segnosaur

Nope, not even close. Ummmm... here's a question... Why exactly are you getting your information from a conspiracy web site such as "global research"? Remember, this is a site that regularly has "9/11 was an inside job!" articles. Any site that regularly promotes such nonsense should never, ever be used as a reference for anything.

A little suggestion... If you want to be seen as a 'serious' party, I'd suggest that you get someone to do some proof reading on your site. And fill out your 'election platform' a little more. So much of your platform is just empty rhetoric. Where's your position on taxation? Stimulus spending? Frankly, I don't think your party does anything to differentiate itself from (lets say) the Greens or NDP, but hey, the more vote splitting on the left the better.

Ummmm... your point? Although the source of the name "barbarian" goes back to greco-roman times, in current the common definition of "barbaric" is to imply uncivilized and/or brutal. The fact that we had duels and witch burnings in the past does not mean that we cannot view those practices as "barbaric" if they were practiced today. Such "civility" does not respect the rights of individuals to choose who they associate with. Therefore, even though the rules of such societies are well established, I'd hardly consider them "civilized". As well they should be. Here in Canada we have a right to decide who we will and will not have (consentual) sex with. Whoa... wait a sec... are you suggesting rape is due to "sexual promescuity"? I am rather disturbed that anyone would actually have that attitude here.

How about as a way to express a degree of revulsion over a particular activity. After all, speeding and cheating on your taxes is considered "unacceptable" as well. People doing so should be punished. But honor killings and female circumcision are in a whole other level of disgust.

Ummm... no, its not. "Islamic culture" is not some monolithic entity, any more than "European culture" is. Under the banner of "Islam" you have a diverse range of beliefs and morals. I suspect the majority of muslims would condemn honor killing just as much as a christian or atheist might. I could also point out that honor killing is present in more than just the Islamic religion.

Indeed...such an odd notion...that a democratic election represents "risk". Is it the money? I think its probably a combination of uncertainty, the possibility of parties making unwise (but politically popular) promises, and the fact that during the process of the election itself the focus of the government is on the election, not on handling any significant issues that come up. Not that I necessarily think that those are valid reasons to avoid elections. I think the Canadian economy can handle an election just fine. By the way, the suggestion that we can't hold an election because it could cause problems is not unprecedented. In fact, at one point the Liberals (under Pearson) made the same argument when they lost a confidence vote to the opposition (lead by Stanfield). From: http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2009/Donovan.pdf (page 14) In February 1968, Prime Minister Pearson’s government was defeated on a money bill...Pearson subsequently returned to Ottawa and with the help of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, convinced opposition leader Robert Stanfield that the fall of the government would damage the Canadian economy. The moral of the story: it never pays to be a "nice guy" in politics.

Great... You do know that Mother Theresa was one of the biggest sacks of crap to ever walk the earth, don't you? She collected millions upon millions of dollars in order to "help the sick", but her "hospitals" were nothing more than rooms with cots in them where people died. (Instead, most of the money she collected went into the general revenue of the Catholic church. If you gave to her thinking you'd be helping save people, your money was probably just as likely used to cover up sexual abuse by Catholic priests as it was to actually save lives. And she actually liked people to suffer. She felt it make them "closer to god". Greeeat. They base their life on trying to convert people from one false religion to another, and we should somehow praise them for it.

Have to disagree here... A "christian" is someone who believes in Jebus as the "son of god" and their "personal savior". That's really all that's needed for someone to be a "true christian". We might complain that someone isn't following the "teachings of christ", but there is no particular requirement for a "christian" to do so. (And, as I pointed out before, the bible is a complete pile of random junk that can be used to justify almost any action/moralistic view.)

