Catchme

Rational people agree that it would be a weird thing to say, but that doesn't mean that some of the most heard voices aren't weird. Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 partly on gay people, so why not blame the gradual slouching towards Gamorrah on us, too? Well, Pat Robertson blammed 911 on feminists and women's liberation so....

Well now, the title of the article is disengenous and does not match the content of the article and the article starts off with a erroneous premise in the first place. And why are we having continual environmental threads show up? The title "Kyoto Sinks Europe" is not accurate. What is sinking Kyoto is (and the artcile actually says so if people read discerningly) greed and peoples not wanting to change their life styles. First unfactual premise is: 1. We have all saw the latest report posted here on other threads that came out stating humans are increasing the levels of carbon dioxide occuring naturally, and accelerating climate change. This means climate change can be slowed and stablized by lowering GHG emissions. 2. That point by the NP is a red herring, and/or a strawman propaganda technique. The second point that it is Kyoto destroying the EU is refutted in their own words: The Biggest factor in it its potential failure is greed: The next factor is: and another factor is: The EU is having to go it alone, because other countries like Canada are not living up to the signed agreements. And because of greed and cheap manufacturing corporations are moving to countires that have no envirnmental regulations and cheap slave labour. Again, this not Kyoto's fault but the fault of the some countries, and peoples, in world for not caring neough about destoying the world all in the name of profit, and I don't want to change my life style selfishness. TheThe Stern Report out of Britian, should be paid attention to, and the recent report out of the USA linked in the other enivronmental thread here I believe this article from the Financial Post is nothing other than propaganada in trying to bolster Harper et als indecent perceptions regarding climate change and global warming, and is trying to support the useless Clean Air Act, obliquely.

If everyone thought that way the question would never been asked. Concern is one thing but to suggest it is being done to boast kill counts is another..And they did ask, thru thier elected government. And like you i'm getting tired with people blaming the whole Afgan sit on Mr. Harper, when all he's done is extended the mission and ensure that equipment we needed for combat was purchased.. yes Martin did rush the LUVW purchase to replace the Iltis another veh unsuitable for Afgan replaced by Nyalia armoured patrol veh puchased by the Cons. No you're wrong they did not ask, we were there before they had an elected government! You're also wrong about who purchased the Nyala's! It certainly was not Harper's government From DND's own web site: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view...s_e.asp?id=1833 Notice the date of the purchase announcement was: Nov 29 2005, for the Nyala APV's, and Harper did not come into office until January 23 2006, 2 months after the announcement. So perhaps you should adjust your thinking about what government actually bought them, as it was the Liberals under Martin, not Harper who bought them. And if Harper's government is taking credit for it amongst the military in Afghanistan they are liars and deceivers! The DND link also list all the other equipment that Martin bought that is now in Afghanistan. Moreover, while looking for evidence to see if Harper bought anything more for Afghanistan that is currently in use there, I could find nothing. Not saying he didn't but cannot find evidence.

It's hardly your gay co-worker's fault, or the fault of homosexuals in general, that you can't keep your mind off hot man-on-man action. You article was interesting regarding the increased anal sex between hetro's. Of course, the narrow minded would say that it is the homo sexual that have corrupted hetro's and use it as an example. They would never see it as casting off sexual taboo's that have been imposed in the name of "morality". Nor do they understand sex does not = morals or lack there of.

Why did the military say it was too complicated at the time? Exactly Charles! And I agree with fortuna's post as well re: Not blaming individual military personal for the deaths of women and children and Harper's motives especially! Army guy in response to your comments below: 30 Canadian lives being lost in 911 have no bearing on today's Afghanistan, nor on what we are speaking of in this thread, other than it was an excuse to go into a country that had NOTHING to do with 911. Hence the promises of reconstruction money and efforts that have NOT been followed through on. There was NO elected Afgan government back then for us to answer the call. The elections came after we went in there to "reconstruct". The environment is not safe and secure after 4 years, in fact it is worse than ever, as I said earlier, when something is NOT working businesses, governments, and organizations usually change actions instead of trying to make what is not working work. The fact that they are not suggests that they do not want things to work in the manner that the "official" mandate says. Apparently, there is actually another mandate, that is unknown that they are working from. Exactly, my point why should our military even be there? Most Canadian military that I know, did not sign up to go to war, they signed up to peace keep, there is a big difference. And I know, I did not sign up to wage war, I signed up to Peace Keep. The NATO commitment should have ended after the initial term was up and should NOT have been extended. Chretien may not have had military experience but he at least had years of governing experience, and had a majority mandate from Canadians. Neither of which Harper has. The fact that the military said it was too complicated does not support your position. In fact, it supports mine. First of all, we can see the pressure that was imposed upon Chretien by the USA to fulfill our NATO commitments even when the military says no. Second, because the military recommend NO, common sense says Canada should have gotten out of there at our first opportunity before we threw, and throw, away more Canadians lives. Thirdly, Canada's military went to Afghanistan, to avoid the quagmire mess in Iraq, and still support our NATO partner the USA. The mission was supposed to be short term, the reason why it isn't is because Harper extended it, and then proceeded to make things worse. Notwithstanding is the fact that the USA went off to Iraq, and left their Allies holding the bag in Afghanistan based upon lies. For that reason alone Canada should have walked away from Afghanistan.

