help save the environment!!

I defend that fact that even GWB has ackowledged that GW is an issue, of what importance I cannot say.

BUT, he is paying lip service to the citizens of teh USA by 'propsing' to take it so seriously and spending a little here and there on developing solutions. He says he cares, and he may even be waking up and seeing the reality, but his actions are just a dog and pony show.

One comment defended his acceptance of the issue, the other was against his inability to act upon it.

But as always, you will see things out of context, perhaps this is why you see different solutions than others, you simply comprehend things 'differently' whether correct or not.

Obviously It wasn't too misleading as Absolute has referred to both comments in detail exactly as I would have pointed out the differences. But spin what you will, the objective is that you feel better and believe in what you've said, again whether correct or not.

I totally forgot to say anything like that because I didn't mean to compare them as race cars but as practical cars. If the Viper beat it between 60 & 80 mph, that would still apply to some parts of some freeways. But by 1/4 mile from the start line, they're beyond speeds that are ever permitted on freeways. I didn't say that before, and you didn't miss it, but I just don't think it matters off a track.

jck: "oh well...another bit of humour I attempted that failed...life goes on"

me: I've had the same thing happen on a regular basis. We're not going to make our fortunes in comedy. As you say, life goes on. :-)

The first 4 reasons still apply. Although (1) is a the truth, it would make no difference to the validity of the other reasons were it not so.

With petrol taxed to ridiculous levels here, my small car is not used much but I'm not going to give it up. When I want to use it, I do use it. To not have it would change the quality of my life enough to make me resentful of anyone who wants to take it away.

I'm pleased for you that you have no car. Feel good about it. Feel superior if you wish. I can live with it.

People don't need fact, details or reasons. They LIKE to hate Bush. Most of the opposition against him has been personal attacks on him, not against his policies. Remember that most of the arguements (all unfounded) are the same as before the Iraq war started.

Heck, Kerry ran a whole campaign of Bush HATE, and being "not Bush". Gore didn't paint a picture people liked either.

Remember, even though ALL the supporting docuements showing Bush was AWOL were fake, the story is real. That is the perfect example of the depth if decept that is accepted because it fits with what they WANT to believe.

We hear all about how stupid/dumb Bush is all the time. Good thing there isn't anyone else that has mispronounce or misspoke anything. If I had everything on my plate that he does, I think I would get lost in thought once in a while too.

Because your proposals sound like it, having the government build the infrastructure (hydrogen stations and recharging outlets). However, the government was not needed to build up the infrastructure for the petroleum industry. Private industry drilled the wells, built the pipelines and refineries, and built the service stations for retail sale of gasoline. The only role the government played was using the eminent domain power for pipeline right of ways for the pipeline companies and selling mineral leases on federal lands for drilling for oil. I am all in favor of developing hydrogen fuel cell technology, but I want to see it developed by private free enterprise, without government subsidies. The government subsidises too much already (and regulates too much already). Remove the regulations and tax disincentives.

I thought you were an "Ayn Rand" libertarian, but your arguments against drillng in ANWR sound more like government interference and regulation that are at odds with libertarian thought.

Open the oil leases in ANWR for competitive bidding, and let the company that bids the most get it. Amortize the costs of the right-of-way for building the roads and pipelines so the company that wins the bid ends up paying for that, too. When the government sells leases for mineral rights on federal land, it should go to the highest bidder, and that will promote laissez-faire capitalism and the free market.

But my current city of residence (Montgomery, AL) does not have a tube system like London, and the bus service is rudimentary, so that leaves driving most places. However, I do live within 4 miles of my place of employment, so that short commute saves on gasoline costs.

Back during the 2000 election and it was Gore (which I mentioned in the last post). I did not start on a Kerry worse than Bush, just pointing out a time frame. The same things were being said back then and all the Dubya people were running around thinking that was real cute to make fun of how they refer to him?

And like I said, it is primarily personal attacks rather than things he had done because he wasn't even president yet. Just being a republican made him a target and knowing the mindless masses are motivated more by emotions than by facts and HATE is one of the strongest of emotions while facts are boring and take effort to find. Most are not as well informed at the TR membership of WHY they HATE Bush, they just know that they are supose to hate him.

that you LIKED Bush before we went into Iraq? How about before 911, and all the hype started? Did you LIKE him then or did you already HATE him?

I hope you have at least an honest answer for yourself, if not for me.

Did this just justify your hate that was already there?

Did you believe that he "stole" the 2000 election when in fact it was GORE that tried changing the election rules as he went along, not Bush?

NOTE about recounts. ALL the ballots WERE hand recounted by the media/Jackson/wackos after the election was over with. If ANY of them had come up with a different conclusion, you can bet the farm that it would have been all over the papers.

.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/caribou_con_in_search_of_anwr_truth.htm

.
http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-caribou.pdf

http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-alaskans.pdf

http://www.anwr.org/case.htm

And our Canadian neighbors should mind their own friggin' business.

.
Under ANILCA, much of the Refuge was designated as wilderness area, but NOT the coastal plain of ANWR. Rather, the Act set the coastal plain area aside for future consideration of the development of its vast oil resources. Current legislation calls for responsible development on no more than 2000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. That's 0.01% of ANWR's total acreage of 19.6 million. The remaining 99.9% would remain off limits to development.

"This act of Congress strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska's vital oil and gas and mineral and timber resources... 95 percent of the potentially productive oil and mineral areas will be available for exploration or drilling... How to tap these resources is a challenge we can now face in the decade ahead."

-- President Jimmy Carter at the signing ceremony for the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), December 2, 1980

according to that, we need to speed up global warming as I would much rather be warm than cold and an ice age just doesn't sit well with me.

Put me on the beach drinking umbrella drinks brought out by topless native girls and I will keep my polution down to a minimum. :D

.
Interestingly, only slightly more than half (53%) at least somewhat support (26% strongly support) energy reform that would allow companies to drill for oil in such areas as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) which is the proposal President Bush and Republicans in Congress desire. In fact, just less than one-third (30%) of the public strongly opposes the idea of energy reform that allows drilling.

- From Harris Poll, January 2005

As an Objectivist and Libertarian, I do believe that government should be limited to protecting the lives and liberty of citizens and not get involved in managing the economy. Right now, the most intelligent way to bankrupt Al Qaeda is to stop buying petroleum from nations that funnel money to Al Qaeda.

