mikedavid00

Ok then, Tell me why you support Kyoto. There are VERY well versed lefties here that don't support Kyoto.

I don't know how you can make that statement and consider yourself politically savy.

I agree. It's like fixed rate mortgages vs. variable rate. Over the long term, variable rate is proven to be better. Of course, there are so many ways to cloud the issue. Same with this issue. A lower value dollar is over all bad for Canadians quality of life. It's pretty simple and proven.

The people of Canada have a right to consider marriage what we want it to be. The laws represent us. It's not up to a judge to decide the countries definition of marriage. Let them have a legal civil union if that's what the people want. I have a right to consider marriage something that is between a man and a women under God. What about my rights? So the argument eventually falls apart and everyone eventually becomes I minority. THis is why we need to start voting on propsitions.

Your missing the point. It's NON equality and it violates the charter of rights. The insurance companies are in violation right now, but nothing gets done about it becuae we don't have true equality in Canada. We should accept that and stop pretending that this is a country where eveyrone is equal. It's quite the contrare.

Immigrants get charged more for insurance which viotates the b.s. charter of rights. People that are of a younger age are charged more insurance which violates the b.s charter of rights. I can not get some jobs in the gov't unless I am a visible minority which violates the b.s. charter of rights. Why can't people just admit that there's no such thing as equality? If there was, children would be allowed to vote. There wouldn't be people who could jump the queue for organs or in healtchare.

No one is losing sleep over Kyoto. It's corrupt and disfunctional. I'm suprised anyone still supports it.

Firstly it's not possible. Rather it's impossible. And if they did get a majority, there would party in fighting, then our country would slip into second world status as we loose G8. People would loose their homes and cars. Interest rates would rise, 500,000 immigrants would come in each year, and this would be a completely disfunctional country. Alberta would threaten to seperate to the US (becuase more than half of people polled said that it's an issue worth examing). And I would do my best to get out of here.

All those guys from know information on the Ismlamic Brootherhood terrist organization in Ottawa. While the might not be direct terrist, they are friends to families in those circles and they do know information. Same with Arar. We are making millionairs out of people who should not even be in our country. We'll see if this translates into votes. I don't think it will because the immigrants know these kind of games too well. Not the game Harpers playing, but the game these guys are playing. Canadians are being snowed right now and fooled. Almost any immigrant from the 3rd world will tell you that becuase they know these kinds of games all too well. After all, they're from the old country.

Here we come wth the law suits. Next it will be air india victims suing the RCMP. Tainted blood? Our own Canadians getting sick and dying? Meh.. forget about them.

Trans Fat produces *more* 'bad cholestoral'. But regardless, diet only accounts for %15 of the body's total cholesteral. Your liver produces 85% of it. The TransFat thing is marketing hype because most foods don't have transfats by nature so all the companies are tricking consumers into thinking that by buying a bag of chips that says '0% TRANS-FAT FREE' chps they are getting 0 fat chips. In the long term those chips are just as bad and will make you just as obese. I tried the new KFC btw and it totally sucks. The fries too. I wont be buying food from there anymore. I agree. But parents are super busy these days and processed foods are so conveinent. Keep in mind that when we were kids, most foods were 'whole foods' so complete meals had to be cooked. Then came processed foods in the form of snacks. Fruite rollups, new forms of chips, dips, tons of boxed coockies and pasteries etc. There was a food engineering/technology boom that happened in the 70's when the first processed cold cuts were created. The more the food is processed, the more high in sugars they become to stabelize the food. This can lead to AHDD, Diabities, and obesity. Sugar is really, really bad for you and is actually an un natural substance in nature as compared to the portions that we're eating. (very little sugars in nature if we were cave men). They say that humans were made to store fat, but we were not made to handle the amounts of sugars we've been eating these past 30 years since the brith of processed foods. They say that parents were altra conservative with sugars in the old days beacause they felt it would 'rot their kids teeth' if they ate too much chocolate or candies. Ok Ponder this. A box of Kraft Dinner is actually HIGHER in sugar than actual sugar because it's so processed. This is a path to obesity. And before 1970's people were eating transfats all along with no problems. I've been out of the health scene for a while. It looks like that pill failed human testing in 2001. It was the most promosing pill because it attacked fat at the molecular level and melted it off mice: "The latest work was done with normal-weight mice. When they were given injections of leptin, the cells that normally store fat suddenly became fat-burning cells. The activity of their mitochondria, the principal energy-processing units of the cell, increased substantially, so the mice lost a lot of weight in just two weeks. " I don't know if you remeber these 'fat pill' headlines around 97 or so. Since then they tested it on humans and the human fat cells rejected the extra leptin due to a human tollerance that the mice didn't have. Shame =(

Chretien and the Liberals were a do nothing gov't. They did nothing but 2 things - cut transfer payments to the provinces by 40% to reduce the debt (causing massive hospotial closures and stories of people dying on stretchers), and created a gun registry. That's all the liberals did in 12 years.

