Slavik44

What exactly do you ask? For a million dollars, a porsche, and a playboy model for every day of the week and two on sunday. What do you think someone who is trying desperately to find a way to preserve a belief in a figure that was his whole explained reason for existing asks for?

Uhmmm...your first premise is questionable your second is a big negative. 1. 60,000 year old sites in The America's This claim is based on finding what is believed to be tools. But even top archeologists involved in this push to discover early antiquity in America will note that, it is still questionable as to wether these "tools" are human made. Until more evidence comes around, all we can conlude is that we are looking at rocks (that may resemble tools) that got covered by soil more than 50,000 years ago. Far from your claim of definite truth. 2. America populating Europe Utter Rubbish, the evidence still indicates out of Africa Origins. Even if we did find early sites in North America, it would indicate nothing more then early sites in North America. That by itself does not indicate American settlement of Europe.

The excersize of faith, is something that is not contingent on Evidence, it is contigent on meerly acceptance. There are however, more then one claimed God, often groups or families of Gods. Do I believe them all? Do I just ha ve faith? When you understand why you don't recognize 99.9999999*% of all Gods recorded by mankind you will recognize why I simply bump it up to 100%. So God is incapable of working with only an army of 8? So not only is he a jerk, but highly un charismatic. I mean Hitler was the 55th member of the Nazi party and he could take over a country and almost win a war against the world. But God couldn't do it with 8? No offense but your God isn't sounding all that competent. As well looking at the recent numbers if he were to call an election, he would be forced to form a coalition government, given his "I am the way" attitude he may have trouble forming maintaining power. Perhaps just another Joe Clark. Hey I ain't the one who has a book that lectures his followers on how faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, but at the same time un-willing to work with 8 people who poses faith, to make right the world. No now you are just further suggesting that he is an incompetent planer, he had infinity to come up with a plan and only two alternatives, very shitty ones at that, presented themselves. When I can think of more in ten seconds that would not violate my ability to choose any more so then Gods actions in the old testament. Likewise most courts of law would convict God of Murder. I doubt we are going to get very far, I believe God needs to be reasonable and come down and personally talk with us OFTEN outlining what he wants, and expects us to do it. You on the other hand, seem to belive that every now and then God sends a huge fish or destroys the world to accomplish the same thing that talking could. Personally spending eternity with such a person sounds like hell. Okay so is the bible incomplete in the matter dealing with Achan or is it fullly complete and in contradiction? No, I expected it would come down to faith, but faith is a highly unreasonable request that even under the best of circumstances 7/10 times results in you being mislead. All them I find to be un-provable claims contingent on Faith. Faith is Useless it is why there are 2 Billion Christians, 1.5 Billion Muslims, 1 Billions Hindu's, an assortment of religions with 300 million followers each, and an assortment below that adding probabley another 200 million. And then within almost every religion, there are sects and denominations that each believe something different, or split on a number of major fundemental issues. All these people have some faith, many of these people do give their lives to their God/gods. With out evidence faith is an unreasonable requirement that leads to a widley divergent number of religions each claiming to have the truth, each requiring faith, and offering little in the way of evidence. All believing they got it right, all armed with their faith. I spent many years asking him for it.

I didn't see the show, but are you talking about the theory that suggests the clovis culture in North America sprung from the Solutrean Culture of Europe...which transplanted itself to North America by fishing along the Ice sheets? If that is the theory you are referrign to, it is a stretch to claim it is prooven and supported by both Archeological and Genetic evidence. I have seeen one documentary on this theory. However, it was designed in a way to make the archological evidence more convincing then it really was. Of course there could be new information that the documentary you saw made you aware of in which case I would be interested in hearing it. Or it could be that you are talking about a completely different theory, of which I would still be interested in hearing it, thanks. Anyways one problem with documentaries, is that they really are not documentaries so much as they are arguements for a point. Take Faranheit 9/11 its labelled as a documentary, but I wouldn't go around and calling it fair, balanced, or accurate.

