noahbody

I think we are driving a logical discussion.. but I feel that you sometimes ignore my big questions and do not answer them... If the universe has a beginning, who created it? We all admit nothing comes from nothing. Just to confront your thinking on the matter Adel, if a rock falls down a mountain, did someone or something have to push it? If your answer is yes, god pushed it. Your god spends his time pushing rocks down a mountain while in the meantime millions starve, people suffer and children are molested.

All you need to do is put together a slide show. Don't even mention Co2. Make a 90 presentation about sun spots and weather data etc. Put the facts our there in plain view. from start to finish. Make your case. What makes me skeptical of this movie is the amount of anecdotal accounts it should raise a flag. Like it or not, this documentary raised some interesting questions for the pro-Co2 crowd to address. This is how science works. If the statement about the rise/fall in Co2 following the rise/fall of the earth's temp is true, it would suggest the initial theory is false. So is this statement true or false?

Why doesn't everyone on the planet wear a bone through their nose? Why are there so many different languages? Why are there so many different religions? Isolated from each other people will come up with different traditions, dress, ways of communicating and explainations for the (once) unknown. Is it up to us to believe in science?

Is it too late to take back Gore's Oscar and give him a Razzy?

If you signed up, then yes, the ads are good. But if you didn't sign up, then you are in no position to praise the ads (indeed you are suggesting the ads don't work very well). The ads ought to be judged on 'sign-up metrics' or not at all. Actually, as an ad guy I couldn't disagree with you more. The purpose of the ads is to attract a certain type of individual who will help create an qualtiy operation. Ignoring the requirements of the job and only stating the benefits is not a wise approach for the forces or any other career that requires courage. Firemen get good benefits too, but if you're running a fire department, it's a good idea to attract those who have the courage to enter a burning house when necessary.

-k {how can Karla travel internationally? and how'd she have a baby? what kind of jackass would father a child with *that*?} The only jackass I can think of is O.J.

I'd rather see handouts to Canadians than handout in envelopes.

What your saying is ludicrous. If you tag anyone with the minority label then all others should be tagged with the appropriate I.D. label also, i.e.: 1. Deaf person = part of handicapped invisible minority group 2. A Francophone= part of linguistic visible minority group 3. English speaking person= part of linguistic visible majority group 4. A Black deaf person= part of Black handicapped linguistic minority group 5. A White Francophone= part of White majority, linguistic minority group And the list goes on. Can't you see how racist this all is? For I.D. purposes, either vocal or written, for whatever official purpose, you call it for what factual information properly describes the individual and applies to everyone. Is a bureaucrat with brains a visible minority?

How dare Harper side with an ally over a terrorist organization.

President's Choice bank doesn't charge account fees or atm fees for its customers. Everyone in Canada should switch their account overnight just to see if the other banks have a sudden change of heart. My guess is they will.

It's like someone issued a special 'Project Get Dion' phrase-book to party members when they rolled out the negative ad campaign. Nope, not a party member or loyal to any party. As an ad guy I would say it was poor strategy, mainly because it positoned Harper/Dion as foe against foe; two leaders of parties verses positioning Harper as the leader of the country/minority government. By his abilility to make unpopular decisions and make certain compromises in my belief Harper has showed he's the latter. Their communication strategies don't get it and are obviously as party members trying to do what's best for the party and not the country. Luckily none of them are PM. I would add the Liberals, if elected would do what's popular regardless of the consquences (defender of medicare, etc) to stay in power. Canada is up against the wall on issues like this. Politicizing important issues for political gain instead of solving problems and doing what's best for the country is the Liberal track record.

I think we also qualify as a Parliamentary Democracy When you're a captain a ship in the middle of the ocean, you can go whatever direction the majority of the crew in your ship want to go and they'll think you're a wonderful captain. When you're approaching icebergs, a good captain will take the wheel and responsibility for the ship and crew. Canada's been approaching many icebergs for years, expecially in heath care with the aging population. I see only one leader with the guts to be able to take the wheel on issues like these. Should Dion become Captain, we'll all be holding on to a piece of the ship like Leonardo saying goodbye to Rose.

The debate is because the religous right branded it as immoral and now it's been politicized.

We are a trading country. Our standard of living depends on exports. How do you set up a market within Canada when exports contribute so much to emissions? Much of the West's energy leaves the country. So does much of Ontario's industrial production. Much of the petroleum Central and Eastern Canada consumes does not come from Alberta but from offshore. The greater growth in emissions will come from those parts of the country that are growing the most and producing the most. A credit system will just reward those who produce the least and contribute the least to the country's economy. It will do nothing to reduce emissions. If we are going to throw billions at this supposed problem let's at least spend it on solving the problem. Developing technology is the only real solution as it might get the US and China on board. Canada is ipretty insignificant. As a nation where fossil fuels are so important it might be wise to take a leadership role in this area.

