segnosaur

Well, I can think of a few reasons why we're 'wasting our time' in Afghanistan... - While you are right in that critical funding came from Saudi Arabian and other middle eastern sources, al Quaeda would be far less effective if it did not have safe locations to establish training centers, and that means (in this case) having a friendly government such as the Taliban. Although we can and do have a problem with the Saudis, it is doubtful that the Saudi leaders would have allowed al Quaeda to set up training centers in Saudi territory. Don't belittle the value of a non-monitary contribution such as having available land for training camps - As I mentioned before, the government of Saudi Arabia itself was not complicit in the attacks, whereas the Taliban was willing to shelter bin Laden - Even if Afghanistan were not part of the 'war on terror', there would be humanitarian reasons to be there... the Taliban was very barbaric in its treatment of its citizens, and providing a stable and democratic government that respects human rights is a moral thing to do, even if it didn't provide any driect benefit. Um, what makes you think people couldn't speak freely about our problems with Saudi Arabia (even if the governement was not taking direct action)? We still had freedom of the press, and I for one saw articles and political cartoons which clearly illustrated the problems we had with the Saudis. Its not that people can't talk about it, its just that the situation is A: very complex (such that many people don't understand all the nuances), and B: our ability to 'do anything' is so limited, because (as others have mentioned) we're dependent on their oil. Yes, Saudi Arabia is a big part of the problem with the 'war on terror'.... They support a certain very strict code of Islamic law that allows extremists to flourish, while at the same time taking a stance that they are 'friends' with the U.S. The best solution would be for the west to build a whole lot of nuclear power plants, cut back on our need for foreign oil, and watch places like Saudi Arabia become cash-starved countries who no longer have the resources to fund al Qaeda other terrorist groups.

Ah, I get it... So, even though the motion that he introduced said something, you are pretending it meant something else. Brilliant. So, just how psychic are you? And I didn't ignore the issue... I already pointed out that, even though the Conservatives did initially vote against the same sex marriage law, at this point in time they have no plans to reintroduce the issue. Its no more relevant to bring up the topic than it is to bring up the fact that the Liberals themselves voted against same sex marriage less than a decade ago. Just out of curiosity, did you ever vote for the Liberals prior to 2005? (Can't remember if you ever expressed any political affiliations in the past...) If you did vote for either Martin or Chretien's Liberals prior to that part, do you consider yourself a hypocrite? You know, I could respond to this by pointing out tha no political party is perfect, and that the Liberal's record of broken promises was more severe than that of the Conservatives. Or I could point out that many of the items in that list of 'broken promises' are factually inaccurate, and that many 'broken promises' were the result of unexpected changes in the economy. But I won't. Why? Because I recognize that you posted this for one reason... you lost the argument. I pointed out that the conservative's social policies were not really far outside of what mainstream Canada supports. Instead of dealing with that, your only recourse is to post this list, like it somehow magically makes people forget that you were unable to actually deal with the actual issue that this thread was supposed to discuss. If you want to discuss broken promises, why don't you start another thread? Rather than highlight your ignorance over the topic of discussion here, you can go and post whatever lists you like in that other thread.

I do not have any evidence that it is either consistent or inconsistent. But here's the thing.... neither do you. That is the issue... A law should, when necessary, be as unambiguous as possible. There is no guarantee that any court in the future will rule the way you want. Personally, I want judges to actually, you know, interpret the law rather than giving them the ability to make up whatever they feel like because our MPs were too lazy to actually write in "sexual orientation=gayness" on the bill somwhere. The definition of 'sexual orientation' from WebMD included the concept of "morphology" (body form) in their definition of sexual orientation. Morphology (or "Form") is another term that is not perfectly defined, but most people would argue that children have a different body shape/form than adults. Is it a serious concern? Probably not. But the thing is, the concern is not non-existant, and I don't want even a tiny chance that the bill will be mis-applied. (Heck, I don't even want to see any legal challenge, even if such a legal challenge ends in failure, if its going to waste the court's time.) The reason I included transgendered people is to show that your initial definition (that sexual orientation was only about hetro vs. homosexual) was not universally accepted. Frankly, I find it rather pathetic that you would spend so much time and effort picking on this particular issue. Even if you did not think there was a problem with the use of the phrase "sexual orientation", I gave several other reasons why someone would be opposed to C-250, even if they weren't anti-gay. And of course, its getting way off topic from the original topic of the thread and my arguments: That the conservative policies are often closer to the ideals of the "average Canadian" than the parties on the political left. and that its not really necessary for either the Liberals or the Conservatives to move to the left of the political spectrum to gain support.

