segnosaur

Who's rebuttal? Mine? I wasn't rebutting the main point (at least in my previous post). I was just pointing out that calling only members of the ruling party in Canada "the government" is actually accurate, depending on the definition used. It is the duty of the executive branch to represent Canada at such international conferences to the best of their abilities, and in accordance with the government's plans. As such, a member of the "business community" might be a more representative in that regard. Another poster questioned whether Chretien had conservative MPs around during the negotiation for Kyoto. Nobody has yet answered that question. Admittedly I am unfamiliar regarding protocols surrounding these events. Before I (or anyone else) condemns the conservatives for "excluding opposition MPs from the delegation", we really should look at what's happened during Kyoto (as well as other international negotiations). If this is the first time ever that opposition MPs were not allowed, then yes you have a point: the conservatives messed up. But if its common practice not to bring along MPs that will contradict the will of the governing party, then I can't really condemn the conservatives.

Actually, while the opposition members are "elected representatives", they might not necessarily be considered "members of the government" (depending on the definition that is used). In the Westminster system, government can mean the collective institutions, or it can also refer to the privy council or the Ministers of the Crown (something that your average MP will not be a member to.) This council holds executive power within Canada, and can be referred to as "the government". (And the main opposition party is sometimes referred to as the "government in waiting".) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_the_Crown A few weeks ago I went on a tour of something called "The Deifenbunker". This was a fallout shelter built during the cold war to house "the government" in the event of a nuclear attack. They had offices for the PM, ministers, the Gov. Gen., etc. The one thing that they did not have was space for any of the opposition members. (They weren't considered "government", so they would be placed in a second fallout shelter several miles away.)

Why exactly was it a "stupid question"? There are a lot of things that could have been considered evidence that Iraq was working on WMD: - Actually discovering the weapons themselves - Documentation (a hand-written note by Saddam saying "hide the nukes in the desert") - Testimony by Iraqis that had been working on the program Obviously Iraq didn't have an active weapons program. But at the time there was no definitive proof either way. Knowing whether the government might accept something like written documentation as "proof" (even if the weapons themselves were not found) would have been relevant at the time.

But you still choose to drive your car when you could - and should - take the publically funded bus. But my choice makes absolutely no difference to the amount of tax you pay. None whatsoever. Your argument was that "your taxes pay for the roads", but your 'taxes' would not change if I stopped driving because the roads are needed anyways. There are simply no alternatives for transportation of either communters or goods. THE CBC IS DIFFERENT! If the government stopped funding the CBC you could still get news/entertainment elsewhere. Because your hard earned tax dollars were still needed to build the roads so you could take your bus to work!!!!!

Your arguments are becoming really retarded. Yes it is my choice to drive a car. We're dealing with government-supplied infrastructure though. The roads exist, and are necessary whether they are traveled on by car or by bus, moving van or company delivery. Even if I were to vanish from all existence, the need for the road would not change as there is no alternative way for you to take your bus to work. On the other hand, there are alternatives to CBC. If the CBC disappeared, you would still have alternatives for your entertainment and information.

Obliterates how? The only pbjective measure would be ratings and in that case, CBC obliterates TSN. How much? Try over to 2 to 1 .Almost 3 to 1. I don't know if ratings is a great way to objectively determine the quality of hockey broadcasts. First of all, TSN is a cable network, and not all households in Canada have cable (or satellite). Secondly, CBC has certain advantages in scheduling. Weekends are a more traditional time for sports broadcasts (as well as having less competition from primetime broadcast network shows), and as such CBC's Saturday broadcasts (which it has priority for) are probably going to beat out a Wednesday night game regardless of the quality of the commentating/camera work/etc.

Ummmm, perhaps you didn't notice that this doesn't connect with the inability of anyone to find out financials and budgetary information about the CBC. Did you actually read the article? The article mentions access to information requests that were turned down by the CBC that specifically dealt with financial records.

