KeyStone

"I'm suggesting that the site is to biased to be accurate, and yes they do have to be from Canada I don't buy from other countries and I have zero control over their policy so I don't care about what goes on there." Granted, the site is biased when it comes to opinion and editorials, perhaps even statistics, but a picture is a picture. The TTC wasn't able to dismiss the photo of the napping TTC workers, simply by saying the National Post was biased or that the taker of the photo was biased. Regardless, we differ on the extent of cruelty in the industry, and I don't have the necessary proof to convince you otherwise. But, surely, given that Maple Leaf Foods has said they are phasing out gestation crates over a ten year period, you must admit that they must have gestation crates (or they would have said 3 year period). It would seem they are following the lead of a big US pork producer that brought in similar measures. "So your biggest argument is we don't actually know if what they are doing is inhumane? Hilarious." Here is what we know: - This sort of cruelty does exist, although the extent to how much it exists in Canada is debatable. - These practices save the meat producers money (what other reason would they have for doing it?) - Generally, the factory farms are behind closed doors and not open to the public. - There are very few laws in Canada that regulate animal cruelty, as long as it can be justified monetarily. So, all I am saying is let's pass a law to make these companies throw open their doors and show the world what is going on there. If it's all great conditions, no problem. If they are terrible conditions, but Canadians would rather save $0.50 when they buy pork, than change the conditions, then so be it. "If the courts feel that the code is reasonable they code make a ruling based on it and set a precendant." I had no idea that the Canadian court system worked that way. I had been under the misinformed assumption that judges couldn't actually create new laws, they could just interpret existing ones. Thank you for that clarification on how powerful the judges really are. "Inviting? No. Actively avoiding I doubt it." Really? You think that if you are engaged in a practice which the public is likely to object to, and which might bring unwanted attention to your practices, you wouldn't try to avoid people seeing what you are doing, particularly if there are no laws to stop you? Take a look at the seal hunt. Their big complaint is that people can see what they are doing, because it is out in the open. And, they have done everything they can to restrict anyone not friendly to the cause that might be taking photos, or videos, such that there are laws making anyone not hunting stay kilometres away from the hunt, allegedly for safety reasons. "I'll email them to see about it." Well, at least you checked on it. I have to give you some credit there. "Incidently no longer useing gestation crates will increase prices for pork dramatically" Yes, prices will increase for pork, if certain practices are eliminated. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point in having gestation crates, and engaging in these sorts of practices. "and this has nothing to do with ending cruelty and everything to do with caving in to pressure. " Well, meat companies aren't doing it because they care about cruelty, they are doing it because they are caving into pressure from those who want to end cruelty. Essentially, they don't want the negative publicity that it can bring. Health is also a consideration, especially given Maple Leaf's history. "This same thing happened in Florida and it resulted in the destruction of the pork industry there."" I couldn't find any articles on it collapsing but regardless, a level playing field is needed, in which case we ban it Canada wide, and refuse to accept any pork produced in those conditions. "The American Veterinary Medical Association "recognize gestation stalls and group housing systems as appropriate for providing for the well-being of sows during pregnancy." Well, they are primarily concerned with the animal's physical health. Gestations crates seem to do an adequate job of keeping the animals alive and healthy for six months before they are killed. A more relevant body might be the ASPCA which opposed gestation crates as well as pretty much any Humane Society that you can find. "Paul Sundberg, a veterinarian and vice-president of the U.S. National Pork Producers Council Farmers treat their animals well because that's just good business. The key to sow welfare isn't whether they are kept in individual crates or group housing, but whether the system used is well managed." Sundberg said: "cience tells us that she [a sow] doesn't even seem to know that she can't turn ... She wants to eat and feel safe, and she can do that very well in individual stalls." Well, if the VP of the Pork Producers Council says its OK, then it must be OK. Clearly, he wouldn't have any reason to be biased. Surely, even you see the irony of calling my source (for photos) biased, and then offering an opinion, from someone clearly biased, as a source? "I'm not wrong see qoutes from above." So, you still believe that animals don't need anything but food to be happy? "PETA is a terrorist group plain and simple. Saying they help anything is moronic. You do realize these people advocate somehow stopping us from exploiting any animal and completely cutting us off from the natural world. As if we aren't a part of the ecosystem. PETA is filled with nothing but the brainwashed and lunatics." They are not a terrorist group. ARM. ALF and SHAC are the quasi-terrorist groups, as defined by US law. PETA is one of many groups against gestation crates, not all of which advocate a vegetarian lifestyle. They are simply the most vocal, and get the most attention. By setting the bar so high, it is hoped that it will be raised just a little.

