PocketRocket

Of course they will, but like the old saying goes; The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Unless I'm mistaken, KIMMY, the credits are not available to you or I. These credits are given to countries with low emmissions, who can then choose to trade/sell them with other nations who are not doing so well reducing emmissions. In other words, a 3rd-world country with little or no industrialization, and therefore little air pollution, could really clean up. Pardon the pun.

Once again, too much coffee has put me in a silly mood, so I just went looking for smartass remarks to which I could give smartass comebacks. Not until after compiling this did I realize all the posts belonged to LLL. Sorry LLL. I'm not deliberately singling you out. Just kind of happened this way. I don't believe this will ever happen again, but I can't be sure. I have no faith in this matter Nothing. It's not up to the nonbelievers to prove that God and Satan, exist . It's up to those who claim the existence of anything to prove it. But there's the rub. Where religion is involved, Faith is everything, proof is nothing. Ok then, if God is real but one's faith in him is an emotion, then Santa Claus is real too as one's faith in him is an emotion also. I believe in Santa Claus more then I believe in God. Do you have a problem with that? Santa's sole purpose in life is to help celebrate the birth of Christ. So I guess deep down inside, you DO believe. Congratulations. I knew you had it in you. So does Prozac. Yeah, but the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive these days. Religion is far cheaper, and there's no limit to the dosage size.

Until you realize that immigrants get the CPP too, and the average age of immigrants is really not that much different than the average age of Canadians. It's not like we're bringing in a lot of nineteen year olds, you know. I think that most immigrants would be a little below the typical baby boomer age. What you collect from CPP is based on how much you have put into CPP over your working lifetime, so, an immigrant would be contributing to the system, but would only collect based on his time in the Canadian workforce. Therefore, if he's older, he will collect less later, being that he's spent less time contributing. But many of these immigrants bring kids with them, an investment in the future. And let's face it, a lot of people immigratre because of deplorable conditions in their home country. Immigrants, especially from poorer countries, produce, on average, more kids per-capita than Canadians born and raised here. That's a large factor behind their wish to immigrate, to be able to raise a family in a peaceful and prosperous land. Any kids that they either bring with them, or give birth to here, end up contributing to the system at a later time. Win-win situation. At least in the short term. Long term??? Probably make little or no difference.

Back to the roots of the thread.....ie; terrorism during the relief efforts..... I heard on a radio show yesterday that the Tamil Tigers are apparently adopting/recruiting orphans of the disaster to be trained for their own campaign. I could see other groups following suit. Not necessarily using the relief efforts as cover and/or targets for attack, but using the orphaned and homeless as a resource to increase their forces.

The number of people who were on the "inside" when the war began, who came forward and pointed out discrepancies, is alarmingly huge. And each of these in turn has been discredited by a smear campaign, each in their turn, as they came forward. I've been saying since the war began that Iraq is a war based on lies, or at the very least, hypocrisy. Hypocrisy. To use the UN resolution as an excuse to invade, when that invasion is AGAINST the will of the UN, well, I guess when Bush said that the UN had become "irrelevant" he only meant the parts of the UN that were not convenient to his purposes. And yet, later on, he asks the UN for help making repairs in Iraq. I guess UN money and troops are not so "irrelevant" when Bush needs them. A hypocrite of the first order. GWB.

(Note: I left out the inevitable accussation of anti-semitism.) See how the argument used by #2 does not address any of the salient points made in #1? If #2 were to say "that's wrong. Israel has good reasons for all those things.", we'd have us a debate. But as it is, if you tried this in high school, you'd be booted off the debate team. Imagine if this argument was applied elsewhere. But this type of argument is indeed applied elsewhere. Every day. The most immediate example that comes to mind (and has been seen in this very website) is...... Pundit #1 : The abuses in AbuGahraib were a terrible and inexcusable. Pundit #2 : Yeah, but what the other guys are doing is worse. Or, another one from several American forum sites..... #1 : Bush lied about the reasons for going into Iraq #2 : Yeah, but Clinton lied about getting a blowjob from Monica Or even.... 1# : My thighs are getting fat 2# : Yeah but Betty's are simply HUGE, so you look good by comparison This tendency is hardly exclusive to the Israeli situation. I don't know if this syndrome even has a name, but it's pretty common in all aspects of life. If you can't justify something based on its own merits, then justify it by comparison with something worse.

