segnosaur

BP is poisoning the Gulf of Mexico right now, and you're haranguing environmentalists? You really are a right-wing stooge. The problem is that the "environmentalist wackos" are often quite ignorant of the ability of our society to switch away from existing technologies and of the shortfalls of the alternatives. Not to say all of them are that way (I'm sure many have realistic ideals and a fundamental knowledge of science). But I have met a few that are quite off the deep end. Yeah, there is a major oil spill which is causing all sorts of harm to the gulf. But a knee-jerk "ban oil" attitude is pointless, and quite possibly counterproductive.

You're right.... we need to get away from death-causing oil and stick to other safer forms of energy. In the mid-1990s, 14 men had been killed on wind turbines or working with wind energy. Since then six more have died, including the first member of the public, a parachutist who literally flew into a turbine in Germany. (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html) Ooops. Ethanol has long been touted as a cleaner-burning alternative to gasoline and it carries the image of an environmentally friendly fuel since it’s derived from plants and plant waste....But the more than 200 U.S. refineries in operation or under constructione also emit thousands of tons of pollutants a year, including nitrogen oxide, a key element of smog... A recent study by a Stanford University professor concluded that 200 more people each year would die from respiratory problems related to ozone, the unseen component of smog, if all vehicles in the United States ran on a mostly ethanol fuel blend by 2020.(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18425869/) Oops. The fact is, every form of energy entails risks, for those producing the energy, for the environment, and for the public itself. The trick is to separate situations that truly are unexpected accidents from those situations that really are the product of negligence. And keep in mind that while the game of "Blame BP" may be a fun one to play, the situation is a bit more complex: - Many of the people who work at BP are decent, responsible people who had nothing at all to do with the accident. Simply saying "destroy the company" might harm those people - The responsibility might need to be shared with other companies. After all, BP does contract out work, and its quite possible that it was those other companies that failed to live up to their agreements by producing substandard work.

This is the exact reason why I find it impossible to take DrGreenthumb (actually a lot of people on the pro-pot side) seriously... I think there are valid reasons for the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, but many of the arguments put forward by supporters are based on falsehoods and idiotic statements. But when you have people like DrGreenthumb spouting such nonsense, it makes it impossible to engage in any sort of logical and reasonable debate. Frankly, I think people like him are actually doing more harm to his position than good. edited to add: Unfortunately, I don't think its really sufficient to curtail such nonsense. After all, I've pointed out similar facts to DrGreenthumb before. (Might even have pointed out similar studies showing brain damage after long term use, but I'd have to check to make sure). It hasn't stopped him from repeating the same sort of nonsense.

A couple of reasons why people may be silent about things like TVO and SCN: - This is a national forum; not everyone has the same provincial pubic broadcaster in their area. So any complaints about TVO will be irrelevant to people in western Canada - Not sure, but I believe that the public spending per capita is less for TVO than it is for CBC. (CBC receives ~1 billion, which works out to ~$30/person. In 1996, TVO received $56 million (http://www.broadcasting-history.ca/index3.php?url=http%3A//www.broadcasting-history.ca/listings_and_histories/television/histories.php%3Fid%3D6%26historyID%3D27), which works out to ~$5 per person. (Now, the TVO numbers are a little out of date, but even if contributions have doubled, people are still paying less for it than for CBC.)

Except for the fact that its been pointed out that there are alternatives to publicly funded broadcasts in the north... There's satellite radio/TV (yes, reception will not be great in some areas, but that won't affect all.) You also have: shortwave radio, internet connectivity. Heck, they could just do regular air-lifts of DVDs to northern communities. And even if you still assume that there must be some sort of radio/TV broadcast in northern areas (there doesn't, but I'm just humoring you), why do we need CBC radio/TV in the rest of the country, where a multitude of options already exist? Why not just cut the CBC, and pay CTV/Global/CityTV/etc. a few extra million to broadcast to northern communities? Sorry, proof by referring to some mythical "scholar on international relations" doesn't really do much to support your case. The fact is, "Canadian culture" (TV shows, musical groups, etc.) can be divided into 2 categories: - That which is popular (e.g. Great Big Sea, Corner Gas, Air Farce, Hockey Night in Canada). But since these are popular, they do not need the support of the CBC. They can appear on private broadcasters. - That which is not popular (much of what is shown on CBC TV), in which case, its not really reflective of "Canada" if its a broadcast of things Canadians aren't interested in