Because even if you don't drive a car personally, you likely use public transportation of some type (bus, taxi, etc.) that does use the public roads. Not to mention the fact that you probably use products that (at some point in their manufacture) get transported by roads, and get served by fire/police/ambulance services that require the existence of roads to function. And just out of curiosity, how exactly did you move into your current house/apartment? I used a moving van. But if you think roads are only for the people who drive cars, then did you manufacture all your own furniture from trees in your back yard?

Your listening habits are basically supported by my tax dollars (since I never listen to CBC radio). Why should I pay for your entertainment choices? How do you know that that content won't still be available if/when the CBC becomes privatized (or eliminated or whatever)? If people have an interest in listening to it, there will be companies that have an interest in providing the content. Ummm... so? Why exactly do we have to do things "Just because other countries do"?

Who says it is? Well, for one, the poster Cybercoma made a post on October 15 that said selling off the CBC would impact our ability to "Define our culture".

Ummmm... perhaps you didn't know, but the CBC has a long-standing record of failing to comply with Access to Information requests. From: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/09/11/15318751.html Canada's state broadcaster came under the Access to Information Act in 2007 along with several other crown corporations...the information commissioner, who is charged by Parliament with enforcing the Access to Information Act, subpoenaed a number of files from CBC for examination. The broadcaster refused to comply. And then there's this: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/13/taxpayers-foot-bill-for-cbcs-tiff-party (A party the CBC threw, but refuses to release information relating to costs.) Bono from U2, Jon Hamm from the hit TV show Mad Men and Kiefer Sutherland were among the guests invited by CBC's George Stroumboulopoulos to a party at the swanky Hazelton Hotel..."That's not something we would share with you," CBC spokesman Jeff Keay said when asked about the cost.

They actually did show hockey... In the 1980s they showed regular season games, primarily on Friday nights. (They were hampered by an inability to schedule enough Canadian teams however.) They also picked up playoff games in the 1970s when the CBC was having labor problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_on_CTV

You know, the mandate might sound impressive. However, if they are not providing programming that is of interest to Canadians they are not really doing a good job of "reflecting Canada". I could also point out that even if the CBC was fulfilling its mandate, its a mandate the country does not really need. Ummm... did you actually, you know, look at the list? There are 4 entries on there that are from the CBC. 3 of them are hockey, yet hockey is also shown on other networks. (I'm sure CTV would love the opportunity to be the home of Hockey Night in Canada, if they had the chance.) That leaves one non-hockey CBC show in the top 30.

You are of course assuming that culture is something that can be 'defined' and set by the government through organizations like the CBC. It is my opinion that 'culture' is something that is built from the ground up, through the entertainment choices made by individuals. Regardless of what the CBC broadcasts, 'culture' is defined by what we Canadians choose to actually watch/read/listen to, and given the generally low CBC ratings, what it shows is not reflective of "Canadian Culture". Yes, there are some that may moan about brainless American pulp like "Jersey Shore" and "American Idol" being shown in Canada, but if that's what Canadians want to watch, then such imports are part of our culture.

Ummm... minor point... Omar Khadr was born in Toronto. Much of his early life was split between Canada and Pakistan. According to Wikipedia, his family didn't move to Afghanistan until he was around 10, and even after that, he still spent a good portion of his time in Canada. And his father wasn't even born in Afghanistan either... he was from Egypt. So, saying that he was "defending his home land" is a little bit of a stretch. And by "little bit" I mean "Has no basis in reality". Why are you assuming that a "sane person" would assume the Americans were going to kill all surviving combatants? Even the most backwards Islamic fundamentalist must be aware that the U.S. does take prisoners. (Abu Garib anyone?)

Keep in mind that technology is a double-edged sword... Yes, there is a risk that some of our privacy will be threatened by technology. (And we should be willing to push back against some of the more egregious cases.) However, it also has the ability to help keep "the authorities" honest. There is a chance that (for example) police will be a bit more careful in their treatment of prisoners if they know attempts to "beat them" could be caught by a passer-by with a cell phone camera, or that electronic communications of a questionable nature may get forwarded outside of government.