Would the world be better off without religion? Has it taken enough lives though religious wars? Have enough people contracted aids because of the belief that condoms are wrong? Have enough people lost their savings buying their way into heaven?

I assume by now the ony vigins Allah has left are butt-ugly. Maybe a 'we want you' recruitment ad campaign targeted at suicide bombers is a viable strategy featuring large hairy women.

It's the Liberals who are the most corrupt party in Canadian history. Suprisingly, people are so loyal to their brand that they don't realize the product is crap.

That's my understanding too, Riverwind.The civil service pension states the set obligations to pay amounts based on salary, years of service and so on. Civil servants pay into this and then are entitled to the pension. If there is a surplus or a deficit, pension obligations don't change. Frankly, you two are losing it again. There are three important things to note here: 1) No entity in Canada other than the federal government can take money out of its employees' pension plan. Companies, provincial and municipal governments, etc. are not allowed to take money out of their pension plans mainly because pensions are deferred wages and since pension plans are directed by the employer, any deficit in a pension plan is due to the employer's inability to manage its pension plan. A defined benefit pension plan, generally, is simply an agreement between an employer and an employee to pay the employee a certain benefit at retirement against a) working for the employer and b ) a contribution to the plan (usually % of wages at a rate determined by the employer). If a surplus is accumulated, the employer can either leave it as it is or reduce its contribution and the employees contribution. Taking money out of a pension plan basically means that the employees are over-contributing and funding some other employer activity that their contributions are not meant to fund. 2) It isn't clear that this "surplus" ever existed. The "surplus" was computed (in part) based on salary increases that never transpired. 3) While the presence of a surplus normally means a decrease in contribution rates, the federal government increased contribution rates by some 50%. This means that there was a deficit in the plan that made it necessary to increase contribution rates to make up for that deficit (which is quite likely given the number of babyboomers retiring over the next several years). Or it means that the government was trying to build up another surplus to take out whenever it needs some funds. Either way, it suggests some pretty questionable intensions here. Given the above, I'll agree with geoffrey, that they needed some money and figured that raiding their pension plans was a good place to get it. If they got sued (which it looks they did), it would take many years before they had to pay anything back (if it is determined that they should pay it back). So we can all have a drink thanks to the public service, RCMP and Canadian forces employees. A $1,000 drink that is. Which leads me to EI. That's a $50+ billion surplus that has been spent long ago and continues to go into general revenue. If we end up in a recession, the government simply won't have the funds to pay EI (or will claim it doesn't have the funds) and will legislate its way out of it. Should EI be operated as a separate plan similarly to the CPP? [/quote It's about time public sector works had to buy rrsps like the rest of us.

Somehow, I do not doubt this at all. Next we will see him handing out money to his friends in envelopes. Just kidding. No one is that corrupt.

Hey haven't you noticed? Left wing guy sends money to foreign country and rightwingers are unhappy. Right wing guy sends aide to a foreign country and they are unhappy. But it's the Right wing guys who criticize "throwing money at problems", who preach efficiency, do more with less, hand-up not a hand-out. So the rightwing guys have recently been acting like the left wing guys they used to criticize. Harper is leader of a minority govenrmnent for one thing. Secondly, this money is also part of a military strategy, not just fruitless aid for the sake of feeling good.

What the #@#$@? Did you see this in a Liberal campaign advertisement? Oh come on, you really believe all Canadians are stupid. Anyone can see that, it is written for goodness sake. Problem is there are people who are doing everything they can to deny the hypocrite that Harper is. The reason Harper is a good leader is partly that he is a rational, not emotional person. He doesn't let his personal beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. He does in the end what he thinks is right for the nation, not for him. If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him. Harper is not apparently rational, and he is definitely emotional, and he is definitely letting his beliefs overshadow the pulse of the nation. Harper always does what he thinks is best for him, who are you trying to kid? Wrong on all 4 accounts. And what is with the comment; "If you don't think he likes gays, you should be applauding him"? I mean you should applaude his positive actions as, since he is a rational person, he is supporting someting that an emotional leader might not.

Quick, send this to your MP! http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...-1998-2005-rip/

At least he's not taking your tax dollas and stuffing them into envelopes for fhis friends. Or throwing billions of dollars down the gun registry toilet.

Perhaps, what the Prime Minister was trying to say would be clearer if the Liberals weren't so busy trying to drown it out. Even if you disagree with someone emphatically, it's best to let them speak if for no other reason than to understand their position. Then, if you disagree, you can rebut it more effectively. Exactly. Harper didn't say anything. Then afterwards the libs told Mike Duffy what he was going to say. And people are mad at Harper. I would personally vote to keep the measures. How would the people bashing Harper over nothing vote if they were an MP?

There is no other way? Really? Why not become a leader in developing technology to combat the problem. A carbon tax won't help the environment, so how is it a solution? Futher, technology could possibly get the US and China on board, which would actually have impact. Canada meeting its targets is fairly insignificant other that providing a leadership role.