I never asked god to come down here and solve all our problems, but it is most certainly a reasonable expectation to say that if God wants me to do something he should personally ask me to do it and let me decide. Instead God will not manifest himself to me, but still requires me to believe in him, do what he wants, with out ever prooving to me personally that he is God or what it is he wants me to do. That is most certainly an unreasonable requirement. Well first off apparently 8 people were co-operating with God. So to say everyone was not co-operating with God is blatantly false. Furthermore you imply an extremly incompetent God to suggest that the only/best option available to him was to kill all those who disobeye him. You say he allowed us to make a fresh start, but what he really did was kill many people, multitudes of people for disobeying him. Yet you are telling me God has issues with coming down and discussing problems with us in the name of our own development? If you have a daughter great, if not pretend you do. Say sometime in the future a guy holds a gun to her head and says give me a blow job. Now maybe your daughter decides not to, after all if she did...according to the old testament she would have to marry the guy. So she dies, in the ensuing Court case the man is let off because your daughter made the choice for herself...it was her fault. Or take Jonah for example. God asks Jonah to go to ninevah. Jonah says no and tries to run away from God. God sends a storm to stop him, then a fish to swallow him, and the fish only lets Jonah go...after he repents and will go to ninevah. Yet you still insist that God has an objection to comming down to earth, because he is worried about us making a choice or wants us to develop decision making abilities and faith. But no problems with a storm and a huge ass fish to change our minds? No problems with the destruction of the earth to change are minds? no problem with killing people to change our minds? No problem with destroying cities to change our minds? No problem with God taking our land away from us to change our minds? No problem, no issue with God killing millions of people to stand as a symbol to future generations. But somehow a problem with talking? Well atleast we now have definitive proof God is a guy. It is interesting because most Christians argue the Bible is the Complete, Holy, and Literal word of God. If we take the bible as is, right now as being complete and no neccessary additions or inferences to be made, then then not only is the story of Achan a contradiction but more evidence of a sinfull God. If we allow the inference to be made, the addition to be made that Achans whole family (including his livestock) knew about Achan's sin, assumedly we would also have to infere that the soldiers who died in the doomed millitary campaign also knew as well. Any ways if we do that, then we suggest that the bible is incomplete and does not stand on its own. But it seems as though you are willing to imply that those 19 years of my life were simply an automated belief? Well in that case by all means Can you; 1. Empirically proove to me there is a God? 2. Empirically proove there is only One God (assuming you believe in only one) 3. Empirically proove that it is infact your God? 4. Empirically proove that the holy book(s) associated with your God are in fact divinely inspired? 5. Empirically proove that all events recorded in that holy book actually did happen? It is all a question of evidence, for me, with out evidence it is impossible to believe him.

Do you speak English as a first language? I do recognize at times that it is hard for people who do not speak english as first language to keep up with the connotations of certian words because your post was slightly incoherent and a little abrasive. Anyways, If there is a God he is outside the realm of empirical Human knowledge, nothing more then a philisophical concept. Therefore it is impossible to request a purely scientific discussion of God, as any concept of God is outside of scientific knowledge. We cannot have a scientific discusion on god no more then we can have a scientific discussion on the flying spaghetti monster. This statement is not an attack on religion, it is simply the truth. Science is the practice of finding explanations for natural phenomena. Ask any theist, and they will tell you God is Supernatural. The only knowledge we have of god is human claims, so any discussion of god is going to be based on anylizing human claims. 1. Where did Humans originate on Earth Well again this is a question of what our current knowledge base indicates, and that is Africa. Now it could be that our current knowledge base is not correct. But all we can be expected to go on is the physical and genetic evidence we have. That Evidence indicates an African Origin. Case closed. You can propose different ideas, make arguements...but ultimately it is hot air. The earliest human fossils found have been in Africa, genetics trace origins back to africa. So to make a conclusion based on current evidence, it would be Africa. B: Is this Truth Well it is a truth given our current knowledge, as more information is added to our knowledge base, this conclusion could change. But you can only make a conclusion based on what is within the realm of your knowledge. 2. The Design of Mankind I would propose the design of man is a bottom up design, but then that wouldn't be my proposition.

