kimmy

This is probably the first worthwhile thing MikeDavid00 has ever posted here. It sums up why many of us believe in a "melting pot" concept rather than a "mosaic" concept. -k

Once again, the claim is not that OBL determined the outcome of the election. The claim I made earlier is that it was his *intent* to influence the outcome of the election. (like, duh. Was the timing and subject matter some kind of random coincidence?) And you reopened this by once again claiming that OBL was already old news by 2004. (suuure.) Ohio had 20 electoral college votes and was decided by a margin of 2.11%. If those 20 electoral college votes had gone to Kerry, then Kerry would have won by 271 to 266. It's not far fetched to think that 1 in 50 voters might have changed their mind following the video. The Newsweek poll shows 2 in 50 did so. -k

Growing up, I had one privilege that sadly not every Canadian child has: competent parenting. I think it's the most significant factor in determining how successful a child will be in life. Sadly, it's also something that would be pretty hard for the state to make sure that kids have. -k

Neither yourself nor Dick have ever addressed the 6 point swing in Bush's favor from the last poll before the video to the first poll after the video. (hmm. What was Bush's margin of victory, again?) I never claimed it wasn't "fair and square". Voters are entitled to consider the news of the day when the cast the ballot. Whether it be more threats from a camel-herder in a cave or the RCMP investigation of a morbidly obese finance minister. But this repeated claim that Americans did not care about OBL by 2004 is pure revisionism. -k

Are the natives really the Great Custodians of Nature? Is it genetics? It is it traditional wisdom that has been passed down from ancient times? If it is the latter, then genetics seems to be a poor method of determining who has obtained this traditional knowledge. It is also debatable how much of this traditional is applicable when modern factors have created situations that never existed before. Traditional native fishing was not done with motorized vessels and huge gill-nets, for instance. What happened when the Supreme Court decided that the west coast tribes could have their own commercial fishery? It didn't work out very well for the fish... and it resulted in situations where non-native commercial fishermen weren't allowed to fish for conservation reasons while native commercial fishermen continued. Is that the sort of model we want applied to other resources? Doesn't Article 26 of the declaration state that indigenous people should total, unfettered control of developing commercial industries in regard to sea, land, air, and all the plants and animals living there? Wouldn't that specifically preclude any sort of environmental or conservation measures the government might try to apply? Is this really a good idea? -k

The significant problem with Intelligent Design is that there's no observable evidence of this supposed intelligent creator, no observable evidence of his actions or inputs anywhere into the process of creation. By contrast, the state's existence is easy to prove. "Intelligent State" may be somewhat debatable, but surely nobody disputes that such an entity exists, and that its actions have an impact on the economy. Even in an ideal free market, the state has a significant effect on the economy: it is among the largest employers and largest consumers (rivaled perhaps only by the largest of private corporations) as well as regulating monetary policies and tax policies. In an economy such as Canada or the United States, the government's footprints become even larger: there are subsidies to industries, business incentives or preferential taxation to stimulate business, transfer payments to individuals, purchasing of products such as education or healthcare services, and so on. The attempt to equate "Intelligent Design creation" with "Intelligent State economy" fails because the state's actions are easy to identify and prove. -k

While that may be the case at the moment, it was certainly not the case in November 2004, which is what we were discussing. You're probably the only person on the planet who doesn't think the Bin Laden 2004 tape had an impact on the 2004 presidential election. I doubt you can even keep a straight face when you're typing that. There's no evidence that the US ever worked directly with Bin Laden. US support for the anti-Soviet groups in Afghanistan was funnelled through Pakistan. Nor is there any record of him ever having spoken English: ...and no reason for him to, really. -k

Ok, I have read the declaration and am not sorry at all that Canada is opposing this. I see Articles 25 and 26 as an open invitation to a billion lawsuits and court cases. I see Article 27 as opening a Pandora's Box that could wind up making Slavery Reparations in the US seem like a tame issue in comparison. (and cheap to settle by comparison.) And I see Article 35 as a legal defense strategy the next time the Mohawk Warriors get busted smuggling cheap American guns and cigarettes into Canada. Let's discuss! Read the Declaration for yourself at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/G06...pdf?OpenElement -k