Take Al Qaeda out of the picture, and you'd be right that my solution would not be consistent with the free market that is the direct consequence of the right to personal freedom. But your attempt to take Al Qaeda out of this discussion, when that is the compelling reason to support government involvement in alternative energies, is an example of what Ayn Rand called context-dropping.

There is more at stake right now than cleaning the air, and switching to a petroleum-free economy is easily justifiable purely as a national defense measure, which is why I support government involvement in making the infrastructure.

Invading Iraq to better [i]control[/i] the oil economy is one way of trying to prevent oil money from being funneled to terrorists. A more elegant solution to the same problem is to simply remove the market for petroleum.

"However, the government was not needed to build up the infrastructure for the petroleum industry."

Au contraire, without the Interstate Freeways, built by the federal government, we would be having a much different discussion right now. The government did create that part of the infrastructure, which is directly responsible for this country's disproportionate per capita demand for oil.

"The only role the government played was using the eminent domain power for pipeline right of ways for the pipeline companies and selling mineral leases on federal lands for drilling for oil."

No, the government also exercised eminent domain to build the Interstates, without which travel by car over great distances would be as inconvenient as it is in the rest of the world, and the US would burn less petroleum.

"I am all in favor of developing hydrogen fuel cell technology, but I want to see it developed by private free enterprise, without government subsidies."

Sorry Tom, but global geopolitics invalidates your argument for private free enterprise as a sacred cow. If freezing Al Qaeda bank accounts is part of the operation, so too is removing their primary [i]source[/i] of income, which according to all I've heard is no longer Osama's personal inheritance.

The free economy is not an end in itself, human life is the end purpose, and all else is the means to that end. Right now, the best means of protecting human life is to divest completely from all Muslim countries until Al Qaeda, and their ideology of "holy war", vanishes. That means finding energy sources other than petroleum as quickly as possible. It is a military matter, as Bush has noted when it makes him look good. Defense of life is the valid role of the government, and that goal can be advanced by withdrawing US funding for our enemies' militaries.

Ayn Rand was very alert to context-dropping, which is what you've attempted above Tom. Finally, if the oil companies have difficutly adjusting to the new energy economy, I have no sympathy. They have known long enough that petroleum is a finite resource that they [i]should have been[/i] ready to make the switch, and to use petroleum only as a lubricant.

Any knowledge of the geological forces and times required to make petroleum leads directly to the conclusion that it is not wise to depend on it as the primary source of energy for the entire globe.

since my grave, with my cremeated remains is already in burnaby's forest lawn cemetary, I wouldn't be. :)

already dead, so canna kill me again.
~demonic laughter~

all joking aside, the grave exists, has my name on it, and the cremeated remains genetically test to be me. never had a twin, so not a twin's grave.
it is mine.

so nope not joking, use the biblical:
"judge not others lest thee be judged thyself"
be put to good use, let the gods judge.
( but hey, I think stupidity is grounds for retroactive abortion on demand so what do I know )
[ definately get rid of a lot of drug addicts if that happened ]

make the phrase "to stupid to live" take on a whole new reality. ;)

sorry, but living around and working with street addicts has given me a real bad attitude to addicts. way to many can't remember for 30 seconds what they are doing.

When ANWR was made a reserve and off limits, that was government interference. Before it became a reserve, it was federal land that in theory was open to leases of mineral rights. The creation of wildlife reserves, national parks, and national forests and grasslands was "goverment interference" that changed the policy of the government in the first 100 years of the republic, from that of selling and leasing federal lands and mineral rights to settlers, developers, railroads, etc. to making them off limits. Some federal lands still permit leases (mineral, timber, grazing, etc), such as most of the acreage of the national forests (except that locked up as wilderness areas). I do not disagree there is some public benefit to preserving parks, such as Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Smokey Mountains, but ANWR is a frozen wasteland that can be developed for oil leases using only a very small fraction of the land area and leaving the rest undisturbed. I conclude that locking up resources that was previously available is government interference, and denies revenue to the US Treasury that otherwise could be gained from leases, and lets a resource go to waste that otherwise could be used to benefit the US economy and US taxpayers.

The federal government of Canada forced BC to sell, but the federal government of Canada itself was not forced. It seems your problem resides in Ottawa, not in California. It might do BC well to separate from Canada if Ottawa has a habit of imposing such agreements on BC. The USA did not force Canada to sign the agreement, as Canada is still a sovereign nation. I can understand your frustration on the matter, as the US Congress imposes its will on the individual states, even in violation of our 10th Amendment of the Constitution, with the Federal Courts aiding and abetting their unconstitutional actions.

How about all the anti-hunters?

These people are killing all these poor moose/elf/carabo. How terrible! How awful. Not bad with a bit of bbq sauce though.

I really am suprised the "animal rights" nutbags aren't against everyone here?

No oil and no hunting. Everyone plant an organic garden. (tree hugging is optional) ;\

I do not hear any proposals or returning the federal government to its more accountable scale compared to GDP, nor of repealing the income tax that was introduced around the time that land-lease and tariffs ceased to be the main sources of revenue. If opening ANWR meant re-instating property ownership as a [i]right[/i] I'd be for it. But to open it to drilling means making an exception to the (un-Constitutional) scheme of government funding, etc., that governs most of the population. The rest of us pay income tax in large part [i]because[/i] the supply of land that was attractive to lease became too small compared to the government's need/demand/lust for money.

I agree that "locking up resources that was previously available is government interference" but not that drilling for more oil "could be used to benefit the US economy and US taxpayers." It might [i]add[/i] to the size of the US economy, for a few years, but it would ultimately harm the US taxpayers who are the real standard of the value of the US economy, by adding some amount to the petroleum supply, lowering demand relative to that, keeping us dependent on petroleum in general, which will still be mostly Muslim terrorist oil. The best interests of US "taxpayers" are best served, in this case, by treating us first and foremost as citizens and by considering our safety before our bills. We're better off using all DOE budget and all government action, including any legislation and all of the time the President wants to spend campaigning on energy issues, pushing infrastructure for hydrogen- and battery-powered vehicles. The technology already exists. The only need for oil is as a lubricant.

www.acpropulstion.com

"we are just to sit idly by"

The Republicans' ideal populace. As long as a woman's right to control her own body is abolished, God will be appeased and everything else will take care of itself. Republican voters don't think, they just pray.

determines if it is alright to kill animals?