I think even Stephen Harper knows how sexual orientation is defined: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionar...ual+orientation Perhaps you're suggesting that his less educated supporters do not know how to define terms, phrases and words. In my opinion, if uneducated Harper supporters cannot define race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other terminology employed in hate crime legislation, they should educate themselves. First of all, that's a medical definition, not a legal definition. (If the bill were meant to refer to only homosexuality, then why did they not use something along the line of "sexual orientation as defined by..."? would have cleared up the problem right then and there. Secondly, keep in mind that that is not the only definition of "sexual orientation" out there. WebMD has a definition that includes body morphology and gender role. The AMA has policies that lump transgendered people in that definition. http://dictionary.webmd.com/terms/sexual-orientation http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html I've already dealt with that issue. Opinion polls at the time showed that the majority of Canadians did not prefer the same-sex law proposed by the liberals. Most Canadians preferred either an outright ban on Marriage, or some form of recognized 'civil union' that wasn't labeled 'marriage'. At the time, the Conservative policy was closer to what the majority wanted. Your mistake is assuming that just because you and the party you support have certain policies and beliefs that all Canadians share those beliefs. I've pointed out time and time again that many (but not all) of the policies of the conservative party are actually closer to what the majority of Canadians want (whether just policies are justified or not). First of all, if I remember correctly, the motion was not to take away the right of marriage, but to only reopen discussion on the issue. (Its splitting hairs, but some might think that distinction is important. I could be wrong on this point however). Secondly, it was an election promise. In most cases, its considered a 'good thing' to follow through on election promises. Lastly, this was actually several years ago. It is not a part of any conservative policy to reopen the debate on same sex marriage. Its no more relevant to bring up that last vote than it is to bring up the fact that the liberals themselves voted against same sex marriage laws back in 1999. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/international/americas/09cnd-cana.html)

Just out of curiosity, are you psychic? How are you able to know exactly why Harper voted the way he does? Can you read his mind? I can think of at least 4 reasons he might have opposed to bill C-250 (even if he thought hate speech was wrong)... - He may be against all hate speech legislation (since it violates free speech). However, since there was no vote on repealing ALL hate speech legislation, his only option was to oppose making a bad law worse - He may have felt that the wording in C-250 was inadequate. (C-250 talks about "sexual orientation"; while the assumption is that it refers to homosexuality, that word is never used in the bill, and thus some may be concerned that it might be applied to things like polygamy or pedophilia) - He may be concerned that C-250 doesn't give enough protection to religious speech (if you read section 319, only SOME religious speech is protected, not all; the list of exemptions applies only to subsection 1, not subsection 2) - He may have voted against C-250 because he felt his constituents would have disagreed with it. (After all, that IS the whole point to this thread, isn't it? That politicians, in order to get / maintain power, have to follow what the voters want) Any one of those would be a logical and valid reason to vote against C-250, even if the person were opposed to hate speech in general and even anti-gay speech.

I think the law as written is well written. Well, I have a perfect argument for that: Ezra Lavant. A case was brought before a human rights tribunal over cartoons. Granted, this was a tribunal (not a court), and Lavant was cleared; however, the case wasted hundreds of man-hours, and cost the defence thousands of dollars. All over 'hate speech'. If we really held the idea of 'free speech' to be so important, the courts and/or human rights tribunals would never have even bothered hearing the case. This case involved hate speech against a religous group; rather than add yet more groups to the list who could complain, shouldn't we take steps to, you know, strengthen the concept of free speech? But why? If I call them 'evil', is that not promoting 'hatred'? Could not someone who is imprssionable take that part of my statement (even ignoring the 'fashion advice' part) and use it to justify in their own minds that violence is OK? If you want to ban some speech as being "hate speech", then where do you draw the line?

