Visionseeker

Really? Loads, energy transference, metalurgical stress... Oh forget it. Your talking out of the wrong orfice here. Admit it. You shouldn't. Because that's not why he's being removed. Ain't academic freedom grand? Behe's a boob. A boob who should be given all the rope he needs to continue hanging himself.

The Law of Gravity is but a theory. Why don't you climb on the roof of your house and try to refute it? A properly support theory is to be accepted unless proven otherwise. I eagerly await your properly supported rebuttal to evolutionary theory.

If science and innovation confined itself to prevailing conventional wisdom, we'd still be swinging from tree to tree.

It's not A researcher, it's the bulk of them. Mr. Goodyear isn't playing nice with the research community. An apt analogy would be a minister of public security appearing before the RCMP and belittling their concerns with a go F**K yourself attitude. A simple rule of management is to avoid unnecessarily angering stakeholders. Mr. Goodyear has failed that test and can no longer effectively manage his portfolio. Stick a fork in him. He's done.

Be careful, why? Do religious conservatives own us all? I'm well aware of the nature of the debate, but am more than willing to engage fairy worshippers wherever they arise. Goodyear must go.

Chrysler isn't going anywhere. Execs saw what GM workers agreed/caved to and are trying to pull Chrysler workers down further. Regardless, the pension plans of both companies (along with many other corporations) are destined to fail due to poor capitalization. Understand this, the problem with the big three isn't about cars; it's about declining markets and unsustainable pensions and other benefits obligations. The OECD countries simply have too many retirees for every worker and the promises made to those retirees can no longer be fulfilled.

I call bullsh!t! I own a Dodge Caravan that has taken my young family on 3 long road trips. It also happens to be our only vehicle which has stood-up remarkable well on that score. Until recently, my biggest complaint was how quickly the brakes needed replacing. But my neighbours owning Honda and Toyota vans have the same gripe. Toyota will never produce what you ask because the mid-construction truck market in Japan is absolutely cornered by Mercedes (much like the F-150 is here). The problem with North American automakers isn't cost, but rather the need to capture declining global market share. The big three produce good vehicles. Problem is, there are fewer buyers.

YES! Each daily challenge is rather quite illuminating and stimulating. And the realization that I only have one kick at this can is what motivates me to be the best person, son, husband, father, friend that I can be. It's really quite liberating. You should try it.

A contrarian point of view about future events is in no way analogous to someone who fails to refute the notion that they believe in fairies. A minister of science who is asked whether he believes in creationism has but one answer to offer: No. Why? Because there is no scientific foundation to support creationism.

Well, there are other facts in play: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12931207/Goodyear-Goof- But beyond that, discriminating against stupidity is survival, not bigotry.

It was said once before: Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold [power] is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for [votes] bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? In the name of God, go!

Right. Next time you go to a doctor or a hospital, refuse to give your health card and insist that you pay before you let yourself be treated.

My wife recently accompanied my niece's class on a visit to the House. On the bus ride back, my niece asked her who the "bad men were on that side of the House". Before my wife could come-up with an answer, another parent on the trip flippantly stated "those were the conservatives." When my wife told me about it, all I could think was that's one bang-up outreach program they got going.

To GDI, or GDP? That is the question. Both of these are important indicators in forming an economic outlook. Their relative importance largely depends on where the economy is in terms of cycle, but Page is right to emphasize the GDI right now. In our aging society, declining investment incomes and the depreciated value of portfolios carry more significant consequences than they would in previous cycles. What Page is addressing is behavioural economics: namely, that the vast majority of retiree investors or soon to be retired investors will act in a manner that disfavours consumption as well as further suppress the ability to consume in other demographic groups. Under normal circumstances, investment income is spent, re-invested, or redeemed through sale in given proportions. But the economic shock we are currently facing is disproportionately favouring re-investment and redemption (at the expense of spending) among the retired and soon to retire demographic. Their buy-sell behaviours will serve to stagnate or worse, further devalue equities and confidence in the market. But more disconcerting is that fewer and fewer investment income dollars will find their way into the consumptive economic multiplier, effectively stagnating or worse, deflating prices and earnings in other demographics. The next few years ain't going to be pretty. I'll guarantee you that.