When I was younger, I also had a personal discomfort level in the presence of gays. No good logical reason for it, probably just an offshoot of the old "homo" slurs that I grew up hearing in school. One notable event in my life changed that outlook. Long story short, after playing a gig in a bar, I got in a fight with this goof who was giving a waitress a hard time. I didn't do badly, and the cops took the jerk away, but I did end up with a rather bad cut on my cheek. While everyone else was milling around being typical bar morons and yapping about the fight, it was the gay short-order-chef who came out with a clean, damp cloth and a first-aid kit to tend my no-so-serious wound. Until that moment, I had held him in low esteem. After that day, we became friends, and through several discussions my opinions about gays changed. I have since become friends with several gays of both sexes, and find them to be some of the easiest people to talk to and be around. No tension, no competition, no pressure. I would have no problem sharing a foxhole or a barracks with gays. Anyone who would simply needs to be educated. After all, it's easy to hate a segregated group from afar, but it's hard to hate someone who's sitting in front of you having a reasonable coversation with you.

Bigger suitcases, of course

You make a good case for increased immigration.

But THELONIUS, it's a commonly known fact that you can't fire a rifle with a limp wrist And with those snappy salutes that the army has, hell, someone's wrist could totally disconnect from his/her arm, and go flying off and kill someone. No, they are right to keep gays out of the military. Everyone KNOWS that a gay can't drive a tank. And besides, those khakis are just so, so, so un-stylish. (I hope it's very obvious that this is sarcasm. I'd hate to have to turn around and try defend this load of bull)

I told you so I hope you're right, but I fear you're wrong. I guess I'm just an optomistic pessimist. But, in the words of Robert A Heinlein, "Optomists have a better time, but pessimists are right more often". I'm trying to enjoy the best of both worlds. Yes. You would too if you met my cat. BLACK DOG: Good post. Some great insight there. THELONIUSFLEABAG: Thanks for the compliment, but really, it was indeed a gross oversimplification, as pointed out quite accurately by AUGUST1991.

AUGUST1991: IOW I should research before asking silly, uninformed questions But, to paraphrase Homer Simpson; If it ain't easy, it ain't worth doing. BTW (that one I knew), regarding me being wrong in my summary of evolutionary theory, you are right, in part. I did stress that it was an over-simplification. You are right in saying that the species best suited to its environment would come out the evolutionary winner. My faster/smarter/stronger label was meant to apply to species who depend on both their brains and their physical ability to survive. This would be an apt desription of mankind, if we were still competing in a wilderness setting against both other species, and other members of our own. But yeah, if survival in a particular niche demanded being slow and dull-witted, well, then we'd all be three-toed-sloths