No, to re-label racism as ignorance allows it to continue. It is so ingrained in people that they do not even realize it when they are saying it. For example, my daughter has cousins who are First Nations that live on the Rez. Her partner made a comment to her that she better use good hygiene techniques when she was with them, as you never know what you will get from the Rez. Needless to say my daughter lost it, and truthfully informed him he was being racist, and that indeed cities are worse carriers of disease than reservations. He did not even think about his comment as being, not only wrong but also racist. Let's look at the definition of racism in particular the #2 definition of a person being in a state of prejudice or discrimination: Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi- Function: noun 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination - rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective Now let's look at the definition of ignorant: Main Entry: ig·no·rant Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt Function: adjective 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors> 2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED There are plenty of opportunities in this day and age of computers and information for people to be informed as to the truth, if they do not seek out validation of their perceptions then they are keeping themselves in a state of wilful ignorance. It is the state of keeping themselves in wilful ignorance that is the foundation of their racism. They do not want to be informed because of their inherent racism and nothing more.

The show is balancing the autrocious negative stereotyping existing out there in regards to Muslims, there is nothing wrong with that at all. And it does address negative attributes of Muslims as well, mocking themselves if you will. Toronto was bashed more than the prairie red neck.

Funny they have not cared for what 8 years now what was going on in Somalia? Since 1998 that would be. But now things have turned up oil, the oil companies need their interests protected, the article noted that. And the US military, nor the White House informed Congress either, and that is strange indeed too. Acting in another country and blowing people up cause they say Al Qaeda is there, just at random without discussing it at a national leve,l is what okay a good thing to do? Let me tell you, if Canada's military, under orders from the PMO's office alone, went into another country and opened fire killing civilians on mass, Canadians and parliament would be furious and rightly so. The world is going to be screaming over this shortly, I am sure. Along with Congress in the USA.

I liked it it was funny! It can only get funnier. 2 others in my household that are not political or involved with knowing about negative sterotyping of Muslim ideology thought it was hilarious. Kinda like My Big Fat Greek Wedding funny.

Yes he was. He ruined the country. Can you list what he did that ruined the country? I wouldn't start with the premise the country was ruined. Finally, we can blame him for the uncountable billions and billions and tens of billions in costs due to his Charter of Rights. We were a free nation before the Charter. I can't personally think of a single way in which the Charter has improved Canada. I can think of many ways it has cost us in terms of both money and democracy (in the form of the empowerment of unelected political hacks on the benches). It is quite possible, even likely, that if a traditionalist conservative government had been in power instead of Trudeau, we'd have very little national debt, much less crime, far fewer visible minorities and foreigners, and be able to walk back and forth across the border as we used to. And decisions on national issues would be made by parliament, not unelected judges. Oh please, do not bring up that traditional conservative if stuff, Mulroney made a mess of Canada enuff said bout that line of innuendo and impossibility. And decisions with our current traditionist government does not have parliament making decisions we have the PMO doing it. And really think about that nonsense about not being able to walk back and forth across the border being Trudeu's fault that is like Pat Robertson saying women were the cause of 911. Trudeau saw, as people see now, with our declining birth rates of an industrilized nation, we need a certain amount of immigration, just as we did to start this country and get it going. IT is made up of immigrants. This whole country IS foreigners, unless your First Nations. The Charter of Rights is a great thing, it has improved Canada in countless ways.

Sigh! And the National has really good coverage of this tonight apparently. US in Somalia Wasn't there just recently oil found in Somalia? A great deal of it, but it has not been mentuioned too much lately. Oh here, I found something: So maybe our armed forces both USA, Canada and indeed NATO are being used by the oil companies as their own private army that we the tax payer fund? http://www.netnomad.com/fineman.html

Too funny, I just finished watched LMoTP and thought it was funny and feel it can only get funnier. About time there was a counter to the obnoxious "terrorist" label that was wrongly forced upon Mulims. As for the Canadians they depict, I meet them every day.