Now if they CHOOSE to advance their way of life instead of CHOOSING to stay with this simple way of life, then it would be different? But they HAVE chosen to stay this way, not been forced to.

This is just like the fake vegiterians that eat fish and eggs.

:^O

I know, your not a canuk.
I know, Canadians are not suppose to just sit idly by.

But damnit, I have been feeling pent up all day and just couldn't resist being a smart(dumb)ass.
[b]
Note, from some of Max's posts, it DOES look like this isn't a vilation of the original agreement as parts WERE earmarked for future development to harvest the resources there, not all of it. Just when you get environmentalists going, they have as much tendancey to intentionaly distort facts as politicians. (that means to lie, incase you didn't catch the politically correct translation.)

and there's no smiley face so I will assume that you were actually serious.

I suppose we could also resolve all the problems with starvation in third world countries that way too them. Give them all a plane ticket to America where they can evolve? Send them a book on where to walk to if they want water and food, give them a lesson on commerce and big business. Shall we start teaching Business Management in Ethiopia and send them Britney Spears videos? Perhaps even indtroduce them to MTV, that'll evolve the reluctant buggers.

Why are people considered EVOLVED when they follow our way of doing things, start building skyscrapers and learning about e-commerce?

It's not a matter of evolution, it's a matter of thier home and thie choice of life which for centuries has had no impact on your own, until America was taken from them and they were corralled into thier ever reduced landsm now they are just in the way?

Maybe give them a case of Budweiser in exchange for some shiny beads, then they will become lethargic and uncaring. You could call them a bunch of whining drunks and then ignore thier essential needs and rights as human beings.

Japan is far more technologically evolved then the USA, does that mean that you guys should pick up your socks and get with the program? Will you move because they have a better Playstation two years before it's releasedin the USA? Of course not, your way of life is happy as YOU want it to be and you are as evolved as you need to be to compete in your world market, even though that is sometimes questioned too.

But for people who have peacefully lived thousands of miles from YOU, why SHOuLD they have to evolve to YOUR standards before thier lives are considered worthwhile or relevant. They HAVE evolved, into people who can live in that climate. You couldn't without several hundred dollars worth of manmade products to protect you from the elements.

PETA is not against people who hunt for life.

They are against people with a $400,000 dollar air conditioned home, two sports cars and an SUV to drive to Safeway and they hunt for theport of it. Or willingly harm animals for sport, or in teh case of seals for fur, where it isn't used as a neccessary clothing item.

These people don't have year round ranges where they get drunk with 5 buddies and kill a few Caribou before going to the pub to share kill stories. These peoeple kill a miniscule number of Caribou to sustain thier lives. Not ever making a dent in thier population and never disrupting the ability for them to return each year in growing numbers.

The two aren't even remotely comparable.

http://www.oilfreecoast.org/threats/pollution.html

Bunker sluge/Bunker Oil, all oil tankers and cruise ships create a great deal of waste bunker sludge. This is a global issue that is addressed in every corner of the world and hundreds of BUNKERS are available worldwide and used regularly for recyclying the sludge.

One company I did some work for many years ago, actually had a facility for refining Bunker Sludge
into drinkable water and other recylced petroleum products. The water was never used as drinking water even though it passed the standards, it was used to clean other ships. They also provided a service that cleaned heavy duty machinery, so they used this recycled water to clean equipment (backhoes etc.) in a contained facility where THAT sludge was also recycled and used to clean other machines.

They have millions of dollars in business from Europe and Australia, North America is by far the weakest market, yet is the largest market too.

People here simply don't give a crap as long as money is in question.

THese aren't NEW laws being imposed on a select group of people, these are laws in place aroun the world. You can visit Bunkerworld.com
login mediao
pss. mediao

and see how SOME companies have won awards and been congratulated for zero spillage throughout a whole year, you can check local bunker availability (there's a lot and it's a competetive industry), you can check the going rates etc.

My point is, nobody is enforcing unrealistic laws upon a specific industry or group of companies.

NOW, is it being abused?
YEs, and it's NOT just the ships or the oil tankers specifically. In Vancouver there is a problem with the cruise ship industry.

"A Georgia Straight investigation shows that up to 8,000 tonnes of oily waste offloaded from luxury liners during the 2000 cruise-ship season does not appear on waste forms supposed to be filed with the B.C. government.

Because of this, the province cannot say where the oily waste was sent or whether it was treated and disposed of in compliance with environmental laws."

Bunker oil/sludge waste and recyclying is a part of life for any large shipping company, some however decide to simply barrel it up and dup it at sea, where it ultimately reachs the BC coastline and destroys our shores and wildlife, picture the Valdez spill in smaller yet more widespread instances.

The same has happened in BC development too, we have fought for years to stop the lifting of the ofshore oil exploration moratorium. This area includes the bay right down the street from my home.
http://www.wwf.ca/NewsAndFacts/NewsRoom/default.asp?section=archive&page=display&ID=1385〈=EN

If by 2010 we are using far more efficient and less harmful energy sources in more applications, won't we be looking back and realizing it was a complete waste to destroy our coast just a few years earlier?

With all of these new and less harmful ways of creating energy being implemented and more on the horizon, how can we justify a NEED for this contamination now?

Korean freighters charged with dumping oil off Alaska
http://www.cdnn.info/eco/e020830d/e020830d.html

This is a global issue, WE get the contamination of our shoreline. And whilst many are caught, too many are not and little by little our environment suffers.

I really wish people could see what it looks like around here, the thought of something contaminating it in even the smallest way would just sicken you. Epsecially if out in a boat and watching the whale migration throught ot Alaska in the most pristine waters with the most stunning backdrop.

Port Hardy BC.
(note, in the aerial shot of the town, the road leaving in the top right, I live JUST around the corner from where it is disappears into the trees.)
http://www.bearclawjewelry.com/PortHardy.shtml , just some more North Island PH shots.

I have a reason for being concerned, most people here have a reason for wanting more oil at a lower cost, and at a cost to my home. That's wy I make it my business too I guess.

If I lived in an area where I didn't see what pure really means, I would probably not see it the same way.