So? Just because one or 2 countries do things that are foolish, why should Canada follow suit? Lets debate the value of the CBC on its own merits, and not just support it because other countries throw money at their public broadcasters. Ummm... so? Last time I checked, we had no law that forced individuals to move to rural areas. If its important enough for people to have access to good radio choices, then they should be willing to move to a more urban location. Or have them ask their employer for more money. Why should I be forced to subsidize other people's entertainment choices? Please explain how 'northern sovereignty' depends on the presence of CBC TV/radio. Last time I checked, it was more important that we patrol the areas and have individuals stationed up there, not that we were simply broadcasting in the area. I haven't seen any articles where any country has used the presence of radio broadcasters to strengthen claims of ownership of territory.

Actually, I don't think that's what opponents of "universal day care" programs are assuming. The assumption is that it will be available to everyone (even if they choose not to use it.) Last time I checked, there were already regulations in place in many (probably all) areas of Canada, although regulations are done at a provincial level. For example, Ontario has the 'Day Nurseries Act'... http://www.childcarelearning.on.ca/prospective_operator/orientation-package-en.pdf If there is a demand, then private companies can step in and build the required facilities. I do feel sympathy to people who are disadvantaged and truly need assistance (such as single mothers wanting to return to the work force), and the government should step in to help those people. But implementing a "universal" health care system is not necessarily the best solution. Instead, target assistance to those who are actually in need.

Perhaps. Although it always seems like Quebecers find someone popular/charismatic enough to lead the independence movemen... Levesque, Bouchard, Duceppe. Of course, keep in mind that a lot of people thought the same thing prior to the 1995 referendum... The thought was that the population had changed since the first referendum, but the 'Yes' vote almost got the win. Since when did facts enter into things? Just remember these three words: People are idiots. (That goes for people outside Quebec too, so don't assume I'm just picking on them.) The issue of things like transfer payments, debt, etc. had been discussed in the previous referendum too, so its not like Quebecers were ignorant of these issues. All they need is for someone charismatic enough to convince them "don't worry about the debt... don't worry about transfer payments".

It is true that the existence of the Bloc has made obtaining a majority difficult. But that's not the only reason... remember that in the recent past we also seem to have a split between western prairie provinces (strongly supporting the conservatives) and Ontario (strongly supporting the Liberals). That did change in the last election with Liberal support in Ontario dropping, but under Chretien and Martin the Liberals seemed able to almost sweep Ontario ridings on a regular basis. All you would really need for any party to gain a majority is to have a charismatic conservative who can win just a few more seats in Ontario, or a charismatic liberal able to appeal more to western voters. (I do feel like the former is a little more likely, but either is possible.) They're both good and bad... They're good in that it forces a certain amount of cooperation and provides a stronger voice for people who voted for the opposition parties. They're bad in that it causes instability, makes long-term planning difficult, and may give more weight to "fringe" parties than they otherwise deserve.

Nope, its not... atheism is the conclusion people have reached that there is no god. That's all. There is no requirement to believe in an invisible sky-daddy in order to have hope. Atheists can hope for a better world; its just that instead of relying on a non-existent 'god' to make things happen, they will rely on their own efforts, and the efforts of those around them. Seems like you're making the exact same mistake that mapleleafs182 did.. namely that you're 'redefining' the concept of god to be something that is unrecognizable. The typical dictionary definition of god does suggest a being with "supernatural" ability, someone able to either act outside of the rules of the universe, or to create those laws in the first place. Everybody dies. Everyone will eventually decompose, with the only lasting effect being our actions on the world. Atheists recognize that fact, while Christians and other religious people make the assumption (without actual real evidence) that there is some immortal 'soul' that survives the body.