I'm still reading over the actual declaration, so I have not yet decided whether there's no effect on Canada. My claim isn't that there's no effect on Canada, just that Canada's natives already enjoy all of the benefits that the declaration's supporters claim. Canadian natives already enjoy the benefits claimed in the declaration, but I have little doubt that Canadian natives would try to use the UN declaration to strengthen whichever claim, lawsuit, or shakedown they next embark upon. And, as Leafless points out, this is supposedly legally non-binding anyway... so how is it really going to help indigenous people in countries where indigenous people are in real danger? -k

The CIA go to painstaking effort to create this sophisticated fake... but forget to digitally turn his beard grey? Why would he color his beard? Maybe they were hoping it would hide how old and feeble he is looking. Would they create a fake video to try and convince internet conspiracy buffs? I doubt it. These people are clearly beyond convincing. The generally blase response to the video does suggest that Osama's no longer the big deal he was a few years ago, though. People are like "yeah, whatever. Go back to your cave, old man." -k

In an effort to find out what all the fuss is about, I thought I'd have a look and see what this Declaration is actually about. From one of its proponents: (Amnesty International) Canadian aboriginals already have all of that. Huge areas of land set aside for the exclusive use of a small portion of the population, with a legal claims process under which they at some point or other will probably lay claim to every square centimeter of Canada's land mass. Protection from discrimination and genocide are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is their right to preserve their culture and traditions (which they do with considerable financial assistance from the public at large.) They have their own governments, and now even their own police forces in some instances. How is Canada's refusal to participate in this exercise depriving Canadian natives of anything, when Canadian natives have these rights and have had them for many years? I think that what Canada's refusal to participate in this dialog deprives us of will be the spectacle of Ovide Mercredi standing in front of a UN Human Rights Tribunal claiming that the White Man is stealing his peoples' skies by broadcasting radio-waves through native lands. -k

Good. They increase tax revenues while increasing productivity and growth. Why not? Please help me out. All of this seems rather contradictory to me. How do trusts provide higher revenue to the government? If trusts actually result in more taxes, then why do companies convert to trusts? Surely they would do their homework pretty carefully and not do something that would result in them paying more taxes? Likewise, why would the government be so concerned about income trusts as to actually break their election promise, if trusts actually produce more revenue? I'm so confused. -k

They were apprehended with 700kg of kosher bagels and blintzes. -k

None of them have yet been observed tapping their feet in bathroom stalls. -k

True. This, I'm not sure of.Even if they had the option of participating in some sort of legal program, it seems likely to me that they'd be taking a pay cut to do so. I suspect that weighing the morality of morphine for African hospitals vs heroin for UK and US junkies is a rather abstract concept for an Afghan farmer who just wants to feed his own family. I also suspect that the farmers' personal safety might be at risk if they participated in a "Poppies For Medicine" program. -k

Why cut your profit margins when it's so much cheaper to just firebomb competing business ventures? -k {I'm revoking your patch, Road Dawg. git back on yer mo-ped and make me some money. }

While I agree that the current policy is not working, I think this proposal sounds naive. I just can't get with the idea that poor farmers will participate in a quota system to sell their poppy harvest for legitimate medical uses, when selling to drug producers will bring them higher prices without the hassle of quotas. As for regulation of marijuana in the same category as alcohol and tobacco, I'm all for it. I doubt the Hell's Angels would ever let that happen, though. -k {addendum: I voted Green in the past 2 federal elections. I don't anticipate doing so again. Jim Harris talked about something I believe: people will pollute less if polluting costs money, and behave in a more environmentally friendly manner if doing so makes financial sense. I thought that was worth a vote, especially in my riding where the Conservative candidate had a five-digit margin over his next closest opponent.}

Two more words: 700 kilograms. They were planning on... bleaching a lot of hair? Treating a lot of cuts and scrapes? -k

