gc1765

That's great, but we need to get everyone on board. Those who pollute, whether it be CO2 or otherwise, should have to pay. Or, to put it another way, reward those who don't pollute. Same thing. Capitalism doesn't work when it comes to the environment, IMO.

I would have expected more dignity from a Prime Minister.

Typical conservative response...it's ok for the Conservatives to be unethical because at least they aren't as bad as the Liberals back when Chretien was in charge. I wonder how much longer conservatives will attempt to fall back on that one?

A lot of poor people (including me) take the bus. If you're worried about it being regressive, would you rather cut the lowest income bracket(s) to compensate (and leave the upper income brackets alone)?

Exactly. I agree.

Like I said, if Iran feels threatened, they will vote for a hard-line, anti-western government.

The majority wants reform, they proved that in 1997 and 2001 (like I said before). However, the more they feel threatened, the more they will want a hard-line, anti-western government.

Universal health care and the Charter are not imposed on us. We can vote for a Government to get rid of them anytime, although I"m pretty sure that greater than 50% of Canadians believe in them. Iranians can not vote to get rid of their supreme leader, even though the majority of the country does want reform.

By Iranians back in the 70's, when most Iranians today weren't even born or were too young to have any influence....and only because they disliked the Shah so much.

How many American troops died in the war from anthrax or mustard gas? How many died from other causes?

I thought you liked my idea of instantaneous runoffs? IOW, rank the candidates on one ballot, and eliminate them one by one. It might mean it would take more effort to actually count the votes, but compared to other systems other than FPTP, it is probably no worse in that regard.

IF you are correct, how do you even know who had foreknowledge? Maybe al-qaeda or people with connections to them wanted to make a profit?

Get rid of the penny Keep the five dollar bill Give the athletes $0 I wouldn't mind getting the $2 bill back as well...

I agree.

Iran is not really a democracy. The president has very little power, and the country is essentially run by the unelected Supreme Leader (Ayatollah) & Council of Guardians. 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.

Hopefully, scientists have learned their lesson about meddling with nature (look at cane toads). The important difference is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not meddling with nature in the same way as spreading carbon on ice. In fact, it's all about trying to STOP meddling with nature.

You are introducing so many strawmen in here, I don't know where to start.... Look at the original post that I quoted. I am arguing that voting to re-open SSM is a step away from separation of church and state. I am not arguing that they shouldn't vote on it (though I'd be happy to debate that separately), or that politicians shouldn't do what they say. Now, you do have a valid point about religous/non-religous people being on both sides of the debate...but you can't deny that most of the people who are opposed to SSM are opposed to it on religious grounds. In fact, I doubt there are many issues where you will get a perfectly clear-cut divide between religious and non-religious viewpoints.

Doesn't matter if it was an election promise or not, the point is that making such a promise and then holding a vote was a step away from separation of church and state, as I said before.

I'd say the vote to re-open the SSM issue was heading in that direction.

Now does anyone still believe that Harper makes his decisions based on principles, not polls? You might be right:

I don't think it necessarily makes you more qualified...but I think knowing about politics helps your chances of getting elected. Having experience running a campaign, even if you lost, will probably help you with the next election. I'm guessing that's why many people looking to get into politics (ie political science students, or anyone who is young and unexperienced) run, as well as what jdobbin said about things changing. Or, who knows, maybe those people are just really interested in politics. Why do we post messages on this internet board?

Probably to get experience. I looked at some of the profiles of people in ridings where the party had no chance...some of them were political science students. That is one good reason why people shouldn't be limited in the number of times they run and lose. Ok, I might be imagining the part about students running, but I thought I saw that somewhere. Anyways, you get my point.

Banning people from running is undemocratic. I'm all for encouraging women to become more interested in politics, and running for office, but preventing men from running is not the way to do it.

Here is a pretty good link: Link Alternatively, a high school chemistry textbook should explain it. I think that was what geoffrey was trying to say about how the global temperature can change the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, which is true. An increase in temperature means more water vapour. The only other thing I can think of that would affect this equilibrium would be a change in pressure, which isn't going to happen unless the earth's gravity changes. The point here is that watering your lawn will not contribute to global warming, but burning fossil fuels will.

Except that no consulting was done. And if it was legitimate, why did Mulroney deny it at first? I'm no legal expert, but if bribery is not illegal (which I'm pretty sure it is) it's certainly "immoral". Chretien is trying to sue the government over adscam. If he wins, would you say "it's all good".