I'm not a scientist. I don't understand it. Therefore, I have to rely on others to make a semi-informed decision as to whether I think it is real or not. The vast majority of scientists believe it is real, particularly those that study climate change. Yes, there are exceptions. There have been petitions signed by thousands of scientists, that upon closer examination reveal that the only qualifier to be a scientist was a degree in science, and that the list was dominated by petroleum geologists, and those working for big oil. You also need to realize that scientists are going to base their decision on two things: - What they perceive to be the truth - What gets them money If you have ten thousand scientists saying global warming is real, and a lot of big oil companies hoping to put up a counter argument, it's pretty much certain that someone with a degree will step up to champion whatever belief the oil companies want.

"There's a lot wrong in that go vegan, heavily biased, bible reference laced, guilt trip, trying to give human emotions to animal website so I'll stick to the chickens." I'm sorry I was unable to produce recent photos from a source which you view as acceptable. Unfortunately Maple Leaf Foods doesn't have any photos up. Are you suggesting that these photos are doctored? What precisely is wrong with them, that you feel you can dismiss the photos? Any other requirements? Oh, the photos must be from Canada as well? So, in order for you to believe that animal cruelty exists, you want recent photos, from a commercial site where there is evidence that all the photos were taken in Canada? Is that about right, or do you have other requirements for the photos? I'm not sure why you have suddenly limited everything to Canada, but alright. You've listed several practices considered inhumane in the poultry industry. Some of these such as moulting are not practiced as often as the US. However, it is not illegal, and from what I have read it is practiced, just not as often. Furthermore, we really have no idea what is practiced, since virtually all operations are behind closed doors and not subject to public scrutiny. "Though this is voluntary codes like this have become recognized by the courts." Voluntary codes and $1.95 will get you a cup of coffee. What does recognized by the courts mean exactly? Have any companies been prosecuted or penalized for not adhering to voluntary codes? That would sort of make the codes not voluntary, don't you think? "Are you part of PETA? Because the Nazi concentration camp to slaughter house comparison is their thing" I am not part of PETA. You seemed incapable of understanding that if evidence was produced more than 30 years ago, it was still valid, so I came up with an example of something more than 30 years old, that you couldn't possibly deny the existence of. "It is also incredibly distrubing that you would make that comparison and shows how much you value human life." What utter nonsense. Do you understand the difference between similar and same? If you grew up in Canada, you would have been taught that in about grade three. I am obviously not saying that killing Jews and killing animals is the same thing. I am simply saying that these two things bothy happened more than 30 years ago. I chose the holocaust because I know that is the only example I can be certain that you won't deny the existence of, without more recent evidence. "Just because they don't advertize doesn't mean they don't allow tours try calling one of the farms." Hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. These are free-range farms that are giving tours. Obviously, they want the public to come out and see the conditions the animals are kept in, because that is how they justify a premium. Do you really think that the factory farms are going to be inviting the public out to see how they run things? Surely, not even you are so naive as to think that these farms that throw their doors open are representative of the meat industry. Try getting a tour from Maple Leaf Foods and their gestation crates. Maybe in ten years. http://www.hsicanada.ca/farmed_animals/gestation_crates/maple_leaf_foods_ends_confinement.html "Incidently, the link you posted above, show pictures that aren't from Canada." I don't know the exact situation in Canada. I'm sorry my photos didn't meet your stringent requirements. I'll take a year off work to go undercover to capture the exact photo that will convince you that this sort of cruelty does exist. "My dog can run around were ever the hell they want as long as they stay outside. My dogs work for a living they are there to deal with the Coyotes and Bears." I don't want to debate with you about your dog. Just admit that you were wrong when you stated that it's not cruel to keep an animal in conditions where they can't move or even turn around. If you are a dog owner and can't even admit that, than you're just engaging in intellectual dishonesty, and there is no further point in conversing with you. "Which pictures did you see? Even in the worst ones the animals could still move." http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/pig-gest-01.html http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/pig-gest-05.html "Are things perfect? No but they aren't as bad as people like you try to make them out to be, and improvements are always being made." It's pretty f'cking atrocious. I challenge you to spend one week of your life in those conditions. We don't let mass murderers endure those conditions. As for things getting better. Perhaps in some ways, thanks to organizations like PETA, and the people who went undercover to get these photos. They sure as hell aren't getting better thanks to people who keep their head in the sand and pretend this stuff doesn't happen and people who suggest animals can be perfectly happy even if they don't have enough space to turn around.