You do have that ability. What you cannot do is incite hatred against a group You see, here's the problem... the term 'incide hatred against a group' is an extremely vague term. If I said 'group X is evil', is that inciting hatred? Why or why not? Look at the controversy that surrounded Ezra Lavant and others regarding claims of 'hate speech' by Muslim groups... hundreds of hours, thousands of dollars spent. If we truly have freedom of speech, then we should only restrict such speech when there is a clear case for immediate harm (e.g. if I tell someone to attack someone right now). Of course, such situations are probably already covered under other laws (such as criminal conspiricy, etc.) That's the problem: - Opinions (such as "group X is evil" can never really be proven true or false, so part A does not apply - Secular opinions would not be covered due to part B - Satire/humour (or similar 'speech') would not be covered due to part C - Part D only applies to certain types of 'speech' So we have a law that can punish people for making certain public statements, and the number of exceptions does not cover all potential situations. Of course, this whole issue does have the risk of derailing the thread. Ultimately, I think its irrelevant to the discussion. I don't know why certain conservatives oppose adding homosexuality to hate crime legislation. But its such a minor issue, and one in which Canadians are probably not that well educated. (i.e. they may claim they want to stop 'hate speech' against homosexuals, but they'd probably also complain if people were prosecuted over 'free speech' issues.)

Mine has. I'm an athiest. To be honest, I have no problem with homosexuality. Its a natural thing, and people should have the right to do with their life as they choose. However, I should have the ability to make any sort of insane anti-homosexual remarks that I wish, even though those remarks have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Its not a freedom that I had any intention of using, but its still a loss of freedom. By telling me I cannot make any sort of crackpot remarks unless I have some religious belief tells me that my freedom of speech is worth less than someone who uses a bible.

Not only do a majority favour legalization but if one combines the percentage favouring legalization with the percentage favouring decriminalization, that percentage is greater than 80%. Yet a social conservative like Harper favours continued criminalization, a position completely at odds with the overwhelming majority of Canadians. First of all, Keep in mind that the article you referred to, while it was done by a reputable polling firm, was conducted on behalf of NORML, a pro-marijuana party. The article itself even mentions other opinion polls show a much lower level of support for decriminalization, so at this point we can't really tell if this is a true reflection on Canadian's attitudes or some outlier. Secondly, I've already agreed/admitted that most Canadians differ from the Conservative party on the issue of marijuana. However, they are just as likely to agree with the conservative party on other issues of law and order (the gun registry, as I've pointed out before, and on minimum sentencing.) I'm sure it does. Heck, if I remember correctly, even the NDP party had at least one MP who opposed the same sex marriage laws. (Wasn't able to vote against it though, as the party enforced solidarity.) Yes he is more socially conservative on a number of issues. On other issues though, his policies actually do line up with what the 'average' canadian wants. (I've given several examples of that before. Continually picking on the drug issue doesn't change that fact.) Simply portraying the conservatives as some right-leaning wing nuts without anythign in common with the average Canadian is inaccurate and arrogant. And he was fighting against 4 (count 'em 4) opponents, including the Bloc Quebecois. Given the fact that Quebec has a trend of supporting Quebec-born politicians, its not suprising that the Conservatives would have had an up-hill struggle gaining a majority. Let's suppose I buy that argument. Doesn't it follow logically that it's premature for you to judge whether Harper is socially conservative or not? For Harper to survive in a minority government, he must appear not to be a social conservative in order to survive. I never actually claimed Harper or the conservative party didn't have 'socially conservative' views or policies. What I've pointed out is that whatever views he has are not necessarily outside the range of what is considered 'average' in Canada Defence? Before the conservatives first got into power most Canadians favoured an increase in defence spending. Law and order issues? Yes, the conservative opinion differs from the 'average' Canadian when talking about marijuana laws, but Canadians were more likey to agree with scrapping the gun registry. Same sex marriage? Already pointed out that while Canadians don't want the issue reopened, had it been put to a referendum at the time it was passed, the Liberal's same sex marriage law would have failed. I myself have libertarian leanings. But I'm not so arrogant as you to assume that everyone else in the country is necessarily going to share my social beliefs.

thats true in theory. but as we've seen, there's another option, political blackmail. instead of passing other parties legislation to get support for your own, you can just make every contentious bill a confidence motion which could trigger an election the people dont' want if it wasn't passed. When you're talking about budgets and other monatary bills, I believe they are already considered issues of confidence. Now, whether such a game of "chicken" over potential spending cuts between a conservative party and left-wing parties depends on how deep the cuts go, what other 'perks' there are, etc.