I went there, and it took me 2 seconds to realize it was the same type of bunk you put into your opening post... Proof by you-tube video is worthless. By the way, anyone else should know that some people have actually contacted the police because this individual (if its the same person) was making death threats. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/update_on_dennis_markuze.php

Actually I don't think you can necessarily divide the brain quite that way. For example, love depends at least partly on stored information (e.g. remembering who/why to love) which is a left brain function. And both sides of the brain have at least some 'math' functionality, useful in science. In that case, what you're doing is defining 'god' to be something that most people would not consider to be 'god'. By redefining the term the way you did, you make the term meaningless. 'god' (or gods, depending on how many invisible sky-daddies you believe in) is generally assumed to be beings with some supernatural ability and an ability to interact/interfere with the natural world. If you think god is the universe, then why bother with the word 'god' at all? Why not just use the term 'universe'?

Actually, religion (or our species need for religion and/or belief in god/gods) is a bit more complex than that. Its a combination of several factors: - Primitive tendency for humans to see patterns where none exist. (Pray to god->something good happens. Automatically assume god had something to do with it, even if the 'good things' would have happened anyways.) - Human need for interpersonal connections and group identity (a need that is satisfied in many respects by belonging to a group of fellow invisible sky-daddy believers.) - Biological need for children to be raised by their parents for extended length of time (from birth until 18 years), allowing time for parents to 'indoctrinate' their children in whatever invisible sky-daddy is commonly believed in

This is perhaps the most poorly thought out opening post I've seen in a long time. I can't figure out whether the person really does have some belief in god, or if they're just trying to satirize fundamentalist christians. By the way, from the looks of things, this appears to be the same individual who has spammed other forums with his bizarre rantings and false claims. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=632 Actually, no they don't. The whole idea that atheists start "turning to god" in their final moments is a myth that certain christians like to repeat. There is, however, no proof that this happens in a majority (or even significant minority) of cases. Nope, they don't. You see, the 'supernatural' does not exist. If it did, it wouldn't be 'supernatural'. The only 'price' they may have to deal with is from pro-religious zealots who discriminate because they don't believe in their particular invisible sky-daddy. (Of course, the same type of discrimination often occurs between various religious zealots who just happen to believe in different invisible sky-daddies. Actually we have a pretty good answer to death... decomposition. The fact that a religious zealot may think they have some immortal soul worth saving may give them comfort, but that doesn't mean that that belief is correct. Actually no we don't... we just believe that we can make humanity better by hard work and caring for our fellow man through hard work, rather than appealing to some invisible sky-daddy. Ummm... Nostradamus has never actually been showing to predict anything. Ever. His writings were People who believe in him are either: A: relying on miss-translations or complete fabrications B: trying to read things into passages that are completely vague and can be applied to many world events

I think Josephus's writings indicate that there was very likely a historical Jesus. Mind you, once you eliminate all the extra B.S. 2nd and 3rd century Christian writers tried to put in Josephus's mouth, it certainly doesn't amount to a extant source indicating that Jesus was God or that he raised the dead or any of that. First of all, as other posters have pointed out, the references to Jesus in the writings Josephus have been discredited. (In fact, even you yourself admit there was 'extra B.S. added in the 2nd/3rd centuries... If we know there was stuff added, then how can we trust any of it?) Secondly, even if the writings of Josephus hadn't been altered, he was born in AD37; he was not a 'contemporary' of Jebus and so would not have been able to document his works first hand. Thirdly, notice how I wrote my earlier statement... I specifically mentioned that there is no historical evidence of Jebus as portrayed in the bible. As others have pointed out, there were other 'prophets' running around the middle east at the time. (I think 'Monty Python's Life of Brian' probably is very accurate in this regard.) There may have been someone named Jebus running around that was the basis of the legend. However, the bible makes some very specific claims about his origins (and in particular his supernatural abilities). The more you ignore the unsupported 'supernatural' element in order to make whatever historical evidence fit, the less you can claim that he actually was the son of god and not just some nutbar.

My suggestion... in addition to all the stuff you're reading, try also reading the notations at the Skeptics Annotated Bible. (Another poster has given a reference to it.) Except there is no proof that there was any divine, supernatural "Invisible sky daddy" who had anything at all to do with creating the bible. Oh, and keep in mind that while there are Christians who think the bible was inspired by big-sky-daddy, Muslims feel the same way about their holy works. And I'm pretty sure the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Vikings, and Hindus all felt the same way about their holy books. How do you know that you are correct and those other people are wrong? Ok, first of all, your claim that the bible shows 'unity', when in reality there are many contradictions. (The skeptics annotated bible lays many of them out.) Secondly, even if there was some degree of 'unity', so what? The people who wrote the new testament had likely read the old testament. People who wrote the psalms likely had read the pentateuch. Its easy to show "unity" when you have an original source to refer to. As someone else pointed out, you cannot use the bible itself to prove the accuracy of the bible. The fact is, there is no historical evidence that there actually was a jesus as portrayed in the bible. So, the only proof is the bible itself. Now, if you were sitting there trying to come up with a good fairy tale and wanted it to seem important, it would be quite easy to go to the Old Testament, look up some 'prophecy', and add it to your story. Poof! Instant credibility! (Well, not really, but some might fall for it.)