Thank you Canadian Blue for your words am going to think on them and investigate your perspective, as I said we ALL need to look at this from as many view points as we can, we need to be an action, not a reaction.

oops out of order new thread should be after this so it goes away

Let's say we devote a large chunk of our economy for many years to reducing GHGs and end up with an economy that depends even more on oil to create plastics and the specialized equipment necessary to eliminate GHGs. Let's assume that because of our narrow minded focus on GHGs we did not spend any money building dikes, making our water systems more efficient and ensuring our electrical grid can resist violent weather.When the inevitable comes we will be toast. The only responsible thing that we can do now is prepare for the effects of global warming and reduce our total energy and water consumption. Reducing GHGs or the sake of reducing GHGs is a big waste of effort. You just put up strawman arguments and then kicked them down. What if we use money to reduce GHG and end up creating more GHG isn't a excuse not to build a sustainable environment sorry. The people working on sustainable environments have actually been thinking about what can be down. It is only those who have never gave it a thought who are struggling with it. However, I also agree with your point that we need to spend money now on dikes and other infrastructure that will be imapcted by the effects of global warming, and run it parallel with building a sustainable environment with lower GHG's. One can only sand bag so much though. Plastics should be banned wherever another non carbon dioxide producing can be used instead. The Stern Report which is in one of the oldest 2 of the environmental links, perhaps this one even, contains much info on what can be done. But starting immediately is absolutely necessary. Non-partisanship needs to start happening says Layton

This thread is redundant and wastes server space. Just because the other 2 threads on the environment went off of todays recent posts does not mean a new one needs to be started. Thinking they are out of sight out of mind and discussion is incorrect. Particularily when this thread starts out with a report from 1990! Time to update your view point maybe? The other 2 threads cover recent breaking news on Carbon Dioxide emissions and the PART THAT HUMANS PLAY IN THE FAST RISING LEVELS So, I am just going to link to the other threads that cover this topic that somebody started, it seems they must not have liked the direction the other threads went in. I will also link this to them make a comment on Jack on them so this redundant thread can go by the way side. Environmental thread that has actual new data Link to thread on NEW study not a 1990 study Layton on the Environment and working with the CPC

Jack was on CBC's noon news today, and on the Hour Last Night speaking about Harpers failed Clean Air Act. Perhaps that has caused some CPC peoples some upset? Layton on working with the CPC on the Environment

Thank you, for your explanation. I agree but don't either. I do not see sodomy or prostitution as crimes. Sodomy has not been against the law in Canada for a good long time. And actually prostitution isn't either. The law against communication or Bawdy House laws need to be changed making it fully legal and regulated by the government as with any other profession. Drugs I agree with you completely on the legalized and regulated. Prohibition does not work.

I have always understood them, I just don't think rhetoric is productive. Things are going well in the north of the country, Canada was doing alot of security in and around Kabul, however the south need's the most improvement. Hopefully we have killed enough Taliban off so reconstruction work can go ahead. As well another problem was the American fixation on Iraq after Afghanistan, which was a major mistake on their part since Iraq was found to have had nothing to do with September 11 after the invasion. The other problem is the fact that some European countries could be helping out in the south and don't want to risk the casualties, once we see them step up the situation could get better. However we shouldn't pull out by february, we should wait. If we can no longer be able to do anything militarily and our military is stretched to the limit we will have to pullout unless some of the European countries pick up the slack. To be fair Canadian blue, you think your rhetoric is fine and productive, just not others. While others think their rhetoric is just fine while yours is not. That is why I avoid it. I find your comment of "hopefully we have killed off enough Taliban so reconstruction work can go ahead", to be a fine example of rhetoric that is NOT productive. It says a surface comment that appears reasonable, but it does not take into account the realities of what is going on there and as such trivilizes wrongly. How many women and children have died while NATO forces were hoping to kill off Taliban? How many of them were Taliban, or are just being reported as such? How many of them used to support NATO and then went to the Taliban? Blaming other "European" countries, and the Taliban just does not cut it. That is scape goating and smoke screening. There is a reason why other countries do not want casualities, and are NOT going on the offensive. The question should be: Why is Canada? Why is Canada risking its military personal, when others in the NATO alliance won't? Really, why are we NOW going against our NATO allies directions and why are we NOT following them by not risking casualities and by NOT going on the offensives? Why does Harper think his government knows more than other NATO countries governments and military do? He has never been in power goverbning a country before, so he has zero experience, he has never been to war or been in the military even, he has a minority government, and yet he thinks he has the right to do things differently than our NATO allies? Personally, I find this a little hard to take!

