G Huxley

I fundamentally disagree that faith and science are reconcilable. Scientific method is based on lack of faith. It sounds neat and politically correct to say that they can be reconciled, but they are two completely opposite philosophies. That isn't to say that religious people can't provide much to science. Quite the opposite, it just means that they don't apply science in all areas. This requires a certain degree of compartmentalization. I have a client who is like Ben Carson in that they are a creationist, religious fundamentalist neurosurgeon who denies evolution. The amount of compartmentalization that must take place is amazing. The amount of evidence showing the development of the human brain from a shared ancestor to the other primates is overwhelming. Simply one chooses to ignore a vast vast vast amount of information so that it doesn't cause a crisis of faith.

No.

"Layton, along with Prime Minister Harper and Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, initially opposed the inclusion of Green Party leader Elizabeth May in the leaders' televised debates.[88][89] Layton initially said that he was following the rules of the broadcast consortium, while NDP spokesman Brad Lavigne confirmed that Layton had refused to attend if May was present" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Layton

"give it a rest! If Harper refuses to appear in a debate, what sense does it make for anyone else to be there?" Because the debates aren't all about Harper they are about a democratic election process something the weasels Harper and Mulcair have been trying to prevent. If Harper doesn't want to show up to the debates like a little pouting child not wanting to participate in democracy then they should have just carried on the debates without him. Instead Mulcair went along with Harper and sidelined May. Layton had to backtrack on his trying to keep May out of the debates when the backlash including many from within his own party forced him to change his position. I remember I was one of the people posting on the NDP website asking him to stand up for democracy instead of trying to prevent it at the time.

Ben Carson is the best candidate the Rs have by far, a person with a lot of dedication, discipline, skill and brilliance, but he's nutty too. "Carson stated: "I don't believe in evolution...I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared."[65] In 2012, nearly 500 professors, students, and alumni of Emory University wrote a letter expressing concern about his views in advance of his commencement speech. They cited a quote in an interview with the Adventist Review: "By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior."

BC_Chick the government could tax weed like it taxes everything else sold via gst/pst or hst. However it shouldn't prevent people from growing their own.

But I'm not selling it on the market. I grow my food, eat my food, give it away, or trade it to others.

By going along with Harper's anti-democratic shenanigans. e.g. not participating in the consortium debates which now included May, and participating in Harper's other debates which aren't letting May participate. Originally under Layton they tried to keep the Greens from participating in the consortium debates and succeeded, but to their shock May won a seat without being in the debate. "I guess I just really want to see the day where I can vote for the party I want without feeling like I wasted my vote and the NDP is the only party that has even remotely brought up that possibility." The only time my vote ever counted was last provincial election here when my riding elected the first provincial Green MLA. It was like stepping into a parallel universe. I couldn't believe it.

I grow countless different types of plants in my garden all organic. Why should any of them be regulated?

If the government regulates cannabis, then the joints will all have a million chemicals in them like they do with tobacco.

"Agreed. That's why I don't like seeing the Greens bash the NDP in order to drain their support." What if the NDP just deserves it? e.g. by keeping the Greens out of the debates time and time again, which is much worse. Is removing Harper worth sacrificing Democracy to achieve it?

No one, but it follows the logic. If the tragedy was a Syrian refugee couldn't get in and this 'caused their death.' Then the only way to stop this in the future is to let in all of them.

The press and parties are hysterical over this. What's Canada going to do let in all the Syrian refugees and increase the population of the country by 50%? Maybe NATO shouldn't have f^cked up these countries in the first place. As Stalin said "you kill one it's a tragedy. You kill 10 million it's a statistic."

He's down to the people who would pull the c lever even if he told them to jump off a cliff.

Sego: "Why should I care about what your manager thinks? He sounds like he has no understanding of the science." My manager is the guy who ran a massive completely anti-organic agricultural operation. If he has no understanding of science as you claim then this goes against your own case. Regarding telling people that their food is doused with urine is false. You don't spray urine on the leaves like they do with pesticides. Urine and manure are often used as part of the soil that they grow in. It's how the eco-system works. Urine and manure can also be non organic btw, depending on what is fed into the animals that produce it.

Segnosaur what is wrong with urine? It's a natural source of nitrogen, like manure. I'll bet you're just shocked that vegetables grow in manure aren't you? Perhaps you'd prefer the vegetables grown on the massive agricultural farm grown in clay so concreted and hard that a tractor couldn't make a dent in it, that the only thing added to them for 30 years was massive amounts of pesticides that my own manager the person responsible for producing the food said that "he wouldn't that sh^t"?

No wonder Harper and Mulcair are quaking in their boots desperately doing everything to keep her out of the debates. http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/09/three-way-tie-as-voters-try-and-sort-out-who-can-solve-the-economy/

If he flatly openly rejected conservatism how come 50% of the party name he led for years included the word?

" According to Nobel prize winner Norman Borlaug, organic farming practices, if used exclusively, would allow ~4 billion people to be fed. There are now ~7 billion people on earth. That means rougly 3 billion people would starve. Now, in reality that wouldn't happen under a Green party government... after all, they'd only control a small fraction of the world's food supply. Still, it seems strange to champion a method of farming that would lead to widespread starvation." Hah don't be ridiculous. I've worked on a massive agricultural farm and organic. I'd never work on the former again.

Why do you think you would starve under the Greens Freddy?

I had to laugh today. I was reading Aldous Huxley's The Devils of Loudun and realized that the term neoconservative goes back at least to the early 1950s: "In Communist Russia, in Fascist Italy, in Nazi germany, the exploiters of humanity's fatal taste for herd-poison have followed an identical course. When in revolutionary opposition, they encouraged the mobs under their influence to become destructively violent. Later, when they had come to power, it was only in relation to foreigners and selected scapegoats that they permitted herd-intoxication to run its full course. having acquired a vested interest in the status quo, they now checked the descent into subhumanity at a point well this side of frenzy. For these neo-conservatives, mass-intoxication was chiefly valuable, henceforward, as a means for heightening their subjects' suggestibility and so rendering them more docile to the expressions of authoritarian will. Being in a crowd is the best known antidote to independent thought. hence the dictators' rooted objection to "mere psychology" and a private life. "intellectuals of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains." - Aldoux Huxley The Devils of Loudun Appendix p.368

A very reasonable approach.

A topical development today: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/02/ndp-riding-president-tossed-for-urging-voters-to-back-green-candidate

BC Chick well put. Regarding GMO. The problem with GMO in my opinion isn't so much that it's neccessarily unhealthy, it's that if GMO crops go wild then they will replace natural crops. Here's why I can't vote for the LPC, NDP, or CON. LPC signed Bill C-51. CON (well let's face it I never would have voted for them anyway + they authored C51) NDP continues to try to sideline the Greens from the debates as they did under Layton and Mulcair has been going along with Harper's anti-Democratic antics. They should take the word Democratic out of the name because at this point it's false advertising. And why I will vote Green: The environment is the single most important issue facing the planet right now. And it is far more important than greed.

Pretty much all of their policies actually. Shelling out for Big Oil, curtailing of civil rights, mass surveillance, Free Trade, denial of global warming, tax breaks for the rich, low regulation, bellicose rhetoric, attacking Middle Eastern Countries etc. Funny I get my posts deleted for using the word neocon yet no one touches your posts with the word 'bitch.' As for it being 'my topic,' I didn't even make this thread. Charles did by moving one of my posts here from support and adding a poll to it, nor did I make the thread in which this topic first appeared. Now that we are finally able to discuss the topic at hand: Clark was a conservative with a lower c too. How was he not a conservative?