jawapunk

Perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that Syphillis was introduced to Europe through contact with North/South American Indians and that it was pretty well the only infectious disease that was passed in that direction. As to the blanket debate, Europeans did not originally know that they were the ones passing small pox on, but as soon as they put it together there were many cases of what were thought to be "tainted" blankets being passed. Whether or not infection passed with these blankets is another thing. As stated before, smallpox probably wasn't passed on in this manner, but there certainly was an effort to. Rather, the continued interactions with Europeans for trade etc...would have been the cause of transmission.

Actually the Normans had an enormous influence on our language. The strucure of sentences completly changed as a consequence of this. You can see this influence in Old English texts which read and were structured something akin to dutch or german in their pronunciation and word placement, word endings etc.. Middle English which is pre-Rennaissance, is where the Romance (LATIN) influence comes in. Those were some good examples of words from the Normans though. And it is true that Norman French was a little different, this is because the Normans were actually Vikings, or the descendants of them. Which is why they are called Norman in the first place: Nor = North, or North Men, men from the north. They adopted the French language over a period of time.

That is the biggest load of crap I think I have read here yet. Especially your last sentiment, the last I checked Toronto is the financial capital of Canada with more business and dollars passing through it than any other city in Canada. Just because you have an over inflated housing market in Alberta don't kid yourself about being THE pre-eminent economic powerhouse, or the ONLY reason Canada is doing well. This is a large and broad country, I believe it has been a strong GROUP effort. As far as your statement on Newfoundland, we are on the track to standing strong, I would say another ten years. I think it may be a little premature to think we are out of the area needing equalisation as of yet but thanks for thinking so. And you have such a typically ignorant view of the East, especially Quebec. I don't like to generalize, but I have heard so many b.s. comments like these that I feel they may be the norm rather than just a few idiots out in the west. I would love for some of you political sooth-sayers to come out east and gain something called perspective instead of just spouting off random numbers and making dangerously ignorant sentiments. I have lived in the east, out west in Calgary for 6 years, travelled throughout the country and I feel like this gives that perspective. I would not make such capricious statements about regions as you obviously continue to do Geoffrey.

How did a discussion of Freedom get morphed into a debate over cars? I myself prefer Japanese automakers aswell, sorry Niagara I don't think it makes me a hippy however to be left-leaning. I just like social programs.

I'm glad you mention the borrowing, because that is the origin of the "our" in many of English's words. When the Normans conquered England in 1066 they brought with them the French language which became the offical court language for a couple hundred years, basically what resulted was what we would describe as "Middle English". Geoffrey Chaucer and his contemporaries would have spoken their vernacular as such. Because of this we see many romance words and sentence structures not seen in the primarily Germanic Anglo-Saxon languages which would have constituted "Old English". How the shift occurred in America to drop these vowels may have been as stated a "rebellious" act to signify the split Americans felt towards the English government and people.

All I have to say in response to the original argument about freedom of speech in the US is: Don't Taze me BRO!"

Well, Geoffrey, why don't you cry more? There are thousands of Newfoundlanders working in Alberta without which you would not have the requisite labour to even be a so called "have" province. You even admitted earlier that Alberta needs more Maritimers to move out West to keep your economy going. All Danny Williams is trying to do is give people an incentive to stay in Newfoundland. And I beg to differ but he is giving Newfoundland tax money to Newfoundlanders. If you can prove to me that this money come directly from your pocket, I'll write you a check for the $0.30 I may owe you. It is within our rights to legislate provincial budgets. Newfoundland is weening itself off of equalisation. We aren't lazy, we are educated and we are proud. Why do you think we want to keep resource money? To keep more people in this province, so we can collect welfare checks? To Justify even more money from equalization? No, don't be a moron. We want to be a self-sufficient, net gain province. We are on the correct path, it took a few years after our fisheries collapsed, but we are getting there. Newfoundland doesn't even take the most from Equalization, in fact we are far from it. If the farming industry out west collapsed or god forbid your oil industry, you would also take YEARS to adjust. Just as Newfoundland has had to do. There are more industries here and if more young people stay, the province can keep improving this. So again, cry more.