We were created with a logic mind, I agree. We were also created with the strength and animal instinct to be able to kill other people... that doesn't mean we have to use that potential in such a way. Any tool can become a weapon in the wrong hands. We can use our physical strength to do good, or we can use it to do bad. We can use our logic to solve problems within our lives, and we can use it to shut God out of our lives. It all depends on what we choose to use it for. You can have logic and faith at the same time. Just like you can have strength -and the will to use your strength appropriately- at the same time. Why is faith a requirement? Why can't God just show himself to us? Why doesn't he just come down here and solve all of our problems? Why? Because he wants us to learn to make these decisions for ourselves. If he came down and revealed everything to us, we wouldn't have to exercise any effort on our part. Faith and trust, I believe, is one of the lessons of life which we are being taught. HOWEVER, like I said in a previous post, we will not be left in the dark! All you Bible scholars out there, flip to John 7:17. I'll paraphrase: He that doeth his will, will know of the doctrine, whether I speak of God, or whether I speak of myself. It takes action on your part first. Draw near unto God, and he shall draw near unto thee. Ask, and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be open unto you. Well I debated wether or not I should respond to this now or wait, I have a final exam I need to be studying for but whatever, I don't think I could study with my mind focused on this anways so lets clear my mind. For starters I just want to adress how I came to the conclusion of being an agnostic-athiest. I was raised in a Christian home, went to church every sunday, often times would go even mor ethen that. I would read the bible every night with my parents, and pray before every meal. On my own time I even read the whole bible as a way to gain knowledge. In the world we live in however, their were different views then my own. I spent alot of time trying to proove God existed and that it was the God of the Bible. Ultimately in my efforts to proove my beliefs, I found that instead, when the dust settled, I could no longer believe what I had tried so hard to proove. SO I don't really apreciate it when I hear people tell me how I just need to give God a chance, or I just need to believe, or ernestly seek him, thats what I did and that is how I ended up where I am now. You made the arguement that God simply cannot come down and show himself to us because that would rob us of choice, obviously burning in hell for all eternity is much more reasonable. However truth be told the bible and free will do not co-exist. Take the proposed biblical flood, almost everyone on the earth is disobeying God, and worse then that they won't repent. So what does God do? He floods the earth killing all but 8 people, because they wouldn't follow him. Or take one of the many cases of the Israelites. They are disobeying God, in one case God gets angry and sends fiery serpents to bite and kill the Israelites because they have gone astray. In another case an Israelite is out gather sticks on the sabbath, but God had commanded the Israelites not to do work on the sabbath (I like days off as well to bad God couldn't have made more sabbaths). But any ways this guy made a choice to work on the sabbath and in turn God killed him, for that choice. Or soddom and Gamorah, two cities, two ungodly cities, God gets angry that they are so ungodly, that they are not following Gods will, so he destroys the two cities. Take the promise land God gives to the Israelites. Did god consult the people he was taking it away from, no. They didn't have a choice, what God wanted he did. That leaves us with two possible modern day conclusions. One of them is that God as recorded in the bible is just an explanation for natural events. Or we are left with an alternative conclusion: Thank God for dead soldiers, thank God for IED's, thank God for September 11, thank God for AIDS. Thank God for every single one of his righteous judgments that he executes upon a rebellious people. In fact if we look at the bible closely we will find that God will not even follow his own word. Take the story of Achan. You see Achan was an Israelite, and when the Israelites with Gods help, destroyed Jericho, Achan did something against God's will, he took goods from the city of Jericho for his own. Now after that, God was angry. So the next time Israel goes on a millitary campaign God ensures that Israelites lose the battle and that a number of people die. After that the Israelites ask God what they did wrong. It boils down to what Achan did. So God tells the Israelites what to do. And what do the Israelites do? They take Achan, They take Achans wife, They take Achans Sons and they Take Achans daughters and they stone them to death, for what Achan has done. After doing this, to show his pleasure with the Israelites punishment on Achan and his family, God scores for the Israelites a knock out victory, against the same people, that had previously taken the Israelites to school. Now he did all this, including killing the children of Achan for a sin Achan commited, while at the same time having given the Israelites a law. A law that says Fathers shall not be put to death for the sins of their children, niether Children put to death for the Sins of their fathers. Now you are going to sit back and tell me that God after killing millions of people, for disobodiance, after God breaks the rules he gave to the Israelites, that Suddenly God doesn't want to interfere with my will? Give me a break.