EDIT: I guess my point with the latter coomments is shipping is a KEY reason for those of us who see more than the effects on a remote habitat, shipping is all a part of drilling isn't it?.

.0000000001% of Canada's population equates to the IQ of 212% of America's population. So as Forghorn would say, "listen up son, you might learn somethin'!"
;)

Whi was an agreement for BOTH of our countries to respect the area and do what is needed to ensure the protection of the wildlife that resides in it.

Once again, seing as YOUR bilge oil is dumped in MY backyard (well front yard literally) then it is more MY business than it is yours even.

The boys were 7 1/2 months at delivery. In the hospital at the same time was a baby that was 6 months.

Do they have a heart beat?
Do they move?

Call it names like pathetic if you want, it does not make your stance any more valid on this than mine.

When an abortion is nothing more than a last line of defence for getting knocked up, it is wrong.

The issue is not Abortion as a way to cover getting accidentally knocked up. How many women are imprgnated every year due to rape? I don't have a definitive figure but i am sure the results would shock both of us.

There is more to abortion that lazy birth control, there is more to the Alaskan drilling than oil vs herds, yet people tend to focus on single issue of a bigger picture and use it to derive conclusions, often without full consideration of the issues incolved.

"The poll surveyed 1,020 Canadians between July 6 and July 12, 2005 and revealed that 54% of Canadians are opposed to the Bush administration?s push to open up the ANWR to drilling. Just 12% are in support. Opposition is even stronger amongst Canadians who have been following the issue. For those who report high familiarity with the issue, 73% are opposed. The results are are accurate to within +/- 3.1 percentage points, nineteen times out of twenty."

Perhaps you could highlight teh passage that says, "73% of Cadanians[i](sic)[/i] oppose America" As always, anyone who opposes anything you do is instantly opposing America.

73% of the people from whom the land with you signed an international agreement to protect that habitat and herd are opposed. This does also explain the kill 'em all mentality in your wars too I suppose. As long as you are serving your own needs, you don't care what others think. And yet you get pissed off when people say you are self centered, cold and heartless, self centered as a nation etc. Your reply is "mind your own business." The problem is, you don't know when it's your business or not anymore, your goverment is always involved in someone else's business.

That agreement looks pretty toothless to me.
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrint-agreement.html
My favorite excerpt:

"All questions related to the interpretation or application of the Agreement will be settled by consultation between the Parties."

Maybe that's what we're doing right now? We have "consultation" for a little while, then when we bore of that, we go ahead and do whatever we want. If Canada doesn't like it...
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178209&messageID=1818270

On the other hand, there is an agreement with another Party which does specify the Porcupine Caribou Herd as its main concern. The existence of an [i]agreement[/i] logically implies some role of the other Party in decisions that affect that herd. The agreement is unfortunately very vague about what exactly should be the other Party's role, but again, I think the very existence of an [i]agreement[/i] logically requires [i]agreement[/i] on any deviation from the status quo, which at present means...Oz (more exactly, his country) has a veto.

.
If you and I were the only parties in this dispute and/or negotiation, whatever it is, I would gladly say that I agree to your request. And I agree that it would be only fair. If -- and that's a BIG IF -- there was a spill that found it's way onto Canadian soil, it would be the responsibility of the USA to pay for and/or facilitate the clean-up.

But I disagree with your premise that drilling will automatically lead to spills, and/or ecological damage, and/or disrupt the wildlife. I think we're smart enough to tap into that oil AND, as you claimed in your discussion title, save the environment. Hey, I'm an environmentalist as well. No one loves the environment more than me. But it's not my religion. And it's not the ONLY thing to consider, but only one of the things. That's the thing with you eco-extremists. In your eyes, it's always one on the other. In my eyes, we can have both.

Now let's move on and get some oil.

.
....you should try reading your own.

when there is a medical problem or rape are the only valid reasons to go through this.

Knowing people that have gone through this, I have seen what it does to someone.

BFilmFan put it best. "Abortion: Safe, legal and rare. Not to be used as an after-thought birth control."

That states it perfectly.

You said, "The issue is not abortion as a way to cover getting accidentally knocked up. How many women are impregnated every year due to rape? I don't have a definitive figure but I am sure the results would shock both of us."

Get ready to be shocked, dude. The "definitive figure" is 2 percent -- TWO PERCENT -- or less.

- Percentage of abortions performed due to life or health threat to the mother: 1 percent.

- Percentage of abortions performed due to rape or incest: 2 percent.

- Percentage of abortions performed due to health of the baby: 4 percent.

- Percentage of abortions performed for social reasons: 93 percent.

Source: "Why Do Women Have Abortions?", A. Torres & J.D. Forrest, Family Planning Perspectives, Jul/Aug 1988.

Or look at the results of another study, and the "definitive figure" will really shock you, because it would be 1 percent.

Other reasons:

- Unready for responsibility: 21 percent.

- Has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood: 12 percent.

- Can't afford a baby right now: 21 percent.

- Concerned about how having baby would change her life: 16 percent.

Go ahead, dispute the "sources" of those numbers. But before you do, go out and find your own numbers. But be ready to be "shocked".

Disclaimer and clarification: I certainly DO believe that a woman has a RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether or not she becomes a mother. But I further believe that the time to make that choice is BEFORE she becomes a mother and/or BEFORE a life is created, not after. Therefore, the question society MUST definitively answer is, and to which the laws must be applied is, when does life begin? And if the answer is when that little fella' pops out, then why was Scott Peterson convicted of murdering him before that happened. It's either a life or it's not. There is no in-between. And no one can choose which it is depending on the circumstances.

Abortion is not a women's rights issue, but rather a human right's issue.

Most people don't know any more about a topic than what each "side" WANTS you to know. The problem is when "sides" intentionally distort the truth (they lie to us).

Credibility, it is so hard to find. The picture of hundreds of Elk laying down by the existing structures is a much stronger argument than the people saying this MAY have some kind of impact that they FEEL will be negative. Not all change is bad? Would you agree?

I will follow your links later on today about the sludge, because as I admit I know nothing about that. Never affected me before and it isn't in the news EVER.

and so have you.

Because I live in a place where I CAN go to the market to buy food, it is wrong if I CHOOSE to go out and get my own?

I did not say they had to conform to my way of life, nor imply this.

I did not say it was wrong for them to hunt for food.