And much was in unnecessary areas: Hey, I totally agree...I do think that spending increases on arts and culture were unnecessary. (Ironically, arts spending is one that's sometimes thought of as being a 'social' issue, so in this way the conservatives are exhibiting a 'left wing' side.) The way I see it though: - The other parties were also likely to increase spending in those same areas (as well as others) - In a minority government, the ruling party may have to put forward legislation it does not totally agree with in order to get various bills passed. Before I judge the conservative government on how fiscally responsible they are, I'd have to see them operate in a situation where they don't have to deal with various pro-spending parties in order to survive.

Hey, I agree, Canadians are more likely to have views that are more liberal both socially AND economically. However, to me, that should not be relevant to the issue at hand. What SHOULD be relevant is how well the social policies of the conservatives match up with the beliefs of the Canadian voter. (The only relevance in comparing the situation in Canada with the situation in the U.S. is for anyone who wants to demonize the conservatives by incorrectly characterizing them as pro-Bush wingnuts.) Yes, I would. However, again the issue souldn't be how close Canada is to the U.S., but how close the conservatives are to the Canadian 'average' (if such a thing exists). As I pointed out before, the conservatives have no plans to re-open the debate on abortion, so their 'views' on the issue aren't really out of step with the average Canadian. And it is true that the conservative policy on stem cell research IS different than the preferences of Canadians. However, in my opinion the issue of stem cell research is a relatively minor issue, and not one that would affect a significant number of voters. (And lets face it, stem cell research is a complex scientific subject that most Canadians probably aren't qualified to really judge.) You should keep a few things in mind considering those 'statistics'. The percentage of people who 'support' same sex marriage varies according to how the question is worded. I had published a reference to a site that had multiple polls covering the issue, all taken before the vote. When there were only 2 options (gay marriage or not), there was usually an even split (or even a majority who supported SSM). However, when there were 3 options (SSM, no SSM, or a 3rd option of a legally recognized 'civil union'), the number of people who supported SSM actually dropped to around 30-40%. Because of that, the conservative policy of the time (they supported a legally recognized civil union) was actually closer to what the 'majority' of Canadians wanted than what the Liberals or NDP voted in. As for 'reopening' the issue, the Conservatives have no plans to do so, so their policy on the issue is pretty much in line with what the rest of Canadians want. Keep in mind that there is a difference between laws regarding 'hate crime' and adding sexual orientation to the charter of rights and freedoms. Laws such as bill C-250, while they may have had the noble goal of preventing harm, would have also had the side effect of causing a decrease in free speech. Similarly, any changes to the charter (such as adding 'sexual orientation') do run the risk of having unexpected side effects. I've already dealt with the drug issue, when I pointed out that while the conservative policy on marijuana was more 'right wing' than the Canadian average, the majority who favour legalization is certainly not overwhelming.

