noahbody

Thanks, I correct that. I shouldn't write when Paris comes over and wants to play in a bath full of ice cream.

Well, I am using Justin's own word when I say that "rethinking" consumption and rejecting capitalism are not the same thing. Nope. The article said he was "calling on them to rethink the capitalist system." No matter how you look at it, this means government intervention. I'm condemning him on what he said. What he said makes the comparison warranted. I would say we should be worried about him. If he did get in and tried to restrict capitalism in the oil market, the country would have a pretty big unity crisis to deal with. I agree with you on this. But I would add that the polls do reflect the attention the environment has been given in the media and entertainment. It's also reflective of people's need to belong. Now it's popular to have a social concious. This does fade. A not too bold prediction would be that health care will be the number one issue in 5 -10 years and the environment is on the back burner.

Chretien's Canada did support war in Afganistan. Categorizing people as either part of the war crowd or anti-war crowd is a simplistic way of looking at the situation. War isn't black and white. The merits of war depend on the situation. Did you support Desert Storm?

He does seem to be like his father as he's fallen in love with socialism. The NEP, which was a socialist policy, cost thousand of Canadians their jobs and investments in their homes. For this reason, it was devastating policy. Justin's comments are even more ridiculous, if you understand how it would devastate the economy and impact the lives of Canadians. Not just big bad oil companies, but Joe Employee and every shareholder. Not to mention those employed in the medical industry, which is largely funded because of our current economy, and those who use the system. Do you think I'm right on this one or is Justin right because he's a Trudeau?

Here are you latest two responses for the record. And your point is....? Just pointing out your contradiction. You went from him saying nothing about participating in the capitalist world market to it being the basis of his point.

Here are you latest two responses for the record.

He is not against capitalism, he is proposing looking beyond only the immediate gratification and profit, and considering the future of the planet in making that buck. It's called social responsibility. How RADICAL. My interpertation of what he is saying is that Canada should become a true socialist society. "Promotes exploitation of natural resources" means sell our supply to the world. Suggesting we should no longer participate in the capitalist world markets means he feels the government should control the industry. This is what is radical (and silly) about his statements. And Harper is radical for wanting to reform the senate. Oh brother.

I think he just lost my vote to Ben Mulroney.

Liberals bringing this up is like Robert Pickton trying to condemn someone for j-walking.

Bush may realize there are dangerous situtations in the world, but he lacks the wisdom to understand them. I'd suggest the one area that is truly a danger is Iran, due to its instability, radicalism and pursuit of nucular power. But thanks to Iraq, the world is damned if it acts, damned if it doesn't.

In 2002, Canada was ranked 30th by the WHO; the US was ranked 38th. There is plenty of room for improvement. Why we're not better is the issue has been politicized. Martin was guilty of this being "the defender of health care." Layton is just as bad with when framing a universal/private system as Americanization. No one's ever said we should adopt the American system. It's all political b.s., expecially since every doctors office is an example of private care. Guess we've been Americanized all along. As far as Canada/US goes, the 80% with insurance get better care, though it is more expensive due to their approach. From my experience the differences in approach are that in the US, doctors are paid to solve a problem immediately. By this I mean, they run every test possible to determine what ails you. In Canada, it's one test at a time. I think the American system is superior in that aspect. Where it fails miserably is with people without insurance who don't receive the benefits of early detection, because going to the doctor without good reason is costly. My two cents. In my opinion this is the one issue Canada should be talking about. We've known the boomers are going to put incredible demands on our current system that can't handle it's current volume. Don't get sick.

Stop it, you're killing me.

That's my point. But at the time, they were certain, even though there was no concrete proof, similar to Gore. He put his faith in theory, not proof, like Gore. I should have said the majority of the world was behind the states after 911. Yes, some cheered. My point was Bush going into Iraq did help the enemy in Afganistan.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm "March 5, 2004: Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades." This gist of this theory is that melting in the Arctic would result in the cooling of the ocean and therefore significantly decrease the temperature in North America and Western Europe. In 20 years, will the scientific community promoting increasing man-made CO2 to replace the loss of CO2 due to the cooling of the oceans? How ironic would that be?

Isn't that an attempt to shame any scientist who would question his view? Isn't that stiffling debate and endorsing faith rather than science and the continual pursuit of truth, no matter how inconvenient?

Iraq was imminent because of they had WMD. Gore says the result of global warming is comparable to nuclear war. Both were had the same objective; to motivate the masses to accomplish their end goal. They both used fear to motivate. The Iraqis would have capability to launch an attack in months. If we don't act now on global warming, we are done for. No time for debate. We must act now. Both men put their faith in questionable 'intelligence.' Bush misjudged the catastrophic consequences. The entire world was behind the States and the war against terrorism. The only catastrophic consequences to open debate on global warming is there's a chance Gore and IGPCC could look fools and lose all credibility. That's not very catastrophic in my books. But it's the same reason Bush doesn't want to admit he was wrong. Maybe Ralph Nader was the best choice.

How about: "...But he took exception when asked to comment on the "continuing debate" surrounding climate change. "It’s no longer a debate. The debate is over.” " www.abc.net.au/queensland/stories/s1758830.htm Looks like you didn't go the extra mile on that one.

The donor in the second case was not being vindictivly forced. His estate is. Apparently the man in question had (to again quote the judge) "... a settled intention to demonstrate parental involvment far beyond merely biological" Next they'll be going after deadbeat sperm donors.

quote] Well, I think perhaps the following link might give someeone good perspective on what Manning might say. http://www.harperindex.ca/index.cfm, Harperindex.ca is registered by Straight Goods News Inc - "Canada's leading independent online news magazine." Here's a link to the people behind this http://www.straightgoods.com/Services/SGTeam.shtml. One of the guys runs for office as an NDP candidate. The other guy is an NDP campaign worker. The editor is ahead of the writer's union and writes about workers. Something tells me she might support the NDP as well.

To me, this is only another example of how irresponsible the media is in this country. For it to mean something, the objective of the poll would have to be to survey informed Canadians. Tom, Dick and Harry still think Afganistan has something to do with oil.

May compared global warming to Hitler. Harper to Chamberlain. Richard Koenigsberg on Hitler: "Hitler was able to persuade millions of other people to become passionate about the ideas that moved him. He convinced many Germans that their nation was under attack, whipping the people into a fury, prevailing upon them to rise up to undertake a "life or death struggle" to save the nation." Sounds a little like the global warming crowd doesn't it?

You can make the argument that the Bush government is self-serving and corrupt and therefore more like the Chretien Liberals.

Your examples don't back up your statement. Canada wasn't about to announce they were stockpiling antibiotics. The RCMP weren't about to announce they might be corrupt. The envro plan was about to be announced.

Explain how his 'flip-flopping' on the environment and income trusts only demonstrate that point. Explain why you call these "flip-flopping" while you're at it. As far as income-trusts goes, there was no flip-flop, the circumstances changed. If the Liberals were in power, they would have had to do the same thing. I don't think we can forget that Harper is governing as if he is in the minority. If he was more conservative, he'd be criticized for governing as if he has a majority.

I second the Khadrs.