There is one verse in the Bible that everyone should read... Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. I remember going to bible camp over the summer as a kid, and that was the verse they had us repeat every day for like five minutes, drilled it into our heads. They also drilled into our heads that Faith was a good thing. Ultimately however, Faith is the acceptance of something with out proof. And you gotta ask what kind of asshole makes people with a logical mind and then tells them, oh yeah...to really please me, do not act like a logical person. Instead you need to be like a child. Speaking of Santa Clause, when I was a kid I never really believed in Santa Clause, because the bible never said Jesus created Santa Clause, so he couldn't exist. But one Christmas theere was something I really wanted, so what happened? Suprise, Santa Clause existed, and I wrote him a letter. I was basically talking to Santa Clause. Now Santa Clause works in Mysterious ways. You see sometimes he answers your requests, sometimes he uses other people in your life to manifest that request or help you on that request, or sometimes Santa is just forced to say no. In my case Santa said no. Obviously thats not a reason not to believe in Santa Clause, because Santa Clause works in Mysteries ways. Now I am more convinced that Santa was real as due to Santa saying no to my original request, my life is so much better. Obviously we have proof that St Nicholas once walked the earth and to please Santa Clause all you need is Faith. I mean are people really willing to say that Santa Clause is nothing more then some Historical charlatan? Anyways my point, oh yeah. For a long time I had denied Santa Clause Existed, but then when I needed Santa Clause he was there for me, like God for a dieing sinner. You see I wanted Santa to Exist, so suddenly he existed. Why? for no other reason then I wanted him to, the power of Santa of Course. What about a big diamond burried in everyones backyard? I wouldn't want to live in a world where there wasn't one. Obvoiusly, this would improve peoples lives, and help them live longer. Instead of sitting on their ass watching wrestling and eating donoughts, they would have a shovel in their hands digging holes. In doing so they would get excersize; which would mean they live longer, have healthier bodies, and are happier as excersize releases endorphins in your body. But just because believing in a diamond burried in your backyard makes your life better it doesn't proove the diamond actually exists. Especially as there is no evidence of this and those who claim to have found it, can't actually proove it. Maybe they would say the same thing, just have faith. For that matter why discriminate, Lets see we can believe in Jesus for our Middle Eastern Content, Amun For our African Content, The original vow of the Amida Buddha Sect for our Asain Content, We can believe in Joseph Smith Jr. for our North American content, We can believe in Huitzilopochtli for our South American Content, We can believe in Thor for our European Content, and the Rainbow Serpent to cover our Oceania Requirement. There just have faith. Or you could sit back and say, If God created me, he must recognize that he equiped me with a logic mind, and in doing so he must recognize how unreasonable it is, to ask me to shut that logic off to believe in him. The greater the claim the greater the required evidence neccessary to proove it.

So fighting for peoples rights to be masters of their own body is pressuring you to smoke Pot. I think the problem is on your end. Under the Liberal same sex marraige bill no church was or will be forced to marry a same sex couple, now if it was the case the Chruches would be forced to do so, I could see you most certainly having a point. But theoretically agents of the state should not be allowed to refuse people rights that are granted to them by the state. So you want the right to hound women, but not be hounded in return. Well yeah, I think this whole natural governign party of Canada is harmful to not only the Liberals but political improvement as a whole. But I am not about to justify violating other peoples rights to happiness and liberty just because I think most politicians are corrupt and injust. Because if we started to do that, then we become what we hate. And honestly, I don't want to walk around hating myself. Yeah the justice system in Canada is not perfect, but you know what. I do not believe it is wise to say, because the liberals did not punish so and so...I don't want to respect the rights of other members of society. Its a two way street, we shouldn't critisize the Liberals, conservatives, and others for failing to respect peoples rights or failing to do their jobs and on that basis say...I will refuse rights to other people, i will refuse to do my job. Its a downward vicous spiral, that starts with animosity, and it does not achieve the desired outcome of co-operation. I wish the Liberals would stop using tax dollars to fund such programs...it may be one of the issues that keeps me from voting for them. But thats what I will do. If it is a big enough detractor I will not vote for the Liberals. But that will be the action I take, I will not show my dissaproval for the liberals by copying their same ill-advised behavoir. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. So please don't immitate what you hate.

So Murray B. you are a Historian?

Harper has generally come off as someone who is in favour of a smaller Federal Government, either that or whenever he is uncomfortable he just likes the term thats a provincial Issue...I think it might be a bit of both. Anyways it will be interesting to see how this whole nation thing plays out, perhpas harper wouldn't mind setting up a Minister of Nation Claims and return power to the provinces. After all, the people who know provincial issues the best are provincial politicians....But on the otherhand Harper could have just opend up a can of worms.

