shortlived

they cancled the medical aid, but in turn backed a funding jointly raised by the countries arming the rebellion supplying training to those fighting etc..with no specified purpose. however "N Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the world body received $1.5 billion in promised funds Wednesday and the money will cover six months of aid for a humanitarian crisis he deemed "catastrophic." But the UN is pulling out of Syria... The rebels want and have been continuously asking for support... from NATO forces. ... . http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-arab-league-20130327,0,6553401.story In regard to rebel access to chlorine http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4317172,00.html chlorine factory" east of Aleppo Activated carbon could be obtained from gas masks, chemical suits or a host of http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/syria-no-longer-exists/

They are funding them, it was provided under the auspice of "humanitarian aid" in the form of cash. example: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/08/14/stephen_harper_defends_aid_money_through_unregistered_syrian_charity.html " the group is tied to a global organization channelling medical supplies into Syria." I must be real here they are doing far more than that, but cannot substantiate the claim. oh no not that http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/08/17/pol-syria-medical-aid-group.html Here is 30 million rather 25 million... http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/30/canada-pledges-25-million-for-syrian-aid "The funds bring Canada's total contribution to $48 million since January 2012." note though the countries, that are funding are the ones supplying weapons, armour and other military support to the rebels... The UN is pulling out of Syria due to violence in Damascus it already suspended peace keeping operations in the Golan Heights.

Sounds like the rebels/ us/cia backed used phosgene or something very close to it. (it is very simple to make, anyone could have pulled if off if they had access to chlorine, it posibly could have been caused by the explosion... if chlorine were present on site when the blast went off.) a few days ago syrian troops were reported to be using white phosphorous or something similiar to it (although the us uses this too) , and it may have just been for illumination and screening that the rebels fell within. It could be phosgene... or phosgene mixed with white phosphorus.. or perhaps.. phosphorus pentoxide. apparently there is a method of production of phosgene from phosphorus pentoxide, if the reaction was not perfect residuals of phosphorus pentoxide could have been left in the reaction... hence the smell of phosphorus.. but hell I'm not a chemical weapons engineer or expert.. |An alternative synthesis involves the reaction of phosphorus pentachloride (PCl5) and phosphorus pentoxide (P4O10). Since these compounds are both solids, a convenient way of performing the reaction is to chlorinate a mixture of PCl3 and P4O10, which generates the PCl5 in situ. As the PCl3 is consumed, the POCl3 becomes the reaction solvent. 6 PCl3 + 6 Cl2 → 6 PCl5 6 PCl5 + P4O10 → 10 POCl3 Phosphorus pentachloride also forms POCl3 by reaction with water, but this reaction is less easily controlled than the above reaction." TIME COURSE: Patient/victims exposed to low concentrations of phosgene (CG) vapor may not experience any irritation, or they may have only mild irritation of the upper airways; this allows them to inhale phosgene (CG) for a longer time and more deeply into the lungs. There is a symptom-free (latent) period of 30 minutes to 72 hours, depending on the severity of exposure. The more severe the exposure, the shorter the latency. Physical exertion may bring on shortness of breath or difficulty breathing (dyspnea) or fluid accumulation in the lungs (pulmonary edema). Onset of pulmonary edema within 2 to 6 hours is predictive of severe injury. If the patient/victim survives the initial 48 hours after exposure, recovery is likely. EFFECTS OF SHORT-TERM (LESS THAN 8-HOURS) EXPOSURE: Phosgene (CG) exerts its toxicity by its action on the body’s proteins, as well as through the production of hydrochloric acid. The lung is the major target organ. Irritation of the eyes and upper respiratory tract may be mild, while effects on the cells of the lower airways and lungs may be severe. Heart failure and death may occur as a complication of lung damage. EYE EXPOSURE:Gas (high concentrations): Tear production (lacrimation), accumulation of blood (hyperemia), inflammation, and clouding (opacification) of the cornea. Liquid: Clouding (opacification) of the cornea and delayed perforation. INGESTION EXPOSURE:Phosgene (CG) is present as a gas at room temperature, so ingestion is unlikely. INHALATION EXPOSURE:Mild: No adverse health effects or only mild upper airway irritation; effects may improve when the patient/victim is removed from exposure; more severe adverse health effects are possible after a delay (latent period). Mild to moderate: After a symptom-free interval (latent period), irritation of the upper airway, dryness and burning of the throat, painful cough, choking, sense of chest discomfort, difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (dyspnea), spasmodic narrowing of the large airways (bronchospasm), and possible nausea and vomiting (emesis) may occur. Patient/victims with underlying reactive airways or asthma may be at increased risk. Severe: Rapid accumulation of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema); shallow rapid respirations; severe, painful coughing fits producing frothy liquid (sputum); possible upper airway closure (laryngospasm) that may result in sudden death; difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (dyspnea); possible cardiovascular collapse due to low blood oxygen; and low blood pressure secondary to fluid accumulation in the lungs (pulmonary edema). SKIN EXPOSURE:Gas: Irritation and redness (erythema) on contact with wet or moist skin. Severe skin burns or frostbite may occur as a result of contact with compressed liquefied gas.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/26/china-says-it-fired-2-flares-at-vietnamese-fishing-boats-but-denies-action/ So things have heated up related to Chinese waters again, you are probably aware of the Sendoku/Diayu... there are also claims to the south... China made a statement a couple months ago regarding that they will now enforce their claims. In this instance "they drove vietnamese boats off" with flares, the vietnamese boats say caused a cabin fire. China has asserted that it has the right to drive off boats within its claims area.