Now this I like. A non-religious debate about religion. Into the fray..... I imagine you'd have a hard time selling that theory to a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or just about any believer of any religion at all. But hey, you have the right to believe in whatever God, or lack thereof, that you wish. Here's the sticky point. There's no conclusive proof to support the existence of God, or gods. But, given the nature of the arguments FOR the existence of God, ie; He wants us to believe in Him based on our faith, not on concrete evidence. So, if He does exist, He would leave no conclusive proof of His existence laying about. And so, there is no conclusive proof AGAINST the existence of God. Make it kind of hard to argue for or against when there's no solid proof either way. So, I won't argue this point. The next part is the part I like..... This could be true, stipulated that humans will continue to evolve. Now, I may be taking liscence here, but I think a disbelief in any God, would require a devout belief in the evolution theory. That being stipulated, let's look at the human race from an evolutionary standpoint. Evolution theory demands hardship to help a species to develop. "Survival of the fittest" is what leads to favorable mutation, and thus to advancement of a species. The slow, stupid and weak get eaten by predators, the quick/smart/strong survive to pass on their genes. This is an oversimplification, but an apt description nonetheless. Competition is a prerequisite to evolution. But civilisation has eliminated competition as defined by evolutionary theory. We have created an environment in which the slow, the stupid, and the weak, are not eliminated by competion with the strong, fast and smart. So, the slow and stupid, being free to continue breeding, are not eliminated from the gene pool. They continue to interbreed with the fast and the smart, thereby diluting the favorable genes which would lead to physical and mental advancement. In fact, not only are the slow/stupid allowed to survive and breed, they are in fact coddled and protected by our welfare system. Often, not having to work to support themselves, they have more time to spend breeding. Incentives like baby bonus checques (or whatever they're called these days) encourage them to breed even more than the regular working folk, because these government-issued stipends are a substantial addition to their income, allowing them a more comfortable lifestyle. All over the world, this trend is advancing. There are still, of course, incredibly brilliant people being born every day. But these people are in the minority, as they always have been. Now, all that being said, religion is largely a matter of opinion. It is, or seems to be, your opinion that no God exists. I fully respect that. But opinions, like the proverbial a$$hole, are something that everyone has. And the opinion of an idiot will not be changed by the opinion of an intelligent man. This is especially true if the idiot has "faith", for after all, that's all you need to be a member of most religious groups. So, that was simply a long-winded way of saying that I disagree. I don't think religion will die off. As long as there are people, they will believe in God or gods. Pick your deity, there are plenty to go around.

That's a good one. Never heard it before. (Have you heard: Will, Chuck and Di?) Haven't heard that one, but I have a suspician as to where it leads. Fill me in, even if it's via PM. No apology necessary, at least not to me I don't know. I guess we'd have to ask Him. I'm reminded of the sketch from Monty Python's Meaning of Life (Don't just stand there gawkin', like you've never seen the 'and of God before) I know not of what you speak. Game Theory??? (What does "IOW" mean???) When I say "Will of God", I'm not sure exactly what I mean because I don't know the will of God. How's that for a completely vague answer??? I know, it's not an answer at all, but PocketRocket works in mysterious ways Swiss Army God. What??? No can opener??? Damn it, I'm hungry, and this is the last can of beans

Eye think eye have had too much coffee this morning. Eye always get a bit silly with my posts when eye do that. Seriously, eye-for-an-eye is something that is a bit barbaric and extreme, in my view. It is also irreversible. In the case of a wrongful conviction, like the case of Guy Paul Moran, this would not be a good thing. But I would push for more severe penalties in cases involving serious injury or death. I would also like to see the penal system re-introduce labour as part of the sentence. Hell, we could set up factories involving prisoners as the labour. It would help offset some of the cost of the penal system. Might even turn a profit, if run properly. In addition, it would tech a lesson to some of the convicts, ie; no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL

All this happy banter gives me a warm, moist feeling in my loins. Either that, or I "spelt" my coffee on my lap.

