kimmy

Some Americans might be a little puzzled or amused at how intensely many Canadians are following the election. It is true that it's partly a matter of self-interest, but it goes beyond that. We're immersed in American media as if it were our own, so that plays a role too. For me, and for a lot of Canadians, there's a direct connection. My best friend is an American; she's asleep on my couch right now. I have many American "online friends" that I correspond with regularly. I used to do technical support for Microsoft at a call-center in Edmonton; I spent all day on the phone talking to Americans. Most were pleasant even when they were cranky that their computers weren't working. When my dad's family arrived in the new world, they settled in Minnesota, and I probably still have distant relatives there. Some Canadians bristle when they hear Americans describe the United States as "the greatest country on earth". But they have as strong a claim to that title as anybody, and stronger than most. Americans have been among the leading contributors to every field of human achievement in the past couple of centuries. American ideas about freedom and justice have been a model that much of the world looks up to. American innovation and generosity have improved the quality of life for people around the globe. I think that many Canadians think of America as a close family member, an older sibling that we look up to. And I think that the interest many Canadians have in this election is more than "armchair quarterbacking", it's genuine passion borne of the concern that comes from the feeling of family we have for America. -k

I think a lot of members here will be watching the results on Tuesday night. Let's meet in the chat-room and discuss the results as they happen! Word on the street is that the chat-room limit has been increased, so there will be room for everybody! -k

So it sounds like Republicans are already picking scapegoats: Hurricane Sandy and Governor Christie. -k

I took the plunge. I figured that I'm going to end up in Windows 8 eventually, so might as well do it now whle the cheap introductory price is available. So far my reaction is "meh". I haven't spent much time with the new "start" page. The first thing I do each time I log in is click the Desktop button anyway, after which the operation is just like Windows 7. Right now I find it a little annoying to have to hunt around to figure out how to do the stuff that used to be available from the Start orb. However, I think it'll be fine once I get used to the new system. I have so far not done anything to customize the start page, which will also enhance my enjoyment of the system. For now, my only complaints fall into the "how do I... where'd they put the..." type confusion that comes with adapting to the new interface. Everything works extremely well. I have had no hardware or software issues at all. Everything I use is working perfectly with the new system. And I also have to say that this was the fastest and most trouble-free operating system upgrade I have ever done. It seems like Microsoft has really done their homework to make this work well. Overall, nothing here has blown me away yet, but the change from Win 7 to Win 8 was so smooth and seamless that I don't regret doing it at all, especially at the introductory price. -k

Certainly. The ads are intentionally misleading consumers about Chrysler's business practices. And financial damage in the form of lost sales is a likely result. Additional damage in the form of damage to their reputation is also an obvious effect of these ads. As far as I can tell this has the makings of a slam-dunk libel lawsuit. However, I don't think Chrysler would sue Romney. It would piss off a lot of potential customers. Also, if he's president after Tuesday, suing the president is probably a bad idea. -k -k

I think that if one of Chrysler's competitors ran ads making the claims Romney is making, Chrysler would sue for libel, and they'd have a slam-dunk case. -k

He may have been facetious over the idea that there should be a federal investigation, but he's pretty clearly butthurt over "the humiliation" Hollywood has caused Christians. -k

Just to be clear, that story was posted this week by a popular atheist blogger who is involved with the Secular Students Alliance. There was no particular digging that needed to be done. He's posted a lot of similar stories over the past year. Agreed with all of this. A few years ago in Canada, when The Western Standard decided to publish the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there were some Christian and Jewish leaders who got together to jointly denounce the mockery of all religion. Just a few weeks ago Todd Starnes from Fox News was asking why the creators of South Park aren't being investigated for blasphemy. I think that many religious people of all stripes would *like* to stop criticism of religions, but I also think that most who have grown up in our western society understand why it *can't* be made illegal. -k

