Jump to content

gunrutz

Member
  • Posts

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gunrutz

  1. Careful now, it's almost as if you expect people to understand that reality is often different from what you read in books, most of us, with some sort of realistic outlook can accept that injustices occur, and that historically western society may be responsible for some of them, however, given that the world is not and will never be fair, and that we have always competed between cultures and nations, i would prefer to be on top rather than the bottom. Most of us would likely agree, and in that same vein, most of us would agree that killing our civilians is no more appropriate to us than us killing theirs is to them, we don't have to understand it beyond that we value our lives more than we value thiers, this is not abnormal, or evil, it is human. In a more perfect world that would not be, but that world doesn't exist, perhaps someday, but in the mean time if it comes down to my life, or my countrymen, i choose ours. I don't need to know what specific grievance any of them might have, they have been out competed, some day it may happen to us.
  2. The outrage industry strikes again. When you run around constantly mad at our government and you are constantly looking for an avenue to express that outrage, you will eventually, and in some cases often, show your outrage over nothing issues like this, and you will look quite silly indeed. Btw, how do you calculate how many people die from global warming, how exactly do you do that and what social justice organizations are responsible for providing the data? Many more people have died in various famines around the world in my lifetime, but then of course that was all global warming too, or maybe it was imperialism, capitolism, etc etc etc. Im not sure if most of you know that the ultimate end of your view points is communism. It's always there lurking under the surface along with so many unused humanities degrees.
  3. When you need to infer that men who buy firearms are coming up short in the wedding tackle department you and anyone who buys in to it isn't worth even speaking to. It's such a pathetic veiw point, there are some very good reasons to argue for gun control, but clearly there aren't enough actual, factual reasons when you need to push the argument to those and other lows. My god, i drive a truck too, i must have negative penis. I guess It's those prius driving gun hating vegans that are carrying the heavy artillery.
  4. Isn't it funny how socialists get so self righteous about their money their personal value, while telling everyone else they need to be taxed more. You would think that being such an idealist they would be the first to volunteer to be paid less or at least give more of that money back so it can be spent on more social, forward thinking, communistical programs. In any case, it is only this phony, unreal system setup by people who for the most part could only talk, or think (about how the world should be more the way they want it) for a living, while never actually knowing what it is like to work, really work, that could allow someone with your attitude to ever be paid. You would clearly never add any true value to our society, beyond perpetuating the self serving, and paid for by people who actually produce something real, system within which you exist. I have hope that teachers (allegedly) like you (doubtful you are one at all) are few, my experience with my own children are somewhat reassuring on that front.
  5. SUV's? Where did that come from. Taxes? Already pay those. Whack jobs? You mean those people who pay taxes and think they pay enough of them? Backwards? So communism is now forward thinking? It is the only end to the road you want us to be on. Here's an idea, since everyone benefits from our infrastructure, that includes those who don't drive, how about everyone pays for maintaining the roads, we could move the money from some social programs that don't benefit everyone, into ones that do, the roads for example.
  6. Your obvious fear of anything outside of what you think the world should be is really very sad. I don't watch fox news, i don't watch sun news, but that does not mean that all of the people, opinions, or ideologies expressed on those networks are wrong, o i know, you can't begin to imagine how or why anyone could not see the world the way you do, and because of that you don't think anyone should be allowed to be even exposed to these other thoughts, but that is an extremeist point of view. I have seen commentary from some of the bigger ames on the sun network that i agree with, things that i don't see how any intelligent person wouldn't agree with, but despite my inability to understand the failings of others i do not feel obligated to limit their option to watch something that more suits their way of looking at the world. It is diffcicult for many Canadians to see the world outside the framework formed by the 1970's liberals, as if that point of view was the final word, you were likely raised in that environment so it's easy to see how you could be stuck in that mindset. But, here's a shocker, your beliefs aren't always the right beliefs, whatever that means, nor are mine for that matter, and so long as sun news isn't pushing hate propaganda, and no, actually reporting things like native spending scandals, or asking, is that really a hunger strike, isnt that, then the network shouldn't be some sort of pyre that you need to set to flames. It's almost as if it's existence, bothers you. In a how dare they not tell me what i want to hear sort of way, again, very sad.
