shortlived

Canada's emissions come from products exported to the US, not for domestic use. Meanwhile the US is the second largest polluter in the world with 10x the gross emissions of Canada. Canada also has far more carbon sinks, and absorbs far more emissions than the US, so in that respect Canada puts far less per capita emissions into the air. The US's emissions are largely cleaned up by Canada ontop of that. The companies that pollute in Canada are mostly US owned also. I'm not sure about agrarium, but Canada's polluting economy is mostly owned by American megacorps. Additionally china has like 10 times the number of people of the US per captia china is a much smaller emissions than the US, and most of its pollution products go to the US Clearly the US economy is a large part of the problem it is based on non sustainable toxic creation. The US needs to get back to its roots. The only problem is it is trying to maintain a war economy because its foreign policy has made the world its enemy. It is reduced to buying friends, and that ain't sustainable for a failing economy like the US's. It is unfortunate the Harper Government has emulated its foreign policy on that of the US, as well as so closely tied the canadian economy into US oil, and its brother in arms the Chinese economy. Canada is in the orbit of the two countries that create the vast majority of world destroying emissions and pollution. In reality though it is the consumers fault. Consumerism is to blame not government, aside from government taxation and it as a consumer (of 30% of the economy) so it is only 1/3rd to blame. Much like the us is only 1/3rd to blame and china is only 1/3rd to blame. I do think however as long as the companies owning all the world saving technologies like Chevron and BASF, 3M etc.. actually try to do it. The sad part is, there just isn't enough consumer support for world saving technologies. So it is the consumers fault atleast a portion for sure. More pipelines will be built, but they arn't needed, they are just useful. They bring down the cost of transport. We need to move people not goods.

in following up Nicholson and Toews and Ashfield and Menzies will be about 63 at the time of the next election Gerry Ritz will be 64, Dianne Ablonczy will be 66, James Moore retired, Peter Kent will be 72... Duncan and Alice Wong will be 67 Fantino will be 73... the list goes on... but a good chunk of Cabinet is at retirement age. Gordon Oconnor is past the senate retirement age... or will be 76 Joe Oliver 75. a weird kick back is that senators that hit the mandatory retirement age could run for office in the commons? Yet people are claiming 75 is just too old etc.. well past the retirement age everyone else has. The gov has set the military retirement age at 55.. so how is it they expect to run the country if they pass the executives mandatory retirement age. That's about 13 members of cabitnet at retirement age at the next election.. that is they would not serve a full term before being 65 or older. That is about 1 in 3... or 13/38

If I understand it right the problem was native land was expropriated for a military base, that ended up closing down, and a park put in its place. When one person who was holding a stick got shot because it could have been a gun. I think that his cabinet is aging out a bit, Flaherty I would be surprised if he ran in the next election, as he will be 66. Harris himself is like 68 now... clement will only be 55 in the next election but would be very surprised to see him run for the leadership and pm... but if you look at the core members of cabinet since 2006 a lot of them are approaching the old retirement age of 65. I think the whole it was harris fault was there cause he said to get the 'f'ers' out even if it meant killing them. But maybe it didn't happen that way. I think Harper is alluding to this same treatment if idle no more got issued, he'd send the military in like Mulrooney.

what about a flood happening DURING a zombie invasion? (or as a result you know the people regulating the water system became negligent when they joined the living dead, so too do other resources get whitted as the public becomes zombified) Get the best of both worlds. They could introduce zombie frogmen... that is zombies who come in with the flood... you know cause they can walk under water..

No, no it isn't. It is livable land natives have lived on for thousands of years. You clearly don't know anything about sustainable agriculture. 1 swamps make gas. 2. humans have everything needed to grow food in their body. Bugs of course have advantages too. Not only as a food source, but also to make compost, and medicine amongst other things. All that is needed is a bug sink. There are even processes that can make artificial protein blocks from bugs. Also there is tons of freshwater, ample ground to manage abundant fish stocks, and other aquaculture, as well as engage in caribou/reindeer herding domesticating geese. Obviously you don't understand enough about the north but it isn't to late I can show you the way.

