gc1765

To be fair, Harper was never concerned about global warming, and now apparently he is. It's just that politicians tend to do what is popular. A few years ago, global warming was less of an issue. Now it's an important issue for many Canadians, which is why it is all of a sudden on the agenda of both the Liberals and CPC.

The other problem with left vs. right is that there is a huge difference between economic and social left/right (though if someone is left/right on one social issue they tend to be on most or all social issues. for example, how many people do you know are for abortion and SSM, but are also for the Iraq war?). But someone can easily be left wing on social issues and right wing on economic issues (and vice-versa, though this is probably more rare). I can find common ground with economic right-wingers, but on social issues I'm about as far left as you can go.

Probably because he feels like he personally has not accomplished that much selling 'unperfected operating systems' that are still not refined to this day. And he is basically bored with billions earned from what could be best described as 'borderline fraud' and simply wants to join the Hollywood crowd to somehow justify his material success. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/349309.stm If it wasn't the best system available for the best price, then Microsoft would not be making billions...that is the beauty of the free market. Also, my post was in regards to the opening post: "The left wing is comprised largely of people who never really created any enterpise" Despite how you may feel about Bill Gates/Microsoft, you can't deny that it's quite the enterprise. "I believe a lot of lefties adopt these empty platitudes without having to create, work or build anything" You can't possibly say that Bill Gates has not created, worked, or built anything.

Perhaps you can explain to me, using your theory, why Bill Gates is donating billions of dollars to eliminating diseases in Africa?

There are plenty of qualified people interested in going into politics. Besides, it's not like politicians have to be bright in order to come up with brilliant policies....they just have to know what is popular.

Actually, I agree with Who's Doing What. Wives are not as financially dependent on their husbands as they were in the past, before equality in the workplace. It used to be that women stayed at home, while men worked. Now, more women are working and in the case of a divorce would have no problem making their own living. Not that this is a bad thing....

Sounds good to me...

You forgot to include the time that teachers spend preparing and marking. Teachers are paid well, but not as well as you would have people believe. ...not to mention supervising during lunchtime, sports, extra-cirricular activities, parent teacher nights, etc...

I know you are new here, but try to avoid using so many quotes. Forum Rules: "TRIM YOUR REPLIES When replying to a post, quote only what is needed for context. No one is interested in reading the entire post again! Quoting the entire post wastes expensive bandwidth and is just plain annoying. After hitting the quote buttom, please remove those portions of the post that are unrelated to your response."

This is much better than cutting the GST, IMO.

In my opinion, yes.

I'm for stem cell research, I don't see a problem with it. For me, it comes down to choice. If a couple wants to donate an embryo, that should be their choice and their choice only. The argument that it is taking life doesn't work too well when these embryos end up being discarded anyhow. Besides, a sperm and an egg have the "potential" to form life, I wonder why it's not illegal to NOT have sex?

Here are my thoughts on the issue, which I have taken from This thread Iranians overwhelmingly want democracy, they proved that in 1997 and 2001. After being labelled part of the "axis of evil" and the U.S. invasion of another "axis of evil" partner, you can imagine Iranians are probably not going to want a pro-U.S. government. Instead, they chose a hardliner. This is why talking about war with Iran is such a bad idea, as it just encourages the Iranians to become defensive. When Iranians stop feeling threatened, perhaps they will re-enter the path to reform, and maybe even someday we will see a democratic, pro-western Iran.

Good point. Oh well, I'm just glad that more money is going to transit, hopefully Vancouver will get some too. I don't really care too much who's paying for it.

If you flip a coin once, and it lands on heads, don't assume that the coin will usually land on heads. If you flip a coin a hundred times and get 99 heads, it's pretty safe to say that the coin will usually land on heads.

I know what soot is, thanks. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough here. I will try to make this as simple as possible, I hope you can understand. Your article states that soot, rather than global warming, is responsible for bad weather. Where does it say that CO2 does not cause global warming? There, that's as clear as I can make it. If you still fail to answer my question, I can only assume you are just trolling, and will be ignored.

Huh? What are you talking about? I asked you a simple question and that's how you respond? I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself....how does this change the fact that CO2 causes global warming?

How does this change the fact that CO2 causes global warming?

That's a pretty good argument for increasing funding for transit...especially for those who can not even afford to drive to work (not to mention that transit is better for the environment).

Actually, it will give third/fourth etc. parties a better chance at getting elected, since people won't have to worry about "wasting" their vote voting for the green party for example. It doesn't matter whether you vote for the person or the party. You could just rank your favourite parties in order. Actually, the nice thing about this system is you could potentially have more than one candidate from each party running. That way, the electorate can have a say in the person running for a particular party, rather than that person being chose only by party members.

"An analysis of provinces and territories reveals four in particular -- Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick -- have seen their emissions rise astronomically. Saskatchewan has experienced the greatest percentage growth: a 61.7-per-cent increase since 1990." Link

Not to mention the severe threat we face from lightning.... (I wish the smileys were still working so I could make the sarcasm as obvious as possible).

Where did you get that idea??? Care to elaborate? I do agree with the overall theme of your post though. People don't care how "rich" they are, they only care how rich they are compared to others. I guess humans are competitive by nature.

If this was the case, why don't dealers cut down to $8 per gram right now? The reason is that because selling weed is a risky activity, dealers need to have a huge profit margin in order for it to be worth the risk. If dealers were willing to take this risk for less money, they would already be selling it at $8 per gram. Even if dealers cut their prices, they could never cut them as low as the government. IOW they can never compete with the government and still make a profit, and their profit would have to be much higher to justify the risk. Let's pretend it costs $2 per gram to actually produce the weed. The other $8 is the profit needed to justify a risky activity, otherwise everyone would be selling weed if they could make that much money without risk. The government has no such risk, so it doesn't matter if their profits are less. If the price of weed was $2.50 per gram, do you think dealers would risk getting caught to make a measly $0.50 on each gram? What if it was $2.25 or $2.10...there is no way dealers would be selling at that price. Meanwhile, the government can afford to make a lower profit margin. And that's not even taking into consideration that the government could almost certainly produce weed at a much lower cost (economy of scale, as well as any costs associated with trying not to get caught). Probably. I don't see a problem with that though. If people want to smoke weed now, they can. The only increase in usage will be from law-abiding citizens who up until now avoided breaking the law. It's probably a lot safer for people to smoke pot than it is for them to drink.

Or another way of looking at it...let's say that the government legalizes and sells weed, but for some reason people keep buying from dealers anyways, then we would be in exactly the same situation we are in right now, no better, no worse. So what's the big deal? At least people will have the choice if they want to buy legal weed from the government, or if they want to continue to buy weed on the black market as they have always done. Oh, and I forgot to mention, I was in amsterdamn a while back and the prices were even higher than they are here in Vancouver.