No, but government has nothing to do with Parliament. Ummm... yes they do. Parliament sets the agenda/policies to be implemented by the civil service/government as a whole. All Canadians deserve voice and representation even minorities. But that does not mean that a particular group or party deserves more of a voice just because they are in a minority position. A small group of people like the NDP and/or their policies. But if X% support them, they don't deserve >X% of the power just because they're a minority. Does that include all those people who voted Liberal? Could they have been voting strictly for "image"? No Yes it does. It replaces what could be a valuable discussion on policies and practices and replaces them with vacuous name-calling. Its no more useful than when a conservative reduces their evaluation of the Liberals/NDP to "Evil communists". Ummm... start of what? You said "No, it doesn't lead to a demise of proper discourse". Now you're saying you "think its a start"? So what is it? Is the application of insulting names/rhetoric detrimental to proper political discussions or is it not? What happens elsewhere is irrelevant. I would like political discussions to be useful. Slapping a label like "madman" does nothing to show me if there are any problems with conservative policies. Instead, it just makes me view the individual applying the label (i.e. you) as someone who probably doesn't have a viewpoint worth discussing. Nope it doesn't. In fact, there are precedents for prime ministers trying to avoid elections during times of crisis. For example, Pearson claimed the financial markets were too "fragile" when there was a potential confidence motion by Stanfield, and strangely enough Canadian society did not collapse into chaos. Harper may or may not be right about it being a "good time for an election". But don't look on it as anything more than politics, something every party engages in. If you think those are issues worthy of debate, then fine... bring them up. There is probably value in discussing them too. But there is no value in slapping the label "madman" on anyone, nor in suggesting "bad things will happen" should a party get elected if it has nothing to do with the party's policies. Except it gave us better access to U.S. markets, increased our trade surplus, and helped boost our overall economy. But hey, who needs a booming economy? Actually, as of 2004 counts for less than 1/3 of all corporate assets. (They do own a much larger part of some industries, such as manufacturing, but overall they are nowhere near being a "majority owner".) And of course, you are totally ignoring the fact that while Americans can own Canadian assets, Canadians can also own American assets. Do you follow the news, Perimiter Security. There is nothing inherently "evil" about a desire to synchronize some of our border policies, except by those who would rather deal in rumors and innuendo rather than facts. I have seen nothing in the 'perimeter security' discussions that indicates either country will be giving up significant control of its policies. Stimulus spending for what debt? It is a wanker government. Oh this stimulus is so good. It ain't making the public money, it is putting it in debt. To be honest, I am having troubles figuring out what point your making due to your grammar/wording. However, assuming you're saying "stimulus spending is bad", then perhaps you should go back and read the part where I pointed out that the stimulus spending that was pushed for by the Liberals/NDP.. In fact, the original Conservative plan was to have no significant stimulus spending. No. My mlitary policy is as follows (some items deleted from the list) 1. Allow Payfors where the military can put out spending requests to the public. Example we want htis equipment donate so we can get it. 2. Legalize militias (or reinstitute it) allowing people to save their own buts in case of invasion. . To employ the military as refugee work camp and criminal ghulag administrators (subsidizing the cost from any ghulag proceeds. 6. Creating a Canadian Security Company that employes the CF as security gaurds. (from those willing) 7. Outsourcing the CF as mercenaries (from those willing) 14. soilders would arm themselves. but have access to cost of manufacture if not given to them by donation or by the military corporations that are established through the grants program that would award funds each year to suppliment the militaries own income earning plans. You know, some people would be a little hesitant at putting Canada's security only at the hands of "private mercenaries", and would favor more, not less, government control. And soldiers arming themselves? How many "private Canadian soldiers" will be able to afford an F18/F35? Or a C17? Noble thought, but impractical. Some equipment is incredibly specialized and trying to "go it alone" will lead to high development costs and limit economies of scale. You do realize it doesn't Actually, yes it does. Every piece of technology more advanced than a pointy stick will eventually break down. Jet fighters (you do realize we need some of those, don't you?) usually get used for about 30 years (and our F18 fleet is nearing the end of its life). Helicopters and transport planes also have a limited life span. Yes it is. And jet fighters (e.g. to intercept potential threats), transport planes (to transfer men and supplies from one geographic location to another) and helicopters (for local transport) are all necessary for 'combat effectiveness'. Not having those items means that we don't have "combat effectiveness". I could care less about the mythical Bin Laden. Ummm... "mythical bin Laden"? What, do you assume he's just some actor they hired? Think 9/11 was some "inside job"? Yes it does. But as I mentioned before, sometimes the "moral" think to do is to take a stand, even if there are "costs" involved. As long as you understand what "neutrality" would actually mean in a historical context. If Canada were "neutral" in (for example) world war 2, we would not have had as many Canadians die. Yet I'd like to think getting involved in the conflict was the moral thing to do. I have more pride in Canada's role in World war 2 than I would have had we been "neutral" like Switzerland. Ironically, your concept of "respect for human dignity" is at conflict with your desire for "neutrality". By being "neutral" when dealing with countries like Iran, North Korea, etc. we are exhibiting a lack of respect for the dignity of individuals who may be living in those countries but who are oppressed.