You know, you keep repeating that Israel has "broken international law" over and over, and for the most part I've been letting it slide. However, the fact is, the idea that they've "broken international law" is not something that has unanimous agreement, nor is it something that's actually been decided in an actual court of law. The fact that you (and the people you worship) think they have is not definitive proof... Israel has its own lawyers (not to mention others throughout the world) who do not think international law has been broken. Or maybe they were pointing out that Israel was interested in collective punishment... Except that's a rather idiotic claim. According to the Palestinians, total Gaza poultry counts are roughly 12 million. (See: http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?tabID=0〈=en&ItemID=750&mid=10945) According to the video, the number of chickens killed in the conflict was only a small fraction of that. If Israel actually wanted to engage in 'collective punishment', killing a small fraction of their livestock doesn't seem like the most efficient way to go about it. A more likely scenario is that terrorist groups were using farms as a base of operations when they were attacked. But then, I guess the Palestinians get more sympathy when they claim "Israel targeted our chickens" rather than "Terrorists were hiding in the barn where we keep our chickens when Israel bombed them.". Oh, and by the way, its certainly not without precedent that terrorists would use farms to hide their activities. Here's an article (from prior to the invasion) which shows terrorists doing just that: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/07/world/fg-gaza7 Yet you don't seem to acknowledge that Hamas instigates these things. I've asked you this before, and you've run away from the issue. So, I'm going to challenge you once again... Just how many Rockets/Mortars/Suicide bombings must Israel contend with before you feel it is justified in engaging in military action.. (Not that I actually expect you to answer it... after all, I'm sure its much easier for you to ignore those types of questions than actually address them.) Who said they didn't want to be associated with them? Well, if Palestinians want to be associated with a militant group who does things like launch rockets and mortars into Israel, then should anyone really have any sympathy for them? First you complain that no input was taken from the Israelis, then you acknowledge that it was Israel who did not want to give any input? First of all, I can't blame the Israelis for not participating. Given the fact that the U.N. supported things like the Durban conferences, which was widely seen as having an anti-Israeli bias. (In fact, many countries, including european ones, boycotted the 2009 conference.) Why participate in an organization that is likely going to engage in one-sided criticism? Secondly, even if Israeli officials did not participate directly in the report, they had already given their defense/justification for many of their actions in other forums. Lastly, if you can't get participation from one party, and the other (i.e. Hamas) refuses to cooperate fully, then that should have been the end of the process right there. You mean it wasn't perfect? What kind of cooperation did Goldstone receive from Israel? In this situation, its better to get no cooperation rather than partial cooperation. Do you really think Hamas did its best to give an unbiased account? Or do you think its more likely that they whitewashed their participation, ignoring all the things they did wrong? How many actual terrorist soldiers do you think Goldstone talked to? Chinkin also condemned Hamas in the same letter. First of all, while she did 'condemn' Hamas, the majority of the letter condemned Israel. Secondly, even if she did criticize Hamas, the fact is, she still labeled Israeli actions as "agressive" before even a single word of testimony was made, before a single visit to post-war Gaza was made. Lastly, I'm not the only one who has an issue with Chinkin. There was also a letter signed by around 50 lawyers in different countries (you know, lawyers, the type of people who actually deal with the law) who had recommended that she be removed. Even Goldstone admitted: If it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter she’d signed would have been a ground for disqualification. (See: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618). Okay. Moot point #3? Israel has not used deserted schools or mosques to launch attacks? Not to my knowledge, no. I'm sure they sometimes have. Heck, I'm also sure that there have been some Israelis who have deliberately killed civilians. The difference is, Hamas (as an organization) uses (and targets) civilians as a matter of policy. Israel, while individual solders may break the rules, does not have such policies. No. Even if it is true, it's not okay for Hamas to do this. First of all, keep in mind that you were the first one to engage in insults. Heck, that was basically the lead in of your very first post (one that was pretty much devoid of any useful content.) Secondly... you may have noticed that when I used the phrase "useful idiot" I put it in quotes. There's a special reason for that... the term "useful idiot" has a special meaning. Initially it was applied to pro-communist people living in western democracies. (It has been accredited to Lenin, although he probably didn't actually use the phrase himself.) Since the fall of communism, The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business.... (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot). Israeli children were not killed. I never claimed they were. What I pointed out that Palestinian rockets and mortar attacks landed in civilian areas (including schools). http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054247.html Actually I have looked at it. Trouble is, I've also looked at other sources that seem to have information not contained in the report. Which means I'm able to see through the B.S. that is contained therein. And why is that? After all, Israel got the numbers right during the "massacre" at Jenin. Oh, and is this the same Red Cross that once employed Cornelio Sommaruga, who became famous for equating the star of David with a swastika? Again, many of those human rights groups had made, ahem, questionable statements regarding Israel in the past. And as I have pointed out before, even the founder of Human Rights Watch has admitted the organation has an anti-Israel bias. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that I admitted that Iraq initiated the invation. What you are ignoring is the fact that I pointed out that Iran had been involved in multiple border skirmishes long before the invasion began.. Please, read that above sentence. Yet its leader has said he is not unoposed to the idea of a Palestinian state. And more importantly, it is not the policy of that party to "wipe out" the Palestinians. Strange, I could have swore they HAD engaged in negotations, with Fatah... you know the group that has actually recognized the right of Israel to exist, and which isn't launching rocket attacks. Once again, how many peaceful nations deliberatly and secretly tunnel under the border to neighboring states? Yes they did. And Hamas dug the tunnels at a time when the ceasefire was in effect. Give me a break with your babbling. Like Hamas, with the limited resources they have, can find these homemade rocket launchers. Ok, here are all the problems with that little argument: - The government of the west bank has similar resources to those of Israel. Yet rocket attacks originating from there have been a lot more rare over the past few years. If Fatah can minimize rocket attacks, why can't Hamas? - If Hamas doesn't have the resources to find rocket launchers, then where exactly do they get the resources to kill their political rivals? To build tunnels? Those activities would have employed hundreds of people. Seems to me that they could have diverted those resources to finding those militants responsible for firing rockets.