I did say it shows how groups like PETA and such are just a bunch of nutbags who do not follow a consistent message. Is it wrong to eat animals or isn't it. Does it matter if it is done in mass slaughter houses and I get it in the shape of a nasty mcdonalds hamburger or if I go out and get some venison myself?

Consistancy in message is a good thing, and should not be determined by who it is applied to or if [b]you[/b] are menstral or not.

Go take a mydol and quit reading more into what I put than I put.

All I said is they have chosen this life. Was there ANYTHING in that post that was factually inacruate?

Huh, huh, huh, what a knee slapper. Did you ask your son for help in that one or did you find it in your nursery books.

I thought you were supposed to actually have a sense of humour?

Why didn't you just say, 'I know you are, but what am I?"

Man the lack of wit and humour behind that one is pretty sad, even for you.

Well the fact that you said they CHOSE this way of life would be in accurate in itself.

Did you choose ot be born in America and go to school, work etc.? OR were you tossing up a decision about whether to try Africa and settled on th eUS instead?

These people don't have a CHOICE, thye are born into a society that is not developed, by your standards, and simply could not live happily somewhere else as they have never been exposed to western culture nor have the resources to compete with it.

WHat should they do, start a pulgrimage to lower Canada and attend university to further evolve?

These people are as evolved in their environment as you and I are in ours. Did you design a highrise or were you simply born in a country that builds them? If you weren't, would you be able to evolve your country in to what you've seen in books?

IN that same sense, if you were living in the Antarctic, wouldn't YOU be viewed as incapable and unevolved, I would say you would definitely stand out like a wimp who's never had to do anything for himself, when compared to their self sufficiency.

All I am saying is your automatic condemnation of thier society as unevolved is pure ignorance and a ridiculous comparisson to what YOU consider an evolved society should be.

As for killing for food, your evolved society has made it so that you don't have to hunt for food, it's not an action you must perform in order to live. Our advanced society has ways of providing food en-mass and we as citizens rely on that for our survival. We don't NEED to hunt for survival, we hunt for sport. Sure you eat the deer you kill, but that's just a way of making it seem acceptable and not just killing for the adrenalin rush, the day out with the guys, a bond with your kids or some other completely unneccessary reason.

You hunt for SPORT, not for LIFE. You CHOOSE to hunt because you FEEL like it, not because you have to. Whether this means you must buy your steaks at Safeway or not depends on the advanced society in which you boast about living in. In your case, your society deems itself so advanced that YES you are supposed to buy your meat at the store. UNles syou feel that deevolving is a choice you should be able to make for yourself and hunting fo rsurvival is okay. In which hase, pack your bags, leave your advanced society and go and hunt for your dinner.

"the medical tech is capable of it"? Seriously? That would have to mean birth by C-section, unless I have an orifice I don't know about...

Now, I'm going to do my part to help save this environment by not arguing about anything other than drilling in ANWR.

A few years ago, Kenya introduced a system that quickly became a model for wildlife management and species preservation by allowing their elephants to be hunted. But only by the indigenous people who viewed that as their sole means of sustaining their lives. Once they had the right to hunt for their livelihood, they became the most effective deterrent against poaching that had ever existed, they themselves hunted enough to live [i]and[/i] to keep the total herd population strong enough for their future survival. Poachers had never shown such foresight, for some reason.

In the United States, buffalo used to roam all over the plains, until the introduction of (1) guns and (2) barbed wire. About a century later, it has been discovered that they taste just as good as beef, with a minute fraction of the cholesterol. They would make much healthier hamburgers, but unfortunately it will take a long time to restore their numbers so that such an alternative is viable.

Maybe species preservation is in our interests, given that what we don't know about other species is as unknown as the cholesterol content of buffalo meat was 100 years ago.

First comment shows 2%, the second list doesn't mention any specifics but they would ALL cover pregnancy due to rape or incest. Not exactly what I would consider a dfinitive figure or evena reasonable guess.
TH efollowing figures were taken from Deacon Russ Kingley's report that is available also on Catholic Visoion and were presented at a Catholic Bishops Comittee meeting but it also contradicts the first comment by saying only 1% are due to rape. But in the study, RAPE is not even offered as a part of the study, as described below, rape would result in all of these instances.

Unready for responsibility: 21 percent. -[i] 13 year old girl raped. How many of that 21%?[/i]

- Has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood: 12 percent. -[i] 13 year old girl raped. How many of that 12%?[/i]

- Can't afford a baby right now: 21 percent. -[i] 13 year old girl raped. How many of that 21%?[/i]

- Concerned about how having baby would change her life: 16 percent. -[i] 13 year old girl raped. How many of that 21%?[/i]

Those figures simply don't even touch or even come close to ansering the question.

Seeing as unplanned pregancy and abortion has dropped as much as 32% on some groups and at least 23% in others, then abortion as a form of birth control has also droppe dconsiderably. Making the number of forced pregnancies a greater portion of the overall picture.

Another small but increasing percentage is Abortion due to mothers health and abortion due to fetal abnormality.

But when you look at the overall numbers, 460,000 women are forced to have children due to rape each year, 1200 per day.

nearly half a million children every year are born due to rape. Most into homes or lives where most will struggle from birth for love, acceptance and opportunity.

But hey, if Sally couldn't keep her knees closed then she deserves to have a child to teach her she was wrong, or is it unChristian?

That's the problem in America, it left or right, vlavk or white, him or her, there's absolutely no reason for a rational thought or meeting in the middle, it's one extreme or the other.

WHat's wrong with controlled abortion? Does it have to be black or white? (of course it does in your mind, you simply can't see any other way of creating a thought).
If republicans lik eit, it's great, if Democrats like it, it's awful. Of course the exact opposite is also true.

You guys need to learn how to derive conclusions that meet in the middle instead of choosing between one extreme or the other.

That's also why your country's people are so divided, there is no middle ground, it ALL left or ALL right. What a sad way to exist and separate your own people. What do the people who are on the fence do? They get told to pick a side and thta they can't see SOME of both sides as being correct. What a farce, and yet this is considered an advanced society?

Good luck with that.

I condemd PETA for being inconsistant about the opposistion of killing and eating of animals.

I NEVER claimed that these people should change or that I disaproved of their way of life. This does not change the FACT that EVERYONE choses the life they lead. Are you still leading the life you grew up with in England or are you CHOOSING your lifestyle and location as pleases you?