Why exactly do you think Canadians are 'socially liberal'? Compared to what? Consider the following social issues: - In some polls, the majority of Canadians favor some degree of private health care (51%, vs. 42% who oppose it) - Prior to the vote on same sex marriage, most polls showed the majority of Canadians did not support the changes to the definition of marriage that the Liberals passed - Even though the majority of Canadians oppose capital punishment, its certainly not an overwhelming majority. In fact, if every person who supported the death penalty voted conservative, they'd probably get an overwhelming majority (44% favour the death penalty, 52% are opposed, a difference of less than 10%) - Gun control? There are polls that show the majority of Canadians thought the gun registry should be scrapped (52% vs. 43%) - It is true that most Canadians favor legalization of pot... but again, its not an overwhelming majority (only between 51-55%), and the vast majority of Canadians oppose legalizing other drugs - Most Canadians (60%) exhibit either moderate or high degree of religious belief - The polls surrounding Canada's military have been mixed, but at least one (dating from before the Conservatives first took power) showed that Canadians favoured increased defense spending So, in those 6 areas of social policy (ones I consider significant), either the majority of Canadians have beliefs that would be considered 'right wing', or the number of people holding 'socially liberal' views is in a majority, but the majority is slim. About the only major area that I can think of where Canadians do hold an overwhelming 'liberal' belief is abortion, but changes in abortion policy are nowhere on any party's platform (not even the conservatives) Edited to add: I wanted to point out that I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with any of these policies or positions; I was only attempting to demonstrate that there are significant social areas where Canadian views are not exactly 'left wing liberal/socialist') http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/mini...004&no_ads= (poll showing Canadians favour scrapping the gun registry) http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-0...gious.htm#index (survey showing most Canadians are 'religious') http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30688...lize_marijuana/ (poll showing most Canadians favour legalizing pot, but the majority is slim, and oppostion to legalizing other drugs is high) http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/death...four_countries/ (poll showing those opposed to the death penality is a majority, but the majority is slim) http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...8a-17e447c651ca (poll showing most Canadians support privatizing some aspects of health care) http://www.religioustolerance.org/homssmpoll04.htm (polls showing most Canadians opposing the Liberal same sex marriage plans. Note that this site is not exactly a 'main stream' site; however, they do refer to polls conducted by reputable polling firms) http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vo...o4/pdf/46_e.pdf (poll showing support for higher military spending) Again, I think the most important word in the above sentence is 'perception'. As I've illustrated above, the ideals of the 'average' conservative voter (at least on social issues) is not significantly different than that of the 'average' Canadian. At the risk of derailing this thread, I should point out that while the Harper government has increased spending, much of that was in necessary areas: - Defense, which had suffered under the Liberal government and required significant refits and new equipment - health care, restoring spending to areas that the Liberal government had Quebec has always been a province that has had strong left-wing views (both socially and economically), as well as a very strong trend of supporting 'native' Quebecers. Given than, I'm surprised the conservatives did as well as they did.

The key problem in your whole argument is the assumption that people automatically vote according to their position in the left-right political spectrum. People cast their votes for a multitude of reasons... personality of both the local and federal candidates, scandals and other events (just the appearance of the Green Party in the national debates would have been enough to give them exposure to increase their vote count, even if people did not necessarily support their policies). Even ignorance is a big factor (if you tell people if they want lower taxes or higher taxes/spending, they'll probably go with the lower taxes, but they still may vote for a left-wing candidate without understanding how their policies affect them.) Heck, I could even point out that the left-vs-right wing is flawed because its possible to be 'right wing' economically but left wing socially. This doesn't mean people have or haven't "become right wingers", only that looking only at the number of votes cast for various parties doesn't really give a proper indication of whether the person themselves is left wing or right wing.

Actually, the last thing the Liberals would have wanted is to actually explain the workings of the Green Shift carbon tax. You see, because people don't know the details, they may end up thinking "Oh, using the word Green implies they like the environment". However, when you actually look at the details of the plan, you start to see problems... When you actually look at the numbers you see that people in Alberta, and especially Ontario, get punished over the tax (for no other reason than they use a lot of fossil fuel for electrical generation.) Other provinces (such as Quebec and Manitoba) who use a lot of hydroelectric power, would end up benefitting. So, why would the Liberals want to go to Ontario voters (the province basically keeping the Liberals from getting slaughtered) and tell them "Hey we're going to punish you so we can give your money to other provinces"?