WorldNet Daily are insane. Bryan Fischer is a fanatic. Michael Hardner is justifiably skeptical of them. Some time ago there was a thread about hate-crimes, and the infamous Lictor asked why the murder by dragging of James Byrd by white thugs was a heinous crime that received international news coverage, but a very similar murder of a white woman by a black thug received no coverage at all. The only cites that Lictor could come up with to show that the crime had even happened came from white supremacist websites, so obviously people were skeptical. Except, the murder did happen: after considerable search, I found reference to the murder in a scholarly paper by a legitimate college professor... yet the only media sources that talked about the story were white supremacist sites. They weren't lying, they were talking about an incident that mainstream media didn't want to talk about. So... while people like WND are not trustworthy, that doesn't mean they should be dismissed out of hand. They conducted a poll to ask a question that most mainstream media sources wouldn't want to ask. Maybe it was a "push poll" or leading preamble was read to the respondents prior to the questions to steer things in the direction that the people who commissioned the poll wanted. Or maybe it was completely legitimate. I can't comment at all on the reputation of Wenzel Strategies. It could be that these results are entirely accurate. If they are, would it be that surprising? I wouldn't be surprised. A lot of Muslims are immigrants or were raised by immigrants. A lot of Muslims attend mosques where the leaders are immigrants. In short, a lot of Muslims are not far removed from situations where criticism of Islam was considered unthinkable. I think that a lot of Muslims have just not yet become accustomed to our plural western democratic way of life. -k

It's the stone cold truth. You'd realize as much if your head wasn't jammed so far up your "No Spin Zone". June 13, 2011 debate moderated by John King: Once again, Shady, you've managed to end up smelling like the mens' washroom after All-You-Can-Eat Wing Nite at Chuck's Grill. -k

Perhaps it was created across the road. They're only talking about the protein that makes egg-shells hard. Eggs came along far before chickens or any other species of bird. Dinosaurs were hatching from soft-shelled eggs eons before birds even existed. That's common knowledge, even for you. Genesis also says that plants came before the sun and stars, so clearly it is not a reliable source of information. Ok. Here's University of Minnesota evolutionary biology professor P.Z. Myers discussing the "chicken or egg" article. He says it's a bad article that doesn't accurately reflect the science being discussed: -k

I was thinking the same thing. Both of those guys polled really high... until Canadians actually saw them in action. I don't think this is any reflection on Justin Trudeau... I think it's more a reflection that Canadians are generally speaking pretty open to the idea of somebody other than Harper. Trudeau is new, he's young, people don't really know anything about him other than that he's Pierre's son. Whether people are as enchanted with him by the time the next election rolls around remains to be seen. I also don't think Justin Trudeau is going to steal many votes away from the Conservatives. He'll steal a *lot* of votes away from the NDP. -k

haha, of course not. He had his campaign issue a statement. If Mitt is worried that his position is unpopular, he lies about his position then has his people "clarify" his position later on. It's like the time he said at the first debate that he had a healthcare plan that protected people with pre-existing conditions, but had his spokesman go on cable news the next day to explain that the plan doesn't protect people with pre-existing conditions. Or how Mitt says that overturning Roe vs Wade is a personal priority for him, yet his Ohio campaign director is telling voters that Roe vs Wade is not going to be overturned. -k

Yesterday Mitt was in favor of eliminating FEMA. Today he's in favor of keeping it. #RomneyDirectional -k

It's stupid when Pat Robertson says it, it's stupid when some dumb-ass Muslim says it, it's stupid when Michele Bachmann says it, and it's stupid when any other nut-job says it. I'm all in favor of letting these chumps keep talking so that the rest of us will have something to laugh about. The best way for people to see what a bunch of idiots they are is to let them be themselves and say what's on their mind. -k

oh, I'm sure that the new Star Wars movie(s) will earn vast sums of money-- hell, I'll probably pay to see them myself. But trying to recreate Han Solo with another actor is just not going to work. In my opinion. I mean, you can keep re-casting Batman over and over, because the character is much bigger than the actor playing him. But Han Solo *is* Harrison Ford. The character is irrevocably linked with the actor. Maybe you could say that the idea of anybody other than Sean Connery being James Bond was unthinkable at some point as well, but "he's not Sean Connery" was (and still is) a criticism raised against every actor who has played the role since. -k