They CHOOSE to continue. It isn't EVOLVE, it is to technologically advance or stay primitive and it is their choice. They also must live by that choice which has no effect on me either way so I don't CARE if they choose this way of life over another. Freedom, remember? All people are equal and no one is unable to learn, right? No one is keeping them there but their own love for the life they choose to lead and that is the way the world works.

Just like I have the freedom to hunt, regardless if you like it or not. The fact that I am a terrible hunter and have never fired a shot in over a decade because I didn't have a shot available that I was happy with is besides the point. It is a sure kill or it is no shot for me and it is not about the size of the rack for me.

You don't like hunting? Fine, don't go hunting.

In the society we live in, I do things because I WANT to, not always because I NEED to. You have never gone fishing?

Go ahead and continue to berate me over something I neither said nor implied. Is this even dumber than the last post yet?

MIDDLE GROUND! You SURE you're an American? :)

As for rare, if even 1% (half of the propsed number) of abortions are due to rape or a fetus that is horribly difigured or malformed. There are an estimated 120,000 abortion per day around the world. And teenage pregancy, has dropped in immense proportions over the last 15 years, over 30% in some ethnic groups. That woul dstill mean there are 1200 pregnancies EVERY DAY, due to incest again, half th epropsed number of 2%. SO I guess Abortion fo rth epurpose of rape would be anything BUT rare. 46 million unwanted pregnancies per year at 1% would equate to 460,000 abortions due to rape every year. A lucrative and busy industry if you ask me.

But I agree, to anti-abortion to some extent. No it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, YES it should be available to select individuals in specific instances. But that's middle ground, something neither the left or right can fathom it seems.

"Now if they CHOOSE to advance their way of life instead of CHOOSING to stay with this simple way of life, then it would be different? But they HAVE chosen to stay this way, not been forced to."

So therefore they can suffer because they chose that way of life.

I was born in a devloped and advanced society, I didn't CHOOSE to come to Canada, my father moved us for work when I as in school.

Adapting to life in Canada was a bit odd but I managed to survive as I had command of thelanguage, was able to attend school and find suitable work and build a career. Had we moved to India even, this woul dhave been extremely hard if nor nearly impossible. Future generations of me who are born in India will have abtter chance though.

So lets say all these people decide to walk into lower Canada, good luck with that too I guess, they would arrive in a society that scares the hell out of them, they woul dnot be able to find work, they woul dnot speak the language and would be like an alien race landing on Earth. No work, no home, no food, no life. Now possibly several generations down the road they MAY actually find a way to attend school, find work and begin to meet our societies demands in order to succeed. We get people here all teh time with university educations that simply cannot find work to support a family. Any ALIEN people to come here wouldn't have a hope in hell of surviving, until several generations down the road (if they aren't eliminated by then, they would finally develop enough skills to compete for theright to live in Western Society.

They don't make these choices, I am sure they aren't born, start looking at a few brochures of Canada, and the USA then figure, "Hell why not, lets stay here and catch caribou and ice fish for a living instead."

People BORN in Kosovo didn't have a choice where they lived, they had one hell of a life until some were finally able to find a better life in the West. It's not all as easy as you seem to think it is.

We are dependant on resources, somepoepledon't have access to resources. You are only as good or as evolved as your environment allows, so your propsal would mean that you are willing to let these people all move to America, you will provide fair education in special schools, you will teach them language and lifeskills, you will provide them with work and assistanc efo rseveral generation so thay they too can have a life in America. I would guess, they would grudgingly be allowed to enter the country, they would be HOUSED in some shelter, they would finally qualiy for a few hundred a month via welfare (oh no, actually welfare is onthe most hated list too isn't it), well then they could sit on the street and beg then. They would become a HUGE burden on society as they wouldn't be able to live self sufficiently and woul dbe forced ot enter a culture dominated by money, of which they have no means to obtain any.

It doesn't make sense from the first comment forward, it's just a ridiculous concept all together and WHY? SO that you can justify breaking an international agreement, without consent of one partt and then get 3% of your consumption so that you don't HAVE to deal with the bad people in the middle east, where you have just proudly rid them of an evil dictator and liberated the people with a new government structure and made new friendsand alliance, or so we are supposed to believe. What's the deal with Bush, didn't he just settle these problems with middle eastern delings? Isn't he proudly waving the American flag in Iraq, where Americans are lovedfor making it such a wonderful place to live now? What a great country, why WOULDN'T you want to deal wit your new found 'Western Loving' democracy? Let me guess, because it's a a crock of horses**t and the Iraqi's still hate America even more now for what they have suffered under the US thumb, more than anything they ever suffered under Saddam's regime.

Good war Bush, way to go. Now he is looking to pristine remote areas that have been protected in an agreement between two countries, but it's nobody' sbusiness except Americas. No wonder everyone hates Bush, no wonder everyone thinks America is a clutzy and bullish country, no wonder poeple laugh at what you consider advanced political and power.

No matter which way you look at it, no matter which spin is put on it, America looks like a sh*t every time. YOu need a leader in Teh White House, not some clueless lair with another agenda, heKNOWS he's done in a few years, why wouldn't' he try and pad his resume? Why wouldn't he act on the best interests of a few and not those of the people he represents? But somehow, I actually believe that if you had a government like Canada or England, he would be reelected indefinitely, until WWIII anyway.

I assume that applies to anyone who considers the environment more important than money, not life or neccessity, but just more money.

What's wrong with Iraqi oil THIS time? Do you need to rid them of a new dictator now? Better still, shouldn't you just make Bush president of Iraq or would drilling there STILL be unfavorable due to the cost of shipping? I see this whole need for alternate oil, just a way for Bush to save face. When oil is not avaiable from other sources he can at least say America is FORCED to obtain oil from Iraq and sign a few deals. Then he could pretend it wasn't a goal all along but a necessity realized AFTER his liberation of the poor Iraqi folk who begged for America's intervention. Who does he REALLY think he's kidding this time? Can you not gain access to friendly oil from your newly liberated friends now? DO you NEED that 3% gain from a widllife reserve at a far higher cost to another land's environment,people and wildlife so that Bush doesn't get caught with yet another lie?

But anyway, you did say one VERY funny thing that implies you have no idea of what the Pacific Coastline is.

