Sleipnir

Are you okay?

DUDE I've read the same books Do you read the Saxon series? Btw how can you read two books at once?

I don't see how IP are relevant to the topic of Canadian patriotism.

Canada wouldn't need many nuclear power plant to satisfy the public energy demands as some provinces have their way to generate non-emission source of electricity. Veering off topic a bit. People who points to Japan as an example why nuclear power is bad does not look at the full picture. Japan basically reside in an earthquake, volcanic and tsunami zone - not exactly a safe place to build nuclear power plants. In Canada there are many regions inland that are not earthquake or tsunami zones and definitely no volcanic zone. That saying, I believe that as long as nuclear power plants are built in the right region and periodically checked for structural/safety concerns - nuclear power can be just as safe as harnessing solar power.

If the republicans loses this election, some people say it would tear the party apart and become more extreme... THAT is what I gotta see (watching how republicans start cannibalizing each other).

Define 'suffer' and how it differs from today's suffering.

Such legislation would never survive a court challenge.

I haven't read any of the 22 pages of posts but I did wanted to mention something... 2002 - US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan attacked - 10 killed. 2004 - US embassy in Uzbekistan Bombed - 2 killed, 9 injured. 2004 - US consulate in Saudi Arabia attacked - 8 killed. 2006 - US embassy in Syria attacked - 1 killed. 2008 - US embassy in Yemen bombed - 10 killed. ~4 years later~ 2012 - US embassy in Benghazi, Libya attacked - 4 killed. NOW they are concerned about security? NOW they demand an investigation?

You have a source that DOES NOT support your argument. Its equivalent to saying....1 + 1 = 3 You did not at all. It's not a personal opinion, it's scientific fact. Why is this simple concept so difficult for you to grasp? If you want to dispute a scientific fact, you need to dispute it with another appropriate scientific fact - or point out the potential flaw with the methodology of the experiment that gave rise to the result. All that has nothing to do with the intent of the argument - you keep deflecting the argument. You are so clueless...it amaze me to no end. I do have to wonder if you're serious about debating or a class A6 troll. You didn't have a logical case, don't kid yourself.

Not stalking if I'm bumping into her on 1 thread (technically 2 if you count this one)

But not necessary the better president for Canada's environmental and social interests.

I suppose that for societies to mitigate and adapt to climate change can be very sensitive topic among the political worlds - mainly because of the costs.

Reading the title of this thread reminds me of 'tragedy of the commons'.

If you want more people to vote, make it mandatory to vote or face $300 fine.

Why would he be pissed of the size? o_0

From the National Post ---------- ^^^ click on it to open it *reason for edit - apparently Greg might not like the size*

Yeah I do noticed that some people are throwing the term 'bias' around without probably knowing what it really means.

Obama I believe. Also check this out http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/11/02/video-mr-burns-endorses-mitt-romney/

I meant those who aren't political junkies.

As of Friday