gc1765

Yes it is. I did not say I would do "nothing" to prevent separation, as you have said. I would be willing to make small sacrifices, if necessary. War and the potential loss of lives, however, is not one sacrifice I am willing to make. Just because other countries are in civil war does not mean Canada should do the same. People murder eachother all the time, that does not mean that I would ever murder anyone else. By that same token, just because other countries are in civil war, does not mean that I want my country in civil war. It has nothing to do with a "special God given exemption", it is simply doing what I believe is best for Canadians. I think Canada is important. More importantly, I think Canadians are important. Therefore I would never want to see them losing their lives unless it was justified. Losing your life over the issue of separation is not, in my opinion, what I would consider justified. I don't know what I would do, it's something I would have to think about if such an event ever happened. If it came to a fight, I would stay neutral. I'm not so concerned over whether B.C. is considered part of Canada or not to justify risking my life over it.

I never said I would do nothing to prevent it, so that is a bit of a strawman. If there were other options to keep the country together, other than a civil war, then I'd be interested in hearing them. But, I am not prepared to go to war over the issue. It's not worth the loss of lives and millions (billions?) of dollars that would likely result. And just because civil wars were found hundreds or thousands of years ago, doesnt mean that is the best option today.

BC would only leave after Alberta, and even then it's not clear that they would actually separate. I live in B.C. and I've never met a single person who is openly for separation (though things could change if other provinces separated). But let's say that Albert did separate, follwed by B.C. etc...could you imagine Canada fighting a civil war with Alberta and B.C.? What if Quebec also left? A civil war on three fronts? I'm not in favour of separation, but I'd still rather see every province become it's own country rather than have all of the provinces fighting eachother.

Who else is likely to separate besides maybe Alberta? Again, I'd rather see them leave than go through a civil war.

If, Hypothetically, someone were caught smoking inside their home, should they be charged with child abuse/neglect/endangerment?

I wouldn't. I'd rather see Quebec leave than go through a civil war.

Well, not since the 1860's anyways.... Maybe what happened last time (civil war) has put a few people off the idea of separation.

Once again, the surprise is how well Bob Rae would do in Ontario compared to the other candidates. I would have thought that kennedy would be the one who would have had the most support in Ontario. Link

Fair enough. Some European countries are doing more than their share, the netherlands for example. France, and Germany is another story. Still, per capita, they are not that much less than the U.S....and again the U.S. was the one that was attacked.

If these numbers are accurate: Link ...then we have more troops per capita than the U.S....and they were the ones that were attacked. Maybe if they had never invaded Iraq they could commit more troops....

Spend the money building dikes around coastal cities. Cut back heavily on immigration since population growth is one of the biggest contributors to Canada's increases in emissions. That's fine for Canada. But I believe the original post I quoted was talking about global CO2 levels & global temperature. I'm curious whether that poster has any "real & viable" solutions on a global level.

Any ideas?

No, and no. Personally, I'd draw the line at none of the above. Then again, I don't work in the tourism industry This does bring up a whole different debate though...should the government pay for something that will increase tourism revenue? If so, what kind of return would be required? Would it be Ok to pay 5 million if it increased tourism by 100 million? 1 billion? 10 billion? etc. I can't say how the Outgames will increase tourism in the years to come, but apparently it's already increased tourism dollars by $100 million. Link Not sure what kind of money the Olympic games brings in. Assuming the same return on investment, perhaps $10 billion (100 times $100 million)??

Ok, let's say the olympics are 100 times better, the athletes are 100 times better and it brings in 100 times the tourists...it also costs 100 times the amount. The same could be said of the Outgames, just on a smaller scale. That hasn't stopped people on this forum from bashing them.

You don't have to be gay to participate in the Outgames. It's a matter of convention, not an actual rule. So, how does the $600 million do more good than the outgames? I see a waste of money either way, but one wastes $600 million while the other only wastes $5 million.

The games will only pay for the operating costs of the olympics. Things like building olympic sized arenas & venues are extra costs that are paid for by taxpayers. I don't see how having a bobsled track or an olympic sized skating oval will benefit Vancouver, unless of course they pay for themselves through rentals, but if that's the case why weren't they built before. Is a bobsled track really profitable? I dunno. As for tourism, yes the olympics will attract tourists, but so did the outgames, so I don't see much of a difference there Link

Personally, I'd be more concerned about the almost $600 million being spent on infrastructure for the 2010 Olympics. That sounds like a bigger waste of money than 5 million. Who cares if the atheltes are gay or not?

My mistake. I meant to quote B. Max, I don't know how that happened. I will edit my post.

Never said it showed the cause, just pointing out something that you can not conclude that global warming does not exist just because 1998 was an abnormally hot year, and that the trend is still one of warming. The data I provided is in dispute? I thought NASA was a pretty credible source, but if you have more credible data, I'd be interested in looking at it. If it's simply bad data, it's unlikely that it will give such an increase. Stastically, it would be just as likely to be skewed either way, but over a long period of time those bad data would average out and would not likely give the increase shown. But, perhaps you have proof that the data is flawed? Or better data for global surface temperature? If we are talking about global warming, I think it's only fair to use global data. If you want to argue that the U.S. is not warming, then based on this data I would tend to agree. However, if you want to argue that global warming does not exist, then you would have to use global data. This data shows that the lower troposphere is warming, but that the warming is not as dramatic as the warming on the surface of the earth. I dont' think there's any doubt that the global surface temperature is increasing. Whether or not the rest of the atmosphere is warming, and the reason for such a difference is another debate.

This probably has to do with the population density of Europe vs. Canada. Besides, the people who destroyed the environment in Europe are not the same people currently complaining about the environment (since they are likely long dead). I know that at least with the forestry industry, Europeans have some of the highest environmental standards. They won't buy our lumber unless it meets strict environmental regulations (don't have a source for that right now). Not sure about other industries though.

The temperature fluctuates. 1998 was an anomoly. The general trend still shows that the global temperature is increasing. Link

The ability to walk and talk is also genetic.

I don't think anybody has linked masturbation to genetics. But of course, even though homosexuality may be genetic in origin doesn't make it a "disease". Well, considering that about 99% of us humans masturbate, I think it's pretty safe to say that it's genetic

Should we consider anyone who masturbates as someone who has a "disease"? Masturbation doesn't lead to children either.

Those who are only slightly anti-littering, or are on the fence about littering might have their mind changed. Another way of thinking of this...does campaigning change people's mind? Does going around and speaking about how gay marriage is wrong change people's minds? If the answer is no, then Haggard's recent activities will probably have little effect. But, if the answer is no, why campaign in the first place? If the answer is yes, campaigning does make a difference, then yes this incident will change people's minds. Let's say you were slightly pro-gay marriage and because of Ted Haggard's campaigning about how it is wrong, you changed your mind and became anti-gay marriage. Then you found out that Haggard is a hypocrite, would you not change your mind back to being pro-gay marriage?