More ad hominem attacks. Really. You've lost the argument big time haven't you.

Already dealt with in my previous posts: From post 116: Thiessen is not here to answer any challenges to his claims, nor is he here to provide any clarification that might be needed. As such, neither you nor I can say how much of the deficit elimination was due to Chretien's work and how much was due to dumb luck. In short, if you can't prove your own point using basic facts, resorting to another's opinions is not any more convincing. From post 118: if you think I'm wrong about something give a reference to the correct information. And when I say 'reference', I am referring to an unbiased source from a mainstream outlet, not a wikipedia 'opinion', and not some opinion piece by someone who is giving no facts/information to verify. I highlighted the most important parts, since you seem to have a problem reading things. (It happened when you were quoting the article about the summit costs, where you ignored information in your own reference that debunked your argument, and it appears to be happening here.) So, once again, point out the actual information that was wrong.

Here's a suggestion... If you think I'm wrong about something give a reference to the correct information. And when I say 'reference', I am referring to an unbiased source from a mainstream outlet, not a wikipedia 'opinion', and not some opinion piece by someone who is giving no facts/information to verify. The fact that you do not do so, and spend more time running around engaging in personal attacks should be a pretty good indication that you've lost the debate. (Actually, you're looking more and more like Charlie Sheen... "Winning". Next thing you know you'll be a warlock flying an F18 deploying your ordinances of truth.

YOU are an IDIOT! Ummm... you do know that my discussion of the surplus was as part of a discussion with no1ninja regarding in comparing the situations in Ireland and Canada. Congratulations... you can quote other people's opinions. But guess what? just because Thiessen has an opinion does not necessarily mean that that opinion is correct, or that it is describing the complete story. Thiessen is not here to answer any challenges to his claims, nor is he here to provide any clarification that might be needed. As such, neither you nor I can say how much of the deficit elimination was due to Chretien's work and how much was due to dumb luck. In short, if you can't prove your own point using basic facts, resorting to another's opinions is not any more convincing. Yes I do. The fact that I don't view their "efforts" as significant does not mean "I don't know". It means that I've looked at, you know, the facts (which of course I've provided references for) and based my opinions on that. Fact: The conservatives left power with an operating surplus Fact: The largest contributor to the debt at that point was interest payments on the debt Fact: Global interest rates dropped significantly when Chretien was in power, reducing the interest payments Fact: The global economy expanded strongly throughout much of Chretien's years as PM, giving him more tax revenue to work with The Parti Quebecois first came to power when Trudeau was in power. Hmmm... yet you once called yourself a "Trudeau Liberal". Oh, and by the way, many of the same "elements trying to tear Canada apart" were also around when Mulroney was in power. Or do you think all Quebec Separatists just disappeared for those years? Does that include spending billions on a Scolarship program that possibly oversteps the bounds of Provincial jurisdiction? Does that include spending a billion on a gun registry program? Does that include spending millions on a sponsorship program? Here's a suggestion... if you're bored of me correcting all your mistakes, then perhaps you should actually, you know, research your facts.

