gerryhatrick

You haven't shown that it hasn't increased. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...4/09/do0907.xml Shoggoth, you called it right! Bob Carter. Good grief. B.Max, why do you deny the reality of Global Warming? Is there some financial concern to you, or do you find it unbelievable and overwhelming?

That is absolute nonsense. I attended a peace rally in 2005 at which I saw MANY signs and heard many chants about getting out of Afghanistan. Don't pretend to know things you clearly do not know.

You haven't shown that it hasn't increased. My bet is you can expect a telegraph article by Bob Carter to be linked to now...That article was what started this widespread myth that temperature hasn't increased since 1998 Bob Carter, yes indeed. A die-hard liar/denier paid for by oil&gas. http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/27/1/ You probably called it.

From environics: ......... Nov. .. Oct. .. Jun. Con .. 33% 37% 39% Lib.... 32% 28% 25% http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/13741 My belief is that this is related to the obfuscation by the Conservatives on the issue of Global Warming. Regardless of what the Liberals did or didn't do in the past (which seems to be the Conservative answer to everything) the public is just recently sensing the real truth and urgency of Global Warming. It's finally broken through the lies that companies like Exxon has spent millions on. So NOW the question is what will our leadership do and Canadians look at what's happening and they see our leadership being condemned for turning it's back on international agreements. Canadians want to keep our Kyoto targets, that is a fact.

Clinton was just here. Why not an American? You have something against Americans? Remember Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster from America? He met with the Conservatives. Even had a private meeting with Harper. Very interesting story, see my sig. Dean represents victory. He initiated some very effective strategies which can be credited in the Democratic thumpin' of the Conservatives. And he's a very good speaker.

How is Jack Layton using the soldiers? Is he threatening them with non-support, as Harper is continuously doing?

oooohhh nice rant Glad you liked it. Print it off and tack it to your fridge so you will never forget it.

Probably, we seem to have a proliferation of threads on identical topics. If either of you beleive there's a topic on this already do point it out to myself in PM or the mod. Otherwise, stay on topic. thx.

And btw, every global warming piece I've posted has had a connection to Federal Politics in Canada. Do we really want to open the doors of this area of the forum to any and all Global Warming articles? If so, I know a few - maybe 20 or so - which are much more recent and would put this piece of hit&run garbage to absolute shame.

I'm shocked too. I'm shocked that anyone would post an 8 year old article and pretend that it's news, or that it hasn't been completely debunked. No lifeline is too short or thin for those who are unable or unwilling to accept the reality of Global Warming due to the overwhelming nature of it and the fear it causes in them.

That is the kookiest thing I've heard in a very long time. Can I ask, are you a heterosexual?

Uh, yeah. Sure.

Whatever. Contemptible, reprehensible, pitiful, disgusting, ignoble, abhorrent, abominable, detestable, loathsome, odious, repugnant, repulsive; disgraceful, dishonorable, shameful; base, ignoble, low, mean; shabby, sordid, squalid, vile; cowardly, craven, dastardly. take your pick.

Given that this is remembrance day, and that Stephen Harper just yesterday invoked this day in another example of his cynical usage of our troops, this topic deserves a kick. Here was Harper in the House yesterday: It's time for PM Harper to defend and argue this mission WITHOUT dangling the support of our brave troops out like a poker chip.

No, I am supporting the fact that Dean was an important player in the recent Democratic victory. Do you disagree with that? There are several reasons given in the Guardian article which you're unwilling to read. Now here's another reason provided by USA Today.

USA Today "winners and losers" Howard Dean: winner! http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...rs-losers_x.htm

I am not required to answer your questions, just as you are not required to read a legitimate article and respond to it in an intelligent fashion. I understand your reaction to the article. I'm sure it opens your eyes on how many see Dean. Instead of attacking The Guardian, why not attack The Labour Party? They are the ones inviting him. They are the ones who consider him to have been a architect of the Democrat victory.

I wouldn't call these people squatters anyway. And I see nobody in either story (other than a title writer) calling them such. And it's interesting that all the people interviewed are very unhappy being cramped into their "luxury" hotel.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/stor...=rss&feed=1

I don't. I would like to use a few more choice ones, but I'd be followed around for a month being reminded about it! It is truely despicable to use the troops in this fashion. He has blatently done it in the past: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....0&hl=harper The troops have the support of the vast majority of Canadians. To suggest the troops lose support when the mission loses support IS despicable.

The difference is that being in bed with the Bush Republicans is something to be concerned about, while being in bed with the newly elected Democrats has not been demonstrated assuch. What's the difference? Please gerry, besides partisan rhetoric, what really is the difference? If the Chairman of the Republican party spoke here, all hell would break lose in the media. Admit it, it's just a partisan difference and the Liberals are being very cozy with the Dems down south. Oh, I'll freely admit that. The CPC would never have the Chairman of the Republican party speak here. Why not? Uh, lessee.....Iraq? Or how about...gay marriage? Or.....abortion? Wait, I got the best of them all ---> BUSH! Canadians, by a wide margin, believe Bush has made the world a more dangerous place. That's not "partisan rhetoric" G, it's reality.

I never saw that at the time, but only months later. After I saw it I was amazed that such a trivial thing had sunk his candidacy -- in retrospect it seemed like the media conspired to sabotage him. In reality the "Dean Scream" had an effect on his chances in the primary. Since he became Chairman of the DNC he's done a really good job. Anyone who says he didn't play an important part in the elections doesn't understand US politics. It will be interesting to hear him up here.

what hypocrisy?

Geoffrey you're usually such a rational guy. You let your emotions get the better of you this time.

The difference is that being in bed with the Bush Republicans is something to be concerned about, while being in bed with the newly elected Democrats has not been demonstrated assuch.