This already exists to a degree, although it is largely self-imposed and self-regulated. I recall a few years back where a (feminist???) group launched some complaints against women being used as "sex objects" in commercials. Please don't ask for exact details as in all honesty I don't really recall either who the group was, nor the specific ads they were targetting. But, if memory serves, it was started, or at least stoked, by a commercial wherein a bunch of workmen on the street would drop what they were doing and stare gape-jawed at this great-looking young woman who was walking by. She acknowledged their stares as though she approved of them. Even tossed a grin and gave an extra little wiggle as she walked by. This, and other commecials of a similar nature, caused a hue and cry about sexism in advertising. Most advertisers started self-editing as there was some product-boycotting going on as a result of the "scandal". But, a short time later, we started seeing similar commercials, only with a reverse spin. Now it was women (on a Coke commercial, I believe) who were staring open-mouthed at a guy working in the street who had taken his shirt off. Of course he was displaying the perfect abdominal six-pack, and perfect hair, along with sweaty pects and bulging bicepts. This was perfectly acceptable, and caused no reaction whatsoever. Why is that?? Is it only "sexist" when women are the target??? There are plenty of "image" commercials targetted at guys, too. "Grecian Formula" (Can't have any gray hair now, can we?) Various razors/shavers (Can't let anyone know we grow facial hair) "Hair Club for Men" (After all, if you're bald, you can't be much of a man) Not to mention "Axe" and other scents (Gotta smell like a man) In short, the "perfect image" thing works both ways. But women are targetted more, and seem to be more susceptible to this sort of "self image" advertising. Marketers will do whatever they can, within the bounds of the law, to sell their product, no matter whether it is a computer, or a cosmetic product. And as long as there is a willing market out there, it will continue. The only way to stop it is for the vast majority of women to simply stop buying these products. When that happens, we'll see an end to these ads. But it won't happen. Women are vain. So are men. Both aspire to be something better than they are, even if only in appearance and/or smell. It's called being human.

PATERIS has made a good point. If the interceptor missiles are launched from the USA at an incoming missile flying in over Canada, then it will intercept over our soil, possibly over inhabited areas. If the interceptor is launched from the far north, odds are it will intercept the incoming bogey either before it reaches our soil, or at least over some barren, uninhabited region. This is all assuming that the USA EVER gets the silly things to work. But there is another factor to consider; during the cold war, the main antagonist was the USSR. They would be likely to launch missiles over the pole to attack North America. The current "threats", as Bush likes to call them, are located farther south than the USSR was. When launching a ballistic missile, the established practice is to employ a targetting resolution that employs shortest distance to target. From the USSR, this would be over the polar ice cap. From Korea, that may not be the shortest point from A to B. From Iran, it definitely would not be. So the question becomes "Who is likely to fire a missile over the pole, and hence over our soil, to get at the USA"? I can't think of any offhand.

Realy??? Cool!!!! Where can I sign up???

While I am all for the legalization of marijuana, I cannot take seriously a party that takes their name from the drug. Without even reading their platform, I find myself forced to reject the party out of hand. The reason??? Simple. I would not vote for "The Beer Party" or "The Tequila Party" or "The Whiskey Party", if such parties existed. It simply sounds too much like a bunch of frat boys out for a good time. I realize this is a personal thing, but then again, don't we all vote based on our personal feelings and biases???