There are many reasons for tunneling that don't involve hostile relations. CERN for instance has tunnels through a number of countries. There is a tunnel very large called the chunnel Sweet zombie Jesus... Never would I have thought that someone would actually try to justify tunnels dug by terrorists into Israel by equating them with things like the chunnel or the CERN Large Hadron Collider. You do realize that in those examples, the country under which the tunnel was dug actually knew what was going on, and even assisted in the work. But, since you seem to need a bit of clarification, let me reword things: just how many times has a country tunneled into an adjacent country secretly, and used that tunnel to engage in illegal or terrorist activities? Actually part of it is based on covert activities and protection from attack and detection or monitoring of supplies which technology can see these days on the surface. Your comment is inane to even reference the "unusualness" of tunneling. Nope, you're right... sometimes there are kidnapped Israeli soldiers who are brought through the tunnels. Irrelevant question... the Gaza strip is not 'surrounded by a hostile enemy bent on destroying them[/i]. If they really wanted to destroy the palestinians, I'm pretty sure they could do a much better job at it than they have. Yeah and Israel wouldn't have to worry about regulating the flow of goods in and out of Palestinian territories if they didn't have to worry about such goods including materials useful in terrorist attacks. Oh, and by the way, Israel isn't the only country that is trying to stop the use of illegal underground tunnels. Egypt regularly bombs or gasses tunnels it finds between the Gaza strip and Egypt. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLJ94474