Just wanted to extend a little warning in case this happens to you. There is a group of scammers out there who are attempting to access people's computers by cold-calling individuals and stating they are from Microsoft, and claiming that they know your computer is infected by a virus. They will then attempt to "fix" your computer (by getting you to download a real virus on your computer), and/or steal your credit card information. I received a phone call from them recently. I recognized it as a scam right off the bat (heck, I even tried to waste their time by pretending to play along, but without actually following their instructions), but some people may be a bit more trusting. (I have no idea how they harvest their phone numbers though.) If you receive such a call, remember that Microsoft (or other companies) will never call "out of the blue" like that. Never give personal information to them, never download anything onto your computer (unless its from a reputable company) and never give them your credit card information. http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_vista-security/strange-call-pretending-to-be-from-microsoft-tech/19e6a366-cf86-4a6b-bb2e-2ab81645553d

Simple... I'm someone who seems to have a better grasp at science than you and the Supreme Court. You see, as far as I can tell, not one of the Supreme Court Justices have any advanced degrees in science. (Of course, given that their jobs are primarily aimed at interpreting laws, its not too surprising. However, it does not mean that they have the ability to properly interpret scientific data. As an analogy, I may have the greatest doctor in the world, but that doesn't mean that they're any better at fixing my car than a mechanic is. Similarly, our supreme court justices may be the greatest legal minds in the world, but that does not mean that they are omnipotent. I could also lay some of the blame against the Harper government itself. There is a good chance that they did a faulty job at stating their case against when challenging the claims of Insite itself. Of course, what you are actually engaging in is "appeal to (inappropriate) authority". I find it rather, ahmem, significant that instead of actually addressing the claims that I made (that safe injection sites might be counterproductive), one that's actually supported by actual scientific studies, you decide to instead suggest "Oh a bunch of non-scientists know best". Except of course I actually provided scientific evidence (done by, you know scientists) to support my position.

Actually when the Libs were turfed I thought the future looked good with the new Conservative government who campaigned on transparency, I was pretty excited But that quickly changed I somehow doubt that you were ever a supporter of the conservatives in any way. In fact, the way that you regularly direct cheap shots at the conservatives, the way you totally ignored the point I made (where the sponsorship scandal is still partially relevant because many Liberals from time of the sponsorship scandal are still involved with the party and were candidates in the 2011 election), suggests that you are a supporter of either the Liberals, NDP, or other party that's ideologically opposed to the conservatives. Ummm... what makes you think that McGuinty is responsible for any of those successes? After all, according to statistics Canada, the crime rate in Ontario had been falling pretty steadily since the early 1990s. (See: http://www.johnhoward.on.ca/pdfs/fctsh-22.pdf) And the fact that "Ontario is near the top for education" might have something to do with our larger population base, which lends to "economies of scale". (It should also be noted that federal transfers to provinces have increased under Harper, which gave the province a bit more money to spend on education.) The only think that he actually was responsible for was the HST, and while Forbes is trumpeting it as a reason for making Canada "better for business", keep in mind that what's good for business may not necessarily be what's best for the economy (or Canadians) as a whole.

And there are lots of bots who, when presented with evidence that might contradict their falsely-made assumptions, stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA LA LA I Can't Hear you". I pointed out a rational why Safe Injecting Sites might be counterproductive. I even provided an article that appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to support my point. Yet instead of, you know, dealing with the evidence, you ignore it in favor of a general insult against "conservatives". Perhaps you should spend less time trying to think of ways to score political points and spend a little more time trying to exercise some rational logical thought. I have "Looked at the facts" (especially those surrounding Insite). They don't necessarily support the notion that "Insite is good". Consider: - They never actually produced a study which shows that Insite users actually are at lower risk of contracting blood-borne diseases than other IV drug users. - They claim that it reduces Overdose deaths. Ok, fine, I never challenged that claim. The issue is whether that number is greater or less than the lives that could be lost if the safe injection site actually increases HIV cases - They claim that crimes/public drug use decreased in the areas around the Insite site, but they ignore the fact that police officers actually increased their patrols in the area. I'm not claiming that safe injection sites don't work. I'm claiming that we don't have any evidence whether they work or don't work. The problem with Insite supporters is that they wrongly think they have the answers when they don't.