You know it is interesting that most Canadians pride themselves and this country on our healthcare system, its kind of a sad reflection of Canadian status when our pride and joy gets ranked 30th overall by the World Health Organization. Protect the Candain health system? 30th overall? I would rahter improve the damn thing. If we look closer at that report most of the top countries including number one ranked spain, all borrow on a similar concept of having public health insurance that covers all or most of the costs associated with medical proceadures, while still allowing for private delivery. I reminded of this one time when I read that Jack Layton said he wouldn't be opposed to Private Health Care, if it could be ensured that no public money was spent on it. Now call me old fashioned, but shouldn't we be more worried about saving lives, then saving public health care. I mean really, who here would refuse to give money to a private individual to save a life, but then be more than willing to give more money to a public official just to get someone on a waitinglist. I more worried about human life than union towel washers. When the best systems in the world are able to incorporate the universality of the Canadian system with out the huge waiting lists, and lower costs...I think they might be on to something. Tommy Douglas, campaigned for universal Health Care, so people would not be turned away because they did not have enough money. Less then half a century later the Canadian Health System is turning people away because it doesn't have enough money. We are still turning people away, people still are not getting the treatment they deserve, but we are protecting union jobs....well that isn't much comfort to those who can't get timely treatment. I think it is time for people to recognize that it was and should still be universal Health, not union health.

Not true. Alberta produces more greenhouse gases than Ontario (despite it's much smaller population). This is largely due to the oil patch.I find this rather hard to believe. Not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see evidence. The link above implies that Alberta is the province which emits the most greenhouse gases (the CBC implied such in its reports). That's wrong however. The report only includes "large industrial facilities" or about one-third of Canada's entire GHG emissions. The rest of the emissions (two-thirds) are from everything else and probably follow the population. Since Ontario has the bulk of Canada's population (and almost three times Alberta's population), I'd say off hand that Ontario is the largest single emitter of GHGs. Well when it comes to total greenhouse gas emmissions these were the statistics I could dig up for provinces. Unfortuantely they are from 1998, so they might have changed. Canada 692 MT Alberta 201 MT Ontario 198 MT Quebec 90 MT B.C & Territories 65 MT Saskatchewan 60 MT Atlantic Canada 53 MT Manitoba 22 MT

Well it certainly shouldn't have been about highlighting where they went wrong. Instead it should have been changing where they went wrong and inserting new ideas and a new party. The liberals really didn't do that. I was personally disappointed because I wanted to see the emergence of a new Liberal party. Instead I just got the new old liberal party. I felt like for the most part I spent my time watching a conventiion of used car sales men and when it was all over they were trying to sell me the same car I brought in for an upgrade. I don't wan't Chretien, I don't want Martin. I wanted new ideas for the economic resurgence and environemental preservation of Canada. Instead I felt like I ended up getting old ideas of economic regression and evinromental promises. Hopefully that changes, but there was so much lost potential it was sad. Unfortunately recent polls seems to suggest Canadians may be willing to reward the same old, same old. I want something new. Unfortunately I don't see this from any party in particular.

In all honesty I think Chretiens "it" was a weak opposition. Alot of people say a great person is made by a great enemy/competitor and he had none. Chretien's speech shows exactly why he won majority after majority, because 9 times out of ten, chretien can beat his imaginary friend in a debate. If there was a legitimate, national alternative, with a good leader...Chretien wouldn't have gotten the majorities he did. He was able to pull it off, because he could brag about everything people thought he was doing. A good national opposition could have called him out on it. The Reform were a legitimate western opposition to Chretien and they destroyed him The Bloc were a legitimate Quebec opposition to Chretien and they defeated him The Tories still maintained some legitimacy in Atlantic Canada in 97 the tories did better then Chretien, and in 00 Chretien did better then Tories...certainly not an epic victory. Chretien won in areas where he had no opposition, with Ontario voters and Quebec Federalist Voters....outside of those two groups he had very little. Chretien was succesfully defeated or staved off in every region of the country where there was opposition. That is not the makings of a great leader. Because where there was opposition, calling him out and challanging him, he did poorly. His speech is classic Chretien, in that its alot of hot air and no one around to dump a bucket of ice water on it, so he gets away with it.

