Just an aside, but this statement is completely wrong. Gays are some of the most fervent supporters of the idea that gaydom is not a choice. One guy I know used to be gay. His experience was that he was molested repeatedly by his foster mother and the experience caused him to experiment, and then become gay. Several years ago, after a life time of battlling with his inner attraction to men, a doctor gave him a prescription that ended this attraction. I found his story quite weird, but he is an upstanding person and has no doubt about how it all happened. The idea that if you were able to 'kick' the habit you were not really gay makes too many assumptions to be taken seriously.

Dictators only rule because they have popular support. Why do you think the Chinese gov't spends so much energy preventing its people from hearing bad things about the gov't? You are also splitting hairs over the exact things that Bush and Ahmadinejad said - both are guilty of creating external enemies in order to divert attention from their own domestic failures. If you cannot/will not recognize the similarities then you will never really understand what is going on inside Iran. Not much we can do about it except buy cars that consume less gas and use public transit more. There is nothing the Iranian president can do about the long term price of oil. Short term fluctuations are not much of a concern. Then I must continue to split hairs because creating external enemies is one thing, but that can not be compared to calling for the destruction of another country, I see what you mean about the end result, however. As far as dictators go, perhaps some need popular support to stay in power, but many don't. Saddam, for one. I suspect Iran's dictator is in the same boat, but perhaps I am missing something. I am concerned about the long term price of oil. If Ahmadinejad doubled his oil output he would lower the price ot oil all by himself. If he stopped making unsettling comments the price would settle down. When I got married 6 years ago it was around #11 per barrel. I can't help but wonder why it is now at $71. I believe there is lots we can do about it. Drilling in Alaska and off the coast of B.C. could alone have the twofold benefit of lowering the price and reducing dependency on middle east oil. Neutralizing Ahmadinejad would also help, but given the two options of drilling for more oil or neutralizing Iran, I think most Canadians would prefer the less violent option, drilling for more oil.

Unfortunately the study doesn't tell us anything about the effects of pot. I think you missed the part of the study that shows the results. 4 joints a week for several years, and your memory goes to pot.

I must have missed something, when has Bush called for the destruction of the Axis of Evil, as has been called for Israel? I don't believe he has. Further, the Iranian prez doesn't need silly things like domestic political support. He's pretty much a dictator. He excells at creating fear in his people of HIMSELF, unlike Bush, who actually needs political support, among other things. But this thread is not about Bush, but Iran and oil. Aren't you concerned that experts predict $100 dollar oil?

I just heard this morning that oil is at an all time high of $71 per barrel. This has been hurting oil based economies for some time now. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1....qt8&refer=home From all I can gather, the source of the continuing rise has been uncertainty, fear and speculation. And the author of much of this has been the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sounding off repeatedly on Israel's destruction and his love of nuclear weapons. War or the threat of it seems to be enough to put upward pressure on oil. Do you think Ahmadinejad is well aware of this and doing it on purpose to raise oil prices? The reason I consider this a possibility is I don't think he's stupid. A stupid person would rant on repeatedly in public so the world could hear about his desire to see another country destroyed. When other governments get concerned and begin strategizing on how to neutralize this leader, only a person who is deficent mentally would continue to rant on. I just don't see him as being an idiot. Therefore, he must be doing it to achieve a desired outcome. Higher oil prices would add to his coffers greatly while at the same time hurt his enemies.

Geez dude, you're scaring me. I DO NOT want to hear about your driving preferences while stoned. I wonder how many pot users secretly drive while stoned. There is a lot of paranoid driving going on these days.

Mindonfire, you chose your handle well.