The opening paragraph of your link reads: "New Brunswick ranks fourth lowest in the country with a crime rate of 6,756 incidents per 100,000 population. In 2005, New Brunswick's rate of violent crime decreased by -10.9%, and property crime decreased by -9.2% continuing the general decline over the past decade." So crime rates a dropping. Thanks for pointing that out. As for unreported crime: "Out of 8 possible responses, the two reasons most often cited for not reporting a crime were: The incident was not important enough (59%) The police can't do anything about it (50%)" Frankly, I need to see the raw data for a thorough analysis. But 59% claiming the incident was "not important enough" suggests that the vast majority of unreported incidents were non-violent. Further, if overall reported crime has diminished. It stands to reason that unreported crimes diminished somewhat proportionately. Unfortunately, the data in your link does not offer the comparison so that we might test the hypothesis.

QUOTE (neutralguy @ Mar 11 2009, 10:39 AM) And we need to try to see if there is a way to stop those kinds of "animal" instincts. Are you obtuse? To stop something from happening, you prevent it. Punishment is retaliation, not prevention.

Yes. The political domination of Liberals have left us with an outhouse for a country.[/sarcasm] Alta4ever, we live in the best country in the world because we've properly incorporated the best elements of socialist, liberal and conservative thought. It's a shame that you can't see that.

If you envy their model so, perhaps you might consider emigrating?

No, the absurdity here is the notion that making a practice illegal will simply bring an end to the practice. It doesn't. Criminalization does nothing more than affix penalties to those who are convicted of the given offence. Murder is against the law, yet murders take place every day. Drugs are prohibited, yet they are bought, sold and consumed every minute of every hour in this country. Sure, we throw a good number of such offenders in prison, yet there are always others who seem to step in and fill their place. Why? Because criminalization has limited preventative properties (fewer still when acts of desperation are involved). The criminalization of abortion won't bring an end to its practice any more than the Criminal Code can lay claim to eliminating homicide. What it will do is move the practice underground; providing a handsome illicit income for abortion providers and exposes the women who have the procedure to significant health risks (not to mention the risks incurred by those who apply various methods to self-induce). Your position then invites retribution. You wish to empower the state to punish women who have abortions and those who provide them. You know criminalization won't make the problem go away, but are willing to settle for a good dose of state sponsored terror to be visited upon those who are caught violating your moral sensibilities. Which is why the argument is in error. Life only begins when a fetus is capable of surviving "independently of the maternal environment" and, as per the experts: "extrauterine viability may be possible if the fetus weighs over 500 g or 20 weeks have passed since conception, or both". Or do you question medicine's credentials in determining what is and what isn't living? If that's the case, might I suggest you turn your attention to the countless number of people who are buried or cremated every day as a result of declarations made by wholly unqualified physicians and surgeons. It's not infanticide. The world is not flat and sadly, there is no Santa Claus. 99.999999% of society could agree to reject the law of gravity and I (in full possession of evidence to the contrary) would invite them all to a profession of faith leap off the CN Tower (provided I get to go last). I suspect that at least 95.625% of the original adherents will become more receptive to my point of view soon after the first guy hits bottom. That's OK. I recognized your state of confusion in my prior post. I'm sorry to see that it is so pervasive. I am, in fact, quite acutely familiar with the ethical debates surrounding abortion. On the one side, I witness scientific, empirical evidence accompanying arguments of individual rights and on the other, supposition, sensationalism, citings of scripture and the convenient denial of established fact. And dare I say that only one side approaches the issue ethically. Until the prohibitionists can demonstrate that viability is attained at conception and that the state's seizure of an inseminated womb is required to maintain the public peace, there is no ethical argument justifying the denial of a woman's right to choose. Well, as I have shown that a fetus is not a legal individual, yours is not a libertarian argument. Further, the retributional motives inferred from your prohibitionist stance lends heavy support to my totalitarian characterization of your position. And, for the record, a fetus and an elderly person bare no resemblence to each other: either in appearence or questions of legal rights. Right. Everything the media reports is crap unless it supports your previously formed opinion because Orwell captured the highly propagandized press of the 30s. If my sarcasm is misplaced, you should read Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke. The style is a little maddening. But a historian gets a good reminder of how certain myths have been made. Uh, no. For this ignores context. A conservative is not, by definition, a revolutionary. So a conservative must work within existing constructs. In other words, a conservative in Canada does not oppose the principle of universal health care, but rather strives to make the system work in a manner that is more in keeping with conservative philosophy like instilling a greater measure of personal responsibility. Besides, minarchism is a libertarian label. And it is a huge mistake to assume that conservatism and libertarianism are interchangeable terms. No, you didn't. But citing Stalinism in an argument is just as weak as throwing out Hitler. The use of Stalin weakens your argument by opting for the sensational at the expense of more contemporary and possibly more fitting analogies. So the effect was the same.