I want to specify a few things because it appears a few people have ministerpreted my post. I want to stress tha tI am not suggesting that the Conservatives were the ones responsible for Rae's defeat, I also want to stress that I was not really trying to paint this as a moral Issue, I even said this is not a moral issue it is a stupidity Issue. Putting asside morals, there is no logical justification for bragging about what they did, other then expansion of the ego. In the past Canadians have been a little leary of the percieved conservative ego. I am not trying to say the Liberals don't have one either, that was not my point. My point was purely from a strategic sense it is bad news. And if you, as most conservatives do, believe th emedia is on a biased witch hunt to destroy the party, what in the hell were they thinking.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...202?hub=QPeriod Okay so I was reading that article in which jubuilant Conservative Strategists brag about how the helped defeat Bob Rae. So well you gotta ask what do they want? A button? Maybe one of those thongs? While tampering in other parties nomination processes is a well known secret it is much like gays in the millitary "don't ask, don't tell." The truth is there is no advantage to admitting it, does it score pollitical points? Does it get you positive press? Does it make your opponents look bad? Well, no and for the most part the Liberals don't need any help looking bad. The Conservatives stregnth however is in looking good and this doesn't help that image. Unfortunately when people talk about purposefully fabricating memo's, bragging about making funny little buttons, and the joy they got seeing people wear them, and finally how afraid they were that a candidate would win. It makes the party look bad, even if they did it, why admit it? There is absolutely nothing to gain by saying, Bob Rae made us piss our pants in fear, so we developed this cunning plan, this is what we did.... In then end its all about self gratification, in which case they shoulda stuck to masturbation. Same level of well known secret, probabley easier, cheaper, more enjoyable, and less harmfull. Its just a matter of using your brain, if saying something is not going to improve your parties chances why say it? Given that I believe this tampering happens amongst all parties I do not believe that this is a moral issue. It is a stupidity Issue. And it is better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. They should have just shut up. The only pro to admitting this is an enlarged head and the downside is more mud on the conservative image. Now the party is left hoping the comments are ignored and not played up by what Conservatives call a Biased media. Hint If you believe the media is blatantly biased, why would you tell them about the skeletons in your closet? It would have been better to shut up. If you want Canadians to continue to view liberals as evil bastards don't go out of your way to paint them as victims and yourself as the bastard. Now I am left sitting asking myself just how intelligent are these fools, maybe Bob Rae was right, the Vegetables will have steak too...there cannot be to much higher thought going up there.

Which ever one Alberta Supports is the undemocratic one -------------------------- Anyways its a party leadership race, not a provincial election...it just so happens that the party leader will become Premier. You really aren't even being charged to vote, you are being charged to join the party, becuase only party members can elect a leader of a party...very complex I really don't see the issue.

So then is Stelmach benifieting from the endorsement of other dropped candidates because he was a distant third in the last ballot wasn't he, maybe today is just the day for come from behind compromise candidates.

The Liberals certainly do have a disasterous record when it comes to the environment, even their Project Green initiative was sseen as being largely a dud. But in the same sense Dion didn't become environment minister until 2004. So I would like to see what kind of policies he comes up with, but both Liberals and conservatives have been dissapointing when it comes to their leadership on the environment. But on the otherhand, Dion technically has the green card down becuase the Liberals signed a sheet of paper.

As far as personal choice is concerned my favourites would be Kennedy and Brison, Brison is so far out of it he isn't even a longshot he is a no shot and then Kennedy he would have a tough road ahead of him. With Dion jumping ahead of Kennedy into third, on the first ballot, I suppose he might be my third choice. However if it came down to it I would take Ignatief over Rae. I really don't like Rae as Prime Minister of this country. I think Rae is better suited to a role of a critical force, a cow prod from the left so to speak. But not someone to actually be the one in control. I don't see Rae offering new Ideas to promote a new and better Canada, or a new and better business environemnt. As time wore on during the liberal dynasty it really seemed like they had run out of fresh ideas, and were just rehashing the old ideas. Which is why people like Kennedy and Brison hold a larger appeal to me. I am a little leary of Dion, in that he has been labeld as the safe choice, the typical liberal. Unfortunately I was cooking dinner and didn't get to see Dion's speech, but I would have liked to see if he could bust out of that typical liberal typcast given to him...I haven't seen or heard much of him during this campaign.

