Sir Bandelot

Why?

Not so, in my view we have technology, industrial agriculture and medicine to stave off things like shortages in food and epidemic diseases. Seems to me that in nature animals go through annual cycles of proliferation and decline, where a local ecology does not provide enough food for an overgrown herd of Caribou, there will be large losses in life until the balance is again restored and population increases. Thats the kind of natural cycle I was talking about. We are not completely immune to it, but we have come a long way in that we seek to control the environment, not be controlled by it.

Aye, there's the rub. But why would you expect the power dynamic that applies to governments to be any different in humans beings? That is after all what governments are made of.

Seems to me that any living organism left without checks and balances ultimately outgrows its environment, consuming it's resources to depletion, and must eventually die off. In nature there are inherently limited systems, where organisms flourish and recede in numbers based on natural cycles. See Darwinism. But WE humans have stepped outside of this natural cycle. We are aware of the effects of those limiting rules and we have learned ways to get around them. As such there is no natural regulation other than what we choose for ourselves, and by and large our greed and competitiveness makes it difficult for us to limit ourselves.

One should never get upset about what happens in these forums. I try to make serious posts, but often get swiped at with ad-hominem attacks by someone who sees my views as contrary to their political agenda. It doesn't bother me, although I prefer that valid reasons for criticism are given. Still, I don't mind poking a little fun back at others, so if someone goes on about how leftists are at fault for everything, thats already hard to take completely seriously, and I might whack back at them a little. Seems to me that everyone must have some ideology, or agenda that makes them want to come here and post, so there will be arguments. No matter what though, I never like to make anyone feel truly upset. That's not how I get my jollies 'cept for MDancer

It's simply about Harper and his relationship to the POTUS, or rather the lack thereof. Not at all. Sorry to disillusion you but, we really don't need your love... If anything along those lines, it would be more like "Please hate them."

No, because that was an American show. No socialist influences there, I think. What is it that makes people want to get a divorce? I'm sure there are dozens of reasons, but on a general scale we could say, they are no longer willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of their family. In other words reconcile their differences enough that they can live together in a tolerable, constructive relationship despite the fact that their own needs are not fully met by it. Every marriage has problems, that's natural but people don't seem to be willing to tough it out, do whats right for the kids and not be so self-centred. Video games are things mostly kids play with. Many of todays parents seem a lot like kids, when compared to the older generations. I know my Dad, my wifes Dad and a lot of people we know from back then seem a lot tougher, although they had their share of arguments and fights they stuck together. "For the kids". The point where someone gets a divorce, by and large is because they want something better for themselves. Me, me. Not you, not the kids. In some cases divorce seems the best option, if the parents are fighting all the time and the home is unhappy, not a constructive upbringing for children. But here the problem still is, the two parents are only thinking of their own needs and wants, unable to reconcile for the greater good of the family. And that too is selfishness.

Obama snubs Harper in special meeting with 19 leaders COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Prime Minister Stephen Harper was left off U.S. President Barack Obama's guest list for an emergency meeting of world leaders in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate talks. Obama arrived in the Danish capital Friday morning in the hopes his charm and influence could sway the 193 countries here to get a deal done. Shortly after arriving, the American president headed into a special meeting with 19 other leaders. Among the attendees were Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei, Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The list, provided by the White House, did not include Stephen Harper. Is Canada not important enough for the POTUS to meet with our leader? Just seems like Obama has no respect for Harper, because he is the left-over lap dog propped up by GWB. Or that he does not agree with Harpers politics, his attitude toward global warming among other things. He is the clown who stood in front of a room full of American business leaders and dissed his own country. Although they got a good laugh out of him, it's hard to respect someone like that and take them seriously. I mean, what would it have costed to allow Stephen Harper into the room? He could have just stood quietly at the back... That's why appeasement of the United States, by fighting in their wars is not necessarily in Canada's own best interest. Because at the end of the day they really don't give a damn about anyone else, unless you got the power baby. Nukes and money, that is. And that's partly why we love our anti-American leaders much more.

The perfect time of the 1950's was also the golden age of socialism in Canada. Tommy Douglas reigned as PM from 1944-1960. The social infrastructure in Canada was brought to fruition during those years, (although it was already developing by the 1920's) and many cities buildings and roads were constructed, and the health care system. In the decades that followed, there was a continual erosion of these social structures, sell off of crown corporations to private business, and US style capitalismo began to rise. Socialism puts the community first, the individual second. Since that was "the perfect time", as you admitted and I agree, and that time coincides with a perception of stronger family values, stronger community, better efficiency, accountablility of resources, one can only conclude that Capitalism is linked to hedonism and selfishness, as reflected in the number of broken families by divorce.

Heard a report on the radio today that General McCrystal has something to say about the Canadian detainee scandal- http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/740010--no-place-for-abuse-says-u-s-general OTTAWA–There must be "zero tolerance" toward prisoner abuse and torture if coalition forces in Afghanistan are to maintain credibility in the war-torn country, U.S. Gen. Stanley McCrystal says. Visiting Ottawa for the first time, the commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan spoke bluntly to reporters about the need to treat prisoners with care and respect. "How we treat Afghans, either detainees or just normal Afghans is an indicator of how we are going to operate in both protecting and respecting (Afghans)". "Any potential allegation of prisoners being mistreated is a concern for all of us. Clearly, as we try to maintain the credibility of the government of Afghanistan and coalition forces, it's got to be a zero tolerance policy on mistreatment of prisoners or anybody," he said. I found it surprising that he would come out with something like this, which seems specifically directed at Canada in this case, while our troops are fighting side by side under one command and likely that anything Canadian troops might do are done by American and other coalition forces. I'd think that the issue of handing over detainees to Afghanistan is something they all do, and the possibility of torture is the same whether it's handed over by Canada or the United States. So why they holier than thou type of speech? Then I though about Obama's new strategy in Afghanistan, a greater effort to win the hearts and minds of the people, to get them to see western forces as "good guys". Given the higher visibility of this problem now, that Canada may have looked the other way while our detainees were tortured, it makes sense in a way. The point must be, the US is here now to help Afghanistan, and they are the good guys. Trust us. Sorry about what those bad Canadians did... Get it? Convenient scapegoats to make the new mission look good to the locals. Oh you bad Canadians, how could you do that. We'll get in there now and clean this up. By the way, isn't our current mission effectively over now, with the new Obamanization plan? Canadian troops are being moved elsewhere, with a new mission. The old one has been quietly dropped... not necessary. Sorry, you people have been wasting your time.