tax is immoral.

f--- you. you are out of touch the government employs people to act as agent provocateurs so they can smack down.They also lock up organizers so that there the leadership is subverted just before the protests occur. Although there is a certain amount of room, the events that happen at protest are organized, police set up choke points and capture points and box points, they direct protests then attack them as a whole rather than removing the criminals, and at times the undercovers that are directing the movements and/or involved in their organization. Cops should be concentating on taking out the people who break the law not the legitimate protesters. The police have the option of working with protesters, as does the city instead they create opposition to the issues, they don't have task forces to deal with the issues, no attempt is made to address the cause of the protest or have "nice policing" or involve protesters to see what steps can be taken to reduce police abuse. No, you are wrong. Protest is not illegal. As I said all protest is legitimate and lawful as freedom, conscience, beleif, and expression entail. Crimes however are crimes, but you cannot criminalize people for protest, you can criminalize people for crimes. Your view sucks, imo, you don't believe in a free society. You want to criminalize dissent. The people are not slaves to the state in a free society. I disagree with you you can have your police state to police you, I'll have my free society to protect my rights. It is your loss.

The right of dissent through protest is essential in a free society.

I agree this is why partisan politics fails within a party system. Of course the guy has the chance of sitting as an independent, but when are independents allowed to do anything? Or in forming their own party from among their 20 some odd members, which would still be larger than the block and green party.. I think the chances of that are slim... conservatives are sheep. ok yes I said that in jest, I don't think they are really sheep. But I do think I would be surprised to see them get the balls to just form their own party. Either he sits as an independent, he forms his own party with his supporters, or he continues his life as a backbencher for the next couple of years, unless he is turfed from caucus for rocking the boat... or they let the debate and vote happen.... none the less who knows, unless it happens its just raising awareness of certain members and free publicity while the liberal leadership thing is happening.

