ironstone

Can you give me an example of something she's written that indicates she's "dumber than a bag of hammers" as you put it? As for myself,there are some columnists that I generally disagree with on most topics,like ultra-left leaning Susan Riley of the Ottawa Citizen,but I often read her column anyway.It's important to keep an open mind and listen to different viewpoints I think.

I personally didn't mind Martin too much as Liberals go.But Chretien was another story.There are things that I think indicate he was a dishonest man,certainly in political life.Consider:his lies on the GST,shutting down the Somalia inquiry and the biggest of all,his claimed lack of knowledge into the inner workings of the Quebec sponsorship program(his brainchild!).How about calling a federal election for the sole purpose of keeping Martin at bay?I guess Chretien was certainly a petty man as well as a dishonest one.

She hits the nail on the head with this column. Is there anyone who can give one reason why the stance of Quebec on the tar sands project is not 100% pure hypocrisy? http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=fa618fd4-2cf3-4b64-acce-580827cd5c23

But Nanticoke is in Liberal territory so it's ok.

What I find perplexing is that so much of the negative attention seems to be focused in the wrong direction.Canada is the bad guy while a country like China(one of the worlds largest emitters) get's a pass.The Chinese are building many coal fired power stations and.....they get a pass.Kyoto DID NOT APPLY to China,I fail to see the logic in that.Al Gore could have pushed for Kyoto when he was VP,but he didn't.Now he is making out like a bandit and personally has an enormous carbon footprint...but Gore,like China,get's a pass from the environmentalists. Please,can someone explain why CO emissions from Alberta are unacceptable,but WAY more emissions from China are just peachy?Is the negative attention dependant on whether the offending governments are right or left wing?

I wonder how much public opinion would change if people the world over actually got their information from COMPLETELY unbiased news sources.By that I mean,actual reporting of ALL the cold,hard facts as they are and not the censored,put our own left/right spin on the story stuff we mainly get now.

I wonder what kind of things Obama reads? Red Digest? Workers Monthly?The Complete Works of Karl Marx?

Are there specific things in Goldstein's article that are factually inaccurate?What are they?

If I violated forum rules I apologize.I thought people would be more likely to read it than if I had just posted the link.I have to wonder if some are upset because the article does not mesh with the climate change/global warming side of the equation.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what Canada should do with captured Taliban members?If we don't hand them over to the Afghan forces what should be done with them?How about bringing them to Canada?We could give them the very best treatment,including food,money and shelter...perhaps even their freedom.That's the politically correct thing to do isn't it? We seem to be divided into two camps,those who are entirely sympathetic with the Taliban members....and those,perhaps like myself who feel no pity for these barbaric bastards. Where do you stand,with the victims or perpetrators?

This article is by Lorrie Goldstein from the Dec 22 edition of the Ottawa Sun. .Congratulations to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Jim Prentice for receiving both the "Colossal Fossil" award and the most "Fossil of the Day" awards from the enviro nuts at the now-concluded Copenhagen climate summit. This means Harper and Prentice remembered their duty in Copenhagen was to represent Canadian taxpayers, not radicals who would happily destroy our economy, primarily for ideological reasons. As Harper and Prentice noted, Canada achieved some success in Copenhagen. The conference formally recognized that the successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, which expires at the end of 2012, must have the active participation of all 192 countries in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, not just the 37 industrialized nations, including Canada, targeted for emission cuts under Kyoto. Kyoto, requiring Canada to reduce its emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, while demanding absolutely no cuts from more than 150 other countries, including the world's two biggest GHG emitters -- China and the U.S. -- is an absurd treaty. Even more absurd was the propaganda by environmental radicals in Copenhagen, tagging Canada as the great, carbon-spewing ogre of climate change. Get real In reality, China, now the world's biggest GHG emitter, doesn't have to lower its emissions by one molecule under Kyoto, because it's classified (bizarrely) as a developing nation in the treaty, in the same league as the poorest countries in Africa, even though China now owns almost $1 trillion of U.S. government debt and its economy is booming. The U.S., the world's second-biggest GHG emitter, never ratified Kyoto, dating back to the Clinton-Gore administration, which means the treaty doesn't apply to it. Together, China and the U.S. account for 40% of global GHG emissions. Canada accounts for 2%. Alberta's oilsands, the favourite scapegoat of the enviro nuts, currently account for less than one-tenth of 1%. As The Christian Science Monitor reported in a major analysis in December, 2004, emissions from nearly 850 new coal-fired electricity generating stations planned by just China, the U.S. and India -- also exempt from any emission cuts under Kyoto -- will, by 2012, "pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce." In other words, Canada could shut down all of its industry tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference to the planet, not until the U.S., China, India and many other nations exempt from emission cuts under Kyoto, wean themselves off coal as a major power source. The one valid criticism of Canada is that we ratified Kyoto and then walked away from fulfilling it. But that's because the decision by former prime minister Jean Chretien and his then Liberal majority government to ratify Kyoto -- which was especially punitive to a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated, energy-producing and exporting country such as Canada -- was grossly irresponsible. Sorry mess The fact Chretien, having ratified the treaty, did nothing to implement it, meant that by the time Harper inherited the whole sorry mess in 2006, Canada was so far above its Kyoto target (by about 30%) that we couldn't have complied even if Harper had wanted to (fortunately, he didn't), without destroying our economy. Prior to Copenhagen, I wrote Canadians should cheer every time Canada "won" a fossil award in Copenhagen. Considering how well they did, Harper and Prentice deserve a gold medal.