You know, it may surprise you to know that no corporation ever pays taxes, regardless of what the tax rate is. You see, whenever a corporation has to pay tax, it will do one of the following: - It will increase its prices (thus transferring the 'tax' on to the consumer) - It will lower profits (thus giving lower dividends to shareholders, transferring the tax on to them. This includes retirees and others with pension funds invested in the stock markets) Given a choice, I'd prefer taxes to be directed so that they are paid by those who actually use the service (e.g. air security tax) than general revenue. Actually, the decision to implement an HST is largely done by the provincial governments, not something that the Federal government has final say on. (I also believe its the provinces that benefit from any increase in tax revenue.) (I could also point out that the previous Liberal government also implemented a Harmonized tax. Me thinks you don't quite understand the definition of 'libertarian'. A libertarian believes in maximizing all freedoms. That includes both economic (taxes, 'red tape', etc.) and social (freedom of speech, drug laws, etc.) If you support 'social' freedoms but exhibit little or no concern over economic ones, you are not a 'libertarian', You are probably a social democrat.

On the other hand, its also possible that Jebus never actually existed, and the New testament (and all the fairy tails associated with him) come from various random writings crammed together.

Congratulations... you can look stuff up in the dictionary. Good for you. Your family must be proud. Really? Just like the way you were trying to make out like you knew about the F35 program, but you: - Got the variant of the F35 that Australia was buying incorrect? - Didn't even seem to know that they were buying F35s in the first place (since you praised their purchase of the Super hornet and criticized Canada for its F35 plans) - Characterized them as being nowhere near production even though your very own link points out that they're expecting their first shipment of F35s this year. (And that's real F35s... as in "We can load this up with weapons and blow stuff up")

Not sure what your point is. As I've pointed out, not only do they have the first production model flying (you might want to argue whether it truly is a "production" model), the U.S. air force is still scheduled to take possession of the first batch in this fiscal year. (Even the link provided by GWiz shows that). So, GWiz is still wrong... the F-35 is not "far from production".

Did you ever consider that the reason they don't seem "responsible" is because they have a minority government, and as such have to alter their policies in order to avoid confidence votes? Why exactly does "voicing a minority" earn them the right to earn seats? I thought parties earned seats by having policies certain voters agreed with. Ummm.... "madman"? Did you ever think that such rhetoric leads to a demise of proper political discourse? Really... there are valid reasons for voting against the conservatives. But applying labels like "madman" and insinuating that "when elected really bad things will happen" is not really that valuable. Here's a suggestion... why don't you try concentrating on individual policies the party has? (And for the record, I also disagree with conservative supporters who likewise engage in childish insinuations rather than dealing with issues.) I see... You do realize that while Mulrooney negotiated NAFTA (a trade deal that has seen Canada's GDP and trade balance remain strong), it was Chretien who was in power when the deal came into effect. Please point to any proof that you might have of this (party web site, official statement by the party, etc.) Otherwise, it is nothing but pointless rumourmongering. Yup, they have been spending big. But then, much of the spending was stimulus spending that was pushed for by the Liberals/NDP. So, you have problem with "big spending", yet you also have problems with "cutting". Care to make up your mind? So, are you in favor of disbanding all of our military? You do realize that sometimes equipment needs to be replaced, don't you? In 2002, bin Laden released a tape where he specifically mentioned Canada as a 'target'. And Chretien was the leader at the time. (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2455845.stm) Heck, even before 9/11 that CSIS suggested al Quaeda was using Canada as a launch pad for terrorist attacks. (See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/793178.stm). So Canada was a 'target' long before Harper got into power. Of course, I could point out that there may be times when the 'moral' thing to do is to take a stand to help others, even if it does make you a target. Every party has plans/policies that run contrary to our rights/freedoms in some way. Ummm.. how does support for Israel have anything to do with taxes/social programs?

