Wild Bill

Are those 'human rights experts' from the UN commission that until recently was headed by Libya, made up of mostly Arab countries? What a joke!

Why Derek, don't you know the solution to electric cars is to put a small wind turbine on the roof of the car, that will charge the battery as the car is driven? Of course you realize, there are posters here on this very board that read my last paragraph and the fallacy of it went completely over their head!

What about Hong Kong?

Man, could Penn and Teller have a ball with this lady! I just wasted 10 minutes and 55 seconds watching this clip, waiting for her to actually factually debunk "Ethical Oil". I never heard any such thing from this woman! What I did hear is her paint "tar sands oil" as dirty, implying that it is some HUGE percentage of the pollution being generated on the planet. In reality, it is only a percent or two. Compared to China, India and Russia, it is truly "mice nuts". She dragged out examples like rising sea levels swamping the island of Tuvulu, which has been totally debunked for some years now. She makes the claim that the vast majority of Canadians care about climate change, with no cites, of course. Even if it were true, who says they agree with HER as to the severity of the issue, what methods we should pursue to mitigate the problem and HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? She castigates Canadian governments for not living up to the Kyoto commitments. Thank God we didn't! I read the damn thing from start to finish. Almost nothing on real science and almost totally about giving money to the Third World, with no auditing to make sure it doesn't get spent on bullets and bombs for dictators. She drags out Bush as some kind of demon, cites fossil fuels as "a violent attack on the Earth" and makes claims that the Keystone/XL pipeline will devastate the environment so badly it sounds like a nuclear holocause! She blows off the idea of the pipeline delivering jobs as simple capitalistic greed! Not to mention that ethical oil is also the cause of dramatically increased numbers of hurricanes and natural disasters. Finally, she makes the claim that we have perfect alternatives right now that could provide 10's of millions of jobs. Organized labour jobs, of course! If this is what you call debunking, then I'm Sheila Copps! This is a harangue, nothing more. It is a sermon sung to the choir, appealing to the lowbrow and simple. I'll bet an entire case of beer that this lady is another example of someone who dropped hard sciences and maths very, very early in her education! She argues virtually entirely from emotion and faith, with almost no sense of cause and effect. Most telling of all, the issue is "ethical oil". This term springs from a comparison of oil produced from countries that have severe moral failings by our lights. It is a comparison to oil sourced from countries that kill gays, make women walk around with bags over their heads, often refusing them any schooling or allowing them to drive a car. She never said a single word about those countries. In fact, she never made any ethical comparisons between sources at all! She simply defined ethical as whether or not the oilsands were a "clean" energy source, which by her standards they are not. What a waste of my time! Thanks for nothing! I'll know better next time.

No, I really don't think he would! And the fact that he is Jewish didn't help him, either. I'm convinced that the HRCs are really just politically correct Star Chambers. They're like the Spanish Inquisition, in that if they float then they're guilty and if they sink and drown they are buried in church soil, with full ceremony as innocents. I find the fact that the accusers get to launch a suit for free, with didleysquat to help the defendants, telling. How on earth could anyone believe that this setup is unbiased? In the world of the politically correct, all whites are secretly racist bastards who deserve to pay for their sins against visible minorities! They make wonderful straw men! They burn beautifully!

Sorry Argus, but the precedent has been set at Caledonia. If you have a beef with the federal, provincial and municipal governments it is apparently perfectly legal and acceptable to take it out on the nearest entire town of white folks! What's more, if you complain that they blew up your electricity for a few days you must be a racist! Gospel according to Dalton McGuinty and Julian Fantino. Also, of course, the usual native spokespeople on MLW.

Be careful here, guyser! There are two separate issues here. Yes, racism is wrong. Yes, we all like to be seen as champions of tolerance. Sometimes however, we may think we are taking a stand for the good fight and really what we've done is grabbed an issue that only LOOKED like the good fight! We didn't look close enough and made it a symbol of what we wanted, rather than a true incidence of what we thought. More clearly, don't you think it's possible that our HRCs ARE biased? That they may be more defenders of political correctness than true vehicles to help fight racism? That instead of standing up for real equality they just make lowbrow decisions against white folks? Lord knows we've had enough long threads showing that HRCs are biased! And the fact that defendents are hamstrung by not paying their legal bills, unlike the complainants, is an OBVIOUS bias! It can make it all but impossible for a defendant to have a fair change. You may also be right in your character judgements of these two posters. I don't know and I really don't approve of ad hominem insults but I have to grant the possibility. Still, again that it something totally SEPARATE to the point of discussion! Are the HRCs biased against whites or aren't they? After watching what they tried to do to Ezra Levant I would say YES!