I addressed your message. I'm sure you just missed it. I'll repost: This chicken "revelation" is just another typical example of Betsy's general mode of operation. Take a scientific statement that she doesn't even actually understand, and proclaim that it supports the Bible as a factual source of scientific knowledge. UK scientists: Ovocleidin-17 is key to crack chicken-egg riddle They protein they're discussing is the one that gives chickens the ability to form calcium carbonate into the crystals that form hard-shelled eggs. The first hard-shelled chicken-egg was laid by a chicken that wasn't born from a hard-shelled egg. But where did that chicken come from?! Betsy's answer is, one assumes, that God must have created it as an adult creature from the dust of the earth. A biologist will tell you that it hatched from a soft-shelled egg. Not actually anything to support a Biblical account of creation here. -k

Except none of them have ever suggested that any American jobs would be lost, so the whole premise that they're changing plans because of "backlash" is a load of bullmitt. -k

I'd be much more interested in seeing a Star Wars series set in the "Old Republic" era than one set after Return of the Jedi. The only Star Wars books I've read were the "Heir to the Empire" series, set in the "New Republic", and they were ok. But I loved the "Old Republic" video games, and I gather there's a whole lot of pre-history to the Star Wars universe that they could turn into a movie series. It's a huge mythos, there's no end of possibilities. I think that trying to cast a new Han Solo is a disastrously bad idea that would only end in shame and failure for everyone involved. -k

I have to point out that Betsy started this thread, not atheists. Betsy started this thread to publicize her loony belief that the Bible is a science book and present her ridiculous "facts", and of course people responded. As for talking about the Bible, I think that people should consider the whole thing when they're trying to decide whether it's an awesome source of wisdom. The whole thing, not just the sanitized little book the Gideons like to hand out. Because if you're not talking about the slaughter and genocide and raping and murdering and incest and slaves and chopping people's foreskins off and all that other Biblical stuff, you're just not looking at the whole picture. -k

So we're supposed to believe that Chrysler had *secret* plans to move American jobs to China but they scrapped the plan because Mitt Romney outted them? We're supposed to take the word of a proven liar in the middle of an election, over the word of the company that has recently spent billions of dollars retooling those plants that we're supposed to believe are going to get shut down? Riiiight. -k

I would say more like satire of some of the Christians here... Oh, btw: here's my post from back in May about this guy, which was actually just one of four astounding incidents involving North Carolina pastors that month. -k

Come on, Scribblett, that is just pathetic. Nobody here is stupid enough to believe Romney is running these ads for any reason other to try to deceive voters into thinking Jeep is sending American jobs to China. Pretending you think otherwise is beneath you. -k

This chicken "revelation" is just another typical example of Betsy's general mode of operation. Take a scientific statement that she doesn't even actually understand, and proclaim that it supports the Bible as a factual source of scientific knowledge. UK scientists: Ovocleidin-17 is key to crack chicken-egg riddle They protein they're discussing is the one that gives chickens the ability to form calcium carbonate into the crystals that form hard-shelled eggs. The first hard-shelled chicken-egg was laid by a chicken that wasn't born from a hard-shelled egg. But where did that chicken come from?! Betsy's answer is, one assumes, that God must have created it as an adult creature from the dust of the earth. A biologist will tell you that it hatched from a soft-shelled egg. Not actually anything to support a Biblical account of creation here. -k

OH YA well Muslims say that homos should be put to death but I don't see any threads criticizing them so why are we just talking about Christians this is so typical of you anti-Christian bigots you are all Muslim-loving Christian haters!!! !!!!! Still waiting to hear Michele Bachmann's theory on what caused Hurricane Sandy; should be fascinating. -k