Well, while I agree that Canada should have a federal minimum wage, it's probably not for the same reasons as you. Jacking the minimum wage as high as the Ontario Liberals did in such a short time was somewhat of a mistake. But, the real mistake was to not raise it earlier, such that small businesses had time to adapt, and the people of Ontario received a decent wage much earlier. Boosting labour costs by almost 50% in a short time period is not fair to small business. In addition, having one minimum wage for the whole province doesn't really make sense. Obviously, it costs more to live in Toronto, than it does in Kenora. Now, the problem that you address (auto-workers making the same as unskilled workers), is generally something that is helped by minimum wage. If employers have to pay $10 for unskilled labour, then they have to pay a premium to get skilled workers. So, it's really a case of the employer screwing over the workers. Those people should leave and find a different job, since the pay is the same. The real problem as I see it, with provinces having different minimum wages is that the province can compete for the lowest minimum wage, such that businesses locate in the province with the lowest labour cost. Alberta, for instance, has had a very low minimum wage, (as well as lower taxes), which meant many businesses located there to take advantage of it. As a consequence, other provinces considered lowering their minimum wages to compete. This is not a healthy competition, nor is lowering welfare rates, to encourage people to leave your province (another harmful competition that Alberta leads the way in) Instead, we should have one national minimum wage matrix, that varies based on the cost of living in that city. In addition, I think it is quite reasonable to have two different sets of wages, for adults, and kids making part-time money after school and on weekends. While globalization has brought some positive changes, one of the biggest negatives is this sudden desire for all countries to lower wages, lower benefits, lower environmental and ethical regulations, lower taxes etc, so that we can compete internationally. It's leaving all federal governments with a massive shortfall of money, and a need to start slashing social programs. The world has been moving backwards in the last ten years instead of forwards.

"Difference there is there are pictures of those events, show me pictures of the "cruel" factory farms that aren't 30 years old." It is not as if there are a shortage of pictures. These are more difficult to obtain than previously, because most of the operations have moved behind closed doors, and they do a better job of screening job applicants for potential 'animal rights spies'. "http://all-creatures.org/anex/index.html" I'm sure if you spent even half as much time googling, as you did suggesting that no such pictures exist, you would have found plenty. They do not let the public into factory farms, as I have suggested in my post. So, no I have not been to one. I have not been to North Korea either, but I think it's fair to speculate on places you have never been, based on a variety of informational sources. I did not go to a concentration camp, but I feel I can say without contradiction that they were cruel places. "Difference there is there are pictures of those events, show me pictures of the "cruel" factory farms that aren't 30 years old." Your poor debate skills really show forth here. So, under your logic, if a photo is more than 30 years old, it isn't real? I guess you don't believe in genocide or holocausts then, since you can't find any recent photos. Incidentally, the link I posted above, has plenty of recent photos. "Hey a thirty year old example congrats. How about something from this millenium?" Wow, three times you've used that uber-weak argument. Perhaps you should 'look before you leap' "I do exactly that, though my dogs live outside." And you believe that you can tie your dog up so he can't move more than a foot, and as long as you give him food, he'll be happy? I hope someone calls the SPCA on you. I don't know if you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you really aren't that clever, but to suggest that animals are happy in cages that aren't big enough to turn around in, as long as they have food is absurd. "Florida made this practice illegal and the Pork industry in florida folded in a year, it drove up prices to much." I find it curious that you are able to find out obscure legislation from Florida from three years ago, but you don't think animal cruelty exists anymore, because you weren't able to find a picture. Well, obviously there is a reason that people are cruel to animals. It's cheaper than providing proper conditions. So, if you don't have a level playing field, you are going to go out of business, unless you market your product effectively - such as free range chickens. Just because you save some money, doesn't make it right. "Many places in Europe don't allow this and they pay much more for their pork, I think its 2 or 3 times more." If pork costs three times as much to produce without cruelty then so be it. I am sure that owning slaves would reduce the factory costs of production, but it doesn't make it OK. The key is to ban it within the trading area, such that all pork sold to Europeans comes from cruelty free farms, so that there is a level playing field.

