carepov

You are propagating the myth - all the historical data we have looked at shows that the federal budget is more poorly managed when a Republican President is in power. Perhaps you are right about new social spending by Democrats, but perhaps there is increased Defense spending under Republicans that more than offsets? Also, surely you would agree that the creation of the useless/wasteful Department of Homeland Security is a giant blotch on the Republican record!

Please be more specific. For example: -Golden Rice, should research be halted? -Is herbicide-resistant soy unsafe? -If Hungry-man TV dinners were found to be linked to obesity heart disease and cancer, should we ban them? Should we put warning labels on them? -Chocolate bars? -Pesticide X found on apples?

Indeed we agree on many things, who’da thunk it? Yes there are factors more important than the Presidential or Congressional party in power that affect deficits and debts; I will add war to your list. This guy did some interesting work on these issues: http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html Anyways, based on historical results, a Democratic President is not likely to be any worse than a Republican President in terms of fiscal management. Do you agree?

Please do not claim to speak for “We as consumers”. I agree with Wayward Son, on this issue and everything else he wrote on this thread (well done Wayward Son!): I don’t know. Good questions for another discussion. You did not understand my comment: GMOs are different because they have one or more advantage over a competitive product. Golden Rice, for example, is more nutritious than regular rice. You seem to be a fan of conspiracy theories, here’s one for you: 1. Anti-GMO academic put’s out a paper: “Chemical X in product Y possibly increases risk of Cancer Y in rats from 1/10,000,000 to 3/10,000,000, further study required” 2. A journalist pick up the story: “Frankenfoods linked to cancer – Study shows a 300% increase in risk” 3. Activists and politicians stand up for and protect the public from these evil conspiring corporations like Monsanto. All three groups feed off each other as publicity and funding escalates. I sympathize with the non-critical public, like yourself as “the best lies contain the most truth”. GostHacked, I along with others have tried to address your concerns about GMOs and modern agriculture. The problem is, it seems like you are not informed and you don’t even know what to be concerned about. I will ask you (and Manny and other anti-GMO, pro-“organic” people) again: What specific products do you think are unsafe?

I am opposed to mandatory labelling of GMO ingredients because it is an added cost (food prices will increase) and there is no benefit. First of all what Monsanto produces is as "natural" as many products, I think of humans as part of nature. What they make is different because of some or multiple benefit(s): safer, tastier, longer shelf-life, more nutritious, more efficient/cheaper to produce, less harmful to environment, etc...

GostHacked, What are you trying to say with your You Tube and other links? What is the "problem"? Perhaps you could specify one specific problem (chemical X in product Y causes Z in humans)? And what kind "solutions" should we consider that would not cause other larger problems?

Yes indeed, now we know better. Why is it then that the number of deaths caused by smoking is infinitely higher than deaths due to GMOs? Also, you seem to be ignoring the benefit side to the cost/benefit analysis. I generally support banning pesticides for residential use - there is no real benefit. What about the benefits of GMOs? In some cases: higher yields, less pesticide use, lower production costs, more nutritious, more affordable food... What about pesticide use on apples or other produce? How many children do not eat enough fresh produce because their parents find it too expensive? Yes, let's keep looking at the risks but they must be weighed against the benefits. By the way, you never answered my earlier question about Golden Rice - do you think research should continue or be stopped?

"Currently, nicotine is a permitted pesticide for organic farming because it is derived from a botanical source." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

Here is the relevancy: In the OP, Mr. Canada says: "I don't think that people not born here could love this country as much as I do. That is a problem. We need more Canadians who will feel a sense of pride in being Canadian, just Canadian. Not a hyphenated perversion of a Canadian." I introduced two potential measurements for "love of country" and/or "pride in being Canadian" 1. Love of country = abiding by the Law. Undisputed fact: On average, Canadian immigrants do this better than non-immigrants. 2. Love and pride of country = knowledge of country's geography, history and civics. My claim: The average immigrant has more knowledge of Canada than the average non-immigrant. We could add more: -voter turnout -attendance at hockey games -CBC viewership -number of Celine Dion songs on playlist Why would any reasonable person claim that immigrants "love Canada" less than non-immigrants? I don’t understand what you are talking about.

Iran is not an Arabic country.

We've been through this before on the immigration thread and you did not reply to my post: I remember reading a piece about giving the citizenship test to average non-immigrant Canadians. Most failed the test miserably and scored way lower than immigrants. Many got basic questions wrong like names of your Premier, leader of the opposition or Provincial capitals. Unfortunately I can't find a link to this.

Perhaps you did not read the second page of the article because that is not the author's main point (admittedly the headline is misleading but that’s journalism, eh): "Don’t get me wrong: President Obama bears responsibility for federal outlays being larger for each year of his presidency than at any time since 1946. If George W. Bush bears a lot of responsibility for FY2009, then Mr. Obama bears even more responsibility for the three years that followed — responsibility for both the very high spending and the questionable composition of the spending. So is Mr. Obama’s performance on spending quite bad? Yes. But a difference in kind rather than in degree? Over his four fiscal years as president the average outlays-to-GDP ratio is 24.4 percent. During the Reagan years the average was 22.4 percent. Given the Great Recession, this two percentage point difference, though deceivingly very large, isn’t enough to claim that President Obama represents a radical departure from post-war presidents with respect to spending." I am not saying that the Dems are good fiscal managers, I originally rated them as a -5 compared to -10 for Rep. Based on your arguments perhaps I will now say that the Dems and Rep are equally bad managers. You are not grasping the severity of the Great Recession: http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=149 The dotcom recession was nothing compared to the Great Recession! Bush II took a surplus and changed it into a huge deficit. I don’t believe the Republicans when they say they will cut the budget because: 1) Over the past 30 years they have been no better at balancing the budget than the Democrats 2) They have lost all credibility with the War in Iraq and many other stupid policies and comments

This is an interesting study, thank you. I am glad that Health Canada and other regulatory bodies are looking into it and will trust their recommendations. Meanwhile, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise and overall poor eating habits CAUSE (not just "have been linked to") cancer, heart disease, etc... Perhaps we should focus more ressources on real problems and less on pretending that potential problems are real.