I totally agree. It will take the long haul over a long time. Is there even anyone on this forum that support Kyoto anymore?

I'd be all for that. Although, it shouldn't take much money to get kids active. What it takes is good parenting and a $10 pair of running shoes. Goverment is here to govern. I have to say that they really should begin to regulate food. The main factors are glycemic index and fats. Obesety is insane these days. It's tied back to process foods that are high in sugar. NOT transfats. That's just a fad. I support this only if the US jumps bored. We need Nabisco and Procter and Gamble to get in the labs and make no sugar fruit rollups, no sugar pudding snacks, no sugar ice cream, and tasty baked chips. It's these things that are making kids fat. But ponder this, there's a 'fat pill' coming anyway that will literally melt the fat off your body. It should be coming soon. I don't know why it's been in testing this long. If that happens it will be great, I can eat what I want and take a fat pill, then I can use more pills to lower the cholesteral my liver produces. Hehehe

Because it's expensive and we don't live in Calgary?

The Liberals probably have far more anti SSM supporters than any party. I refer you to the voting demographic of their last election.

Yup. The pastor or Imam or whoever holds a marriage license and signs a whitness for the marriage certificate along with the bride and groom. They are given the power of the gov't to marry you. That's why at the end of the speech the Reverand says 'By the power vested in me by the state or province of.. i now pronounce you man, and wife. You may now kiss the bride'. And then the organs sound and the husband and wife walk down the ilse while the parents and friends are teary eyed. Exactly. So gays should not be denied this right. There is a marriage, and there is a civil union. The state gives you a civil union and a peice of paper. But make no mistake the vows of marriage are officially anounced upon under God and a promise is whitnessed and signed upon. That to many people is marriage. They aren't. They can go and and have a promise ring and promise ceremony then go file their papers and have a legal union. But what is marriage exactly? That is for the people to decide. For our society to decide. And I'm sure that most people would agree that marriage now includes 2 men. Marriage in Canada is not the same as marriage in Pakistan. Rights is already there with a civil ununion. Marriage is a sacrade, moral thing that many people hold close to their heart. It's a promise to God of a man and a woman under religion. When people consider 2 men married, it demeans and offends people who beleive that 2 men should not be considered married because their religion is apposed to this. (all religions actually). The Islamic faith is extrememly, extrememly apposed to this and you can die in other countries if your caught being gay and happen to live in a small village. But they do get equal rights. It's just the wording that is the issue. The word belongs to the people of Canada. Not the gov't, not the dictionary, but the people. Gays are not denied rights of any kind. Some people would rather they not be considered married. A good way out of this would be for all gov't documentation to say 'civil union'. However, this upset a LOT of voters so it wasn't a good political move for Martin to do this. Martin was also APPOSED to this previously. Majorities vote on rights for minorities all the time. Decrminilization of pot is a good example. Most poeple don't smoke it, but the majority vote on if a person caught smoking it should get arrested. I feel the same is true with the definition of marriage.

Does anyone actually believe that the majority of constituents who elected an NDP or Bloc member would be opposed to SSM? Yes they would. A certain chord gets struck with Canadians when you talk about the definition of marriage regardless of what side of the fence your on. Or region of the country.

That's why we need nuclear power. It's extremely clean.

The govern should goven yes. But they aren't giong to solve these problems. And all those things you listed people have been noting as concerns since I was a kid. In the 60's, they swore that by the year 2000 the air would be poluted and there would be a 'dark cloud' over a satalite image on the US. Actually, there is more polution now and there is no dark cloud. In the 70's, there was going to be no gas and oil left in the world! I was a kid in school and our teach said 'we're running out of oil soon and there won't be anything left'. In the 80's itt was GLOBAL COOLING. Yes. There was going to be abother ICE AGE! Eeeek! Run for the hills! In the 90's it was the OZONE! A HOLE IN THE OZONE! The atmosphere is going to collapse and the eartht will become like the moon! Didin't happen. Now we have Global Warming. Which is still debated and unproven as all the rest. There is always a public scare. Always a scientific unknown. .Always a FEAR of the unknown. That's all this is. And these fears are usually very left wing, trendy, intelectual, and seem to come out of San Fransico. What we DO know is that north america and Europe has higher levels of Cancer. We do NOT know why. We DO know that DDT and pestisides have been banned YEARS ago when that was the big scare, and it's made NO EFFECT. We DO know that Americans started to become obese AFTER the birth of processed foods in the 70's (foods high in sugar). That's pretty much all we really know for sure. The rest are just intillectualls trying to figure out the unknown. Next decade we'll move on to some new scare. I predict it will involve the clouds. The POISON CLOUDS! Here' the theory, it's actually air formation from Asia that is blowing over the ocean and over N.America. By this time the clouds have been poisoned by micro combustions of atoms. Thus we have poisonouos clouds! Tainted clouds! From the region of asia! So we need to figure out a way to give the Asia region trillions of dollars so they reduce emissions. Now seriously, If I presented that to the right elite science audience, they would eat that up and jump on board as long as it was intellectual enough and delivered by the right elite. Then we'd have poisonous clouds! Clouds that dissipeat into the air we breath, and thus causing cancer over time in humans becuase of our lung system which is able to uptake micro particles that other lungs cannot. Maybe I can get the Nobel Prize?