Part of that problem is that governments have greedily deliberately pushed up the cost of living! When I was a lad my father bought a lot in a rural area just outside of town. He had to install a septic system and have a well drilled, as there was no city supplied water or sewers. No sidewalks or street lights. All we got from the municipality was garbage pickup. The county plowed the roads during the winter. For some decades now you can't get a building permit to do the same. As far back as the late 70's the City went for a policy of only allowing new homes to be built in large subdivisions. Every house was a 3 bedroom, with LOTS of square feet inside! All sewers, water, sidewalks and paved streets were done as the houses were finished, usually before most people had moved in. The reason was that this meant the City got a huge amount of residential taxes almost instantly! Since we were riding a 'baby boom' and newly started families were everywhere most people were happy with the arrangement. Population demographics have changed and now there are not nearly as many of those starter families in the market. Elementary schools have been slowly pared back here in Hamilton the past few years. There are more 'empty nesters' looking for a 2 or even a 1 bedroom house. Not all are ready for a condo. New such homes are no longer to be found. That leaves the old, central, crappy looking part of town as the only choice for a detached home of a suitable size for a senior couple or even widow or widower.

Kimmy, what a fantastic idea! This is a meme that we all MUST encourage to grow! If it catches on, can you imagine the fun?

Dr. Dre, that's the "book" explanation, the sort of thing a teacher might say. It's true as an overall explanation but it totally fails in an individual "real world" situation. A business can rarely afford to take the "long" view. Sure, if they need a market that can afford to buy their products they need to pay their employees enough so that they can afford to buy what they make. However, as Tim pointed out, companies face stiff competition from China, India and other low wage companies. That competition must be met or the company goes bankrupt TODAY! The firm doesn't have the luxury of taking the future effects into account, even if it were smart enough to see them coming. It's easy to take the "book" view if its not your business! I don't have all the answers but I know you can't just ignore all the factors.

Slow down, Jack! You were jumping all over my model instead of my point!

I don't think the PCs have to worry, despite those issues. Hating someone always trumps inexperience! THE PC candidate may be new and make a few mistakes but that's small potatoes by perspective. If people truly hate the NDP and the Liberals that much there's no way people will be upset enough with LIsa Thompsom to dump her and switch their vote.

I'll have to check her out. Frankly, I've never heard of her! Is that just me or is she only known in certain areas? That could be a problem for her. Sweeping your home town is not much good if you don't get any votes anywhere else.

Sorry! I should have said 'foreign' terrorists, which of course is within the context of my post. Nowhere did I day or do I believe that there are no domestic terrorists or terrorists from other than Islamic countries. That being said, we need to have some obvious perspective here. The amount of terrorism from those two sources is 'mice nuts' compared to what has come from the more fundamentalist, yea primitive and barbaric! Islamic countries.

Don't ever complain about your heritage, Rue! My ancestors were in the habit of waging constant battles with each other, first stripping naked and painting their asses blue! And this in a cool climate!

Where's the point of debate? Few would disagree with your premise! Might as well try to get an argument going over Ma and apple pie!

You and BM are on to something here. Most folks, especially the media, tend to think of people in large blocks, like nations or races. Yet usually actions like 911 are planned and executed by a relatively small number of fanatics. What percentage of the Irish population were active members of the IRA? Particularly the Taliban! This was a group that had to constantly use force to stay in command of its people. Like East Germany, people only stayed because they could be shot for leaving. And things really didn't work out the way Al-Queda and it's supporters like the Taliban thought it would! They made the classic mistake of relating to each other, drinking their own bath water and thinking they understood how America would react. It's likely that the American response was drafted years ago, since the required logic is pretty clear. Terrorism is more difficult to deal with because it is not an official declaration of war from a nation state. A focus group can get a nation's sanction, or even be a de facto military agent for a nation power and commit acts of aggression against another country, leaving that country without a clear target for retaliation. Tehran could hide behind a terrorist group and set off a nuke in Salem, Oregon. How could the USA launch a nuclear strike back at Iran, killing all those innocents who had nothing to do with the initial decision and really never supported the mullah dictatorship anyway? However, 911 did cross a line. It was the first act of terrorism enacted on American soil of any significance. Simple games theory demanded that America respond. In that case although Al-Queda had no fixed location they did rely on the Taliban in Afghanistan for training camps and a "home base", with the tacit support of the ruling government of that country. American didn't have a clear target with Al-Queda but she DID have one with Afghanistan! She ignored the traditional niceties of a declaration of war against Afghanistan and instead called it a "War on Terrorism". The Taliban was ousted from power and although they still are a problem with IEDs and such they are only a shadow of their former selves. They have paid a heavy price for their folly. That was the message sent to the Arab/Islamic terrorist world. If you support a terrorist group in an action on American soil YOU will pay the price! Without the aid and resources of a national government a group like Al-Queda has a much more difficult time. Not impossible, of course but FAR more difficult! I really don't think that the Taliban understood what would happen if they supported Osama. They had fooled themselves that America would rant and roar and do nothing of significance, like Clinton when after the USS Cole was attacked sent a cruise missile to blow up an Aspirin factory. They were wrong and now they are history. Despite the fact that western nations are slowly pulling out of Afghanistan it is very likely that if it ever looked like the Taliban were about to regain power they would be back! It's a simple case of "If I can't reach YOU I will burn down your house and salt your fields!" The message seems to have gotten through because so far nothing on the scale of 911 has occurred. It could happen, of course, but the terrorists would have to be FAR more careful to do it all with absolutely no support from a nation state! With no money and no protected home base their task is much harder.