  7. Unhuh, it might also be that realists don't think the world will voluntarily march toward a future where we don't burn a lot of fossil fuel, the world won't willingly give up the fuel that almost completely on its own allows us to live the way we do. Of course if there was an actual real alternative available now i think people could be convinced, but no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish it to be so, it isn't. Wait, is there some super secret energy technology that will completely replace, or very nearly so all of our current usage and allow the world to get off oil?...bring it on. But until then what should we do, you come across as the type of person who feels we, particularly the west, should be forced away from carbon, even if that means our standard of living is drastically changed (improved no doubt in your mind), after all some people around the world don't have electricity and are perfectly happy, they have virtually no carbon foot print, they also live in huts, but hey that's they way we should all live right, it isn't fair to them that we are successful. You really appear to be the type who thinks some version of communism, perhaps an eco communism political philisophy should be imposed upon us, it's whats best for us and gaia after all. Or we could accept that global warming, if it is being caused by us, will almost certainly continue. We could turn off all the lights in this country and have no appreciable effect on global CO2, it isnt going to happen, so prepare for the future, don't deny the inevitability of it at least not until something better comes along. Personally i don't care what kind of left wing angst leads people to have pollyanna opinions like yours, you know, people who prostest against oil projects over environmental concerns when the world is already awash in oil, in its transport and refining. Tankers on the east coast.., o my no we cant have them on the west, pipelines across the country..., o my no we can't have new pipelines in the country...it's always the same stupidity, it's about an agenda, not about the reality. Of course the majority, the vast majority, don't think like you do. Sure, that attitude gets us into some trouble, but it also built the world we live in, the same world that most everyone wants to live in or create for themselves, because it's better for incividuals to live comfortably and longer, (but this isn't about individuals right comrade?). So yes, lets try to make the future better, but lets not pretend that masive improvements in the standard of living of some nations isn't driving huge increases in CO2 production, and it isn't going to stop, at least not until the magic new energy source is found or a significant improvement on current green tech is made. So whats your choice then, to accept the reality, that even if modern nations made huge cutbacks that would cripple our societies developing nations would overcome our reductions with increases of thier own and of course people here would not go along with this. Or accept that at least in the near future CO2 will continue to rise and we should prepare for the possible consequences. Or, we go all the way and force the west to turn off the lights while allowing those other poor people (its our fault they are poor anyway) to have their time to develop and pollute like we did, perhaps we could force the west to do this at the point of a green bayonet. Thankfully for most of us, reality is a better option, of course there will be consequences, but they are the only consequences that could ever realistically be.
  8. Yes, you clearly have us all figured out, i wonder sometimes, if this so far 0.6 degree warming occured in the absence of the premise of global warming would any of you be so equally concerned about the poor planet, or would it be a case of it's only 0.6 degrees, we will just have to live with it if it gets worse. Heaven forbid we go through a natural ice age cycle again, of course we will, and most of society will perish, but then again it seems that a lot of you wouldn't mind that at all, it would of course help the poor planet, and we wouldn't have to worry about our activities warming the place by a couple of degrees possibly resulting in significant impact on our societies. Of course that impact pales in comparison to those of 100 percent proven natural cycles, but that isn't terribly important when considering the point of view of an ecofetishist, reality has little bearing on that perspective. As an aside, and yes weather is not climate, but its been another cold winter in the arctic, colder than some a few years ago, Alaska saw averages in January several degrees below normal, of course no one talks about that since it doesn't fit the narrative, they also got record snow falls while they were recieving colder temperatures, which also doesn't fit the preferred narrative. The sea ice recovery also set records in the arctic, hopefully there will be some recovery overall and the lower temps continue, so far there seems to be a momentum in ice loss that a couple years of colder temps can't overcome. That might take a very long time, if it happens at all, it is getting warmer, but a colder, whiter arctic would be a good help to at least mitigate that. Then again, what if the next ice age is starting? What should we do ecobots? How do we fix something we barely understand and can't control, and how panicked will you be when the temp drops to below zero year round? Perhaps not at all, i mean, its ok when nature is killing us, or greatly limiting our lives, if we do relatively small damage that results in relatively small damage to our societies, that is somehow a huge problem. Misanthropists?
  9. And the judges who decided to allow treaty rights to exist without limitation in the situation i was refering to, in the modern era, made that decision when? You can do better. Or perhaps not.
