Queenmandy85

During the Restoration, the rules of morality were pretty weak, yet that was the period that gave us the great advances in science, particularly in mathematics and physics.

Modern humans have been around for 200,000 years, and before that archaic humans (Neanderthals) appeared about 400,000 years ago.Religion became part of the human experience sometime during the Neanderthal period. So, in those hundreds of thousands of years, there have likely been thousands of religious faiths. The followers of each of those faiths knew that theirs was the one true faith. Out of all those religions, who are we to decide which is "the True Faith." I still don't know what Bishop Strickland's issue is. I have no clue what Athenaeus is. Not even Google knows. Zeitgeist seems reluctant to enlighten those of us who are not of the Roman persuasion. My sense of his Holiness is he is attempting to bring the Catholic faith closer to the teachings of Christ and tossing aside some of the teachings of a group of neolithic shepherds. The Roman Church changes very slowly. It took centuries to pardon Galileo and admit he was right and the doctrine he questioned was wrong.

I was not referring to the fall of women and men.I was referring to the fall of civilizations such as the Mediterranean empires including Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome were brought down at least twice due to volcanic events that disrupted the climate. If/ when our current global civilization falls, it will be due to either a sudden change in climate or the exhaustion of the fundemental resources on which our civilization depends (coal iron and petroleum.) Contrary to the myth that civilizations are brought down by immorality, some of the greatest leaps forward occurred during periods of hedonism. The Resoration period comes to mind. "After all it's not that awful. You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly." (Orson Welles as Harry Lyme in the great film The Third Man.)

The cause of the fall of most civilizations is a sudden change in climate, although the Bronze Age is open for debate. For the first time in human history, our civilization is global. It includes Asia, Europe the Americas and Africa.

I have to disagree. Ask your self what is the purpose of a bakery? It is not to bake bread. It is to make money. What is the purpose of an insurance company? It is not to provide financial protection. It is to make money. And so on. Now ask what is the purpose of government policy such as grants? It is not to pronmote diversity of social justice. It is to obtain support in the next election. The whole purpose of a democratic government is to give voters what they want in exchange for re-election. As for schools, if you believe students are influenced by teachers, you are naive and clearly do not recall what it was like as a student. ? The only students I remember holding a teacher in anything but contempt were the class sucks. Teachers are poorly informed. My grade four teacher had a picture of Abraham Lincoln in the class room and she said he was the greatest President we ever had. Even I knew he was an American. My grade 12 physicts teacher told us there were half a dozen dear Russian cosmonaughts orbiting the earth. Even I knew that was wrong and I was a mediocre student at best. I could go on. My point is teaching is a hard job, but teachers have been failed by the education system just like the rest of us.

It is clear you do not know the difference between transgender and crossdressing. Your issue seems to be confined to Male to Female transgender individuals but you have no issue with Female to Male transgender people. Why is that?

Are we talking about transgender men and women or crossdressers? Many transgender people are female to male. They seem to be overlooked by the bigot community. Most crossdressers are heterosexual. The ratio of gay and straight crossdressers is the same as in the population as a whole.

But it makes the consumer aware of the problem. That should lead people to look at alternative sources of energy such as uranium and, in the future, thorium. The problem is that we have a population unaware of the consequences of global warming. As the crisis really begins to materialize, probably within the next couple of centuries, we will be unable to stop it.

Why is a carbon tax worse than a tax on tobacco or alcohol? Burning fossil fuels, smoking tobacco and drinking beverage alcohol are all bad for you.

The Canadian government is already focused on helping Ukraine. We have provides arms and ammunition and money to buy more munitions that we cannot provide. Mr. Poilievre is inferring he will be able to do more, but short of tranferring the rest of the Canadian Forces equipment, I'm not sure what else he can do? I don't think he does either. But the point is, Mr. Poilievre is saying Canada is forcing a gas tax on the Ukraine. That is not true. Ergo, it is a lie. Going back over his past statements, there is a pattern of dishonesty. He is more interested in saying anything to get a vote than using his talant to improve the country. He bangs on about the gas tax, yet he knows that raising the tax would be more effective in giving consumers the incentive to reduce wasting fossil fuels. I will give him credit for promising to build nuclear power plants, but can I trust him to follow through? I have not made up my mind as to how I am going to vote, but Mr. Poilievre is going to have to convince me he has matured and will put the country ahead of his own ambition. He has a lot to prove.