It has been proven to work already... Actually, no they haven't. At least not in a scientific sense. If the ultimate goal is to prevent illness/death, then you have to consider the side effects of things such as needle exchange programs or injection sites. What has been found in other scientific studies is that such programs can actually have a NEGATIVE effect... it can cause more infections/deaths. This might sound counter-intuitive, but a mechanism for this has been provided. Basically, what happens is that while drug users might be 'safe' when they use safe injection sites (or needle exchange programs), they will not use those sites exclusively; they will still continue to inject/shoot up on their own or with friends in private for at least some of their activities. Where things like needle exchange programs or safe injection sites cause problems is that it gives an opportunity for individuals who might never have met to become 'friends', and thus help spread diseases like HepC or HIV. For example, from: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/12/994.abstract Risk elevations for HIV infection associated with Needle Exchange Program attendance were substantial... Of course, I've explained that point in the threads discussing the Supreme Court ruling on Insite, but nobody there seemed to have the ability to actually, you know, understand the evidence. Now, Insite supporters have been quite eager to point out their "successes" (like preventing overdose deaths, etc.) but nowhere do they properly address the issue of HIV. Until they do, we can't really say that safe injection sites are beneficial overall. They could end up killing people unexpectedly.

Last I heard, the RCMP investigated and came to the conclusion that the gold never actually went 'missing'.... From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/missing-gold-never-left-the-mint/article1379572/ ...the RCMP rendered its verdict: No heist. In fact, say third-party experts who also snooped around within the Mint's fortified walls, the explanation is more banal, if no less bewildering: accounting errors and processing losses...

Yes, the conservatives have had a significant amount of time in power, and yes, there is a limit to how far back you can refer to various scandals. However, it should be noted that many of the individuals who were in power during the time of the Liberal's sponsorship scandal were candidates in the 2011 election. Examples: Gerry Byrne (first elected 1996), Lawrence MacCauly (1988), Wayne Easter (1993), Roger Cuzner (2000), Geoff Reagan (2000), Mark Eyking (2000), Dominic Leblanc (2000), Denis Coderre (1997), Irwin Cotler (1999), Stephan Dion (1996), Gurbax Malhi (1993), Bob Speller (1988), Karen Redman (1997), Andrew Telegdi (1993), John McCallum (2000), Mauril Belanger (1995), Dan McTeague (2000). All of these individuals (and many more) were all Liberal Candidates in the 2011 election. And every one of them was an MP during at least part of the Liberal sponsorship scandal. And while its possible that they were unaware of what was going on, they were still willing to vote for the legislation that allowed the sponsorship scandal to happen. Of course, I do find it ironic how people criticize the conservatives for bringing up the sponsorship scandal, when Liberal supporters are often eager to bring up "Lyin' Brian" and other conservative ghosts. So, are you going to be just as vocal if the Liberals should ever get into power and start using past conservative problems?

Anyone capable of rational thinking? How about, you know... 9 Supreme Court Justices voting unanimously that the work being done at Insite relates to a person's section 7 rights and that shutting it down would cause undue harm? I'm sure all 9 of them were totally irrational though, right? I see... so instead of actually, you know, providing evidence here you're going to assume "Those justices know best" and leave it at that. You do realize that becoming a Supreme Court justice does not make them omnipotent, do you not? I looked through the list of current members, and I didn't find any evidence that any one of them had a background in science. Their job is to interpret laws (including the constitution); science competency is not in the job description. Of course, I think the bigger problem was with the federal government. It is not the job of the supreme court to generate its own evidence; instead, it largely bases its decisions on the arguments presented to it. Its quite possible that the federal government did little or nothing to challenge the "scientific evidence" provided by those favoring Insite, even though challenging such evidence could be done.

Detoxes, treatment centers and prisons do this too. The difference is, at least in prison and detox centers, there is at least some control over a drug user's activities. Insite or Needle Exchange programs have absolutely no ability to track or control the activities of users once they leave the building.