This is about more than just cutting emissions in order to keep economies strong there needs to be a realignment of lifestyle. This means opening up the north to development of sustainable living. Example. having more people live as naturalists. Example we need more environmental extremists if they are willing to live in the woodlands of the north, we need to give them land to shepherd up there, and to allow for new communities. Funding them to set up base camps for further future generations is what must be done, afterall if it takes two generations to realign population distribution and fulfilling carrying capacity needs while maintaining economic needs we will need to start now, since we only have perhaps 50 years left before the effects of climate change will by todays terraforming capacities be irreversible. 50 years is only 2 generations aways very soon. Canada would be benefited greatly if even 1 in 10 keystone xl activists were willing to move into the taigas of northern Canada to help the transformation of the next generation that will need to act to save the planet. Canada should give residency to any American environmentlists such as keystone xl activists willng to live in the taiga... Canada should act to facilitate this need immediately, of course also Canadian activists, and Chinese activists etc.. too. Russia should open its northern doors to india and china for example. The only other real option is Malthusian warfare and one world government. 1wG is like a total participation comintern. As the other option is just capitalism and a ticket you can buy to be one of those selected to survive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga You know residence for anyone willing to live with nature north of 50 degrees in the east and 55 degrees in the west.

some people will prepare for disaster, others will prepare for zombies --- fact is preparing for zombies will cover you for most things if the virus is airborn or in the water... preparing for disaster is almost as likely.. with zombies though you will likely think of things you normally might pass up on like that shot gun gurkha and torches. Lots of people prepare for hunkering down in their home, well the fact is during a real disaster it may force you to be on the move. its fun. morale is part of the greatest need in survival situations the will to survive. I dunno that seemed orchestrated,.... ..... they must be up to something at the CDC... they usually don't do these training exercises for no reason..

Yeah I bet you'd suggest we write down the handshakes and pass phrases too right... No no prime minister is required but the governor general would likely have to work a lot more like picking people to appoint to head the ministries and show up to meetings and run GIC and all that jazz, my gosh they'd probably have to hire a press secretary just for meet the press days with all them trips overseas representing the government in photo ops and wasting tax payer funds on security operations. The GGs life might become stressful rather than spent pining awards on people and reading books to nominate for awards. The opposition would go insane having to resort to picking on back benchers who might feel pressured to actually respond to the questions asked during QP not having mastered their make witty comment repeatedly and sit back down skills. The government would be ruined. Yes these roles must be constitutionally recorded to save Canada from ruin! I think without a PM Canada would have to make a mascot that could be put in some seat in the commons, perhaps a giant moose head, or a beaver, or perhaps a Tv set could be wheeled in with clips of rockey and Bullwinkle, and it could beplayed during question period perhapssomething around 420 mark in this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVIeBuqelc4 as a response played over and over, but a different eposiode clip would need to be picked for each session to answers. 6:40 is a wonderful example of how the PM serves in cabinet.

ok guys I'll spoil your dumbfoundedness.FOREIGN AID!!! particularly a huge chunk from Britain in the sum of 160million sterling or the sort. They did of course take over the place again so the fact they got stuck with a bill isn't exactly unbecoming.

still 2 and half years to go. seems that McKay and Dumont may be the only potential replacees from the list for Stephen Harper but there is nearly 1000 more days or so till the next election. Dumont shares the fact he was a young liberal with Stephen Harper.

CIA factbook I know I know, not exactly a reliable source but its the most readily available. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

GDP is total country while gov expenditures is only the government. Note that there are different types of gdp measures. which claim do you want backed up?