The Ukraine already has a carbon tax. It is a requirement for entry into the EU. That is part of the public record. Mr. Poilievre should know that already. By attacking the Ukrainian free trade deal on this sperious point, he is being dishonest. He is placing his own political ambition above the needs of both Canadians and Ukrainians. There again, he is saying that Canada is not already suppling munitions to Ukraine to the best of our ability. That is untrue.

I have been spending the last few weeks deciding how I will vote in the next federal election. I have been seriously considering voting for the CPC and Pierre Poilievre so I've been doing some research into the leader. Mr. Poilievre is clearly a gifted campaigner. In every federal election, he has carried his riding with a majority. That is quite a feat. Were he not in politics, he would no doubt be a successful stand-up comedian. President Carter was also an impressive campaigner but a less than impressive President. Campaigning is very different from governing. In considering Mr. Poilievre, I base my decision on his own words and actions. Pierre Poilievre was President of the Progressive Conservative club on Campus at the University of Calgary. I was Vice- President of the Progressive Conservative Student Federation at U-Vic so I can relate to that experience. My feeling is that Pierre never matured beyond campus politics. He has been laser focused on his ambition to be Prime Minister. My first reservation is that he has a difficult relationship with the truth. His recent attack on the Ukraine free trade agreement as an example. More damaging in my eyes is his persistant lack of judgement. In his youth, he backed Stockwell Day, a man who claimed the world was only 6000 years old and demonstrated through his actions that he was not very bright. Yet, Pierre thought he was worth supporting. Okay, that was a youthful error in judgement. However, as an adult, an MP in the CPC caucus, at the very time his leader, Prime Minister Harper, was delivering an apology for the First Nations residential scool system, Pierre was speaking out on radio undercutting the Prime Minister, and had to apologize the next day for "remarks that were hurtful and wrong." (Hansard). When he was a cabinet minister, he violated Campaign Finance Law by wearing a CPC logo when announcing a child benifit program and saying the the benifit was from the "Conservative" government. He has made several bonehead promises about supporting bitcoin and politically interferring in the Bank of Canada, even firing the Governor. He is advocating converting 37000 government office buildings into residential housing with no thought about the cost of the renovations or where he will find the trades people. His promises contradict each other. On the one hand, he speaks of cutting "red tape", yet on the other hand he talks about accountability. Cutting red tape is fertalizer for the growth of corruption and fraud. Regulations exist to protect the consumer and the taxpayer. He indicates he would lower inflation, but at the same time he says he would lower interest rates. That is contradiction. He talks about cutting spending, yet so many of his promises will cost even more money. While I acknowledge his skill as a campaigner, his animosity towards the people he needs to report favourably, the media, seems to me to be counter intuitive. Politics is the art of accumulating support. Picking fights is the opposite. Of course, Pierre is on the cusp of being appointed Prime Minister and I am not. But I have to decide if he will get there on my vote. My ballot is very precious to me and I refuse to spend it frivolously. Hopefully, I will have another 22 months to decide.

I guess my point is there is a process outlined in the Constitution for appointments to the Court, the Governor General and the Senate. I believe if we followed the Constitution and removed the Ministry from the process, it would remove any hint of politisizing these institutions.

One way to improve the selection of Judges and Senators is to revove the politicians from the equation. The Constitution provides for a clear simple solution to making appointments. If we followed that process and side lined the politicians, there would be no cause for complaint. Canadian judges are supposed to be above politics, and for the most part that has been the case. As for the Bissonnette case, I can't see what the problem is. He was convicted and is serving a life sentence without possiblity of parole for 25 years, as mandated by Parliament. The purpose of incarceration is to separate the individual from the opportunity to re-offend until such time as they are rehabilitated. It is not designed to be a tool for punishment. Punishment resides exclusively in the hands of God. That is the case for Bissonnette, Bernardo and for all of us. "Let (s)he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Replacing the BNA Act with the Canada Act was totally unnecessary and detrimental the constitutional process. It was the Canada Act that moved the power from Parliament to the courts. It is a cash cow for the legal profession. That being said, the decisions of the Supreme Court generally are based on law and tend to reflect the sentiments of the people. Abortion is an issue that reflects the fact that a large majority of people support a woman's rights. The Court is bound by the Charter. The Charter is intended to protect a person's rights. As a Conservative, I believe rights need to be balanced with responsibilities and duty.