I'm surprised that neither of you can grasp that this is exactly what I find most troubling about this. Neither of you seem willing to address the simple question I keep asking: what if a policeman proceeded exactly the same way with a suspect who was innocent? Answer that question honestly, and you'll see why I find this upsetting. So, where are the checks and balances in this instance? While he initially tried to "do you know who I am?" his way out of the situation, it was clearly not what dissuaded him from calling a lawyer once it became obvious that the officer was unimpressed by his status. Clearly the senator was persuaded not to call his lawyer by the belief that just rolling over would make things go easier for him. And the officer was certainly encouraging that belief. They've created a situation where the accusation is more damaging than the punishment, disputing the charge is more costly than accepting the consequences. Calling your lawyer would cost you more money than paying the fine. Denying the charge would draw more attention to the accusation than simply agreeing to the officer's account of events. Under these circumstances, why wouldn't someone, even someone innocent of the charges, roll over? -k

I frankly don't care much if the officer followed the letter of the Miranda rules. He could have informed him of his right to counsel 50 times and it wouldn't make any difference, if it was done in the same "carrot and stick" manner evident in the transcript. Do you disagree that there's an implied threat raised repeatedly in the transcript? Cooperate with me and this will be resolved quietly, but call a lawyer and people will find out. Agree to my account of events and this will go quietly, but dispute my recollection of events, and people are going to find out. Do you disagree that the officer could make this accusation against anybody he felt like and have a good chance of leveraging fear of public humiliation into a guilty plea? -k

Those goalposts just keep moving, don't they. Considering how many times in this thread you've already revised your own claims regarding Harper never being more popular than Martin, you should rethink calling others revisionists. So the news of the RCMP investigation beginning Dec 27th harpooned the last shreds of Martin's believability. Your point? That doesn't actually dispute what I've said. There was undeniably a shift of popular approval from Martin to Harper during the campaign, and if the RCMP investigation was a factor in that, then so be it. I think your own poll (showing Harper at 24% on December 6, 2005, when we all recall that earlier in 2005 he was well below that level, down in the teens just barely ahead of Duceppe) supports the other part of my claim. And I think the fact that Harper continues to enjoy a higher level of popularity than his rivals further supports the claim that he has to some degree won some approval from Canadians, and that it not just result of an RCMP investigation that was launched almost 2 years ago against a different opponent. (unless Stephane Dion has been investigated by the RCMP recently?) Ok. You object to the word "scary". Fine. Would it instead be fair to say that you think people should be "fearful" or "frightened" of what Harper would do if he obtains a majority? "Anxious"? "Worried"? "Panicked"? ...because once he attains a majority he'll rip off his latex mask, reveal himself to be Dick Cheney, and proceed to "Destroy the Country"? -k

Your Dec 6 poll shows Harper at 24%... I am sure that polls from earlier in 2005 had him in the low teens, so yes, I think his support increased considerably even prior to the election. It didn't happen all at once, and contrary to what Liberal revisionists wish to think, it didn't just happen after Ralph got investigated by the RCMP either. Obviously that hurt the Liberals, but as the cumulative poll results graph I posted shows, the shift in support was already well underway by that point. The Liberals had ceded the floor to the Conservatives, deciding to essentially take an early, extended Christmas Festivus holiday. Liberals whining that the RCMP cost them the election has to be one of the most tiring things to come out of the 2006 election. Because they're scary scary?Actions speak louder than words, and their actions show them to be of a rather "red Tory" bent. As it has achieved more mainstream status, more moderate candidates have been drawn to the party and more hardline viewpoints have been pushed to the margins. Harper has shown he is willing to temper his beliefs with pragmatism. He softens his stance right now because he hopes to attain a majority. If he attains a majority he will continue to moderate his party because he wants the party to continue to be a viable, main-stream political force in this country. -k

I am planning a trip to Bountiful with some steel-toed boots and a baseball-bat with a nail in it. -k

That was what I was getting at, Captain Obvious. Countries who do not wish to dispose of nuclear waste should find some other means of generating electricity. -k

How sad to see some people turn good-natured nose-tweaking into a bunch of pedantic drivel. -k