Well regardless of numbers, it still adds up to thousands upon thousands of people in this country and millions around the world. Obviously it can't be considered abberrant behaviour, nor should it be blocked from what most would consider basic human rights. I think the right to choose your sexuality and live in a union of your choice should be protected by the government. In fact, I have no problems with polygymy (spelling?) if all parties are willing (and of age).

What do you mean by the last part of your statement? What ridiculous levels? If it pointed at me, I was just adding that there is no complete freedom of speech, there are limits. As to any other points regarding hate speech and such, there are specific areas that its law covers that aren't covered by others. Obvously my definition was very general to say the least. I was just using it as another example of a means to restrict freedom of expression.

Interesting. I would have thought it was higher than that. It may very well be, as many people do not openly admit, but even that being said it would still not be more than 2.5-3%. And certainly not the 10% that I had heard very often.

Well, apparently they don't if you don't allow them to get married. I am also pretty sure that being gay is already protected under the charter of rights and freedoms. You give sucha low number 2%, I was sure the proportions were higher than that. Do you have a non-Christian news site or Stats Canada source for that number? Also, the committee you are discussing is not secret, I am fairly sure that there are gay and lesbian coalitions that exist in all western nations with goals not to take over the world or recruit more gays, or attack little boys. But merely to seek and maintain the rights and priveledges afforded to what you would call a normal citizen. This is much the same as the Civil rights movement in the 1960s, which is continued today with the NAACP and other groups. This is the same as womens rights movements. Again, what is the problem. Are you secretly gay and it is tearing you apart on the inside? Or do you hate to see freedom?

I would like to add that even in these so-called free speech countries so far discussed there are limits. We have libel, defamation and slander laws that make things that are said actually illegal. You cannot threaten the life of the president, even in jest, so far as I am aware. Hate speech is a logical extension of defamation or slander, in that it attempts to not only attack a group prejudiciously but also to foster hate and spread violence.

I have to say definitely NO to public funding of what amounts to a private affair. Honestly, faith has no part in a un-biased classroom. If people want their children to learn specific faith based curriculae, then they should set up a school through their church/mosque/temple/synagogue etc... Other than that, many children have after school faith/theology classes. I see no true need for a fully operational and dedicated faith based school, other than to unite like minded peoples which is the function that a church provides anyway and which is the proper venue for that. I do not believe that my tax money should pay for this. I don't expect others to pay money for my own pursuits, I realize these things come out of my own pocket.

I never understood what is so morally reprehensible to people about being gay anyway. The problem Sharkman, is although you may (or may not) actually believe in live and let live, people with similar mindsets to you don't. The believe that it is better to force people to live in secret and solicit sex in airport bathroom stalls with foot taps. What about gay marriage bothers you truthfully? I would just like to understand. Also, "the skulls?" Give me a break, you don't honestly think there is some secret committee out there that meets in the back room of a fashionable night club and discusses world doimation while listening to madonna and sipping white wine spritzers do you?

I was beginning to think no one would take your side American Woman. However the nature of debate on this forum is fairly pointless. I feel like once a side has been chosen, one will merely stop posting than concede any points what so ever. Anyways, I completly agree with what you are saying, and they whole diatribe of dying for freedom of speech is ridiculous. Certainly wars fought outside of the US can't be construed to be for ideological lines. You aren't fighting for the US freedom of speech by invading Iraq for example. Unless, ofcourse you actually believe the Taleban could invade, conquer and quell any resistance within the US. In which case you may need to seek help for your paranoia.

Sorry but I have to agree with jdobbin on this one. I would have to say I have not heard anyone state that this deal is the same as the one laid out before. The key points that Danny Williams wanted conceded by the oil companies the first go around were conceded. I count that as a win and a superior deal. Anything that gives the province millions more in tax revenues is a win, that is pretty much basic business. You don't need to know anything about oil deals to figure that out. I guess some people have problems giving credit where it is due.

You are missing my point entirely. So don't worry about it.

We don't need to say anything to critisize the thought process of this post. Team America: World Police mocks it well enough.