  10. So there is this place, with a bunch of petroleum mixed in with the soil, and for thousands, perhaps millions of years, rains fell from the sky, lakes formed on the surface and rivers flowed through the land. Meanwhile, in the present, people decided to pull the soil out of the gound and use it for things, other people, the stupids, don't seem to understand that before anyone touched this soil 'contaminants', those organic compounds that make up petroleum, were already being moved around, into the lakes and rivers. In some places you can see petroleum on the banks of these lakes and rviers no where near any current mining sites, this would be because the banks that line these lakes and rivers and made up of bitumen, raw petroleum sits on the banks, in fact it is the banks of some of these lakes and rivers. But of course, none of the alleged contamination, or sickness, could have anything to do with the completely natural occurence of this petroluem and happening to live on or downstream from it, and no doubt, for those people who get sick becuase of radon in their homes the fault clearly lies with the guy who dug the foundation.
  11. You mean liberal judges apointed by liberals in our liberal justice systme made a typically paternalisticly liberal decision? Say it ain't so. This is why we have situations where native people are allowed to carry on a traditional fishery without any limits or government oversight while using power boats and gill nets, equipment they wouldn't have without us, and then sell that comerically, it's killing some of our inland lakes, but no one cares, and everyone is afraid to stand up to them and the BULLSHIT liberal thinking that allows it. But hey, those people who live a modern life liek us, subject to the same vices of want and greed, they would never over fish, becuase they care too much for the land, a bullshit lie and the very essence of paternalism.
  12. Well certainly there could be no practical use in being able to multiply two small numbers without having to break out your iphone, golly gee the world has changed so much, nobody has to count any more, lol, troll.
  13. This is hilarious, well trolled, i have kids in school, and it wasn't very long ago that they learned those multiplication tables. Strangely enough, neither of them have any subjects either titled or closely related to social justice or the environment. Well trolled indeed.
  14. Ahh because the motives matter, and becuase of the irrational hatred many people have for a governemnt that has been no worse, and perhaps no better than many we have had before, but then this is a conservative, western based party, and the vast majority of the complaints against it are either unproven or can be rationally explained. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree, but remeber all of those hot button issues that were part of the dreaded, darth vader-imperial empire like secret agenda that the liberals used against the conservatives, well, none of them have actually happened.
  15. I'll believe in drug control when drugs are hard to come by, clearly, we can't prevent drug use, money would be better spent regulating, legalizing, and helping those who can't control their usage, i believe that the vast majority of those people are already addicted. A two tiered aproach to soft and hard drugs is probably the best way to go, yes some types of marijuana have been made stronger, but then, whisky is stronger than beer, not everyone drinks whisky. For the record, the only drug i use is alcohol, but not because i have an irrational fear of marijauna.
  16. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/04/jonathan-kay-some-question-for-carolyn-bennett-and-my-other-pro-choice-critics/ "If one truly does believe Answer #1 — and many of my more fiery letter-writers and Twitter critics clearly do — then I’m not sure any form of rational debate is possible. Indeed, it is a wonder that these people — who apparently conceive of our government as a cabal of literally sociopathic woman-haters, and who think that Canada is some sort of Taliban-state in the making — haven’t yet fled the country. I would urge these folks to move to France or Sweden (though, if they do, they will find themselves dealing with gestational limits on on-demand abortion of 18 and 12 weeks respectively. Sorry)." Yes.
  17. So if we need to take an ill persons gun away, which i admit would be good in a perfect world, do we take away anything and everything else they could use as a weapon? That mentally ill individual who decapitated a stranger on a bus didn't do it with a gun. But of course the main problem here is that some value the lives of indiviuals murdered all at once more than those killed one at a time, it isn't logical, but then neither are most of the people on the wrong side of this issue. Reasonable limits, i think Canadian laws are good mostly good, but at some point you have to accept that it is not ever going to be possible to prevent another mass shooting, just as our gun registry did nothing for Dawson college, no that it ever could have. But again and for the thousandth time a lot of people who argue for limits on this or bans of that would happily see all firearms banned or would at least be indifferent, so this bias obviously clouds judgement and while arguments are made within a cloak of civility the extrmeme beliefs are never far below the surface and concerns about mental health issues is just an example. It's a lever to open the door on the bigger argument of 'why does anyone need a gun', i would have no problem having stricter enforcement and regualtion concerning gun owners and mental health issues, but I also have no doubt that there are not an enormous number of people who are being killed by mentally ill gun owners, at least no more than are being stabbed, or bludgeoned, or strangled, or decapitated by them. O but it's the power of the gun, and o my he might kill more than one person, or several people, yep, but for everyone of those there are many, many more single homicides that are just as important, that aren't perpetrated with a scary black gun, and that few people ever get excited about. It is wrong measure the value of an individuals life by the manner in which it was taken or by the number of others it was taken with, yet judging by the reactions you see many people are doing just that. If a serial killer shoots one person a day for a month do we focus on the serial killer or the gun? If he strangles them? Stabs them? Do we still blame the tool?