Its not a difficult concept people pay 0.33% of their income per full term of studies which works out to about 3.2% for a 4 year undergrad degree less for less study terms. after each year more people are paying but only one year of new students approx 500,000+ students per year. Eventually more money is coming in than is required to pay the incoming students tuition, and then there is excesss. people have equal share based on the money coming in as a total of all funds paid, people who have paid more in over the life of the fund in turn get a larger return share the longer and more they have been paying of the surplus. the surplus will continue to increase and people will eventually be getting more back than they have paid in. Everything is redundant between 2030-2040 but you can't plan for things not to be around, that is negligent, you have to plan not only that it will be around but that you will need to maintain it. I'm not a fortune teller or prophet, I am wrong sometimes, but I beleive in this fund concept for removing income taxes, and I think this is something you need to insure support for because the alternative will set us back as a society, and the current system has some real problem particularly the government relying on private loans, and second it still needs to tax, and third the hidden conditions violate Canadians constitutional rights with unlawful search and seizure. The government shouldn't be using funds for education as a way of depriving Canadians of their constitutional rights. I think there is a real technological race, but I'm not really concerned with that, its not over yet, until it is, it doesn't end everything else, the finish line ain't finished until you get there. You need to understand the government is borrowing money to pay for these programs, then the tax payer needs to pay for it and the debt interest. The only real solution to remove debt servicing costs is to stop borrowing private money, and have programs support themselves. Its the program financing itself that is the problem not the programs. Government needs to stop throwing money at partisan projects that really have no need to exist except fancy, it is a bit like those "unneeded academic programs" that were brought up here, program spending is like that. Its not for the government to end programs but it should insure they are self funding. To do this general tax revenue must be eradicated from being collected and direct taxation and direct program spending must be brought into force by creating crown corporations and funds for all these pet projects and slush funds, and insure that people pay directly to fund those programs, even if they are organized through the government. The government needs to kill all slush funds and pet projects and concentrate solely on essential services such as the courts, the military, and a few other core services, everything else should be administered through the public service that acts as a public bank, with products such as employment insurance, and health insurance that are optional services, as well as crown corporations owned by the public and held in trust by the government, with the members of the public holding equal share, and non essential crown corporations where they are government managed but publicly funded through direct payment for those services. If the public fails to fund them they should fail to exist. This fund is just one means of eliminating post secondary funding from general revenue and instead passing it over to interested parties and the students themselves who want funding for tuition. While it will take time to become self sufficient it will become self sufficient. Most of my programs are based on 10-20 year implementation timeframes. I have to be honest there is no quick fix except ditching the financial system and starting over, and that isn't realistic.

See the problem is how you think it happened and how it actually happened is the difference. See propaganda can be that way. Look at the link then criticize.

on the contrary... as you can see the deficits were massively smaller than the Harper Government's http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-deficit/ As you can see the liberals had very low deficits and surpluses while the conservative government had very high deficits. Bear in mind the late 70's was a global energy crisis, and if not for Trudeau's NEP Canada's oil wealth may not have been developed. NEP stopped Imperial Oil's monopoly in the west. They wanted to limit supply. Some 90% of Canadian oil was owned by foreign companies giving Canadians an absence of domestic control at a time when there was an ongoing energy crisis and oil shortage. If oil was earmarked only for export to the US Canadians would go without.

Wet noodle? Personally I don't advocate for hitting people, I think if violence is warranted you should be prepared to kill people. Self defence is totally reasonable. I think there is a difference between symbolic physical contact, and potraying violence or causing actual harm. There are plenty of contact sports out there. Lots of parents spank their kids. 99.9% of the time, superficial contact is just that superficial. Its really not worth involving the justice system. Its only when it becomes repeated and habitual that it is an issue, but really if a wife or husband is cheating on their spouse repeatedly and they know it hurts them, what type of marriage is that. Adultery use to be a crime in the British legal system. None the less. This is not a personal concern for myself. I think that saying strike and do not cause harm is much better than advocating that murdering your spouse for adultery is a much stronger position in terms of Canadian 'culture'. Wife beater is better than a wife murderer. I think socially there exists a margin between assault and non violent physical communication. It is when it is habitual and non deserving that it becomes abuse. Although, once again I don't personally have these issues so it is not a personal issue. I'm not really for monogamy anyway. But I think people should be respectful. If you can be happy in a monogamous relationship fine, if that is what you agree to, it is betrayal not to. Obviously it should not be an intent to cause harm but communicate displeasure. it is a symbolic act, an effigy of sorts. Society has been turned into a bunch of non violence pussies, meanwhile they are blowing people up overseas. It is a bit of a farce. If you arn't maiming people it is a personal issue, or civil issue, and remunerative functions should be able to mitigate harms. But as far as making contact and not causing actual harm, its really not worth involving the justice system over, it is completely superficial. I think there should be a crime of "harassment assault" where the assault is habitual, even if minor, however isolated incidents with reasonable cause are pure BS. \ Being mean to people isn't nice but people should be provided a defence against just having to take it as a victim. But I am not saying cheating deserves the punishment of death, it is a civil and personal issue, and it should be left to that level of response, unless the person is endangering the public through transmitting STD's that are serious in nature, at which point it becomes criminal, and people who uphold civic duty will treat it as an indictable offence. Physical communication that is non harmful is at that level. Abuse, and harassment are not, they are criminal. Its not a minor issue marital breakdown is a MASSIVE problem.

