Leaders debate Aug 6

[jacee]

If you want to shit out in fields and live ten years before something eats you, then go ahead. I'll keep things the way they are, thanks.

Surely human brains can figure out some better ideas. :/

.

[Smallc]

Surely human brains can figure out some better ideas. :/

They already have.

[On Guard for Thee]

Surely human brains can figure out some better ideas. :/

.

He may be losin' it.

[jacee]

Del

Edited August 11, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

Ah, the nostalgia. Not one of those things you listed had anything to do with production. All had to do with distribution or pot-stirring. CPP and universal health care was about being generous. -- with other people's money.

With our money.

The other items had to do with, essentially, stirring the pot. Official bilingualism was something you left out, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It was divisive. Ditto the new flag.

Looks like people got over that OK.

The aboriginal vote should definitely exist--for FN's off the reserve.

Why?

They are citizens of their nations regardless of where they live, and of Canada.

And what did the patriaton of the Constitution accomplish, really? How many amendments have passed under the amending formula.

Gee ... I guess we haven't needed any.

Those were not Canada's good days. They did a lot to destroy Canada as a first-class nation. The plunge towards mediocrity was only stilled in January 2006.

Then we were in the toilet.

But things are looking up!

Edited August 11, 2015 by jacee

[jacee]

He may be losin' it.

[Freddy]

Surely human brains can figure out some better ideas. :/

.

That's the whole point. It can and it has, breaking the balance with nature in the process. We can dominate nature with our brilliance, But we won't be in balance with it.

Being in balance with nature, means, nature wins 50% of the time. Keep's our population in control, stoping us from overwhelming earth, and consuming resources faster then what can be replenished.

War was a brilliant way of simulating natural balance. But we hardly do it anymore.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Freddy

[waldo]

That's the whole point. It can and it has, breaking the balance with nature in the process. We can dominate nature with our brilliance, But we won't be in balance with it.

Being in balance with nature, means, nature wins 50% of the time. Keep's our population in control, stoping us from overwhelming earth, and consuming resources faster then what can be replenished.

no - a profile, timely example is the carbon cycle; with climate change (per human anthropogenic sourced influence), that cycle is no longer in balance; as of today, of the carbon humans have put into the atmosphere, ~45% has stayed in the atmosphere relative to the workings of the fast carbon cycle. Unless significant mitigation pursuits are undertaken, that level will continue to rise. Eventually, per the slow carbon cycle, of the current ~45% that has stayed in the atmosphere, land and oceans will take up more of the extra CO2, but per the long residence time of CO2, as much as 20% may remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

now, in line with this thread and the debate focus on the environment, Harper has chosen to pursue an 'out of balance' (unsustainable, gung-ho, full-bore, unfettered, all-in, etc.) development strategy of Canada's fossil-fuel resources..... you know, Harper's "resource based economy" that doesn't seem to be working out for him (and Canada), hey! Of course, Harper continues his charade by signing on to the recent G7 leaders pledge to eliminate the use of fossil-fuels by 2100. Mr. Harper... no one believes you!

.

[Freddy]

no - a profile, timely example is the carbon cycle; with climate change (per human anthropogenic sourced influence), that cycle is no longer in balance; as of today, of the carbon humans have put into the atmosphere, ~45% has stayed in the atmosphere relative to the workings of the fast carbon cycle. Unless significant mitigation pursuits are undertaken, that level will continue to rise. Eventually, per the slow carbon cycle, of the current ~45% that has stayed in the atmosphere, land and oceans will take up more of the extra CO2, but per the long residence time of CO2, as much as 20% may remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.

now, in line with this thread and the debate focus on the environment, Harper has chosen to pursue an 'out of balance' (unsustainable, gung-ho, full-bore, unfettered, all-in, etc.) development strategy of Canada's fossil-fuel resources..... you know, Harper's "resource based economy" that doesn't seem to be working out for him (and Canada), hey! Of course, Harper continues his charade by signing on to the recent G7 leaders pledge to eliminate the use of fossil-fuels by 2100. Mr. Harper... no one believes you!

.

Harper just like myself knows, All this Kyoto BS won't solve our guaranteed destruction. So he is playing along with it for those who can't see the bigger picture that the problem of over consumption is mainly due to overpopulation of humans.

You want to solve pollution? Pick the country that pollutes the most. Stop buying anything from that country.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Freddy

[waldo]

You want to solve pollution? Pick the country that pollutes the most. Stop buying anything from that country.

by historical cumulative emissions, that is still the U.S. ... good luck with asking the world not to buy anything from the U.S. (/naivety)

[waldo]

Harper just like myself knows, All this Kyoto BS won't solve our guaranteed destruction. So he is playing along with it for those who can't see the bigger picture that the problem of over consumption is mainly due to overpopulation of humans.

Harper knows? You say he's "funnin' us/world nations" with all his failed emission reduction commitments... with his pledge to have Canada divest itself of fossil-fuels by 2100? Oh my!

[Freddy]

by historical cumulative emissions, that is still the U.S. ... good luck with asking the world not to buy anything from the U.S. (/naivety)

That's not what I said. You have comprehensive issues.

[PIK]

I wish the left would be truthful about CC and just come out and say to the overpopulated countries to quit producing children they cant look after. But I guess what will really bring us down is political correctness.

[waldo]

I wish the left would be truthful about CC and just come out and say to the overpopulated countries to quit producing children they cant look after. But I guess what will really bring us down is political correctness.

you're confusing over-consumption with over-population. Now... some of these over-consuming countries are late to the trough... PIK, does that mean, to you... they're not allowed to bring their countries forward, they're not allowed to industrialize... they're not allowed to follow in the same steps as the initial industrialized countries?

[Argus]

you're confusing over-consumption with over-population. Now... some of these over-consuming countries are late to the trough... PIK, does that mean, to you... they're not allowed to bring their countries forward, they're not allowed to industrialize... they're not allowed to follow in the same steps as the initial industrialized countries?

Are you saying they can't expand their economies and modernie with renewable energy sources? Does that not suggest that our cutting back on fossil fuel use will harm our economy?