Money is goods, and GDP measures value of domestic production. the value of money however tends to depreciate equally as supply is increased, however there is a threshold and it is only relative to the currency in which you measure the GDP. As there are more than supply factors to the value of money. The lowest threshold however is the cost to produce vs. the value of the commodity represented, paper isomer, metal coin etc... it does factor in to a correct measure of gdp. Not all cash systems effect the economy the same way though. It is a relative factor... since GDP tends to be based on the US value of goods. A country that makes the trade currency however can make quite a bit of money on providing money as a good since it has monopoly on creation and the value of the currency in trade may be relative.. wealth can thus be generated from creation of money as money's value does not equal its production cost. if people use the money then money is generated as potential value. either by being utilized or by being expected to provide goods or services of value.

and I suppose you think that people must be taxed less than their income too... economics has + and - signs.

tartous is a long way from Damascus. although I'm not saying test Russia and more so irans resolve. If Iran can't protect its own generals in Syria how does it expect to wage a war through it? Although I am not suggesting nato and Israel publically invade Syria. France isn't exactly anti Russia lots of the ffl are Russian and eastern block - the other aspect is also that will Britain pull most of the weight it seems that the US doesn't want a war with Iran - I'm not sure if Russia would do anything but it is very insulting to force Russia to put its tail between its legs and pull out of tartous.. althouhg it does appear to have planned for that... I wouldn't bet on anything but I think that it would be a dangerous gambit but if I was the head of the joint chiefs at nato and I was feeling anxious I'd probably just knock dwn the entire establishment but in reality this is just a slow kill... it will stay that way. unless nato opts for initiating open war with iran. It is militarily feasible but economically imprudent. Without large backing Russia really isn't in a position to conventionally confront the rest of Europe and the west. The balancing act would be solid support from the NAM and india and china... very unlikely I think as conventional war in that setting is almost 0 possibility. Frankly Russia either calls the game or is forced to have its interests ruined. Not really good for relations. It would be a move by nato. IN a "negotiated" fallout Russia could still keep some interests like tartous Sunni majority rule is about as democratic as alawitte rule only assad actually even gave the kurds citizenship he was actually very supportive as a minority to aim to draw support from all groups in Syria, 1.5 billion in arms sales to Syria isn't exactly something a government wants to take a hit on either though... frankly Syria is also one of russias best customers a 1.5billion dollar drop in revenue that is something like a 0.1% drop in GDP and a massive security issue, but only a year to the Olympics... I think Russia probably feels adverse to be putting into orbit around the US. but it would seem it is all part of the effort to force Russia west. thus segregating the rising dragon china.

resident means to have a permanent residence (as opposed to temporary residence) you reside at except in quebec where you just need to hold property

GDP is a measure of the value of goods and services, its all good you have to start somewhere. Money is goods... it is paper currency which is either a banknote for fiat or free float or tied to a commodity standard, that is traded and regulated by governments as the common value of exchange with the government and other possible considerations. It is a good which is legally regulated and often a government monopoly in the modern era.

how do you think? As said gdp is goods and service domestically produced. If money is not domestically produced then how is it produced? It starts with an "externally"

It isn't. Revocation of Citizenship has been generally only on grounds of fraud in relation to the naturalization process. Until all this terrorism stuff started happening, now there are security certificates and this proposal to revoke terrorists citizenship not through the security certificate process. The other avenue is renunciation via CIC process that being filing the fee,and having another citizenship to which you will take on or have taken on. This nationality stuff Is problematic because Canada doesn't provide nationality it provides citizenship. There are lots of nations in Canada, various first nations,and quebec and "Canada" There are only 3 or so citizenships.. that being cree, six nations and Canadian. (as well commonwealth citizenship to people born before 1982 and after the british subject status was amended. Anyone over around 60 years is Canadian citizen by law but not blood or place of birth but rather act of parliament. Canadian Citizenship didn't exist until about 1947 before that everyone was a British subject, or British protected person etc.. Craig Forcese seems to write on this subject and is apparently a legal academic http://craigforcese....and-oh-cha.html Note the terminology of resident of another country is also used so the restrictions do not seem to be reserved solely for individuals with dual citizenship but rather individuals who would meet the threshold for a self declared renunciation, the concept is the act of carrying out terrorist lifestyle is a communication renouncing ones citizenship. It would be of great interest to know what definition of terrorism is used and how it would be applied. As undeclared acts of violence without a declaration of war (Which is fairly standard in todays war climate) would make many individuals terrorists or supporters of terrorism that is aiding or abetting terrorism, for instance the Canadian government and ministers in funding Israel would be implicated in terrorists acts if that funding were used in an assassination (assasinations being illegal acts of terrorism, and thus the government would loose citizenship if the law was upheld) Making a law like this and not having it political in scope is issued thus turning Canada it a greater kangaroo court.