Let me give you a clue...when an opinion piece starts off with a lie it's pretty safe to say the rest can be tossed out. This is no exception. Nobody believed Stephen Harper was "scary". That was a rightwing narrative used to make him seem harmless. Nobody believed anything would happen immediately. Over time, healthcare will be weakened, I believe. Civil rights and military draft? Where did the idiot get that from? Oh yeah, the lies. I forgot. He has no friends or family who thought any of that shit. Uh, talking about lies, maybe you should go visit Rabble once in a while and hear lefties like yourself who are deathly afraid of what Harper might do. Fear, anger, denial, it's all there.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear coming over the radio that Israel has just bombed nuclear research facilities in Iran. They are the ones who face the biggest threat when Iran gets nukes. They took out Iraq's facilities in the early 80's. IMO, the U.S. has their hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yeah, and you might notice that most of these threads with a similar theme are started by gerryhatrick. It's gettin' old.

I believe you're right on the money, Argus. Our lax screening and security towards immigration has been a concern of mine, and it is a main reason the U.S. has responded this way. Some of these immigrants are known criminals that set up operations here and if we don't do something about it eventually our way of life will change for the worse.

Your point misses the elephant in the room. There is a group of people who are being stereotypically treated. Whenever one of their number is in the news, the media treats them the same way. Muslims get treated with kid gloves WHEN THEY COMMIT CRIMES OF TERROR ALL THE TIME. This driver got very little coverage on his Muslim terrorist comments since he had a Mohammad in his name. As well in North America the media censored themselves from showing in any form the Mohammad cartoons, even France showed them. This practice of hiding and covering up terrorist activities by media groups is "conniving, divisive and dishonest." Jerry is not tarring all Muslims so much as he is tarring all Muslim extremists. Anyone who tries to incite terror deserves justice if you ask me, no matter their skin colour. As far as African Americans, they are a crime problem, but it's not based on their religious beliefs to kill infidels, it's much mor complicated than that.

Fashion tips. Yes, I saw the press comments on Harper having a similar type jacket that Martin did while visiting with the same fellas. We sure have a hard hitting media here in Canada.

Gee, what happened to all the Bush haters? You'd think they'd be all over this story by now. They're gonna have to dream up another angle on the impeachment thingy.

This attitude strikes me as the typical Canadian justice system response. How inept.

That was said 40 years ago. And will be said 40 years from now. It's fearmongering to push an agenda. Fearmongering? What was the first clue, the shrillness or the spittle at the corners of the mouth?

Uh, Gerry, you didn't respond to my post on killer hurricanes in the 30's, and now you've cranked up the indignition on Monty not answering your post. Hypocrite. The fact is there are plenty of studies against man made emissions having sizable effect, and all the environmentalists do with the studies they don't like is character assassinate the scientist or find some "flaw' in the study. They ignore the facts and try to shout it down with the immediate release of opposing studies and it's really just another type of politics. Boring. You can run around saying the sky is falling, but they've been saying that since the 70's. The founder of Greenpeace was so happy with the way things were going, he resigned from the organization in the mid 80's. The sky is still up there, and looking to be staying where it is.

I think the economics of the situation trump all, unfortunately. Why have they increased immigration levels per year in Canada and let it remain for well over a decade? We know there are benefits, but what was the reason. How about we can't even maintain our own population levels without immigration. That's right, we are not producing enough kids to maintain or expand our numbers. I remember hearing that to maintain population, each family needs to produce 2.3 kids. And a shrinking population means a shrinking economy, with all the bad spin off effects that would happen year after decade. So why can't we have enough kids? Don't you think that's a little weird, with all the sex going on? Families are really on the wane these days. And if you're divorced, chances are you're not planning for any kids. And nobody wants kids. Birth control, the morning after pill, and abortions all serve to shrink our numbers. And so our politicians look at the data and realize the only way to keep the economy growing is to entice someone else's kids to come to Canada. And it really seems like we can't all get along after all. I know we are far more tolerant than France, but we practice our own brand of it.

Wow, excellent find Monty. Of course any studies that expose the environmentalist theology(The sky is falling THIS TIME DAMMIT!) are immediately disparaged as kooky conservatives and stifled. The only thing that will convince them is 50 years from now when we are still here.