Probably true. The shame of it, is the example the US has set. North Korea: Gets nukes. Ignores all laws. Refuses to cooperate Result: Concessions from international community. Iraq: Gives up nuclear program, long range missiles, attempts to abide by resolutions, gives access to all facilities, allows UN inspectors, and fly-overs. Result: Invaded. Leaders killed. Shock and awe attacks, hundrds of thousands dead. So, is it really any surprise that Iran would like to be in a position to develop a nuclear weapon on short notice, or at least allow an ambiguous position such that nations don't know if they have a bomb or not?

No one is saying that it's inconceivable that Iraq shipped WMD to Syria or buried them. What they are saying, is that it's inconceivable that not a single person in Iraq can provide proof of the existence of these alleged weapons, despite the fact that the Baath party is gone, the Husseins are dead, and certain interests in the US would make these people rich if they could produce such information. Not one person. In all of Iraq. That is the part that is inconceivable. Add to that the fact that most of the evidence that the US had of 'proof' that Iraq had WMD was bogus. It was mobile weather stations, and a very ambitious ex-Iraqi by the name of Ahmed Chalabi making up stories, in order to have the US set him up as the new leader of Iraq. The reasons for the invasion flip-flopped more than John Kerry making pancakes. The US intended to go in no matter what, and we all know it. The final reason for going in was essentially that they didn't have their books in order. Geez, amazing that things go missing, when you're under sanctions for 10 years and occasionally bombed.

I never liked the GodFather movies, and I despised GoodFellas. Joe Pesci as the tough guy just doesn't work for me. Generally though, I'm not that keen on movies that idolize gangsters who have no problem killing people, but they're kind to their friends and family, so we're supposed to have some respect for them. The Departed wasn't really your typical gangster movie. It was awesome. I liked Donnie Brasco a lot as well as the Untouchables. Generally, I like my gangster movies with a few good guys thrown in.

Let me see if I understand this, properly. Even though the US government has admitted that Iraq had no WMD, you remain unconvinced, still desperately clutching the fact that the inexistence of something can not be fully proven to prop up your faulty arguments. You may remember when the US claimed that they needed to get the Iraqi scientists out of Iraq to interview them because they could not reveal the truth under fear of Saddam? Well, now Saddam is dead, his sons are dead, the Baath party is dismantled, and Iraq is under de facto US control. Do you not think it the least bit odd that not a single one of these scientists came forward with the proof? Do you not think it more than a bit odd that if Iraq had WMD that they would have allowed themselves to be conquered, and their leaders killed without using some of that WMD? What exactly are they saving it for? Finally, do you not think it odd, that given the demand for such knowledge, it seems certain that the person revealing such info to the US government would be massively rewarded - and yet not a single person has come forward with proof. Not one single f'ing person in all of Iraq is willing and able to show proof, despite the potential rewards? Yet, you still refuse to admit that they were wrong about the WMD, and insist they might have shipped them to Syria or buried them really deep? Do I have that right? Are you truly that unwilling to admit that you were wrong?

Cutting wages, and benefits to new employees is one thing, but changing the deal for employees who have been working there for some time is just wrong. Many of these people accepted a job that gave them very little in the way of skills training, or advancement so that they could enjoy a stable, risk-free career that offered a decent wage, and a solid pension. To reduce their salary now is an awful think to do, but to even consider touching their pension is unpardonable.

So, in your opinion: If we give any credibility to an admission a country or government makes, then we must accept everything they say at face value? That's a curiously transparent form of obfuscation.