Its free now. They aren't paying for their education later, they are paying for education to be available to people later, who choose the program like they did. As well as to insure it is available to themselves at a later date. It would eventually start paying back to them later in their life, should the world get to that point. Generally the only people paying a whole lot more than they get back would be people of upper class income levels, who I think should feel pride in the fact they are supporting education, as a form of philanthropy, and that the cost of education is removed from general income taxes and moved into a fund that funds education separate from general revenue that could do anything with the money they pay, or limit access to people who have no other means of getting post secondary studies access. I think though this would have people not stay in a long time, because people wouldn't want to pay an ever larger segment of their annual income for life, and after a certain threshold would opt for private funding or employment earnings to further studies.

For the sake of salvaging the topic, I'm going to ignore your absurdities. The tuition is free. Tuition does not make up all costs of schooling. You are taking the scope out of context. I have no desperation in a discussion that will not yield to actual practice. I raised the issue of free education being an alternative to riots and associated problems such as discontent, maladministration, corruption, and abuse by the current system. Just because you can continue studies doesn't mean you will, post secondary studies are not an amusement park. I think free now, pay later is the only option, people without money but potential skills development need the skills to be of use. I think the current loan system is being abused, and this program offers many advantages over the current loans system, because it removes private lenders, hidden conditions, redtape, and high staffing administrative needs, and tons of legal issues, including government mismanagement of personal data. People with access to resources are also benefiting from it unfairly.Giving the money to the students rather than the schools is also just representative of an additional layer of red tape and abuse of process. Frankly preventing access to education is a problem, because quality education should not be blocked, because the money invested into higher degrees creates more capable employees, generally. We would be well served by more masters and doctors. This never ending education thing is just a myth. grades manage capability to continue in studies. schools generally may only allow one degree in a given faculty, at the undergrad level. Masters and Doctorates, actually see people employed rather than being money dependent as part of their program, and there are limited spots. I don't think finances should limit access to education. We should allow people with the grades to get further training. I don't believe money should rule society, capability should.

Taking an excerpt of an exchange and trying to make it something it isn't is out of context. Sorry, if you don't think that we arn't on the same page in regard to clarity of communication. Much like the "I support genocide" tag, the line was much longer, it was closer to I support genocide of the bad guys, people who endanger innocent people and set out to victimize those innocents. I support genocide to protect human life of the innocents. I support genocide, but not using or on religious, ethnic or cultural grounds. As you can see the "I support genocide" excerpt does not do justice to my meaning. Much like the responses above that are excerpts that take out of context, and in that context are not my statements whatsoever. If you take a sentence or a word and say see you said this, no, that is not the full meaning, meaning is formed in bigger blocks than words and clauses. Taking excerpt without the full context is a disservice to civilized discussion. Also playing the "your life is this way, you should do this" card is just plain ignorant and disrespectful when you have no idea how someones life is, and you shouldn't be delegating how other people should live their life in the first place. Quite frankly it is you guys that are being insulting in that type of context. It is very clearly just flaming, and if you do it repeatedly, such as hitops with his netstalking, it is trolling behaviour. That is just the facts.

guyser, on 21 Mar 2013 - 19:17, said: It is free when they get it. If they work they pay, if they don't work, they don't. If what you guys are saying is so true, it is free. F--- you buddy. I've got tons of value from my time in post secondary studies. Dude who the hell are you to say what I should do with my time, manage your own life prick. Also the difference of them having most secondary studies will statistically increase their income by more than 40% a 3-4% cut of that 40% is an investment well spent.