OK, here's the deal as I see it: most spiritual practitioners never go beyond relatively basic steps and beginner level in their lifetime. At that level one can interact with the spiritual world and communicate with the entities but is like an infant in a strange world and as such the "experiences" they can describe may be incoherent and limited. So all they can feel and see is personal and can only be a proof to themselves. Quite a mass of irrelevant statements that you've posted. Still doesn't explain why none of these supposed spiritual 'gurus' have ever come close to claiming the prize, regardless of their experiences. Heck, you'd think that as a group they'd be willing and eager to benefit society with their supposed abilities/discoveries, and winning some grand prize would certainly help with that. Actually, that would be something very easy to test for, and I've heard of test regimes set up for similar 'powers'. Again, nobody has won the prize. You see, humans have this very strange tendency... we remember the successes and forget the failures. That's the reason psychics work... they make 1 right 'guess', and 9 wrong guesses. We become fixated on the single success and ignore 90% of the 'failures'. Same with the idea that you may 'feel' someone staring at you... if you feel someone staring and turn to find nobody, you block it out of your mind. If you don't feel someone starying at you and they are, you wouldn't even know. But, when you turn and find someone staring at you, then and only then does it take on imporance in your mind. Edited to add: They actually have done experiments to test the 'staring effect'... and guess what? the ability to determine whether someone is starying at you is actually worse than what you would expect from random chance. http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html Unlike scientology you do not have to pay them to gain knowledge and they're not the only ones describing the techniques of lucid dreaming. You may not have to pay them, but it sure helps. Really, are you that naive? They're in it to earn money. So are drug companies. But unlike your 'lucid dreaming' institute, drug companies have to, you know, prove there stuff works. You know, I had never heard of Carlos before... after looking him up, I have to say, who cares? Am I supposed to be impressed? (According to wikipedia, the guy sold millions of books. Don't you think he'd benefit from the royalties paid on those books?) You use your best judgement. Or try it on yourself. You still haven't the question... how do you identify what a bullsh*t therapy is? And remember, whatever you consider as bullsh*t, others consider effective. How do you know your assesment is right and theirs is wrong? I see... so you see the beneifit of giving people false hope. Actually, the chiripractic care is considered alternative. See: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/pcahc-...comp_define.pdf The definition of 'alternative health care' involves whether a particular technique is taught in medical schools, of which chripractic is not (Regardless of the number of people who believe or use it). Ummm... do you actually know what homeopathy is? Its a type of treatment where they take some substance, dilute it to the point where it has absolutely nothing left of the original material, and then pretend that its some sort of drug. There are certain processes that do fail as we get older, but we never actually die of 'old age'... we will die of heart disease, or of cancer, or of pnemonia, or of any one of a hundred different diseases. If your magical 'treatments' prevent any such problems, then anyone should be able to avoid any of these illnesses that ultimately cause their death. That's a no-brainer You see a clown on TV claiming he's healing people, reading people's minds and asking for money - he's a fraud. Any things that you take to boost your energy likely cost money (and probably a lot more than it costs to produce, giving them a nice little profit). People who write any books you read (like the author you referred to earlier) get royalties. Many alternative health care practicioners charge fees for their services. There's more than one way to blilk money out of the masses. Even if the people you buy your cr*p from aren't as wealthy as Popoff was, they're still making a profit off of you. So why are YOUR alternative health care beliefs more valid while someone who believes Poppoff cured them is wrong? Many of the people who went to Popoff had the "personal experience" that they were cured by him. So, again, why are your 'personal experiences' somehow valid at proving your alternative healing works, while people's "personal experiences" with Popoff were invalid?

You know, we hear that sort of argument over and over again in the skeptical community. Remember that million dollar JREF prize I mentioned earlier for people that can prove the 'paranormal'? When you mention that to believers and practictioners, the excuse is often "Oh, we don't want to be greedy", or "We're doing this for the benefit of or patients" or whatever. Yet at the same time, they earn thousands or hundreds of thousands selling their 'snake oil'. Perhaps those people capable of "spiritual feats" don't have enough of a stage presense to become famous doing their acts. Or perhaps they are smart enough to stay out of the spotlight since they know their stuff doesn't work, slowly bilking their customers rather than trying to go for the big score.