They do not let the public into factory farms, as I have suggested in my post. So, no I have not been to one. I have not been to North Korea either, but I think it's fair to speculate on places you have never been, based on a variety of informational sources. I did not go to a concentration camp, but I feel I can say without contradiction that they were cruel places. In some cases, the animals are not intended to move, so that the meat is particularly tender, as muscle is not developed. In the 80's for instance, photos came out of calves put in tiny boxes so that they could barely move for the production of veal. Veal sales plummeted as a result. Naturally, these photos were obtained through duplicity as the factory farmers are aware many people, would stop eating it if they knew the conditions. The response was to launch a PR campaign suggesting things have changed, as well as to make better security precautions ensuring that photos aren't leaked in the future. The actual improvements are any ones guess. As for your assertion that most animals are happy as long as they are fed, it's flat out wrong. Try keeping your dogs food bowl full, but don't play with him or take him for walks and see how happy he is. Actually, scratch that. I wouldn't want someone like you owning a dog.

Wow, the carrots comparison. I thought juvenile debates such as those were left on the playground along with the Mr.T lunchboxes. FYI, people are animals. So, by extension, it would stand to reason that people would be happy just being fed and slaughtered? If you don't agree with that statement (and let's assume you don't), then logic would indicate that not all animals are equal. There are certain forms of algae for instance which likely don't feel pain. Most mammals on the other hand do feel pain, and have other senses, feelings, and needs other than eating. Apparently, you've never owned a dog or a cat, or this would be blitheringly obvious to you. As for pigs, if you give a pig unlimited food, yes it will move eventually. It will roll in the mud, play etc - once its primary need (food) is met.

The debt that the Federal government has, isn't generally owed to Canadian banks. It's often owed to the people of Canada (through Canada savings bonds), as well as to foreign governments who pick up the bonds that are issued. However, the question that you raise is a good one. Why does the Federal government borrow money, when the Central bank of Canada lends money to the commercial banks at such low rates? Well, let's look at alternatives. If the Central bank did not lend that money to the commercial banks, the effect would be that interest rates would skyrocket and people would lose their homes. If, on the other hand, the central bank lent directly to the poeople, and cut out the commercial banks, then that could work. The profit of the banks would then belong to Canadians. It would be like a credit union owned by all Canadians. The rate of this Central Bank to borrow would be zero, which gives it a major advantage. The problem with such a system, however, is that all the employees would then become government employees. This means they would all be unionized, which generally means inflated wages and benefits for unskilled labour, as well as having hands tied, for all manner of changes, and dynamic activity. If however, you could find a way to make the change without the union destroying it, then it might work.

"It doesn't pay in the meat industry to be cruel to animals either." You're misinformed on this. It certainly does pay. Take a look at how animals are raised in factory farms, and chicken batteries. They don't want the animals moving around too much because they develop muscle, so they cram them all in little cages so that they can barely move. The industry hardly gets tarnished because our laws protect the meat industry by ensuring that they can do whatever they want behind closed doors. The only reason that their is such an outcry about seals and not factory farms, is because the atrocities that take place in factory farms are hidden from the public, as opposed to out in the open. "It's the going after the Calgary Stampede and going after people who make their careers in the meat industry feeding people that I don't approve of." What argument is this? Careers? What if someone makes their career in dog fighting? Does that mean we shouldn't oppose it? Don't you think there are other ways to feed people, than to engage in such brutal cruelty as exists in factory farms? "It's not the tactics I'm concerned about, it's the fact that in spite of these tactics more and more people are persuaded into believing the PETA propaganda and that makes the meat industry a bigger gong show than it already is." PETA is extreme. Their tactics are often more aimed at getting attention than bringing about real change, and their goals are often too lofty to be realized in one generation - but they do make some valid points, although they are often obfuscated and buried under a whole lot of nonsense. "We do experiments on people as well, granted they give consent. However, some experiments conducted on primates are of benefit to us as far as the medical field goes. Unfortunately a human life is worth more than a monkey's life. It's the lesser of two evils." Regardless of the relative value of lives, human or monkey, there is a limit to the suffering that any being should have to endure. If you see the torture that they put dogs, cats and monkeys through, any person with compassion would realize how very wrong that is. Most of these experiments are not for life-saving medicines, but for a new mascara, or a way for old men to get another boner, or ways for obese people to crave food less. Regardless of these benefits, no being should be tortured to the extent that these animals are.