The big picture explains. Red tape does not represent the fact after the matter. You renounce allegiance you arn't a citizen end of story. Oaths bind the contract. If you say, you didn't really mean it when you said your oath of citizenship, you arn't a citizenzen that is defrauding the system of nationalization, you can't renounce allegiance and keep alllegiance at the same time. Its not like every day you can wake up and go, oh, that oath I took for US citizenship yesterday well, I don't really agree today but I'll keep the citizenship anyway. It doesn't work that way. The same applies to allegiance for the queen, if you are out you are out. Uh, I don't know I was feeling nostalgic yesterday today I'd install some other guy and let him overthrow the government for cheese? huh, no.

Yes the government spends more than the GDP but its revenue is higher than its expenditures...... "Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time." "Government revenue is revenue received by a government." Peculiar yes, incorrect, no. If you understand economics you will see that 200 million in savings and income generation will make the island very profitable, this 200 million estimate if paired with reduction of overlapping services between the Canadian federal government and the would be TCI province could also direct funds solicitors in TCI to private sector employment or in working with groups like CIDA due to their knowledge of developmental aid programs. The bottom line is much like helping newfoundland canda can help TCI and both canada and tci can benefit from the union. The bottom line is they need to diversify their economy into sectors which Canada is specifically well aligned, such as advanced factory farming, but ecologically due to the reef ecosystem. A direct import of tropical produce without import regulations could be quite beneficial in terms of resource sustainance that otherwise is unavailable to Canada. Even if 50% of the island was needed to be managed that is only 15,000 and I would geuss the number to be closer to 5000 people which would likely only amount to perhaps 50 million. If you consider say 5 million sent there anyway that is only a 45 million dollar increase, which could be offset by various benefits to canadians say 2000 resident canadians plus 30,000 canadian tourist each year. One might expect tourism initially to increase to the islands from Canada, in place of other caribian island which would likely keep money in the new Canada as opposed to other countries controls. Overall on the value of the territory itself the net gain would definately exist if properly managed. I dunno I'd pay a dollar a year for a caribean island. This is a no brainer.

There is no danger of internment camps from within Syria, Muslims are far too direct to keep their enemies prisoners, note Assad is a religious moderate which is why he is keeping prisoners. He has actively released his prisoners for foreign hostages taken by the people fighting him.

That is not a legal possibility of any naturalized US citizens. Well you are just flatly not taking things at the point of the whole. You are not seeing the big picture so it deserves comment to save people from debilitating personal impression on a subject that misdirects them from the truth.

INS doesn't have a formal policy on this and naturalization requires a renunciation of allegiances which citizenship is a form of allegigence. So I think you are applying a far broader consideration than what law could be smacked down on people. Because you are basically refuting the US citizenship pledge as having legal force. You are sayin this is just for show and means nothing?http://www.uscis.gov...000b92ca60aRCRD The first line is most indicative of this "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" take this in contast to the Canadian oath of allegiance. I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.[ see how these two things may not line up.. #2 of UCIS clearly states "Renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;"

Don't ask don't tell was killed too. No they really don't much. It pretty goes pretty much like this. If it matters it will if it doesn't it won't. US is your first and only citizenship for governmental dealings. They won't recognize alternative passports. The US does not recognize dual nationality of its citizens by application. " a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship." This is problematic because while people have claimed citizenship they have not lost US citizenship so it is not absolutely exercised. But any American travelling in or out of the US must do so with their US passport. "Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance" Dual nationality is not something the US supports occurring US citizens who are us citizens cannot attempt to secure an additional nationality without risking the loss of their American citizenship.|Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other," (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.| However, "Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances," If someone gains citizenship by allegiance, they are effectively renouncing their citizenship oath in naturalizing to the US "and are effectively a traitor" to their previous nation. This means the only "true" dual nationals are where citizenship is conferred by the other country by default such as jus sanguis or jus soli and is not sought, and the person is not a naturalized American.