Excuse me? I already have my opinions. YOU are asking me to change them! If you think that I will simply accept your views because you told me so or waste my time on a report that could well be just propaganda and not answer my questions JUST BECAUSE YOU TELL ME SO , forget it! It's your rebuttal so it's YOUR responsibility to prove it! So your "recollection is that things are getting better". So what? I have several decades of direct experience, from my own school days, that of nephews and nieces and more recently my own children that contradicts your recollections. You'll have to give me a better reason to spend my time on research to investigate YOUR recollections! If we are doing so wonderfully in math, with the largest proportion of students taking it to Grade 12, then why did I, my nephews and nieces and my children all witness first hand options to drop math and see so many of our fellow students DO IT! If we are doing so wonderfully in math, why is a math teacher for elementary schools in the Hamilton area as scarce as a politician's fulfilled promise? Schools are actually competing with each other and outright poaching at times. Most of them make do with teachers that have language degrees only, simply because they have no choice. You challenge my points with only a link to some long .pdf, expecting me to peruse it with no guarantee it will properly answer my questions. You submit opinions 100% contradictory to the direct experience of myself, my relations and friends/neighbours who have had kids in school. Then you insult me by suggesting that I must be illiterate or lazy. I read several books a week. The girls at Indigos's know me by name! How many do you read? At least you didn't get profane again. Thanks for small mercies. Life is too short. Another one for the 'ignore' button.

That makes sense! Both Capricorn and I could prove right! Sheila would make the Liberal Party strong again, just not so strong that they could actually get back into power! They need a few more terms of opposition to breed the arrogance out of them.

No, I have no bias and we have no bad history. Actually, your style has inclined me to avoid debating with you. I find your answers usually to be derogatory and condescending and sometimes downright shrill! Maybe it's just me. I'm recently separated after 25 years living with a wife that constantly nagged and carped, constantly ignoring mountains of what you did do while able to spot even one trivial thing that you didn't and then making a federal case out of it. Your posts always remind me of her! I may be overly sensitive. I prefer a civilized debate, preferably with a beer or two, where you can politely hammer things out with your opponent for hours with BOTH of you enjoying yourselves! When I read your posts it seems to me that you view your opponent as simple fodder for your own amusement! I truly believe that you couldn't care less about working out an actual truth. As I've said before, you appear to enjoy the debate for itself, as it gives you an opportunity to mock those who attempt to debate with you. Whatever. If people chose to engage with you then they must not be bothered the same way I am. As I said, I may be too sensitive. Still, I prefer to keep my distance. Watching you banter with others always reminds me of that old Monty Python skit, where the character pokes his head into a room only to be hit with a basketload of ridiculous insults - "Oh, sorry! This is Abuse! You want the next room!" It's a pity, for I AM impressed with the extent of your knowledge and expertise in some areas! I might enjoy interacting with you. I just don't care to pay the price you demand for that interaction. As an old joke goes, "If I want abuse I'll pay for it!"

You may prove right! It would be interesting to watch, though!

Actually, it shows the character of the people that commit such violence. As I've said before, to me its very simple. I don't give a damn about someone's politics if he deliberately targets innocents with his attacks! To me, that removes an individual's humanity. At that point, he's a rabid animal. You can't negotiate with rabid animals. You can only kill them! I watched and heard an Imam from Toronto define ANY Israeli over 18 as a legitimate target! He went on to include children under 18 in some circumstances, which were a lot looser than just child soldiers. It was on Michael Coren's show. Coren was obviously shocked and having trouble believing the Imam had actually said those words! This doesn't mean that all Muslims are rabid animals. That would be as ridiculous as branding all Irish for the actions of the IRA. However, for me my definition still stands as far as Hamas and other terrorist groups. My attention stops as soon as they deliberately target a civilian. I couldn't care less whatever cockamamie justification they have. And don't bother giving me any reports of Israel killing civilians. As I've also said many times, there is a vast moral difference between targeting a rocket launcher site (likely one that has deliberately put itself in a school or whatever to use its own civilians as shields) and harming some civilians as collateral damage and DELIBERATELY MAKING CIVILIANS YOUR TARGET! You're entitled to your opinion, just am I, but if you want to change my opinion in this area I wouldn't bother. I don't see any way you can change my mind about civilian targeting. If one of my own daughters was a victim of a Palestinian terrorist attack I would NOT forgive them because they have a beef against Israel! If they killed one of my family then I would feel perfectly justified in attempting revenge, in whatever manner I could. In such a situation I might become a suicide bomber myself and give them back some of their own.

I'm with you, AW! I never saw anything other than a passing remark from Bud. No cite, no nothing. Looks to me like he just pulled the idea out of his butt! But if we're all wrong would it bust his ass to post it again? The fact that he dodges the idea is pretty obvious troll work.

Have you seen that youtube clip of the cat singing "I've got my tinfoil hat on"? You really should give it a google! Very cute!