" If -- and that's a BIG IF -- there was a spill that found it's way onto Canadian soil,"

A BIG IF? It's a certainty. If you are suggesting that it may only contaminate Alaskan shores, buy a globe and study the dilution of oil in water, it doesn't dilute it surfs. Where does that surf go? The BC/Alaska coastline. Seeing as BC has a large costline, we see th eeffects on our shores as benig too large to control now, lets just add to that shall we? Why not, Max lives in Colorado, HIS environment doesn't change, he can't see an ocean or cosatline, who cares?

When walking Long Beach, you often find washed up garbage (plastic bottles, fishing gear etc) from Japan, make you wonder hoe it got all teh way to Canada from Japan doesn't it?. To suggest that a spill or illegal dump from a ship leaving Alaska or the Wildlife reserve would NOT effect Canadian shores just shows what little understanding of the matter you really have.

We deal with it (illegal bunker-oil dumping, these are NOT accidental spills either) on a continual basis already, not just from the US but from Russian, and Asian tankers leaving Alaska too.

It's a global problem, and one that effcts our costline, not a BIG IF but definitely. Now you are suggesting taking a longer routes around Canada's shoreline and shipping mroe oil, creating more waste and killing OUR environment. Just to save face because ou don't want to buy oil from Iraq.

What an arrogant, uninformed, opportunistic and ignorant state of mind you show. The frame of mind most countries fear because of it's irrational destruction of the world for it's own gain.

Study a few tide charts and you tell ME where illegally dumped bunker waste goes.

what others are saying because you just don't listen. You have already prejudged everything and see what you want.

If you had actually bothered to read what I posted instead of lord from on high, you would see I NEVER said they had to change their way of life! Why do you keep insisting I did? Yes they CHOOSE to continue this way of life, and they are free to do so.

We get immigrants from Mexico and Cuba (many not legally) who DO find a way to make a living. The different culture and education does not make these people stupid and unable to cope. Never said it would be easy if they CHOOSE to move or change their way of life, so again I never said they had to.

From all the reading from the different links and quotes it is CLEAR that a portion of this land WAS intented to be deveoloped to get the resources from it. With this being the case, it is NOT breaking an agreement with Canada. Get off your high horse about this issue as it does not seem to be factually acturate no matter how badly you wish it was. Just because you don't like people using that portion that was INTENDED all along makes YOU look bad, not America or Bush.

As history shows from other mining and oil drilling this does not wipe out the wildlife around the complexes. So no matter how badly you want the world to believe that drilling in a small section will destroy all life in the anwr and Canada, it just isn't so. This ranting makes YOU look bad, not America or Bush.

Bush does have his problems, but this isn't one of them. Blame Bush for free industry not doing what you want. Blame Bush for the price of Gas. Blame Bush for anything you want because I know it brings you so much joy and meaning to your life.

Remember, this all started because I was ragging on a loser group called PETA, not demanding ANYONE do anything they don't want to do. Which is more freedom of choice than PETA would give us.

Maybe my responses were too long, so you just skimmed through instead of actually reading them? That is the only explanation I can think of on why you are so confused about what I have said.

The ONLY part of your argument that hasn't been fairly refuted is the sludge dumping, and I have still not had the time today to get to your link that explains what the problem is. But I will.

Remember, no air conditioning for you. Wastes too much electricity! Got to stop using up all the resources ya know. In the mean time I am both in air conditioning AND have a fan blowing on me.

SO if we start allowing China to have at our oil, does that mean you wil have to destroy our costline?

Canada is the biggest source of imported oil to the US, it has destoyed our costalines, polluted our waters, killed our wildlife and now the US needs more. So much more (another 3%) that it constitutes building a new drilling development in a protected area, as protected in an agreement signed by both countries.

I say we should let China have at the Alberta oil sands, drive the price of US oil through the roof and blow up any ships that transport oil past the BC coastline on it's way to the USA, make 'em take th elong route around. Canada is more closely aligned with China than America anyway! China will probably be the new world super power in a short time, f**k the US, let them suffer in their self servient world, let them pay retarded prices for goods. They suck more agricultural products from Canada than anyone else and constantly push, like an over zealous WalMart, for lower prices. Thier unwelcome companies come to Canada and against people's wishes, local cities let them build stores that close many fair Canadian businesses in hopes of more money for the city, which almost always suffers as a result instead.

The people of America think Canada's a warehouse of some sort, just there to support the US needs, and they feel it's justified because they protect us, from what I am still not sure, maybe we could use protection from America but that's about it.

They spit upon our nation, they spit upon our people, they spit upon our ideas, they spit upon our policies. Let's go to bed with China instead, let the USA become a self-serve society where they have no imports, no electricity, no oil form Canada, no trade agreements, no support in times of war, no nothing.

Then lets see who the rest of the world sides with, I think we would see a growing trend of isolating the USA from other nations, perhaps why Bush feels it neccessary to just run in and help himself as needed, he knows very well nobody WANTS to deal with him and he can't justify his greed.

Money for our resources? We'd sell them to someone else, it's not like there's no competition for our resources.

Like Eddie Murphy said in RAW, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY? SFA.

.
I see that you offered no specific numbers yourself. But your ploy to include one category as a subset of another was really quite lame. And it was rather idiotic to assume I posted all the categories, but if you want them, here ya' go:

http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/ab_slides.html

(Preview in PDF link.)

And no, it's not some zealous religious organization that I cited. It was from a study performed by The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Who are they, you might ask? In their own words:

"The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. AGI publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, International Family Planning Perspectives, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy and special reports on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation."

I'm not surprised that you can't take a definite stand on principle in this regard. That's something you seldom do anyway. And my stance has nothing to do with any religious belief. You know that I don't base my values on such things, nor do I ever rely on "faith". Another detail you conveniently forget, but a charge you constantly make.

And no, when it comes to placing a value on one's life, there is no middle-ground. With the exception of self defense (including soldiers in battle), I simply do not believe one person should take another person's life. It's as simple as that. Do you believe one person should take another person's life? If you want to find "middle-ground" as justification for taking one's life, I really feel sorry for you, dude, since it would show a value system (or lack thereof) similar to Nazis of the 1930s and 40s.