You know, I really doubt if the majority of Israelis want to "make war". They'd just rather not be subject to continued rocket/mortar/suicide bomber attacks. Consider the fact that: Hamas has, right in its charter the goal of destroying Israel. Palestinian TV shows children shows like Sons of the Pioneers which advocate suicide attacks. As others have pointed out, Palestinians danced on 9/11. Israel, on the other hand, has no such "reaction". You may consider their military actions heavy-handed, but for the most part they are reactive rather than proactive. Well, there are at least 2 reasons why I can think of why we would want to "send our troops out of the country"... - Sometimes it may be necessary to take on an enemy on their own soil, just in case their actions negatively affect us in the future. I doubt that al Qaeda will ever try to mount an invasion of the Canadian homeland, but their actions could end up resulting in Canadian deaths, through terrorist attacks either here or abroad. (There were a couple of dozen Canadians killed on 9/11 for example.) - We, as a member of the global community, should also take a role in defending the innocent. Granted, we cannot police the entire world; however, lets face it: groups like the Taliban, Saddam, etc. are not nice people.... their actions range anywhere from cutting freedoms to outright murder/genocide. It is seen by some people that we have a humanitarian duty to try to protect those people.

Ummm... just out of curiosity, just how many times has a country tunneled into an adjacent country with which they were "friends"? Maybe the Hamas fighters digging those tunnels were doing so in order to bring cake and ice cream to all the good Israeli children. You know, if any Americans start digging tunnels under the border into Canada, I'd hope that the Canadian government take at least some action.