"That opinion is not shared by most of those concerned and given the various times that Iran has fudged, lied, hidden and obfuscated legally required investigations, not an opinion that holds much water" If the majority of the world believes the world to be flat, does that make it so? Those with the loudest voices, are those that already have nuclear technology, and would like to continue to reign over other countries, with their superior military might and/or make Iran dependent on their nuclear technologies. It also makes for good politics. "Iran has benefited tremendously from the NPT, so that argument is without merit." How so? This is an important point, because if Iran did benefit tremendously from the NPT, then it suggests they have a debt to be repaid (a debt which consists of adhering to the NPT, and not developing weapons). If they have not benefitted from the NPT, then it would suggest that they should feel free to pull out, and pursue the same course of action as Israel. And, are you sure you aren't thinking of the Atoms for Peach program, which took place prior to the NPT? "Patently false" So, you feel that they haven't disclosed everything or that they aren't allowing IAEA inspectors in? In fact, Iran has offered to allow more stringent inspections (than other nations have to endure), including allowing representatives from other nations (other than just the UN), to see for themselves that they have nothing to hide. We also know that despite some late disclosures, the IAEA has conducted full investigations of the sites, and has found no evidence to suggest that there is a weapons program. "Timely disclosure is everything. What point is there to find too late that the door was unlocked?" It's a little different when you have the threat of the US and Israel looming over you. Perhaps if Israel was reprimanded for their attack on Osirak, things might be different. "Israel is a red herring..." So, it's not relevant, that the country crying the loudest over Iran's nuclear enrichment program already has nuclear weapons, nor that Iran perceives Israel as its biggest threat to security? I'm pretty sure it matters to Iran. "Irrelevant. Israel has not received any technology by way of the NPT, Iran has." Has Iran? Do you have a link for me? I could be wrong on this. Israel received their technology from espionage. That's so much better. "We are members in good standing and allow timely inspections." My point is that we felt a need to enrich our uranium to 97% for peaceful purposes. Therefore, it is within the realm of reason that Iran wants to develop theirs to 20% for peaceful purposes. Israel and the US aren't threatening pre-emptive action against us, either. "I haven't heard of a plane crash in Iran that was a western built craft. They are all Russian....and are crashing as often as russian planes do. Basing their objection to get fuel from a third party because the US has sanctions is a weak argument indeed." Again, you are missing the point. The US has put sanctions in place against Iran. They have also 'encouraged' other nations to do the same. If Iran is dependent on these countries, then they can not rely on the supply of these things. It is understandable as to why they would want to be independent from other countries for their fuel.

Proroguing has been done many times, under Liberal and Conservative governments. This is the first time in memory that such an outcry was made. It's really more a reflection of the effectiveness histrionics made by Ignatieff, on a naieve youth, whose rely almost exclusively on social media for their political awareness. Should do well in Vancouver especially.

I find it the height of absurdity that nations are calling for sanctions against Iran based on their pronouncement that they intend to gain the ability to enrich uranium enhancement to twenty percent. Here are just a few reasons: 1) Many of the countries calling for sanctions are nations that already have nuclear weapons, and yet, Iran is merely trying to increase their ability for nuclear fuel and research. How is that nations like France, the US and Israel have the audacity to suggest that Iran can not develop nuclear fuel, when they already have nuclear weapons? 2) While the non-proliferation treaty forbids signatories from attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, in return, nuclear nations are supposed to help non-nuclear nations obtain non-military nuclear technology. Given that the nuclear nations have done everything possible to deny Iran this technology, one could easily conclude that they are in breach of their obligations of the NPT, and therefore release Iran of any obligations. 3) Iran has allowed the IAEA into Iran for full inspections and has disclosed all operations. This disclosure may not have been as timely as desired, however given looming threats against Iran's nuclear facilities, as well as the complete lack of consequences for Israel, when it destroyed the Osirak plant, it is understandable why Iran would want to set its own timetables for disclosure. Again, given that Israel has nuclear weapons and the IAEA is completely unwelcome in Israel, it is quite hysterical, that they dare to complain about Iran not revealing the construction of the facility as soon as the IAEA would want. 4) Previously Iran was only able to enrich to 3.5%, and now they are looking to enrich to 20%. Weapons grade enrichment requires over 90%, so it seems quite feasible that this enrichment is for peaceful purposes, just as Iran claims. Incidentally, if you look at Canada's research reactors (such as Slowpoke 2, they produce 97% enriched uranium. 5) While options have been presented for other countries to supply Iran with the nuclear parts that they need, it denies Iran a chance to develop their own knowledge and expertise of nuclear technology, as well as makes Iran dependent on other nations, and given the amount of sanctions that have been levied at Iran, it is understandable as to why they may not with this dependency (for instance, the US restricts Iranian purchase of plane parts, which Iran cites as the reason for its frequent. plane crashes).