There are people who could prove the some "supernatural" things to the skeptics... but the thing is - they're not interested in doing that. As I said before, there are skeptics groups that are very interested in testing paranormal claims. The James Randi foundation I metioned before even offered one million dollars for anyone who could actually prove any sort of paranormal activity. I'm sure many of your 'alternative therapies' would fit in to that mold. Many have tried to claim the prize, none have come anywhere close to succeeding. Usually, one of 2 things happen: - The person wants to 'prove' themselves, but they never actually come out and say what exactly they can do, - the person does get tested, but once proper controls are put in place their 'evidence' falls flat on its face. Of course, the problem is, its usually the small fish that try to claim their prize. The larger, more well known frauds tend to avoid the challenge because they know they will fail and don't want the publicity. Lucity institute? They offer 'workshops' for over $1000 per person. Nice scam if you can work it. (Again, not the irony where you have criticized 'big pharma', yet you're willing to shill for some 'institute' that probably earns hundreds of thousand of dollars a year.) As for the Botany institute... I'm not sure if you know exactly what it is. Frankly I'm not sure myself. But, from the looks of things, they don't seem to be investigating 'plants' themselves, but surveying peoples opinions about them. (It should be noted that there is some validity to the study of plants to serve as the basis for some modern medicines.) I see... So, just wondering, how exactly do you identify one of these 'bullsh*t' alternative therapies? Do you count chiropractic and homeopathy under that list? And if someone claims they 'feel better' after using one of those 'bullsh*t therapeis', what do you attribute their improvement to? Once again, since you ignored the question before, where are the immortal people? If you think that people won't get 'sick' if they engage in your particular brand of healing, and they never get into accidents, then there should be people who are thousands of years old. Since you keep bugging me about some silly evangelist I looked it up on Wikipedia. JUST FOR YOU! He appears to be a fraud. Finally, some progress. Now, the real questions start: If Popoff was a fraud and wasn't healing anyone, then how do you explain the people who claimed they were healed by him? And why the double standard? Yes, Popoff was a fraud. But look at the evidence he has supporting him: - A long history going back thousands of years supporting the process of 'faith healing', just like your 'treatments' - Multiple anecdotes of claims he helped people, just like your claims about how you have 'improved energy' - The idea that his faith healing treatment is outside the realm of 'scientific testing', similar to your arguments about how there are 'energies' that are undetected So, why are you accepting the 'evidence' supporting your particular method of healing, but rejecting the evidence supporting his healing success? Why the double standard? Because, I wanted to expose a failure in your arguments, in this case the hypocracy of accepting evidence supporting YOUR beliefs, but rejecting OTHER beliefs. The party in question will most definitely be in NO RUSH to protect nature. If you want to argue that they won't make the environement a priority, I'd accept that. But at least some of their environmental platform WAS to be enacted immediately, even if the targets were in the future. (Going by memory, I think they had plans to invest in alternative fuels right away.)

Actually, there have been investigations into the "spiritual world". Its just that such investigations always turn up empty. If such things actually existed, there would be ways to detect them... as I mentioned before, through properly controled double-blind studies. That seems to be a concept you are having trouble grasping. Us skeptics are a resourceful bunch... groups like the James Randi Educational Foundation are experts in coming up with ways to test claims of the supernatural. The problem is, all such claims have fallen flat on their faces. But I wasn't talking about those practices. I was talking about other 'alternative therapies' which have been around a lot less time than 'modern science'. Do you believe that homeopathy and chiripractic are 'bunk' because they're younger than modern science (and for the most part have been shown not to work)? Why would I lie? Because, any answer you give will likely expose the failure in your arguments. So, you are using any means necessary to avoid actually answering the question. Thank you for illustrating my point again. Instead of actually answering my question you avoid it again. I predicted you would. Maybe I'm psychic. I have never watched/listend to TV evangelists either, but I know enough about what they do and how they operate. I really don't think its possible for anyone to live in North America and not know what TV Evanglists are. (For the most part utter frauds posing as 'holy men'.) So, once again, so we can all see you squrim away .... if you think that 'history' and 'anecdotes' are adequate proof to show that alternative medicine works, do you believe that Peter Popoff was actually healing people. Just one word... yes or no. You can do it. Come on... use that amazing 'energy enchanced' brain to answer the question. (If you wonder why I and other skeptics have such distain for people like you, perhaps you should consider your responses to the above question. I've asked the same thing multiple times. Why should we even consider the validity of your 'theories' if you can't even answer a simple question?) You do realize that regardless of what party gets into power (and whatever environmental legislation is proposed), any sort of regulations won't kick in for many months or years after. It DOES take time for the goverment to change its infrastructure, and for businesses to plan for any shifts in their practices.