It's about the numbers. Nope, this issue is not about "numbers". Numbers don't tell you about context. Numbers don't tell you that the Gaza was the source of continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Those are the key issues. As we have already explained to you (which you do not seem to want to address)... if any country is subject to repeated attacks, they should not be condemned if they decide to take action to protect its own citizens. Let me put this into proper context... that 'video' spent time pointing out the farm animals killed in Gaza. It made no mention of the fact that rocket attacks from the Gaza strip often damaged Israeli schools. So, the people that made that video felt Palestinian chickens were more important than Israeli children. Yet Hamas' actions seem to be whitewashed (both by you and the video). And, as I mentioned before, Hamas was elected by the people in the Gaza strip. If the majority of Palestinians did not want to be associated with a group which regularly fires rockets into civilian areas in Israel, why did they vote for such a party? Never thought it was simple. But it was incredibly biased. Most importantly, little to no input was taken from the Israelis. Granted, it was a decision by the Israeli government not to co-operate (but given the general Anti-Israeli bias, and the fact that the initial mandate was to only investigate Israeli actions and not those of the palestinians, its certainly understandable.) Oh, and by the way, Goldstone himself admits that he didn't get full cooperation from the Palestinains: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618: While the Palestinians were keen for the exposure, their behaviour was not perfect, either, Goldstone says when asked.“... Let me put it this way — there were some areas of information where we did not receive full co-operation.” Oh, and you seem to have ignored the fact that other members that were doing the investigation had questionable motives. For example, one of the investigating members, Chinkin, had signed a letter condemning Israel before any investigation began. Really says a lot if one of your lead investigators has already come out and condemned one side. (Yeah, I realize Goldstone has whitewashed the situation, but if this were a real court of law she would likely have been removed.) Sorry if it contradicts your warped view of reality. But as I said, PBS is a fairly well respected news organization. Oh, and if you want more cases, consider the video released by Israeli defense forces showing rockets were being launched from civilian areas (including schools).... http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3466387,00.html (Human Rights Watched has acknowledged that this video may be correct, but its not a bad thing for Hamas to have done, since the schools 'appeared' to be deserted at the time.)And then there was the Arab reporter who acknowledged that at least one rocket was launched from areas near where Foreign reporters were stationed: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057129.html And just in case you don't like the previous examples because they come from Israeli sources, how about this one: http://www.newsweek.com/id/180691 The incessant sorties of Israeli jet bombers stopped almost immediately, but then suddenly there was a terrific whoosh, louder even than a bomb explosion. It was another of Hamas's homemade Qassam rockets being launched into Israel—and the mobile launchpad was smack in the middle of the four buildings, where every apartment was full... You really think launching rockets from areas adjacent to apartment buildings is a wise thing to do? (Oh, and by the way, the article also points out how Hamas stationed fighters near schools.) I see... and your evidence that they are "kangaroo court hearings" is where? Ah , there's the name calling that we've come to know so well. Great debating tactic!!!! Really shows off your intellect!!! Oh, and do you not recognize the hypocracy of complaining about others "turning a blind eye", when you started this topic with a video that showed more concern over Palestinian chickens than it did over Israeli children? A report that doesn't seem to put much stock in the fact that while Israel was supposedly "targeting civilians" (as seems to be claimed), they were actually dropping millions of leaflets and making thousands of telephone calls to civilians advising them to clear out of areas where operations were taking place. The report that was written, in part, by someone who had already signed a letter condemning Israel before she was even put on the team. The report that didn't get the Israeli side of things. You know, I've been letting that little 'claim' slide, but I guess I'd better address it... The claim that '1000 civilians' were killed is questionable at best. Hamas fighters did not always dress in identifiable uniforms. According to the IDF, there were around 1200 casualties, and over 700 of them were Hamas fighters. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-162420292.html) Now, I'm sure you'll white-wash this, saying "Oh, those are only Israeli claims, but why exactly would you trust the figures coming from the Palestinian side any more? (In the past, Israel has been a lot more honest than the Palestinians at dealing body counts... See, for example, Jenin, where the Palestinians wildly exaggerated casualty counts; the current accepted number is closer to what the Israelis claimed at the start.) Furthermore, I wonder just how many of those casualties Israel actually called. Amnesty international has criticized Hamas for killing other Palistinians during the Gaza conflict. At least some of those deaths could be a case of Hamas fighers killing rivals, and blaming Israel for the deaths. (See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-10-hamas-amnesty_N.htm) Lastly, why exactly do you expect conflicts to be casualty free? If I'm the leader of a country, I am going to take whatever steps are required to protect my own people from an aggressive foe (such as the Palestinians lobbing rockets and mortars into school yards) , even if it means defense of the country will lead to greater casualties on the opponent's side. Showing of course, your lack of understanding. Iran has also "broken internatinoal laws" Iran has also been involved in wars with its neighbors. Of course, Iran, unlike Israel, has publically stated a desire to "wipe Israel off the map". And Iran, unlike Israel, is a theocracy. Guess those things don't seem to matter to you. Actually, Iran and Iraq had multiple border skirmishes long before the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq may have launched the initial invasion, but Iran was certainly not blameless. Once again, how many times does Israel have to be bombarded by rockets and mortars hitting school yards before you think they're justified in taking actions? Most reasonable people would assume that lobbing high explosives for years and years is not exactly the neighbourly thing to do. Again, Israel did not sign the Nuclear NPT and is under no legal requirement to allow any inspectors in. Compare that to Iran, who is required to cooperate (under the terms of the agreement they themselves signed on to) and yet has failed to do so. As opposed to Iran defying human rights and flouting the UN over and over again? Spoken like a true "useful idiot". Let me remind you... it is in Hamas' charter that Israel be destroyed. How exactly do you negotiate with that? As others have pointed out, your figures do not include Mortar attacks. And, as others have pointed out, the cease fire was due to expire, and Hamas had stated they would not be renewing it. And by the way, Operation Lead Cast started in December. Notice that, accoring to the figures you provided, whatever 'lull' that had existed earlier in the fall was gone, and rocket attacks were very frequent even before Israel invaded. Oh, and while I'm at it, while Hamas supposedly had their 'cease fire' going, they were digging tunnels under the Gaza/Israel border, and had engaged in kidnapping. Ummm... so? Hamas was elected by the Gaza residents to run the place. That means they are responsible for the conduct of its citizens/civilians. As such, it is responsible for stopping all such attacks, and the individuals involved should be prosecuted. If a country or region fails to act to prevent damage to neighboring countries, then they shouldn't be surprised if the region being attacked decides to take matters into its own hands. To my knowledge, not one member of any of these "small militant groups" has ever been brought to trial in the Gaza strip over their non-sanctioned rocket/mortar attacks.

Ummmm... just out of curiosity... If the government does seek to evade confidence motions by proroguing parliament, what is preventing the opposition from re-introducing the confidence motion when the session resumes, if they truly believe it is in the country's (or their own) best interest? Yes, it does lead to at least a little delay before the confidence motion, but proroguing only goes on for so long before Parliament has to resume (at least if the government wants to do anything of note).