Certainly, I appreciate what you are saying here regarding them not being better off, but really people need to think hard about that, and what it implies and whether there is truth in it. Canadians need to think about things like the following and then make decisions about whether we should remain there, or withdraw and give them the money in unfettered aid: 1. Is our staying making things worse in the long run? 2. Considering the fact that what has been going on there for the last 2 years has caused Afghans to mistrust the occupation. And to greatly mistrust its supposed mandate, is there any hope that it will get better, as nothing has changed, it has gotten worse with offensives being conducted and Canadians driving around in tanks instead of conducting reconstruction activities. At least planes were/are not destroying fields and family farms as they pass by. 3. The problem seems to be Pakistan, so why haven't the Canadian government been putting pressure on well before this day? Or even would any pressure help in the first place? 4. Why are NATO troops guarding oil referneries and oil lines? Is our military the oil companies private army to protect their interests while Canadians tax payers foot the costs? 5. Afghans are survivors, and they throughout history have destroyed other nations finacially, I.e. Russia most recent, and Britian prior to that, when they have tried to colonialize them, so why are we there again? 6. It is their country, and they seem to want it back, and they seem to want it back even though they understand there may be a civil war. 7. Is this just an extension of the Holy Wars put on hold for a few 100 years, if so why are we there? 8. Why aren't our governments, either previous to this one, and this one acting credibly in Afghanistan? 9. If we stay longer, are we going to have to end up leaving anyway, or will we face launching a fullout war against the whole country all because some say: "we want to make things better for them so we have to stay"? 10. Our leaving would not be an act of cowardess and it is ridiculous for people to state that in any way or manner. Typical rule of thumb in life, government, business and social interaction is: if it is not working change it, you don't keep putting money, and in this case lives too, into the same old thing and expect different results. This failing occupation is no different and should not be judged so. 11. You don't commit suicide as you know your going to die, trying to help the plight of women and children by killing them and having them starve to death makes as much sense. 12. Our military personal on the ground is struggling to do the best they can, it is the governments that are not following through. They went to reconstruct and now they are faced with 1000's of dying women and children, are we doing what is righteous and good for our personal?] 13. Are we going to start running into every country in the world to allegedly save women and children? These above, may, or may not, be my position on things there. I put them up as a starting place for people to think from and beyond. The situation deserves our upmost thoughts and personal internal analysis, as we are sending our children and others: children, fathers, mothers, extended family and friends to die, spending billions of dollars, and killing civilians in their own country. We need to hold a full vision, so we can act from a solid personal opinion on what we, as Canadians, want our minority government to be doing in regards to our efforts in Afghanistan.

Yes he was. He ruined the country. Can you list what he did that ruined the country? Apparently not! Though any response I am sure will be along the same lines of Pat Robertson's thinking that women having equality caused 911. BTW, Dion has no other choices for Outremount now, Justin is running there.

My points exactly, and why would someone post a year old report in the first place? Especially when the same org had another newer one out. My only guess is that the newer one was not as supportive of a position that some wanted to present. And thanks for the other stats links that show, indeed Afghans are growing angry at the failures of their invaders to full fill promises. Apparently Afghanis MP's saying so isn't good enough. Part of the problem that is causing Afghans anger no doubt is this and other such things: And yes, this started under the Liberals, but has gotten much worse under the CPC, as evidenced by the increased Canadian military deaths over the last year, and the decline in those Afghans supporting our occupation. Making a mockery of Aid monies. The BBC has a good link about the time line and person and things involved in Afghanistan with comments from around the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6212851.stm Here is a link for those who do not understand the feminist view point on occupation of countries allegedly to help the women. Though it speaks of the USA the point is still the same. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7519

I am not sure what you mean by victimless crime? I do not consider, people's sexual proclivities, that are not the old missionary position, as crimes let alone ones that are vicitimless. But come to think of it, maybe the missionary position should be criminalized, as it affords women the least amount of pleasure possible. Seriously though... Unless, it is pedeophilia, snuff sex or sex with a dead person, incest, sex with a minor, and sexual assault, sex with an animal living, or dead, nothing else is criminal IMO. Not that I would engage in all the activities that are out there, to chose from, but that is my personal private business to decide what I find sexually stimulating, or not. Morality needs to be taken completely out of the topic/or ideology of non-criminal sex let alone thinking the government should be legistlating it.

I completely aagree with each and every word you said, good post.

Trudeau to run