Are you saying that Canadian laws must be approved by the King of New Zealand? Our King's role as the King of Canada is totally separate from his role as the King of Australia or the King od England. As far as Canada is concerned, he is our King. He is a Canadian citizen. He is the personifacation of Canada. Sorry for the thread drift.

I Know...I know...✋ ? She represents King Charles III, the King of Canada, a Canadian. We are no more ruled by the King of the UK than we are ruled by the King of New Zealand or the King of Australia. You should be familiar with the Statute of Westminster. That is why we celebrate Canada's independence day on Dec. 11th. (Well I do anyway.)

You are in error. Britain has no say in Canadian laws. It is the King of Canada that must approve our laws.

My favourite story was the close relationship between President Kennedy and Senator Goldwater. Both men suffered from Addison's disease and they took their treatments together at the Whitehouse. Since both were planning to run for President in 1964, they came up with a plan to share a campaign plane and tour together as they campaigned.

I stand corrected. I think I could add President Reagan to your list and maybe FDR.

Disclaimer, I am not that well versed on US history. He pulled the US troops out of Viet Nam which led to the end of the war. President Johnson wanted out of Viet Nam but it took Nixon to accomplish it. (Reference the recordings broadcast in Ken Burns documentary series on the war.) In your reference to Kent State, are you suggesting the President ordered the National Guard to open fire? If that is the case, it is news to me. He did work to improve relations with the USSR and Red China. He streamlined the Cabinet. I suspect the root cause of the Watergate burglary came from his experience with the 1960 election with the allegations of ballot irregularities in Chicago that cost him the election against JFK. He lacked self confidence and could not believe the strength of his support. President Nixon was not a nice man. Off the top of my head, I would say the only POTUS who was a nice person is President Carter. One out of 46 tells you something.

The popularity of President Nixon it the 1972 election was impressive. Had he ignored the Democrats and fired John Mitchell, he would have gone down in history as the greatest American President in the twentieth century. His accomplishments were incredible. His single major failure was Watergate, and that was a tragedy. "The evil men do lives after them. The good is oft' interred with their bones. So let it be with Caesar."

Procurement for a conventional war in Europe such as the F-35, is not practical, in my opinion. We are preparing for a conventional war with Russia. Russian military doctrine is the same as it was in the USSR. It is simple. Open up with a massive air and artillery bombardment. Russian strategic planning does not differentiate between conventional and nuclear munitions. A war between NATO and Russia will be nuclear. Canadian defence policy needs to plan for that. Rather than spend money on a major conventional war, we should be building and deploying ICBM's. Once deployed, we let it be known that any violation of NATO territory will be answered by Canada with total destruction of the invader. More importantly, we define our borders, including the Arctic. If any country disputes our territorial claims, we politely advise them to suck it up. These are the borders we will defend. We will destroy any nation that violates our territorial integrity. Mutual assured destruction = deterrence. The real travesty is the treatment of service members in retirement. This is a tragedy going back to the Great War and, for reasons I cannot explain, no government has been able to solve it.

I was mis-informed. Who am I to argue with the Bank of Nova Scotia. Sorry it took me so long to apologize.

Voters like it when governments spend other peoples money on them. They don't care about corruption or ethics. Just give'm the money. Taxme, if Trudeau was a dictator, rather than give workers CERB to stay home, he would have welded their apartment doors shut. We had a disturbance in Ottawa a couple of years ago. When the police finally removed the people after four weeks, nobody got killed, and not many were arrested. In a dictatorship, the downtown area would have been sealed off by tanks and snipers within a couple of days and they would have opened fire. The survivors would have disappeared except for the leaders who would have had a quick show trial and then executed. That is how a communist dictatorship works. When Castro took office, the news every day was of how many people were executed by firing squad that day. Let us be so grateful that we only have petty little irritations with our government. Now, I really need to stop before I embarass myself any further. Have a great rest of your day, one and all.?