hitops

Ok have it your way, let's play 'well they got persecuted' game. Nobody was more persecuted than the Jews. Far beyond anything like the residential schools, they were actively hunted multiple times in history, thrown repeatedly off their land and out of various countries. Today they remain the most successful, most prosperous, highest average level of education ethnic group on the planet. Smallc also noted the Japanese example. To this I would add Germany. Both nations destroyed and conquered within the last 70 years. As you noted....they must be languishing backwaters today right?

Without any spills. Hmmmmmmm.....

Wrong thread?

Maybe someday we will move past the era where rights to land depends on your bloodlines, and all Canadians are treated equally.

You and I both know the opposition has nothing to do with a proposed better route. It is simply a red herring because of the perception that gateway might happen. As soon as somebody switches the plan to going east, the opposition will immediately start up against that idea. It's not about how/where it goes, it's about stopping any kind of development of mineral mining of any kind. Resources extraction IS the problem, and therefore no plan will ever satisfy for those folks.

You just answered your own question. On the one hand concerns over where a spill recovery team can go and earthquakes, and then in the same breath mentioning another line which goes over the same territory, evidently with 50 years of not being significant affected by those issues. Which is it? The reason the gateway plan is to Kitimat, is because 12 years ago Kitimat was falling over themselves to advertise as the best route for gateway.

I'm not characterizing their experiences, I'm characterizing their results. Do you know how patronizing and insulting it is to single out a given group for these benefits? Yet we do it, even though it keeps them down and dependent generation and generation.

There is no minority people on earth who have as good a deal as our aboriginals. There is no group identified as a subgroup of any culture or nation than has so many favourable tax exclusions, educational preferences and funding, and other ethnic-specific benefits, on earth. They choose not to benefit from it. In many other places, minority groups with no specific allowances have done far better. Different cultures/values have different results. My ancestors came here with nothing, we get no special treatment, and we do far better. Another group I can think of are Philipinos and Indians. Both immigrant groups are successful, and demonstrate social cohesion. This is an environment that ANYONE can thrive in, if they really want to.

That's good thing, if your concern is environmental, as rail causes more spills and more damage than pipe.http://globalnews.ca/news/1069624/how-do-crude-spills-compare-by-rail-truck-pipeline-you-may-be-surprised/ Oil is massively increasing by rail, and will continue to do so. Pipeline makes sense for every single camp on this issue, including both environmental and economic.

No, just by this law.

The environment doesn't sustain them though, WE sustain them.

That's actual, real institutionalized racism.

On first glance at the thread description, it sounds like she was just trying to help. But when you read the article, she was clearly negligent and foolish. She was on a highway, she did not get out of the lane of traffic, it was at night, and she did not turn her hazards on. But I don't know what an enormous sentence would accomplish. Their is nothing to deter here, no malice. Just idiocy.

Lol most old folks pay plenty of taxes via pension income, CPP, OSS, investment portfolios or other means. Anyway you're not an old person. Old folks usually have a ton of life experiences and maturity and their views tend to reflect this.

The difference I believe, is that conservative candidates can still openly promote pro-life views and openly state they are pro-life and intend to vote that way, and run in conservative primaries and win. No so with Liberals - if your questionnaire says anything like that, you will not be allowed to run under their name. Also in house, conservative MP's can still vote anyway they like. In practice, the party will allow a vote to take place, but in theory should one happen, you can vote however you want. For Liberals, should a vote happen, you cannot vote however you want. It's a distinction without a practical difference. Since there is no way a majority of MP's in the house would ever vote for anything pro-life, I wonder what Justin thought he was accomplishing with all of this beyond making trouble for himself.

I'm not saying it's your fault, maybe you parents just didn't give you the opportunity or something. Or maybe....you're just lazy and it's easier and more comfortable to believe 'the consensus' than learn academic scientific language. My guess is a combination of the two. I read and discuss scientific papers at least several times per week, part of the job. All the same crap that happens in my field wrt that, happens in other areas of science as well. None of us are immune. Difference is only on particularly branch of science at this time is suggesting the imposition of catastrophic de-industrialization measures. The data is lacking, period. There is an IPCC prediction about a given future temperature rise using what they believe are the relevant factors. Problem is, if you take their exact same model and go back 50 years and apply it, adjusting the variables for that time.....it's a massive failure in predicting what actually happened since then. That's the only real world test we have available, since randomized trials are obviously not possible. The vast majority of climate science is modeling, rather than real hard research.