Wouldn't it be nice if the one's pushing for action on climate change would cut to the chase and tell us just how much it's going to cost the average Canadian taxpayer at the end of the day?The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is warning us that Canadians will be sending billions of dollars to foreign countries.The CTF says this will cost Canadians about 3000$ each per year if this goes ahead.To me,this whole thing certainly appears to be more about wealth redistribution than anything else.How much will gasoline go up?Should it be 5 times the current price?Is anyone concerned that perhaps billions of dollars have been stolen in the European carbon trading business?When you take substancial amounts of money from people in the form of excessive taxes,they have a lot less to spend,so our economy suffers.This last fact is undeniable.

Perhaps the best course of action would be for the Conservatives to call a public inquiry over this affair,then shut it down before it's finished.Remember the Somalia inquiry?

I have a question for all of those calling for Peter Mackay's head over this incident.Are you equally outraged by the horrible atrocities committed by the Taliban members?Public executions,real torture?How about throwing acid in the faces of young Afghan women...for having the nerve to try and get an education?!! For all of the bogus outrage over this one...yes ONE Taliban prisoner that apparently got a beating,remember that it was Afghan guards that did the deed.

This "cabal" apparently does not seem to include anyone from AP,again,FOX being the exception.

I think most of the major tv news networks(FOX excepted)didn't do a very thorough job of highlighting Obama's association with some very radical types.He launched his political career in the home of William Ayers,one of the founders of the Weathermen/Weather Underground...a violent terrorist group.I would wager that most Obama supporters haven't a clue who Ayers is and his connection to Obama.Glenn Beck even read a quote from Obama's book in which he admits he sought out the most radical types he could find.He seems to have some fascination for these way out radicals.If not for FOX news,how many Americans would know that Obama appointed a Communist(since resigned)to the position of Green Jobs Czar?There is most definately a liberal bias in the media.

So how many AP reporters were assigned to fact check then Senator Obama's book?Remember,here was a man,relatively unknown just a few years ago,with a rather thin resume and with little executive experience taking a run at the highest office in the world.So how many AP fact checkers were assigned to go over his book?According to the news report I watched recently.....none.

I think we should all follow Al Gore's lead on this one.Since he transformed himself into the greatest environmentalist that has ever walked the face of this earth(while he was Vice President of the most powerful country on earth,he heartily endorsed the Kyoto Accord.....oh wait,he didn't!)his net worth has skyrocketed if news reports are correct.He stands to make a fortune with all of this cap and trade shell game.Why can't we question his motives?($$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

Is it not true that Maurice Strong has a rather substancial business interest in China?China is strongly opposed making any reductions in their own emission levels.So is it fair to assume that Maurice Strong will reap an enormous financial windfall from all of this cap and trade nonsense?

From Kevin Trenberth(U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research).To Michael Mann.Oct 12 2009 'The fact is we can't account for the lack of global warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...Our observing system is inadequate' Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics-that there is no evidence that temperatures have increased over the past 10 years. From the Ottawa Citizen,page A8,November 29th edition.This is but one of the emails that have come to light.Correct me if I'm wrong,but isn't one of the foundations of good science the INCLUSION of all relevant data?Cat got your tongue Al Gore?

"Global warming" was too specific so they changed it to "climate change".

Yeah,it probably does suck to be Palestinian.They are little more than pawns of the Arab world to be sure.But the Palestinians must also take their fair share of blame for their predicament.They have done little to better their own situation and continue to play the role of victim on the world stage.Hate is taught from an early age to each successive generation...so what else should we expect?A perpetual tragedy.

Perhaps the Swiss are thinking of the "cartoon furor" a few years ago.Remember the calls for violence from Muslim leaders,death threats and so on?All over some bloody cartoon.Is it any wonder that people are wary of Islam these days?Are there examples of leaders of other faiths openly issuing death sentences on others?

If Israel "ceases to exist as a country" then doesn't it stand to reason that a vast number of Palestinians will also" cease to exist" because Iran successfully delelopes and launches a nuclear weapon?

Can you tell us just how many doctors have been killed by Christian fanatics? And can you tell us how many people have been killed by Islamist fanatics? Not laughing here.