He was? "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit." (1 Timothy 6) So, looks like even though he believed in 'mercy', Jebus still thought Slavery was acceptable (or at least being "rich and powerful isn't so bad, depending on how you interpret 'servant/master'. Of course, I could also point out that even if you assume Jebus was talking about mercy "for the poor", it does conflict with the article's assertion that his message was 'unambiguous'.

Did he? "He that is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12) "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matthew 12) "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." (Mark 3) Not that I don't agree there is a certain amount of hypocrisy amongst evangelical christians. However, the bible is a horrible book in many ways, and consists of multiple contradictions and horrible passages that can be used to justify pretty much anything. If the author is claiming it is "unambiguous" in it is message, then he is possibly falling into the same trap as the evangelicals. Another problem with the article is the assumption that his interpretation of these issues are somehow more "christian" in nature than the evangelical's. Corporate greed? Who said that all instances of "corporate greed" are done to the detriment of others? Corporations earn money by engaging in business transactions that are often mutually beneficial. Condemning gun possession as "unchristian" assumes the gun will be used in a violent manner; it ignores anyone who wants to use them in "peaceful" ways (e.g. target shooting only) or for personal protection (and I don't recall anything in the bible that says you can't prtect yourself.) Welfare? Well, it could be argued that the bible teaches us to treat others well. But is Welfare actually an act of "charity/generosity"? After all, when the government gives money to someone on welfare, it isn't necessarily coming out of the "christian's" pocket, but out of the pockets of others; i.e. it can be viewed as a form of 'theft'. Now, I'm an atheist. There is no god, and the bible is a piece of carp. But the arguments put forward by the author are basically flawed too.

With more investment, they can be efficient. From what I understand, they're actually reaching the efficiency limit of solar cell technology. Yeah, head something about that. However, at this point in time we can't really tell if its being done because its a "good idea", or because its just politically popular (i.e. "vote for me! look how green I am") More of a mesh grid would help solve that issue between multiple sites. Its not the topology that's the issue. Its the distance. (e.g. 2 solar farms 50 km apart are probably going to have to deal with the same cloudy conditions.) So, in a house, and this tech already exists, at night you can use the batteries to generate the stored power, or use grid power. And with a combo solution you can have wind, or solar, or both on a good day. it's a multiple/integrated solution approach. I live in Ottawa, and there is no benefit of an urban heat island in the winter. None. -20 C is still -20 C. Actually, I believe there is an 'urban heat island' effect. The city even seems to be planning for it in its design guidelines. http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/design_plan_guidelines/completed/high_rise_housing/design_guidelines_en-05.html Of course, on the other hand, such heating will also increase air conditioning costs in the summer. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Yeah but there comes a time when 'planning for the worse' becomes excessive and counterproductive. For example, there is a chance that there will be another power failure here in Ottawa. As I pointed out before, if your 'plan for the worst' involves moving to the country so you can put up a wind farm, its counterproductive: You will probably suffer more (paying for gas, commute time, etc.) than you will benefit for the >0.5% of time that the power will likely be out.

Perhaps.... however, while the coal plant is running it will produce: - air pollution, contributing to the green house effect, acid rain, etc. - radiation (yeah, you get more radiation from your local coal plant than you do from your local nuclear plant) - fly ash (which can cause some pretty bad ecological problems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill) This also doesn't include all those people killed during mining operations (and since you need a greater quantity of coal than Uranium, there will be more deaths per unit of power generated) Yea, we do have to worry about problems with nuclear power, but we need to evaluate the alternatives as well. Chernobyl was a bad reactor design (used positive feedback) run by incompetent people (they were running tests without consulting with nuclear experts). Using them as a benchmark for evaluating the safety of nuclear power is like judging the safety of automobiles based on the driving record of Lindsey Lohan.

