PoliticalCitizen

Wow! Conservative support is way down and Liberal way up in this latest National Poll from Nanos: CON 35% LIB 30% NDP 18% BQ 10% GRN 9% http://www.nanosresearch.com/election/CPAC...ber-3-2008E.pdf

I agree with your description of the situation, but I also do not approve of strong-arm and speculation politics.

I'm sorry for being so out of fashion, but can someone explain to me what what is the joke about listening to toasters and wearing tinfoil hats?

That is just as correct as you being an Anglo-Saxon and a strong supporter of American military agression against the rest of the world.

I never said guns kill more than drugs. I said guns are designed to kill, and as alternative applications - sports, marksmanship etc. Drugs are designed to get high, and as a side-effect they kill.

I believe hunting should be illegal as well. You should not be allowed to kill an animal you didn't raise.

A gun is an instrument of killing. A car is a means of transprotation. I guess it's hard to grasp...

I believe legalizing prostitution will drive down sex crimes and legalizing "safe" recreational drugs will drive down the use of "unsafe" illegal narcotics.

Check out my thread where I asked the same questions: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=11840

With the exception of accidents (such as over-exposure to extreme elements, poisoning or physical trauma) - yes, I do. Even if they do get sick sometimes they should get better on their own, without doctors or drugs. That's an extreme case... but so could have been SARS... all I can say is the ones that did survive could have been the ones that were bodily and spiritually healthy or genetically meant to survive. As to smallpox being eradicated - there's always a new uncurable desease for every one that's been dealt with: AIDS, SARS, cancers, etc... The practice of ancient healing arts relies on concepts such as spiritual energy, soul, afterlife and reincarnation just as much as on natural remedies. The science is unable to acknowledge the above concepts because of its materialistic limitations, just like in the dark ages mainsream Christian religion was unable to acknowledge scientific methods. That view betrays your age and explains your tone That is a very good example of how newly-gained knowledge can be proved wrong in a couple of hundred years. What I'm talking about is knowledge that dates back thousands of years. What we think we know today may be proven wrong in a couple of decades (just look at what happened to the "elemental" particles). Knowledge that is thousands of years old will most likely not be proven wrong in the next thousand years - it may be understood and expanded. I don't know who Popoff is and I believe Christianity as a religion is too limited and narrow to allow spiritual evolution. As a matter of fact, most religions are. Outside of that - I believe in healing by energy. The healers practicing this art may or may not be religious. That was, of course, a very simplistic approach to a complex issue. The approach is valid (although imperfect): when you see a brick falling on your head the worst thing you could do is do nothing. In our case: Harper's "environmental policy" is the equivalent of doing NOTHING. The Green (and liberal) policies will have AN IMPACT. It may work out as it did for the European countries that took same approach or may not, the time will show that.

I'm not a doctor. My mother was an oncologist. There could be very good chances your brother would have survived without chemo and radio, depending on what tipe of cancer he had and how advanced it was.

I'm not suggesting NO regulation or LESS regulation, just saying that we don't need MORE regulation, especially with such a draconian bill.

It's not about a particular decision. It's his attitude that's unacceptable.

Just because Liberals were afraid of an election doesn't mean Harper was good at ruling with a minority - he handled it with his signature bully approach: "Don't like it? Screw You! Let's fight if you have balls!" The high-ranking members of Conservative party that are close to Harper know his real face very well - rude, authoritarian, with little patience for dissent - quite unlike the cuddly fluffy image his strategists tried painting for the campaign.

You have a point. I'll try it sometime... But the fact is that all these supplements all these years have not made me sick or dependent, and did not appear to have any detrimental effects. That said - I am not promoting taking many supplements at the same time as the reaction is very individual.

Any bill that can allow for interpretations like the ones I quoted, no matter how far-fetched they are, sholdn't pass. Just look at what happened to US with the homeland security measures - under Bush's TERROR campaign the country took a clear direction towards a police state. Why, because you said so? Your argument is nothing more than an anecdote. A terminally ill patient who wants to live will try ANYTHING, including the poisioning by chemotherapy and the slow death of radiotherapy. Both are not only ineffective but detrimental in the worst way. Chemotherapy is like poisoning a city to try to kill a few criminals. Radiotherapy is like nuking a region of the country to get rid of the mutants concentrated there and hoping that the radiation will not create new mutants. Both amount to CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT of the body by the modern science. Compared to the above anyhting: fasting, natural remedies, spiritual healers, urinotherapy - you name it - makes more sense AND may yield same or better results EVEN IF they could be attributed to the placebo effect.

And proved that even a stuffed doll can pretend to be a vice-president

Harper has CLEARLY PROVEN that he cannot make concessions and compromises. Liberals should get some guts and vote him down on EVERY confidence vote until Canadians get sick and tired of him trying to dictate with a minority and boot him out of the office.

And some of them, like our Prime Minister, DO NOT HAVE AN ELECTION PLATFORM at all. Why bother if the polls say we'll win anyway? He looked like he had a joint before the debate with his bloodshot eyes and the crooked smile... Maybe his strategists recommended that to help him hide his egoistic, spiteful and authoritarian true self.

We are certainly exposed to different information, but that is easy to avoid. The chemicals we are constantly exposed to are more difficult and costly to avoid: Aspartame in soft drinks, Fluoride in drinking water, Chlorine in swimming pools etc. Even though the immediate benefits of these substances are a scientific fact not everyone is happy and eager to introduce these potentially nocive substances into their bodies. Other, non-chemical conserns brought by the evolution of technology are exposure to electro-magnetic fields, conditioned air inside and polluted of air outside; abuse of over-the-counter drugs, household chemicals etc... Even though most of the above has been scientifically "proven" to be safe the rate at wich new chemicals and electromagnetic radiation sources are developed does not allow to say that they have been proven by time, as we see hundreds of such changes over the lifetime of a generation.

May's excellent performance in the debate scored well with the Canadians: English Leaders Debate Audience Says Harper Comes Out on Top (31%), But Layton Not Far Behind (25%), and May (17%) Performs Well Above Expectations http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4106 This result and fourthcoming spins by the media may help Greens win more votes in the election, hopefully not only at Liberals' expense

I'll be laughing if it proves to be a flip-flop like it did for Conservatives in Ontario with Tory bragging about majority but in the end not winning even his own seat and giving Liberals a bigger majority than they had before.

Did you mean: She was as clueless as Harper? Well then we can agree on something: May is as clueless about sponsoring big polluters as Harper is about protecting the environment. Most of her facts were unknown to Harper as he couldn't care less about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. She made no more accusations than Harper but she actually gave him credit for protecting national parks. That must have been a good joke when you were in kindergarten... glad you memorized it

I think state-sponsored or owned daycare would be good and give people an incentive to multiply. Haven't heard that from any party so far...

Yeah... Comments like: "Where's your platform? Under the sweater?" or "If you say the Canadian economy is fine you either don't care or you're incompetent" made to the Prime Minister do not come across as a nice thing. And Laton's vision of himself as the PM is a pipe dream... Now even though Harper was trying to hold back most of his cheap shots he still made a couple: - He said Liberals would take more in taxes than they would give based on 1 page of their platform but his advisors were either too lazy or wanted him to lie as the rest of the numbers were on another page of the Liberal platform, and toghether made the tax revenue-neutral (at least on paper); - He said he unlike other party leaders doesn't use private clinics but failed to point out which party leader has - He tried to promote the "Family Guy" image that his strategists chose for him when asked about cutting arts funds - started talking about his daughter painting and his son playing guitar... (I hope he's at least financing his kids )