ReeferMadness

I'm sure your world views him as a laughingstock.

Based on actions to date, I would say that the odds of us wiping ourselves out is pretty good and the odds of us doing something that will cause civilization to collapse are much better than 50-50. We've shown a huge propensity for taking actions when we don't understand the consequences. It's blind luck that we haven't had much worse things happen yet.

Goodbye Flaherty, hello Oliver. Who cares? Nothing changes until Harper leaves. The whole party is a one man show and even the cabinet ministers are nobodies.

So, I'm curious. What is too drunk to consent? And is it obvous - what if the guy has been drinking as well? What if they're both too drunk to consent? Or if only the guy has been drinking?

Read that to yourself slowly and see if you can spot the hypocrisy. Or are you saying that you're in favour of being put in prison?

I think you need to do a bit more research. Sugary treats are not new but the amount of sugar that is added to all kinds of food is new. link

I would say that there is good emerging evidence that is true. Sugar is not just empty calories - it's habit forming and detrimental to your health.

Sugar produces a temporary burst of energy followed by a crash. It's the caffeine in coffee that gets you going. Try drinking it black.

ASIP, I don't claim any expertise on this matter. However, I understand that the population of Crimea is mostly ethnic Russians. If there were a referendum, would Crimea vote to split and join Russia? And if Krushchev didn't gift Crimea to Ukraine, what happened in 1954?

What nonsense. Even you don't believe this. Voters don't understand, they don't want to understand. They want to be told they're better than the rest of the world which is why their corrupt politicians tell them lies and why they buy the product of a corrupt media that parrots them. And that's why international politics are hopelessly hypocritical.

Is Kerry talking about Russia in 2014 or the USA in 2003? It might help if the USA had any moral authority in this matter. International politics is mostly hypocrisy.

Rue, I'm going to try to respond but in the future, it would be helpful if you could be a bit more concise in your arguments. You're long on pontification and short on evidence. Israel has been dishonest in acquiring the weapons (see bud's link) and continues to be deliberately vague and evasive I would prefer that nobody had nuclear weapons. However, since that isn't feasible in the short term, I would prefer that countries would be honest and open about how many weapons they have and what they plan to do with them. Your excuses for why Israel won't come clean about its arsenal is just that - excuses. It's this type of lack of honesty that makes international politics the snake pit that it is. I'm glad that you have an extensive inventory of what countries you trust and don't trust. Are you suggesting that the entire world order be based on that? You know, it's just possible that other parts of the world have a lot less trust for former colonial powers (France, Britain) and countries that in recent times have made a habit of supporting dictators or otherwise interfering in other countries affairs (US, Russia, China) than you do. There has to be one set of rules that apply to everyone; or there will be no rules at all. Your post is a curious mixture of fiction and historical revisionism. The US didn't obtain nukes in a cold war, it was the first to develop them in WWII. Truman didn't have to use them, he chose to use them and there are historians who firmly believe that the primary reason for dropping them on the Japanese was to send a message to the Soviets. OK, now you're just pulling random shit out of your ass. Wildly postulate away - I'm not going to waste my time responding.

You're admitting what we all know but is rarely acknowledged. Even when the original state of the ecosystem is known (and let's face it, in the rush to get to the tar, companies aren't exactly meticulous in documenting the original state), it can never be put back to the way it was. Ecosystems are unique and precious. When you say "similar to what was there before", what does that even mean? I suspect that if the companies are successful in getting some vegetation to grow on top, that's considered good enough. Never mind the ground water, never mind that a complex, intertwined ecosystem has been replaced with a trivial one, never mind anything. It's all about the money, isn't it. And ensuring that people can toast their extra-large behinds in extra-large trucks with seat warmers. Let's all keep our priorities straight!!

Well, she can see Russia from her front porch so I guess Harper can be considered her neighbor.

What do they even mean by reclaimed anyway? Well, for starters, the only land they've even started to reclaim in the easiest cheapest land. And does reclaimed mean restored? Well, in a word no. So what does reclamation even mean? There you have it. More smoke and mirrors from another right wing government that sees its rightful role as a cheerleader for the oil industry.

Actually, in fairness, it's not a weak argument. It's really not an argument at all. BC knows he has nothing and he's playing run and hide with the issues.

Oh, honesty. There's a fun word. Like the honesty that Israel displayed by pretending it didn't have nukes. And the honestly that the USA displayed by pretending it didn't know about them. The world is full of honesty. It's only Iran that's pretending.

It was a serious question. Are you OK with Iran having nuclear weapons if they withdraw from the NPT?

You're absolutely right. Dealing with the problem of inequality primarily via the taxation system is a fool's errand. What is really needed is to end the unwarranted and unfair distribution at source. Problem solved. Well done - you're a genius!

Very good point.

Thanks for the link, bud. It makes interesting reading. If its contents are true, France has been highly irresponsible and bears the blame for a signicant portion of nuclear proliferation. The US comes across as both incompetent and irresponsible - allowing Israel to easily manipulate it. There is a telling quote that describes why many countries (and especially dictators) want nuclear wepaons. I've rarely seen a more apt description of international diplomacy.

So, if Iran withdrew from the NPT, you would have no issues with them developing nukes - is that what you're saying?

In a Calgary Sun poll, readers back Neil Young by almost a 2-1 margin. Take that, Oil barons!

Harper doesn't need scientists to tell him to give tax breaks to wealthy corporations. The Fraser Institute does that for nothing.

well, TimG & others will seize upon that one as proof that all of the others are just part of a vast conspiracy to convince us all to spend more money on research.