Every power source has some risks risks associated with it... Coal/oil/gas release CO2, can contribute to smog, etc. Solar requires large quantities of land (goodbye trees). Wind may cause problems with wildlife. Hydroelectric causes widespread flooding and environmental changes. What is necessary is to gauge the risks of each possible generating technology relative to its potential generating capacity. Yeah, nuclear has risks/drawbacks, but it also has a huge generating capacity. In some cases waste can be reprocessed and fed back into the reactor. Ultimately the amount of waste produced is very very small compared to the amount of power produced. (e.g. there will be a lot less radioactive waste released from generating power that I'm using compared to carbon dioxide/radon gas/ash from burning coal for the same amount of power.

Solar panels are not very efficient, and you would need a very large area to provide significant power. (This would make city use especially pointless, since there is a high density of power use to available surface area.) As others have pointed out... even if you had 'local' wind/solar power, the unreliability of these types of sources mean that you will still need a rather significant electrical grid capable of transferring power from hundreds of kilometers away. Its not that nuclear plants 'store' energy; its that nuclear plants can generate power constantly. On the other hand, Wind/solar is inherently unreliable... calm days stop wind generators and solar has problems with night time and cloudy days. So they generally need some method to store power for times when they are ineffective. Batteries do not have the capacity to store significant amount of energy. Perhaps using water resivoirs might make sense (use extra power to pump water to a higher level, and use hydroelectric turbines when the solar/wind power fails. But that introduces all sorts of inefficiencies. What type of battery are you referring to? Lithium-ion? Lithium is corrosive and there is the possibility of it causing birth defects. Lead-acid? Again, components are corrosive, and lead can cause all sorts of brain problems. A very very long time. However, with current and proposed technology (e.g. recycling, use of thorium, etc.) its possible that the amount of nuclear waste will be very small. There's only been one "huge" problem, and that was Chernobyl. 3 Mile Island was a relatively minor event (and its been estimated that there will be no increase in cancers due to the accident). See: http://www.cracked.com/article_16078_5-most-ridiculously-over-hyped-health-scares-all-time.html Of course, by living outside of town, you might end up requiring more gas (i.e. fossil fuel) to commute, and its possible that your home will be less energy efficient (after all, in the winter you wouldn't benefit from the "urban heat island" effect of the city.) Not to mention that if there is a problem with the centralized system, those outside the major city areas will probably be given a lower priority for restoring power. And lets face it: There have been 2 recent "major" power problems since I started working around 2 decades ago: The ice storm (around 3 weeks of power problems in some areas although it never went down at my house), and the 2003 blackout (power out for 5 days in some areas, but it affected me for only 1 day.) That's around a 99.5% availability ratio. Is it really worth uprooting your life, adding hours of possible commute time, only to avoid the 0.5% of time that you might be "out of power"? (Not that some people might not like country living for other reasons, but to move out of the city just because you want to be 'self sufficient' when it comes to power doesn't seem like the best laid out plan.)

You know, I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here. You pointed to Australia's purchase of the Superhornet as "smarter" than Canada's planned purchase of the F35. I pointed out how you failed.. that the Super hornet was only a stop-gap measure. Where does the issue of "flying different types of planes at the same time come in? The issue isn't "will the airforce have more than 1 plane at the same time". (It will since it's impractical to replace an entire fleet at the same time.) The issue is will the Australians eventually replace their entire fleet with F35s. That is currently the plan. Really? News to me, since the last I saw, they were planning on buying the A variant.... From: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/kevin-rudd-signs-off-on-purchase-of-14-f-35-joint-strike-fighters/story-e6frg8yo-1225803790418 Senator Faulkner said the government had approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters... Is this yet another example of you blundering? Should we add it to the list? You know, perhaps before you start accusing others of engaging in (possibly) willful ignorance, you should consider all the mistakes that you yourself have made in this thread alone. So far we have: - The F35 is nowhere near production (sorry, they've already flown their first production plane) - Australia bought the F18 instead of the F35 (sorry, its only a temporary stop-gap measure) - Australia is buying the STVL version (Sorry, looks like they're buying the CTOL version) Maybe its time you did some reading yourself.