Any so called "scientific " study funded by the US government/ corporate lobbyist is circumspect. They have too much at stake to have a non-biased opinion. I would definitely take these "findings" with a grain of salt. There have been numerous scientists come forward revealing the pressure they felt from the W.H. in regards to publishing findings that didn't mesh well with the admisitrations' goals/ideals/business interests. Science that is corporately sponsored is very often not necessarily pure scientific study at all. I would try to look at this objectively and see what both sides of this argument have to lose/gain. Who is doing the pushing and why? I can say that corporate lobbyists would back any research that was going to have the "findings" that this study gathered. And why? Because the cost of restructuring production and emissions for inumerable industries is immense. The bottom line is, if a corporation can spend 10 million to sponsor a study or lobby a senator to find/vote in their favour, rather than spend 100 million making changes to their companies infrastructure to meet a greener ideal, then that is exactly what they'll do. I think it is naive to think that we are not having a negative impact on our environment. I am not sure what evidence people are looking for before they decide it may be the right thing to encourage a more conscientious policy in regards to our environment/air/water etc etc. I guess some will take the opposite stance in an argument just for the point of having an argument, no matter how foolish or immoral that stance may be.

That is an interesting sentiment, that the single biggest blocvk to peace in the middle east is Israeli settlement. I would think that large western military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as US bases in Saudi Arabia offended the extremists more. Or are you saying that it is the biggest block to peace within irael/palestine?

My point is that anyone can pull a link out of their rear and say "aha, see!" If you would prefer, I could have listed the thousands of others...If you choose to not believe in scientific data then that is your own perogative.

I never stated that Albertans don't pay taxes...ofcourse they do, my point was that at one point Albertans were not the economic power they are today and they have had help on their way. It would be easy to pay for our "social" programs here if we separated, since we would then have our own 200 mile Ocean limit, being our own country, we would have complete control over the grand banks and its oil, plus labrador and all of its resources. In 1949, we joined the country and the federal government was granted the extra offshore area. I am not whining about Alberta, I could really care less. I was just trying to form an argument that would show what the situation in Newfoundland would be similar to in a prairie/western geoghraphical context. Apparently you all missed the point. But, the 50% inclusion of oil revenue is a new formula that came from this years federal budget. Alberta in the past has had resources excluded from the formula, that was my point. We aren't asking for a handout, nor do we feel that equalization is an entitlement. In fact, Newfoundland is continuing to find a way to reach a point where equalization is not needed. We would like to join B.C., Alberta and Ontario as provinces that do not receive these payments and we feel that keeping a higher percentage of oil revenues is a path to that goal. The only province which I could say felt that they were "entitled" to anything, has to be Quebec. Newfoundlanders seem to take a larger crack than other provinces over this issue; We, next to Saskatchewan, take the least money from this program....why all the hatred? Also, "Do as the wise Newfies have done and move to Alberta." Believe it or not, we actually love our own province and want to make it work here. We want this province to grow and more people want to move home from Alberta than stay there. I lived in Alberta for 6 years. It is nice and has it moments..the mountains are good, but I would prefer to live here and be able to have children that will be able to live here. I don't know what else to add. I think people have some strong pre-conceived negative ideas about this province which is a shame. Alberta is a 'have' province but obviously wasn't at one point, the only province not to receive equalization is Ontario. Anyways, from the conversation you can tell that the original statement of the thread "Canada never so United since 1967" is untrue.

That is a good point. I don't really have atime line on sea levels rising, whether they will rise immediately or whether it will take 50+ years etc...i will say to answer though that in many ways commerce is inerested in the now, especially contractors and construction. If someone says here is a few hundred million dollars, build me this, they will do it, where the person wants it. Another point would be that, the costs of moving entire cities may be less than building protective dykes etc..

I am assuming he means something along the lines of the E.U.

I will some links here to show, FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES, that Global Warming is not an illusion, and that the scientific community is not shying aaway from the issue as you say, I have also tried to include a number of various sites, even AlJazeera!: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4495463.stm http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/threat/threat6.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle516033.ece http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archi...ArchiveId=19069 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publi...earth/index.htm http://www.conference-board.org/utilities/...m?press_ID=2465 There are hundreds of others, scientific organizations, universities, news sites and more that state the same thing that Global warming is real, it is increasing and that is caused by man through industry and IT IS NOT A GOOD THING.