You have a fine way of taking my statements out of context, why not quote the entire exchange in addition to what it was quoting. Just another example of your trolling ways. Try to stick to the topic rather than starting a flame war, just more flamebait from a troll. You are called a troll because you are a troll. And no I havn't called many people trolls... you have reserved that right along with one or two other people around here who behave like trolls. Hitops you are on ignore now, bye.

Has nothing to do with this, that is "quality of accredited degree counted as post secondary studies" That would be up to the government to determine what accrediting organizations to recognize. I think that is a separate issue from the ability to participate in an accredited program, although related, they are two separate issues. I would not say bible colleges offer no benefits to society, much like I wouldn't say poli sci or legal or sociology or social sciences, or fine arts degrees offer no benefit to society, actually I think they do. Now do they make people money, not always, but either do programming and computer science degrees. also some of the more difficult technical programs such as engineering have people switch degrees due to failing to keep up to program requirements, switching over to arts degrees or not graduating. I think that education itself in its delivery should be holistic, and that the delivery system is not. However one must recognize that arts degrees such as social sciences and history are information intensive, while technical degrees tend to be formula intensive, fine arts is actual skill development. I think the arts contribute to society, I personally greatly support history as a teaching aid, civics and law serve a benefit, in large part because it is not socially engrained, and society is morally corrupt in a capitalist corporatist system that pervades non public life, law is not laymen due to professional legal development over the last 800 years. The main point of this response though is that accredited programs and accrediting organizations are another matter. In all honesty in a free market capitalist system I think employers should higher unskilled workers and get long term apprenticeship contracts with them to fill skill shortages, through co-op programs. The Canadian forces puts its young officers through school to get university educated officers, I see no reason why oil companies, and other industries can't pay for this same training. don't think it is fair for them to offload those costs to the individuals and government, and complain they don't have skilled workers when they have full capacity to do the same thing the government and individuals are doing to insure skilled workers. I think it is a slippery slope when the government only funds some programs, as it can become partisan and related to command economy practices, its not for the government to determine economic mobility in a free society, Canada shouldn't be a socialist state that forces people to learn only a limited range of skill sets, people should be free to explore their own interests. Bible colleges, and the arts and letters have been around for way longer than the sciences and they are way more fundamental foundations for social skills need to maintain an orderly society. Someone who goes off topic time and time again or starts making adhominem attacks is a troll, and I do mean the person who starts making ad hominem attacks, attacking a person is much different than attacking their ideas. I am not a "starter", hitops is a starter. Guyser is also a starter. Which is just part of a few people on here that are prone to setting up people they want to get rid of by starting flame wars, and flame baiting. It is part of the practice by derailing discussion when the truth is inconvenient, because the truth shows their own policy to be corrupt, immoral and greedy.

I have been a student, and I can choose to be a student in the future. I didn't call you a turd, show me where I called you a turd? Who did I call a troll? Who did I call a netstalker? It should be very obvious I didn't "namecall" anyone, and that any use of any of the above was a generous assignment that removed most of any vulgarity deserved for the specific person in question. Although I don't recall those things being assigned to you, can you recap your post prior to the "name calling" occuring. As I have no recollection.

I'm geussing breach of ethics that would lead to lawsuits. ... that would cost much more than the amount paid for the legal advice on how to bury them.

What were your questions? I don't need to divulge personal details to you. Also there has been no name calling by me.

Ok what about a cell phone in Canada, you'd still pay that in the US right? People can just as easily skip student loans.

No, the registration process to vote was separate from the campaign registration. I think you are exagerating things greatly here. Show some evidence to the scale you are suggesting, because you've shown nothing but isolated cases. This is not robocaller.

Oh, I havn't seen evidence of that yet. One instance of 100 people signing up with the same email could just be the same goof. If you showed me 2000 of those instances you might have something with your claims. this isn't robocalls. I'm sorry but your story that every liberal signed up to 3 different campaigns strikes me as "not very likely" they arn't communists you know.

You can think that, but how will you know? There is probably a confidentiality agreement involved, either that or embezzlement.