Well, you can play semantics all you like. But generally, when you ask if it is unsubstantiated, and then post a video with a 'source', it's more than reasonable to deduce that you were offering up this source, as proof of it being substantiated.

Watch the video. They don't have footage of Chavez stating this. All they have is Chavez speaking in the background, hoping to dupe non-Spanish speakers into thinking that he is discussing the US being responsible for the Earthquake. This could be a case study, on how biased Western media is against Hugo Chavez is and how stupid Westerners are to quickly believe every negative thing said against him. Here is what really happened: http://theantipress.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-over-ideological-delusion-hugo.html 1) An opinion post is made on an obscure government-affiliated site. 2) Spanish newspaper ABC makes a story stating that Chavez accuses the US of causing earthquake (with reference to VIVE) 3) The Western media all salivate over the story and publish it as fast as they can. 4) The anti-Chavez sheep quickly believe it as the truth and make internet posts about Chavez' latest claim. So, to answer your question, Yes, it is unsubstantiated. FFS, learn how to question the media, and read a little deeper. Did you also assume that Israel had was harvesting bodies for parts? Or did you stop and dig a little deeper?

The only way that Blair can even begin to justify his actions, are with some very generous and liberal comparisons. He is not comparing Iraq today to pre-sanctions Iraq. He is comparing Iraq to Iraq under sanctions, in which case it is better. Not because Saddam is gone, not because they privatized most national assets. not because of democracy and not because there is a de facto US leadership. Iraq is better today, because the sanctions were lifted and that's it.

Wow, tough one. I don't know what kind of defense I can come up with, to defend against unsubstantiated allegations by a Russian media source. Reliable outlets seem to suggest that this 'view' was put up on a website that is associated with the government and then quickly taken down. It's a pretty big stretch to suggest that Chavez claims that a US weapon test caused the earthquake. It's hardly a huge surprise that Western media is doing their best to spin this.

Strangely, in 2007, there were cries that Chavez was shutting RCTV down, and yet here we are again, with more cries of them being shut down. In 20078, I pointed out that they were not being shut down, they were simply not having their public license renewed, which meant they would have to go to private cable (which they did). Now, it is no secret that RCTV, like much of the private media owned by the rich is critical of Hugo Chavez. And, I have to concede that Chavez is not playing fair with RCTV. I am sure that if CBC decided to participate in an illegal coup and overthrow of the Canadian government, that we would not pull their public license, would continue to fund them and would not restrict them in any way. Because we all know that democracy means supporting businesses that actively engage in overthrowing the government. It's sad to see our Canadian representatives lining up to condemn this, when nary a word was said when the coup leaders had ousted Chavez. Yet, we pretend to be champions of democracy.

I would want to eliminate property tax. Obviously, this would mean a shift in taxation incomes from federal and provincial to municipal. I simply feel that once you have saved up and bought a home, you shouldn't have to worry about coming up with enough money to stay living there. That should be your home. Period. This exemption would only apply to the primary residence though. Unfortunately, debt repayment isn't a big winner at the polls. Lots of people like it, but few will vote for it. What they will vote for is people spending money on programs or infrastructure that helps them directly, and cutting taxes.

Just out of interest...since you seem to think that Obama was horridly irresponsible for creating a massive deficit and debt, do you feel the same way about what Stephen Harper did? Or is that different?