You know, I'm not a Liberal supporter, but to be honest Proroguing should not be considered that big of a deal (when done by any party). How exactly is it an "abuse" of parliament when its actually part of the Parliamentary process? Its like saying "making U-Turns is an abuse of driving", even though the law actually allows that to happen. Its a tool that is part of our Parliamentary tradition, much like confidence motions, requests to dissolve parliament, and a host of other tactics that both the leading party and opposition have at their disposal. Its been used literally dozens of times, yet our democracy continues to function, usually without a peep from either the press or the electorate. (In fact, Harper's use of the tactic is the first time I can remember any significant complaint from the press or general population.) You know, while it is true that porogation does limit the function of the opposition (not that they can't continue to raise their concerns with the public!), it also limits the ability of the government to implement its agenda. Heck, the month or 2 that the commons isn't sitting is time when Harper can't implement his evil, neo-con agenda of turning us all into zombie slaves for our bible-thumping overlords. Did a quick search... it appears that the U.K. also allows similar tactics. (The U.K. system seems to be a little different in the details, but looks like it is functionally equivalent.)

Providing for your family isn't wrong, I never said it was. Your statement was "we have no sense of right or wrong". That's a pretty broad statement. Not only do I want to provide for my family, I want them to have the best possible life. I will do so with every legal means, even if it means my family may have things better than other families. There are over 6 billion people on the planet. Trying to think of everyone as 'one big family' is just plain impractical. We have poor because society has flaws. Hopefully over time those flaws will be eliminated. But the concept of "screw the rich to help the poor" is not the best way to help them. Its counterproductive in the goal of trying to improve their standard of living. Yes they will... that's why, earlier in the thread, I specifically condemned being greedy and acquiring things illegally Not everyone is motivated by money, some people just love what they do.. yes, there may be people who are not motivated by money but that is not universal. If you eliminate the incentive to get wealthy, you will still get some people who will continue to create or innovate, but those who were motivated by money will not do so. It is their contributions that will be lost, causing everyone to suffer. And even if there were people who continued to invent and/or create, why bother sharing their inventions with the world, if their joy is in the creation process itself? Whats considered a good life, Owning a big house and owning lots of things? If that happens to be what makes us happy then yes. Not everyone will want that, but for you to tell me "its wrong to want that" is an attempt to control my thoughts and desires. I just googled it, not to sure how it applies here. The Prisoner's dilemma deals with whether people will benefit more by cooperating or being greedy, when they don't know what the other person will do. If the entire world had "equality and love" as you're suggesting, then each person has 2 options: - Contribute to society and share in an equal benefit - Do not fully contribute, but still share in the same benefits Now, society would work best if everyone continued to contribute. But I, as an individual (if there were no way for me to gain wealth), would be better off with the second option... do nothing, continue to get the full benefits of society, but have more time to be lazy. My optimum choice as an individual is different from my optimum choice as a member of society. And since I don't know what other people are going to do, I have even less incentive to contribute if others are likewise going to be lazy. The more people that choose the second option, the more society breaks down.

The key phrase there is the facts they were "able to gather". Meaning... they never bothered to get the complete story. So, what he's saying is that stuff that went in his report could be as flimsy as wet toilet paper (certainly not to the standard that could be used in court). Frankly, if there's some report that your condemning Israel on, I'd want a little higher burdern of proof. At least Goldstone is being honest when he admits that his report could be full of false claims because it "wasn't a standard they used". Where do you get this information? Anything to back up your claims? Well, Human Rights Watch was one of the major contributors (and some people doing the 'investigation' had ties to the organization.) Know who Robert Bernstein is? He was the founder of Human Rights Watch. You'd think he would know something about the organization. What does he have to say? From: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region. ... Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. ... Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas...And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism. Now, normally I wouldn't use an opinion piece as "proof", but Bronstien is the founder of HRW. You'd think that he knows a little about human rights, wouldn't you? Who cares? I do ... Well, good for you. You must be very happy with yourself. Simple, I have a brain and I use it. You were the one that brought up Goldstone's history of dealing with former Nazis as "proof" of his abilities. What I'm still trying to find is where its written that doing well in one endeavor automatically means that all future endeavors will also be correct. Guess that concept is a little much for you to handle. Would it help if I called you a "storm trooper"? After all that's what you did in one of your first responses in this thread. Is that what you would characterize as having a "real discussion"?