Well by voting Conservative you're asking for more of it... Why do you say that? It was the Liberals who were in power when the Bre-X scandal happened. (Not that I'm necessarily blaming the Liberals... it likely would have happened regardless of who was in power. But why the assumption that all the 'bad' stuff only happens due to the right wing being in power?)

Like: - Over 2 million people in jail, 10,000 of which are under 18; It is true that many of the people are in jail for minor drug charges (which I admit probably isn't a wise thing to do). But, I've also pointed out that the U.S. has a lower overall crime rate than Canada (according to U.N. statistics). Most people would think that actually punishing people who steal/injure others is acceptable if it keeps them from harming others. Not exactly accurate. - The U.S. does have medicare/medicaid to handle the people who are truly poor. And many employed people have jobs that have health insurance (or can pay for their own). Of those that have absolutely no health insurance, many are employed but have not been working long enough for their health insurance to kick in. The number of people who have had no health insurance for a significant length of time is very small - True, health care is more expensive in the U.S., and can be devistating financially if you don't have health insurance. However, the responsiveness of their health care (providing necessary treatments when needed as quickly as possible) exceeds that of Canada, even if the coverage is not equal across the country. Now, whether its better to have equal (but lower quality) coverage like we have in Canada, or Superior (for most) but widely varying coverage is a question that has no answer. The point is, we can't claim our health care is better or worse than in the U.S., just different Someone else already pointed out Bre-X. I could possibly also point out Nortel. (Yes, Nortel is a multinational company, but its headquarters is in Canada.) You're right... the U.S. does have a huge debt, and unlike Canada, they continue to run a deficit. Of course, I could also point out that for much of the Trudeau era, the per-capita debt/deficit was actually much higher in 'socialist' Canada than the 'right wing' U.S. Not sure why the 'war on terror' is relevant... the 'war on terror' does not really affect the average U.S. ciitizen to a signficant degree. But, I'll play along.... Without the U.S. Invasion, Iraq would never have experienced the joy of boy bands... http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2003/dec/1...rock.worldmusic

Lets see... The U.S. has: - A per capita GDP that is approximately $6000 per year more - An unemployment rate that is approximately 1% lower than that in Canada - While they do have a higher murder rate, overall their rate of crime is lower than that in Canada Granted I do not think the U.S. is perfect (nor is any country), but the fact is Canada falls short of the U.S. in many areas. I could also point out that Canada is a country that probably has a much larger resource-base than the U.S. (including oil, mineral resources, lumber, etc.) Given all the advantages that Canada has, its likely even a totally incompetent government would show at least some success. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/us.html

Well, for one, people like you accept any bunk they say as being the real unbiased 'truth' without ever considering the fact that they have a very powerful incentive to distort the truth. (And it should be noted that the 'stop c51' web site does not make its relationship with herbal companies clear.) Do you accept research into global warming produced by the oil companies? What about studies on taxes done by right-wing think tanks? If you automatically accept the 'facts' as presented by the 'stop C51' website (as you seem to have), then you should also be willing to accept studies done by other potentially biased groups.

Yeah... pretty amazing. People suggest 'big pharma' is somehow the source for all mis-information, yet they end up listening to an organization that's got even more incentive to lie about C51.

Harper already made changes to the policy on death penalty, without any consultation in the Parliament, and in contradiction to Canada's law (which does not allow death penalty). The death penalty is a different issue than abortion. His actions on the death penalty do not concern me greatly. The individual in question was given a trial in a court system generally viewed to be fair and unbiased. (And yes, I know there can be flaws, but its not like the individual will get a summary execution). In additon, the person's crimes did happen in a foreign country; any demands for clemancy are basically Canada trying to impose its 'morals' on another country, somethign that should be frowned upon.