That's a statement with no meaning, and also not what you said. You initially said it was unfamiliarity with the origins of modern democracy. In fact, those origins are characterized by many limits on voting, far more than today. If you want to change your argument now to saying it's a failure to understand how democracy works, at least properly reflect that view by stating it's a failure in understanding how you believe democracy should work.

There's an important distinction though. I have post-graduate medical degree and can read scientific literature. You just believe the hype. The IPCC tells us something, and you believe it. I don't, because I can interpret it and don't find it compelling. Why is there this unique situation in climate science vs other science? Well there isn't really, all science is corrupted by normal human incentives. Climate science however, is unparalleled in it's exposure to political and social pressure. There is no way it can be properly objective. Their financial support (both personal, academic and project-related) and reputation are directly, directly dependent on finding a given view, because promotion of that view gets the dollars. You can't do research or pump your CV if you don't get the moolah. You won't get no moolah saying it's overblown, because that means your livelihood is overblown. Normal, healthy breathing humans do not naturally attack their own interests. We have the same problem in medicine. Especially in the US where docs can make big bucks doing a robotic prostatectomy (one example) when you may not need one at all. The difference is, robotic prostatectomies aren't relevant to major policy decision, but 'climate change' evidently is.

Ya I know, my comments incorporate the source. The data supporting the assertion, is conjecture and modeling. With modeling, you get what you put in. If you expect climate change to cause x or y, and you put those factors in to the model, it will tell you what you want to hear. The IPCC can't prove climate change (a term with no real definition) is the cause. They just believe it is. You find the data for it, no real hard data exists. Everything is caused by climate change! We had to go to 'climate change' once it was apparent there was no significant warming. I'm just wondering in 20 years if there are not major deviations, what we will have to relabel climate change as?

Nothing, they demonized the conservatives for scaling back, but they know they have to do it themselves. This election amply proves why politicians lie - because that's how you get elected. Hudak took the unusual tact of telling the truth (even if you don't believe the million jobs) about the state of Ontario's finances and what it needs. He lost the election because of it. Wynne knows the truth as well, she just didn't want to mention it. But she will hopefully act on it.

They don't determine what should and should not be done, they determine what they will pay for. Saying there is no prostate screening is misleading. What you mean is there is no PSA screening. Prostate cancer can still be screened by rectal exam. PSA is still covered in all other situations other than screening. It needs to be pointed out that this does not say prostate surgery is not useful in general, these findings apply to only some patients depending on their risk as evaluated by biopsy, PSA and rectal exam. For low risk patients, active surveillance is considered standard now across most of Canada. However that means you need to keep an eye on it, which means routine rectal probes with biopsies. Even in the cases where gov does cover everything I order (which in reality is a good 90% of what I would order), the government provides a socialist health model which means some tests can take months or even years. That's the same as not providing them. The current waitlist for an MRI in my city is about 3000 people. Access to wait for a test is not access to a test. That's right, that's why it's not pushed as much today. The US preventative task force also recommended against screening with PSA.

LOL that is an amazing point. The teachers of our children......are financially utterly incompetent and irresponsible. Great message, good role model for life success guys. Perhaps lifeskills class now teaches that if you're living paycheck to paycheck, it's all good?

This is a graph that shows declines, and says 'it's cause of climate change'. But that's all it is. I could post a graph showing the decline of English soccer along with a statement that it's due to climate change as well. Given you accept this reasoning, you would also accept that I hope. These kinds of things are silly. What you do today, is just look at anything bad and say it's climate change. No need for a sensible explanation. It used to be 'global warming', but after we didn't warm for 16 years, the wording had to be changed. Since 'climate change' can't be defined in any way that is accountable to testing, anything can be climate change. It's perfect.

I would suggest you take your own advice, since the conditions of early democracy are exactly what is prompting the expressed views about limits on the vote. Were you born yesterday? 90% of the voting public has no clue who made what laws. In this scenario you do have a say though - become a productive person and pay taxes and have your say. If you choose not to, that's your choice.

No you wouldn't get more votes with more money, anyone paying income or property tax gets the same vote. Those who contribute nothing but only take from the country, would not get to vote. In other words, you get a say if the government is using your money. If you are not contributing any money to gov, you shouldn't have a say over how other people's money is used.