Accountability Now

I was raised loosely in a Catholic environment. I say loosely because we never really went to church but I did attend Catholic school where that religion was pushed on you. I always found it odd how each religion would say it was THE religion and all others were false even though they all seemed to say the same thing. The more I looked into it the more I made the self realiziation that one can get caught up in the details or you can accept the message that each religion is trying to say...which happens to be the Golden Rule in Christianity (Do unto others as you would do upon yourself). It wasn't until I saw this poster that realized that the message is pure but the people who interpret the message are not. They misinterpret or outright deceive what the message was meant to say and thus logical people see what these people are saying or doing and equate that back to religion iteself. I have seen a number of stories in this thread alone that show how humans have misused the message either intentionally or because they thought it was the right thing but in reality they were actually going against what the message was all about. Over time I have come to not believe in God per se, but rather know there is something greater out there even though I still call that thing God. Call him or her what you want but I certainly do think there is more to this universe than just us spinning alone on a rock. I certainly can't prove it nor will I try but the reality is there are certain benefits to religion that even science is now starting to see. Just recently Macleans magazine posted the following article. http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/god-is-the-answer/ The article discusses the results of varius studies showing in general the benefits to relgious association esepecially during the vulnerable teen years. From a scientific stand point, it shows that people are better off with religion in their lives and not just based on being happier. Is it fair to say that religion should be treated like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus in that it should be used as a teaching tool but then discarded as kids get older? Perhaps but I don't think there is a time where we are 100% free of vulnerability.

A summary paper....lol...now that is rich. Again...for the last time....most of these cases aren't making the news or aren't even documented simply because they aren't a big deal. Remember...these ones are on the LESS severe end thus not requiring accomodation. Why would they do a summary paper on these? The only ones that make the news are the ones where the Crown and the FN disagree...for which I showed you a notable example. Here's the thing I don't get about you. I am stating that there are many cases where the Crown does consult with the FN and they agree there is little impact and therefore no accomodation is granted. Hence, it suggests that the FN are reasonable people. However you are suggesting that is not the case which then implies they are not reasonable. Not sure why? To you, its either no business/development OR straight to accomodation which obviously can't be true since the basic definition states consultation and accomodation if/where applicable. Again the if statement is a conditional meaning it doesn't always happen. I won't lose any sleep waiting on that one. I was referring to your comment of 'all' land as being the 'absolute'. Not 'absolute' rights on the land. The simple fact is there is 10% of the land that is non-crown land to which FN have no aboriginal rights over. Provincial and National parks, private property, etc. Since this is the case, your comment about 'all lands' simply is not true no matter how many times you claim it. Nope..its not. What rights do they have in Provincial or National Parks? What rights do they have to hunt or even enter my property. ZERO. I even showed you the case of the Paul Band that tried suing the private entity for development on private land...and the FN lost. As long as we are affected by their choices (ie compensation for remote, non-viable locations) then it is our business too.

You still have no clue what you're talking about

Apparently you also bear no responsibility to your own thoughts either

I can't believe that your are against women's rights. It's certainly appalling that you can't control your racist views either. What....you don't think the sky is blue??? Wow. See...I can make stuff up too

At least someone on this thread gets it

And where exactly did I say such a thing? Making up something I didn't say and then arguing against is a straw man argument. I said she wasn't a natural since she grew up in a house where politics were an everyday thing. A natural in my mind would be someone that has no involvement in politics but is good at it. Never did I say her use of debate material was weak. Perhaps if you actually read what people were saying and not making stuff up then you wouldn't get so deluded.

Do you always create strawmen arguments when you debate?

Back what up???? That she's not a strong debater? I never said she debated poorly rather I disputed the fact that she was a 'natural' since she grew up in a political household. Please try to read what people say. Its called comprehension.

I need to show you that the NDP have no experience at running Alberta? Seriously? Do you want me to show you that the sky is blue while I'm at it?

Pretty much every country is a mixed economy in practice however Canada has more capitalistic characteristics than socialistic/communist. Hence we are a capitalist nation. Perhaps not as much as the US but still capitalist nonetheless.

Its easy to be successful in a debate when you promise everything for everyone but yet have no track record to prove you can back it up.

Depends on how you define 'natural'. Afterall she is the daughter of Grant Notley who was the NDP leader in 70s/80s. I trust like Trudeau Jr, she got some experience in her childhood that is helping now.

No...they are all sourced from the same Western Standard Poll. The numbers you are quoting above are about secession from Canada not about Cascadia. It even says so right below the numbers: My questioning of Cascadia is whether or not people would want to leave Canada to join up with two American States that seem to not care about the idea (or so I would think). Separating with the Western Provinces seems to make more sense but still a long shot and not really something I would support.

Yes...I would agree with that too. The only wild card here is how many people vote Wild Rose versus NDP. The election right now is PC versus ANTI-PC. The problem with that is there are multiple parties to choose from in the ANTI-PC column.

I think a prediction right now is a shot in the dark. I hear what WWWTT is saying as the NDP certainly do have a following AND people are pissed at the PCs. However as per the last election, that dissention didn't translate into seats. The PC had only 43% of the popular vote but got 76% of the seats. Too tough to tell but I would suspect that the PC's remain in power but with a strong NDP minorty.

Thats great that 35.6% of WESTERN Canadians think that WESTERN Canada should separate but my question was how many people in BC think they should become part of Cascadia which according to the wikipedia link consists mostly of BC, Washington State and Oregon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)

I guess you don't remember the 2012 election where all the polls picked the departure of the PCs in that election only to have another PC majority. I'm not saying the polls couldn't be right with all the issues surrounding Redford, the Wildrose crossover and such however I wouldn't bet anything solely on what the polls say.

How many people in BC actually believe in the idea of Cascadia? I know a fair amount of people in Oregon and they have never heard of it and moreso laugh at the idea.

Again....then Canada would have to take all of the Natural Resources back and we would be a socialist country. If that's what the majority of people want then fine. However its kind of an all or none thing when it comes to resources.

Lol! I guess it would be worth a try

That's just it. People complain about about giving this money to oil companies but in the same breath no one wants the government to own anything. If we are a capitalist nation then by defintion that means the government stays out. Yup. If they decided to take the oil away then they would have to take away all the natural resources away from the other provinces too. And then what else would they take away. Not sure people want that snowball effect.

I don't doubt there are reasons why the current system exists and that people who are in control have better access to those reasons than I. As such I don't question it as much as others. Having said I do think its a better idea to have a state owned company then to raise the royalties to the effect that most people talk about. I guess the reality is that if the latter were to happen then the oil companies would leave and the government would have no choice but to extract it themselves.

Show me a link that says its zero sum. Currently Syncrude and Shell are cleaning their tailing ponds on their own nickel. Not taxpayer money.

So what we're saying is there are two choices: 1) stop giving tax breaks to oil companies who in turn pay way more in royalties and provide jobs and many other economic stimulus or 2) base our budgets on non-oil revenues which means there is no reason that Alberta public workers need to be the highest paid in the country and reward them when oil prices are higher than the budgeted prices. Hmmmm....which one is really MORE likely. The only way number 1 has any sort of shot is if Canada went socialist and made their own oil company to do the work.