  18. So the middle ground on this issue between the nuts on the right who want to ban it period, and the nuts on the left who don"t believe a child exists until it"s out of the womb is the idea that a child doesn't exist until it's out of the womb unless it's in the process of being aborted, but it's still a fetus. Thats compromise for the hardcore. I am pro choice, but it bothers even pro choice people that there are no laws governing the practice. Combine that with the hardcore on the left who truly believe that even at 8 months it's nobodies business but the mothers what happens to that perfectly viable human being and it's difficult to determine who the bigger nuts are. When you hear feminists discuss children in terms of them being parasites you will know you have found the true nuts.
  19. It is not racist to disagree with someone. but sure, some people are racist, and make racist comments, but most don't, those that do only muddy the waters, they do not negate the arguments, the calls of racism from some of the INM gang about virtually any criticism of the movement or native people is just as bad. Stop infantilizing these people and let them face the consequences of their actions, good or bad.
  20. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/12/separate-and-equal-nations-the-academic-theory-behind-idle-no-more/ I think this is a good over view of whats really going on, this isn't about the red herring that is bill c45, that is just the excuse, this is an ideolgical fight.
  21. Well when they are finished mining they can back fill the hole with all of her 'muisic'.
  22. So your predicting the future now? Really, how is it possible to have any sort of reasonable dialogue with someone who thinks like that, i know, those of us who live in the real world want to destroy the environemnt for the sake of big oil, i know. If at some time the governements of all the provinces and the feds remove all of the environmental protection laws, such as the big lie i've read several times from the Idle gang about how there will be no need for impact assesments and companies can come on to anyone's land and drill etc, if that happens i'll be with you. This is the lie that at least some of them are being told, and clearly you don't mind passing it along and using these people to further your aims and beliefs.
  23. There has been some back tracking lately, including within the leaked new ipcc report, which is to be expected since temperatures havent changed much at all for the last couple decades, that isn't say global warming isn't occuring or that it isn't our fault, it still could be, but there are still a lot of variables we don't fully understand. What bothers me is the outright lies about how many more storms we have, or about the super storms like Sandy, its just bs, sandy was a moderate tropical storm that happened to hit a low lying heavily populated area where people built homes bascially at sea level, that area has been hit by stoms in the past, this is not something new. NOAA's own statistics show that there is no trend in the number or intensity of hurricaines, you would think that people who claim to be all about science would be able to objectively read a graph. http://www.ncdc.noaa...l-and-major.gif How about tornado's http://www1.ncdc.noa...lim/EF3-EF5.png No upward trend there either, in fact it was worse 60 years ago, and that is with MUCH better detection today, I don't know if they count Tornados seen on radar but you can often pick them out on radar without needing reports on the ground. So i dont care if you choose to believe the sky is falling, i don't deny the possibility of agw, but the next time you hear someone claim that a weather event is worse because of agw, or we are getting more extreme weather because of agw, or that a trpoical storm hit New York because of agw, please remember that the records and the science contradict your opinion. If your opinion is not based in science than what is it? A religion? Btw, i grew up in the east and people generally don't build their homes on the sea shore, they build on higher ground, my parents home is over 100 years old and has had withstood many storms that would make sandy look like an average windy day. Google Les Suetes if you want to see what wind looks like, if you build your home out of match sticks and place it on the beach in an area that ocaisonally gets hit by a hurricane..well, you shouldn't. The fact that they got away with it for so long only proves how rare it is.
  24. Well you could say compare it to the reporting done on sun news which when it was only them doing it they were maligned as racists and what not, all the while the cbc was telling us how weak she was getting and how serious this was, of course she hadnt lost an ounce of weight at that time, and now it turns out that hey, sun news had it pretty much right all along. But the cbc still isnt asking hard questions, they have been embarrassed by all of this and they still won't go to attawapiskat and talk to people, like global tried to do, though the chief had her police kick them out. There is no way you could look at the cbc's coverage crtically and not see bias, the national post had an article recently about a CBC story from last year, it showed that while now they ask for more donations the band didn't bother to open the care packages they were sent during the last crisis, that was a cbc report. Now you would think one could easily connect those dots and say hey, but what about last time, but no, the cbc didn't replay that report, and their moderators wouldn't let you even link to in the comments section. Yea, completely unbiased.
×
×
  • Create New...