WILLY: With all due respects, I did not enter my initial comments in this thread with any intent to debate religion. I simply do NOT debate religion because such debate leads nowhere, and often ends with people getting upset. I will briefly answer your questions here, and then move on. You may have noticed that I have been very careful not to name any religions of which I disapprove, nor any religious leaders who I do not care for. The reason for this is the same reason I normally do not debate religion. I do not know. I thought I made that quite clear by repeatedly saying that I do not know the will, or the mind, of God. BTW, you don't know either, nor does anyone else. No offense intended by that remark. Whatever your beliefs may be, I respect them entirely, and hope that they bring you peace and comfort. Not knowing any details, I can make no comment on this. Probably wouldn't even if I knew more details. Organized religion does not have a monopoly on sharing His grace and mercy. Men of good will can do so without being directed by a particular religious affiliation. No problem. No offense taken, none intended. But??? BUT??? Oh-oh, there's a "but"!!! Please Lord, why is there always a "but"???? (Sorry, a late night, and too much coffee this morning make PR a silly boy) Good point. But (oh no, another "but") how do go about saying briefly that your personal religious beliefs were influenced by the Catholic church, the Baptists, United church, Robert A Heinlein, my Mom, a very good friend who is Islaamic, Shintoism, Buddhism, etc etc etc....and much introspection, while still giving reasonable credit to each as to it's individual influence??? We are all a product of the sum of our experiences. This also holds true outside of our religious beliefs. Oh boy, here comes the caffiene again. The "Holly" spirit??? No. I'm not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole. I think the word you wanted was "Holy". The divine trinity. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Or as the old joke goes, "Big Daddy, Junior, and Spook". Nowhere did I contest the notion that God plays such a role. Nowhere did I reaffirm that He does. I was very careful not to do so, and for a reason which I stated in the opening of this post. As for the rule book and players guide, well, if you speak of the Bible, then that's subject for another debate which I will not get drawn into here. I have seen too many threads in too many forums get out of hand over such contention, and will not be party to this. WILLY, my post was NOT meant to start a debate on the existence of God, His prophets, or His word. I thought that was pretty clear. I will NOT be drawn into a public debate on religion. If you want to discuss (not debate) further, I would be happy to do so via PM's, but (oh dear, "but" again) I would prefer not to carry this on further here. Nonetheless, I thank you for your interest and your replies. And, Happy New Year to you.

It's not???? Oh dear!!!!! So I guess all along I've been voting for nothing. Oh well, at least we get to elect them every now and then. But hey, we get to ridicule them, too. Comments like that in a thread which speculates about why there isn't more participation in forums. I think it just may be a clue.....

WILLY: Thanks for the response, but I believe you misinterpreted what I had to say. Actually, no. What I said, clearly and concisely was..... I think that was pretty clear. It says that I do NOT know the will, or the mind, of God, and that I acknowledge that fact. I don't see God as being an inconvenience. Do you??? I do, however, see some of His followers as people who sometimes cause inconvenience to others. Hmmm. I don't recall saying I have my own personal religion. Let me re-read my post.......nope. Never said that. No. We all have our own perception, and our own interpretation of any information that we see or hear. Just look around this very forum and you'll find proof of that. Again, I never said anything about a private religion. I said my beliefs and my practices are my own. To a certain extent, this can be said of anyone. I try to treat others as I would wish to be treated, so, as a basic guideline, The Golden Rule works fine for me. As for others, I cannot say.

Perhaps, but unlike many, I do not see forums as a place wherein I "win" or "lose" in debate. I view forums as a tool wherein people can discuss matters, hopefully in a rational manner, and so come to see viewpoints other than their own. Sometimes it becomes obvious that two people will NOT come to full agreement on a particular point. When that occurs, I choose to not drag it out, but rather to wrap it up gracefully, hopefully after coming to some sort of middle-ground compromise in principles. I see this in itself as an accomplishment as it leads to some understanding between the participants, even if that understanding is little more than a realization that you're speaking to someone who is reasonable. It was not meant as a defense. It was an acknowledgement of, and response to, an earlier statement made by another member in this thread. It was carefully worded to acknowledge that the USA is indeed one of the more "civilised" countries, but not the paragon of all that is virtuous that some take it to be. Again, I choose not to deal in absolutes. I don't think Bush is evil. Misguided, in a really BIG way, but not evil. In the same way, I do not believe that North Korea is evil. Nor is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. No, neither Bush nor any of his cabinet are "evil". However, I would not dispute the use of the word "idiots", in that they probably really, truly, believe that what they are doing is "the right thing". "Morons" would also be acceptable, IMHO. Man as an individual is capable of wonderful acts of altruism. Man as a group is capable of the most horrendous acts of violence. Boy oh boy, you got that right. You hit that one right out of the park. I cannot disagree with this, either. I will not enter into a debate on global warming in this thread. There is already another thread discussing this issue. But if we stipulate your point as being valid, then we can hardly say Bush is alone in this complicity. If you were a citizen of Kuwait in 1990, I am sure your opinion on this would be different.