What BC really means is, they like keeping their Latino housekeepers well underpaid. The best way to do that is to maintain their status as illegal immigrants, so that they are non-legit in the system, have no real rights or protections, don't get the same benefits, if any at all, or even laws protecting them from manipulative employers. I can't think of a similar parallel in Canada. Although illegal immigration exists here too, as everywhere, there is no underground job market on any kind of similar scale, that sustains a need for these people, a sort of "untermensch" in US society.

MAYBE Canadians don't really care if some Afghani detainee is handed over by Canadian troops to be tortured, because it's a "minor" injustice. That is not the point... what will bother Canadians more is learning that the government is lying to us, habitually. To me thats where the issue lies in this case, not specifically just that the person(s) were handed over and tortured, but that our government knew, and knew it was illegal and against our basic values, allowed it to continue for some time and lied to us when the story came out. It is NOT an indictment of our troops per se. To focus on that particular aspect is an obfuscation of the real significance of this story.

Not necessarily idiots though, because there is no real alternative. It's like being stuck between a rock and a hard place, the devil and the deep blue sea.

Howard Dean urges defeat of emerging health care bill Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice. "You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." "This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame." --- I was surprised to read this strong criticism by Dean on a bill that is being pushed by his own party. Is Dean to be taken seriously on this, or does he have some sort of alternative agenda? "Insurance company bailout"? Sounds sexy... Video clip added- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31388323/vp/34448025#34448025

True, but thats because we have something called laws. Very annoying little detail that keeps these politicians in line. But only if they get caught! So, there ya go. It's all the same... but don't get me wrong, I would never defend the Liberals. Meanwhile you folks have a nice day out there in Alberta... stay warm. I heard its -50. How do you Albertans stay alive, man? You must have too keep your head up a cows ass, or someting Just kidding

We don't need to do that ourselves, just ask others to do it quietly for us, away from the media. Like Maher Arar. His rights were removed, by removing him. Thats how we do it, western style

It's easy. Where were you with Damncers own assinine statement? Did you have your head in your assinine?

No need to, the Cons are doing fine all on their own emulating the Taliban.

You don't know what you're talking about Dancer, the womens team are top-notch athletes and excellent players. The difference being that they play a more clean technical game, which is a thrill to watch. The mens league is more about "rock-em sock-em" style as promoted by Don Cherry et al, a bit more brutal no doubt why you like it. As a player all my life, Don Cherry style is not what hockeys about. Do you even know how to stand on a pair of skates?

Especially now that the CPC party has removed rehabilitation programs that were offered to drug convicts in the past, and closed down programs like Insight in BC which was designed to minimize harm and give addicts a potential way out. The Cons impose mandatory prison time, and remove any possibility of meaningful rehab. They would prefer to incarcerate addicts for life if they could.

It might be a reference to the United States, look to the statistics on prison population there. It's easy to find. One in every 31 American adults, or 7.3 million Americans, are in prison, on parole or probation. Approximately one in every 18 men in the United States is behind bars or being monitored. In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980, partially as a result of mandated sentences that came about during the "war on drugs." The United States has the highest documented per capita rate of incarceration of any country in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Prisons http://november.org/graphs/ http://november.org/graphs/FedbyOffense.gif --- Land of the free

Called "Womens Hockey", not girls. Just as we say "Mens Hockey", not boys. MDancer shows his denigrating attitude towards women, once again.

To get a rise out of you... what else? Yeah maybe Blair ought to get a prize. Berlusconi got his...

It's not me who is hiding, this inquiry is about the Iraq war, not Bosnia. Brits are known sticklers when it comes to proper procedure so it will be interesting to see how far this goes. Ah, thats only your theory. Try not to project your own nationalist attitude onto everyone else. I personally look at it this way- amongst world leaders of the western alliance there are no separate countries, only a number of corporate entities that work closely together, with the dominant empire calling the shots, and others falling in line to do their part. After the war is over everybody gets a piece of cake. I don't have a sense of disharmony or feel that Canada is being coerced by the devil. More like, our corrupt leadership is in cahoots with yours and willingly does whatever it takes to get the contract. Hence no cognitive dissonance, I accept the fact the Canada has done, and continues to do bad things. We are no longer the "good guys" that we might like to believe, if there ever was such a thing. And same goes for eveyone else.

I don't think we are in disagreement on the facts, other than I am limiting this to one conflict and you are drawing on others as an example of conflicts that were magically exempted from the law. That does not deter me though. The fact that someone else also broke the law before only shows the double standard thats in place. When and where the empire choses to fight is its own business it seems, and laws be damned. Thats the fact, which you know and I also recognize. Unlike you it doesn't mean I approve or agree with it. < Insert "your approval does not matter" statement here > < Insert "Neither does your indifference..." > We have this whole conversation already scripted, I know what you're gonna say, and you know pretty much what I'm gonna say. But for the record I'll say it anyway. Also I'd like to point out that these posts could just as easily be in the "Why we distrust the US of A" thread. But then you'll just say I'm being obtuse again.