Ontario Loyalist

This isn't leadership--it's caving in to special interest groups and a desperate attempt to woo support from a small but financially and political demographic. It's a classic example of how Harper does not put Canada and Canadians first. And what should we expect from a American-style republican with western seperatist tendancies?

I've never said anything about 100s of deaths... just because something hasnt happened doesn't mean the potential doesn't exist. And of course you restrict the criteria to exclude Chernobyl; the Soviet Union was a superpower and one of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world. It already does, without their knowing... and it hasn't been proven safe; that will take generations to determine. Will GM food really feed the world's starving population? No, because of the money involved in distributing it, etc. I never said anything about scaling back "research on genetics". Now you're just making things up to be a prick. Do you have any proof that it isn't harmful? Nope. Well, you're certainly not a rocket science, and there are some fairly basic and logical things that you aren't figuring out, so what's your point? Increased scarcity of resources such as oil will lead to increased conflict. War in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq 2003, threats of war with Iran--in general western attempts to control the Middle East. Also, what Russia has been up to the last few years. Melting of the arctic, which is now occuring at a very rapid pace.

Yeah, I just "loves to talk about" it... being smug about this topic is just another way to come across as a fool. You may want to read up on the effects of radioactivity in the atmosphere and in the environment. There has been a fair amount of radioactive fall out from various accidents and weapons testing, which has caused higher rates of cancer etc. in people who had an increased likelihood of exposure to the fall out. Also, as Chernobyl demonstrated, a nuclear accident has global, not local implications. A list of various nuclear related incidents in the US: http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

There's no logic to this analogy. We're taking about radioactivity. Most people are concerned about GM food, though. Again, genetically modifying plants and animals is fundamentally different than selective breeding and hybridization. There's no logic to this. Had I lived 300 years ago--which is impossible because I'm alive now--I would have been raised in that society not this one, and so I wouldn't be thinking in terms of 21st century concerns for the environment. I don't want to return to the stone ages, which is why I'm concerned about the environment... And just how do you figure that? I never stated that it would end in a decade; there were warnings about certain problems arising around the year 2000 that have in fact arisen, give or take a few years.

I figured you'd bring that up. There is always the chance that something could happen, and when it comes to radioactivity this is not something that goes away easily or any time soon. That's not fear mongering, that's just common sense. Unfortunately, to prove people like you wrong, something will have to happen, but what difference will it make then when everything is screwed up? Excuse me? Are you equating selective breeding and hybridization with genetic modification????? That's just plain stupid. Luddites (with a capital "L") were opposed to the change that it would bring to their lives and livelihoods, not technology itself. I've never stated I'm against techology in general, just the manner in which some technology is used to our detriment. This is fairly well established; trying to argue otherwise only makes you look like a fool. Good for you. Talking about the potential is not alarmism. Some things that were deemed "alarmist" by you type a decade or two ago have occurred, and the process will continue. It will occur at such a rate, as it already has, whereby people like you will continue to insist that things are not that bad until the point where it really is too late.

Like I said, spoken like a true Albertan. If you don't understand the problems with nuclear power, then I don't know what to say. No carbon footprint? Well, what about the storage of waste or potential accidents like? Nuclear power is simply not a safe alternative. The manipulation of the genetic makeup of plants and animals has potential serious consequences as well. Your oversimplifying and misrepresenting their stand on the issue, but I can see it is next to useless to try and discuss anything with you in a rational manner. Luddites is a term that was applied to to people who feared and resisted change: that seems to apply much more to you and your neocon ilk than it does Greens. One can argue that without taking drastic steps to protect the environment, then "massive harm" will befall the economy and humanity.

Spoken like a true Albertan.

suggesting apes are Russian is highly disrespectful...

How very cycnical.

So what? There are a lot of "single issue" organizations out there that also attempt to influence politics.

Okay, so you did do it deliberately... doesn't matter who the subject/object is, it's the fact that you would choose the word "apes" in the context it is in. Could easily have used a dozen other words. While we're on the subject: that Manning/Williams commercial when one of the Manning brothers says "gone like Donkey Kong". Hmmmm...

The hypocracy of this pre-election spending is monumental...

Quite right... the last thing we need is those "liar and agitator" types in Parlaiment...

Yup... the Dictator strikes again...

For all of those out there who like to harp on the fact that the Sierra Club gave the NDP a higher grade that the Greens way back when, this should rectify things: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/reportcard.html

Explain the use of "apes" in the header. Seems racist to me.

But a lot of PCs jumped ship to join the Reform/CA and eventually they merged again.

You still haven't explained why some European sources are valid and why others are not. Early maps are notorious for containing fabricated and mistakes. Acording to the wikipedia article: It makes sense, really. Mitchell had an agenda, and as a result one could argue that he would misrepresent the extent of Iroquois power in order to justify British control of the region. More on the map can be found here: http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/mitchell/history1.html

No, he stated that Barret should be sticking up for the people who elected him. It's Fantino that has been trying to "intimidate" Barret.

There was an incident where a woman from Six Nations intentionally blocked his path and then suddenly started screaming "don't you hit me" and then was attacked by Clyde Powless. There is video of the incident and none of it shows that he ever hit her, yet it clearly shows Clyde Powless taking swings at him.

I don't think that would be legal. Seems to be important enough that people from Six Nations have to go around trying to assault him and that the OPP arrests him for peacefully demonstrating while the same doesn't go for Six Nations peoples.

Canadians pollute more than anyone else on a per capita basis--even the Americans. Also, have you seen any pics of the arctic recently? large ice features that have been around for millenia have broken up and melted during just the last few years. That's not normal. In the past, slight changes in average global temps would have been caused by the sun or catastrophic incidents on Earth. But neither is the case here. The only source releasing massive amounts of carbon into works is human activity.

Shavluk is a pot activist and is one of those types who gravitated to the Greens because he wanted to use their increasing exposure to push his own agenda. He shouldn't have been allowed in the party in the first place because of some of the things he has already said. Glad he's gone. I hope he stays out of politics for good.

I doubt he'll get many votes, but this should be very interesting. http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDi...,%20SUN%20MEDIA

Actually, the educational system has been under the control of post-colonialists, among others for about 40 years now. The history that I was tought was pretty lite and tended to portray Indians in an idealized manner. Yes they were. Whatever. Mitchell sounds like a European name to me. If all these other European documents are filled with myths and lies, then why isn't this one? A fort isn't a colony. The only part of Ontario that was really settled at that time would have been around what is now Detroit, which was and still isn't along the shore of Lake Ontario. Settlement of what is now Ontario really didn't start until the 1780s and it wasn't until a decade later that the land was being surveyed to the extent where counties and townships could be established. Well, Brant sold the land which means that money was transferred from a buyer to him the seller. Whether Brant screwed over his own people is not our problem. Yes, mismanage. Six Nations could not take care of its own business. As you stated above, Six Nations couldn't control Brant from selling off much of its land. That's mismanagement. Trust me, there is a lot of internal power struggles going on. There are lots of factions involved.