I agree. The auto market is developing amazing battery power cars with no emissions at all. Not even water. The technology is already ther Ed Beagly Jr. was plugging the Phoenix SUT which is an electirc powered truck that goes highway speeds. He said also that he got from LA to Las Vegas for $12. It goes for a total of 200KM a day which is a downfall, but more than I need for city driving. It also takes the night to recharge in a regular 240volt plug. Again, the market is demanding these technologies. The demand creates the supply, not the other way around. The gov't can't march in and dictate a 'vision' of a clean Canada and play politics. You can't just 'change the world' over night. It took use years to get here, it will take us that long to get us out. If we throw money at this 'problem', it's just as good as throwing it down the toilet. We need clean nuclear power, emission free vehicles like the Pheonix SUT, and solar/wind generation that is affordable and reliable (which they are not). I feel that 2050 is a perfect target and will not have been done by gov't interferance and false promises.

And maybe those people can go to the justice of the peace and form a civil union between a man and a woman. The overwhelming majority that believe in religion can get married. Actually, doesn't the church have to sign your marriage certificate? hehe.. but the overwhelming majority of Canadians identify with God and we're actually seing a re-emergance of religion in Canada due to recent immigration from religiously conservative countries (fact). Remember, I didn't say Christianity, I said religion. And they can make that promise wherever they choose and whichever ceremony they would like. There are a lot of non religious 'promise ceremonies'. And then they can form a civil union and have equal rights to equal benefits. Religion doesn't. It's the people that decide what the word means to them. Meanings of words can change, but it's the people who decide, not 300 people in the house of commons who are voting on their 'personal feelings' of the matter. If our citizens want it to not include gay's then so be it. And if you just asked the people and let them vote on this, at least we could settle this and they could say 'yes' the citizens do want the definition of marriage to include gays.

Well I have the answer to that. Let's let 200,000 people settle into Toronto and find work. That really helps the situation. Instead of 10 people going for 1 job, lets have 80 people go for 1 job (true story). Ok, I found out how to put people on the ignore list Yes. The all offensive ubelievable discussion of immigration. Oh my yes. We will defend them, and pamper them, and our services will deminish as we slowely bankrupt ourselves and our personal income. As we slowely lose G8 status. Our own citizens dying on waiting lists for organ trasplants and waiting for surgeries.. But that doesn't matter. Who cares about that. Just don't you dare discuss immigration!! So I'll do the online version of being an ostrich and putting my head in the sand. I'll hit the ignore button. And this, is what's wrong with dictator style social engineering. People will buy into what their leaders tell them. And this is the result.

I agree. I don't see what's so hard about grasping that fact. Also, remember the big ordeal about there being no male teachers entering the profession? It's laughable becuase again, it's just the opposite of the sexes. The differnce is, is everyone said 'opposite of the sexes' when the teacher headlines made news, but when it's women in politics.. oh boy. You can't use that argument.

Sure it does. It deals with emotional and sentimental value all the time. Especially Canada's gov't. I disagree. When you declare a group of people a Nation within Canada, you are not creating equality of rall citizens. When you have a government job posting saying on it that only visible minority women need apply, you are not creating equality. When you are giving monies to ethnic groups to be able to teach them their mother tonque from the old country, you are not creating equality. You're grasping onto idealism rather than the truth of the matter. You are listening to what they want you to beleive. Read what you just said above. Then read it again. All of us *is* the majority, don't you see? Minorities already have rights. Yes, gay's should be able to form a civil union and have equal rights to tax benefits and other perks that getting married gives you. The majority of Canadians and Americans agree to this. But the definition of marriage is something different. It's a religious union between a man and woman to any religion in the world. It's a promise under God to uphold our vows. It's a moral, meaningful value to some Canadians and thus Canadians have the right to decide whether we want this to be extended to gay relationships. The chances are yes, people would be willing to extend those values anyway. What I'm saying is, the gov't doesn't have a right to dictate to the people what marriage means. And eventually, the two wolves will decide that it's not nice to kill the sheep. But this is not for the Lions to decide