This is the best one-liner I have heard in a long time! Exactly! I will add - how can one be proud of being born in a certain country - as if this is some kind of accomplishment? All this said, I am very thankful for all the hard work and sacrifices that people have made, and are making today.

Each of your attitudes are quite logical and perhaps they do apply to you. Yes having kids is a trade-off but it is not really a sacrifice as the rewards start right away. In my experience, from the time that you know that you are going to have a baby, and certainly from the second see your baby born, there is no doubt that you made the right decision to have kids.

I see things very differently. Check out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ Congress since 1981: Split: 10 years Rep: 9 Dem: 12 Yes 1997-2002 the Rep. Congress did seem to do a good job. But from 1987-1994 looks good too as the Dems held Congress and the spending was relatively flat. "Bush inherited a recession in the busting of the dot com bubble and a war on terror" Firstly Bush bungled the War on Terror that he declared. Secondly if you are talking recessions then sure the much deeper Great Recession should excuse much of Obama's record. Not to mention policy proposals. Obama plans to maintain military spending while Ronmey would increase. What spending would Romney cut?

Yes, I was asking about your hate levels (admittedly simplistically) since the article you linked was about hate and you said "i'd hate us too". Perhaps I am less idealistic than you and feel that in our world sometimes we need to support the "least worst" option/country, I suppose that I am somewhat selective. I also abhor the violation of human rights and hypocrisy. However I suspect that you are being selective in your overwhelming criticism of Israel - and therefore hypocritical. I could be wrong as I have not been here very long and maybe you are trying to balance out the many pro-Israeli-vehemently-anti-Palestinian view points here.

Thank you Wild Bill for saving 7 minutes of my life!

The average immigrant is less likely to be a criminal than the average non-immigrant. The average immigrant knows more about Canadian history and government than the average non-immigrant. Based on these facts, I would say that on average, immigrants love Canada at least as much as non-immigrants.

Choosing not to have kids is not an indicator of being selfish. And even if someone "selfishly" decides to not having kids there is nothing wrong with that. I also think that if people want 19 kids that's fine too. We should all try to be less judgemental.

According to his calculations, this stance would result in the largest gain or smallest loss in seats and votes in the next election. According to his calculations, this stance would result in the largest gain or smallest loss in seats and votes in the next election. I am sure he asks many people for input including MPs, but especially his pollsters and strategists. IMO: NDP = Complete opposite of CCP. Liberals = sit on fence with no position. PQ=irrelevant Yes certainly there is blame on both sides. However, some would argue that Israelis are safer today compared to 2000-2001. I am not sure. Also, some say that it is the Palestinians that teach their children that Jews are sub-human. Again, I don’t know. AFAIK, Israeli-Palestinians have equal rights as citizens of Israel and have their own political party. You are not being objective and your inflammatory language is not productive. Also, did you hear Romney's comments about Palestinians? Of course there is a difference! Most Canadians don’t care (like your friends and mine too). IMO, the position that Canada takes in the ME is an insignificant factor in US-Canada relations.

Would you mind being a little more specific about what you perceive the problem to be or what exactly you are worried about?

Although I am not particularly a progressive liberal I will defend it over today's republicanism or conservatism. Regarding the division of society into classes, Mitt Romney's own words in his May fundraiser supports the authors claim. Are you claiming that Republicans give fewer handouts than Democrats? I would like to see data that supports this. Secondly, I disagree that people receiving handouts equate to second class citizens. I must be misunderstanding your position but because it makes no sense to me. I have heard these types of arguments before and to me it sounds like this: Point 1: Republicans are tax cutters and sound fiscal managers, Democrats raise taxes, spending and debt Point 2: When there is a Democratic president, the national debt usually soars, proving Point 1. Point 3: When there is a Republican president the national debt soars (even more) but since Point 1 is proven then there must be other reasons (Democratic Congress, external economic influences, etc…) Point 4: When there is a Democratic president (Clinton) and the debt goes down, the credit goes to the Republican Congress, as per Point 1. This is circular logic and I wish that the public would stop drinking this Kool-Aid! Bush 2 enjoyed a Republican Congress for four years and a split Congress for two. How do you or any republican supporters explain his record? Here is my point again: the claim that “Republican Presidents have been (and therefore will be) better fiscal managers than Democratic ones” is false. Here is another graph to support my argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Hey bud, I am curious, if you don't mind me asking, on a scale of -10 (pure hate) to +10 (pure admiration) how would you personally rate the following administrations/regimes: Harper CCP? Obama? Bush II 2001-2008? Israeli? Hamas? Saudi Arabia? The Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan? Russia? China? North Korea? Syria? Iran? Venezuela? Columbia? Any others you care to rate? What countries' government, present or past, would you rate the highest?

Thanks for the link it is a good article indeed. Yes, if I were a Muslim in the Middle East I would probably hate the US Administration too. But I would still hate my own government leaders even more.