If I might interject… Canadian Blue you too support abortion on demand. If the prohibitive stance which you favour should come to pass, two things would be accomplished: access to the procedure would be reduced (to those who can find and pay handsomely for it) and the location where they are performed would move from licensed medical facilities to less sterile and appropriate surroundings. In short, you would have society replace Dr. Morgentaler with Dr. Coathanger, no more, no less. Your ideological differences with Progressive Tory on this issue have little to do with the right-left/conservative-socialist political spectrum. For the pro-choice/prohibitionist argument plays itself out on a totalitarian-libertarian spectrum. On this issue, Progressive Tory is rather libertarian whilst you are totalitarian. Further, your use of the tired “political correctness” to smear an argument rather than challenge its tenets is the mark of lazy intellectualism; the ultimate anathema to true conservative philosophy (Mr. Burke has my back on this score). Lastly, this notion of a “corrupting” MSM being somehow responsible for illegitimately creating a class of libertarian-conservatives, conservatives who repudiate 19th century progressive ideas of prohibition, eugenics, and racial segregation is utter childish nonsense. The media is a vital source of information and information provides the rational building blocks upon which the individual can form a reasoned opinion. And reasoned opinion is the only legitimate path for conservative thought. A true conservative believes that the resources of the state have no place in the bedrooms of the nation. A true conservative believes that employing state resources to prohibit free enterprise is an abomination. A true conservative protects a Morgentaler with full knowledge that his alternative serves to give the state the beginnings of tyranny by granting it power over the individual. A true conservative recognizes that only values that can stand on their own merits are worthy of retaining. And only a true conservative can re-assess his or her surroundings and recognize when their own notions are in contradiction to their fundamental philosophy and correct themselves accordingly. To be conservative is to favour the measured progress of society while ensuring the minimal intervention of the state. OPEN QUESTION TO THE GROUP: is there a Stalinist equivalent to Godwin's law?

"Should the Conservatives raise the GST?" Naw, let the Liberals do it after they win the next election.

Isn't Sarah Palin supposed to handle this kind of thing?

Whoa there Wilber, the order may not exist today. But that's not the same as saying it has no influence. Sure, the proportion of the population claiming a British origin has diminished, but the Orangist brand of exclusionary nationalism has gained adherents from non-British decedents. Some of the strongest anti-Quebec language now comes from English speaking Canadians with Scandinavian, Polish, or Ukrainian last names. But the arguments are same as they were a hundred years ago: imperialist sentiments shrouding the intent to subjugate another group. You need look no further than this editorial for an example. How the Plains of Abraham defines “our” history is not understood the same way in Quebec as it is in the rest of Canada. This is largely because that “history” has taken the shape of propaganda in both communities. Quebeckers are taught that the Conquest was rape, Canadians outside Quebec are told it was the first step towards a glorious democratic polity we now call Canada. Both interpretations are full of it. As for how people in other country’s can look past re-enactments, you need to look at the specific circumstances. Waterloo commemorates Napoleon’s defeat in BELGIUM and, besides, Napoleon was a dictator that the French ultimately repudiated. The re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg has always been an exercise in reminding the South who won.

Indeed. Problem was I deleted the wrong post. Too quick with the hot keys was I.

Thank you Wilber for inviting me to respond. The "Order" has long since dissolved (WWI has something to do with this but I digress), yet the mentality endures. The National Post editorial illustrates just how that mindset exists today. The "parade" element is manifest in the expectation that the re-enactment proceed.