Listen I am not a Liberal critic, on the issue of the environment, I crisize everyone...both the lazy and the unreasonable. You can tell me about all these plans the liberals had, but you know what they say about even the best laid plans. Let me ask you about results. Because, I meet people who have plans. I have a friend who is over weight he always talks about comming to the gym with me, he always makes these plans to loose weight, every summer he is going to get a six pack, it never happens. So forgive me, for my cyncism, but I put actions, I put results, over promises. Hell, how many people agree to love and to cherish until death...only to get a divorce after six months, and you want me to take a damn sheet of paper as reality, I don't think so. The results are clear....While the Liberals were in power our green house gas emmissions increased more then 30%, and almost 40% above what is are current Kyoto protocol goals. I appologize the Liberals didn't do nothing they allowed it to get worse. I don't think the conservatives are doing much either, I would certainly approve of a more agressive clean air act. And I have stated this fact throughout the thread. What I wanted people to take out of my post were two key questions, two key questions that most environmentalists refuse to fully answer or sometimes even acknowledge. 1. Is it actually possible in the next five years for Canada to reduce green house gase emmissions by 40% with out atleast partially paralizing this country and people? ** If the Answer is yes, tell me how on Gods no longer green earth do you plan on doing this? 2. Who do we blame for this inability? The environmentalists and the article blame a party that has not even been in power for a year. I blame the party that has been in power for the past decade, is that not the rational thing to do? ------------------ As an asside I believe we can blame the conservatives for not doing enough, certainly that is fair, but I do not believe it is fair to blame the conservatives for being un-able to do something that is not possible. Could the conservatives do more? Yes. But, can they do what extreme environmentalist groups are calling on them to do? I don't believe that is possible. and that leaves us all in an unhappy scenario. The Conservatives don't do enough The Liberals, they sat back and allowed this problem to get out of hand, now they say they will do the impossible The NDP and the Bloc also say they will do the impossible, thats nothing new. So why is it unreasonable to ask for a party to stand up and say we will do what Canada can be reasonable expected to do, and recognize what it is that is reasonabley expected.

I agree, kindly point me to where I recomended we do so. I agree, now please show me the party that has this formulated into a plan or policy on their website. The truth is, we don't have a party that admits we canot do 40% in 5-6 years and at the same tme is commited to doing what is realistically possible. We have parties that are commited to doing little, have done little, and are not living in reality. Non eof whihc are good policies. Squandered away a decade's worth of oppurtuities to do something. What makes you so sure they will suddenly change? Why is it Blah, to demand a realistic and effective policy? Thats wha tI am asking for, a realistic and effective policy. If any environmentally concerned party, stood up and said, no we cannot meet the Kyoto protocol requirements, but we can do this and we can realistical expect to accomplish this....I would be listening...until then such unattainable and unrealistic policies are nothing more then mental and belong in the state subsidized looney bin.

So you believe that it is realistically possible to reduce our pollution by 40% in five years and 1.5 months? Oh we could meet are kyoto protocol agreements, Give me alot of Ammo and I'll go kill 15 million people...but the question is what can we realistically be expected to accomplish in the next six years with out paralizying our Country. Well if all we need to do is try, by all means I will personally call up rick mercer for another round of bloody commercials. But see they are the ones who are presenting themselves as a bastion of environmental support, they too were worse failures, because they whitled away so much time. I am not here to support the conservatives environmental policy, I just want to see the environ back into the mental policies of the granola munchers.

That article makes Canadians look like fools, perhaps there are a few too many bacteria in that guys organic granola. The Truth is that it was under the Liberals that we signed, ratified, and pledged an oath of allegiance to the Kyoto protocal...and then sat on our ass proud of all that work we said we would do. But thats it, the Liberals were in power for many years, many inactive years. So do we blame the conservatives for admitting they won't meet the Kyoto protocol? Or should we blame the people who had a so much time and did so little putting us in the situation we now are in? If I asked an elephant to fly, and the elephant said he wasn't even going to try, is the elephant a fool? Of course not, the damn elephant can't fly and we shouldn't expect the elephant to fly. The fool is the one who expects an elephant to fly. The Liberals left us with an elephant on our shoulders, the signed and ratified a deal that recquires Canada to reduce pollution by almost 40% in about half a decade. The fools are the ones who think this is actually plausible or possible. Yes, it is unfortunate, it is very unfortunate that the Liberals wasted such an oppurtunity and now don't have the cajones to stand up and admit they fumbled the Kyoto protocol. So what do Canadians do? Do you support the party that takes action, although very weak? Do you support a party that just pays lip services to a protocol, because it helps them in the polls? Or do you support parties that actually would drag the country back into the stone age to achieve the goals of the Kyoto protocol? No option is great, I would prefer a better option, but right now I haven't really been presented with a realistic plan or alternative...although I wait patiently for one to present itself.