I'm against the taking of another life - period - with no middle-ground and no exceptions. What are your acceptable exceptions? I'm against murder; I'm against euthanasia; I'm against assisted suicide; I'm against the death penalty; and I'm against taking the life of a developing baby.

All I ask for is some final and definitive scientific and medical determinations -- and conclusions -- answering the simple question, when does life begin? And whatever that answer is, so be it. I'm against the taking of that life any time beyond that point. Are you against the taking of that life any time beyond that point? And life does not begin at a different point for different people. There IS a point at which life begins - period. What is it?

And since I'm ALSO against the death penalty, your lame charge that I simply toe the Republican line is ludicrous. But you know that as well. Inaccurate personal misrepresentations is just another one of your lame ploys when you can't present a valid argument. I'm also against the Republican party line (and President Bush) and their position on illegal immigration, their stance of pacifying Mexico, their expansion of social programs, their stupid "war on drugs", and their reluctance to overhaul our tax collection system. So go blow your smoke up your own butt.

Th eentire premise of m argument is a comment which you have repeated over and over again, even AFTER I have quoted you in my comments you still don't see my point DIRECTLY related to your comments?

Let me type slower pehaps.
YOU SAID (over and over again)

"Yes they CHOOSE to continue this way of life, and they are free to do so. "

NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get it now, you said one thing, and i disagreed with it. There s no misreading, there's no imsinterpretation of meaning, it is ONE CLEARLY INCORRECT COMMENT.

So perhaps YOU can tell me how these people would then become evolved to be on par with ourself. HOw they could CHOOS Eto do otherwise, in detail please. Including langage, government, resources, technological development etc.
Lets play SIM with these people who have CHOSEN to live in remote areas and not become big business players of corprate Westen culture?

Perhaps you coul dexplain how they would go about assimilating and fitting into Western Culture, foolowed by aquisition of money, trade agreemets et. Of course understanding that if they were a developed society, THEY would be the obstacle to overcme when you want to take away thier land. Not just some people who can move if they don't like it.

I will ignore your personal assertions, as always you are just showing how incorrect you are.

I DID offer numbers in fact my numbers were lower (half) of your own, I also described just HOW MUCH 1% of 46 million is. And that means a lot of legitimate abortion that should be performed.

THERE IS MIDDLE GROUND, you simply refuse to see compromise,
my way or the highway', 'with us or against us'..."yes, mr president. Obey, Follow and Never question your judgement, yes Mr. president"

Drone bees and conformists such as yourself make politics succeed in the US, not individual freeedom or thought. It's a scarier place everyday.

WHy should a halfmillio people per year have unwanted and forced pregnancy just because others can't keep thier knees together? Abstinence and teen pregnancy rates are dropping ingreat proportions, so there are obviously more solutions than abortion, such as awareness. Awareness to ANYTHING seems to be something our government refuses to provide it's citizens. You just never know when ignorance on a subject will see thier agenda's go through.

As for yoru laughable comments that you TRIED to separate; "With the exception of self defense (including soldiers in battle), I simply do not believe one person should take another person's life."

This still doesn't excuse your actions in Iraq, I know that as you typed it you saw the hyporcisy and knew I would refer to it, so you ATTEMPTED to make sense of it, but it still doesn't work.

Yes, I agree that with the exception of self defense no person should take another's life. It removes their enojoyment, displaces th efamily and friends they have grown with, removed the ability for that person to continue with a way of life they wer accustomed to and often enjoying.

But Iraq is NOT self defense, you can spin that one a hundre dways and with a hundred links to BUSH BS, but you will NEVER be able to justify invading Iraq as a form of self defense, you were NOT under threat of attack from Iraq. But you sent hundreds of thousands of men and women there to take the lives of all others who resemble an enemy.

If you decided to kill al olympic athletes at the games, you could never do so effectively without killing thosands of innocents, this is something you have to consider when you take OFFENSIVE action and invade and kill another country's people as you have done with a vengeance.

Defense doesn't even show a flicker of truth behin dit, it was/is a 100% offensive action on behalf of the USA. You have invaded and attacked another country, killin thousands upon thusands of innocents without just cause. If you don't lik eto admit it, I understand, I certainly wouldn't want to either (especially if I suported the insanity to begin with). But you simply cannot deny it isn't so, Im' sure you could convince Bush (as someone obviously did), but not too many others.

SO whilst you don't feel it right to take another's life, you do feel it is right to force a sexually abused woman to live in poverty and with little support or hope for the future of her child in your society, oh yes, and you don't want them to have any govrenment provided support either.

Don't kill them, throw them to the wolves and remove any HOPE of a btter life, they deserved it afterall, didn't they? What an a**hole! And i thought GWB was a prick!

You would think that an IT-based message board would be safe from the enviro-communists. I guess not.

They are everywhere, it seems!

For a better way, visit: http://www.freedom21.net/alternative-2/

Everyone makes choices in their lives. I don't CARE if they get assimilated or not. That is just lame on your part to sit there and claim that because they were born there they are stuck there in that way of life with no hope of devoloping. (if they should so chose) There used to be a lot of people that lived that same way, or didn't you read a history book growing up? Must have missed that chapter when you moved to Canada?

Some cultures developed technology to advance their way of life. Others in the world still live in mud huts. This is my fault how? This is my problem how?

No one is talking about taking "their land". The only thing being talked about is using land that is owned by the United States of America for the benifit of the citizens of that country. In accordance with the agreement many years ago, only a portion of that land owned by the US government will be put to the use that it was intended when the agreement was drafted. This will not drive underdeveloped Canadians to starve or force them from land that is theirs.

This is not taking Canadian land.
This is not taking land from citizens of any nation.
This is not wiping out the herds that these people hunt in order to live.

[b]I flatly reject your claim that these people are FORCED to stay undeveloped until the end of time and are unable to learn anything but how to hunt and fish. [/b] This does not make me wrong, nor does it make you wrong. You just have a different opinion on this and less faith in the human spirt.

Indians in America learned how to setup casinos and are now very rich. Not bad for a group that many had discounted as a bunch of worthless drunks trapped on their reservations. Yes, the ancestors got a raw deal, but they have a pretty sweet deal in many instances. They adapted to what happened, many not by their choice. No one is has suggested the same thing should or would happen in this case.

Not to stun them and get covered with the miniature porcupine parasite quills though.

The only reason Indians are setting up Casino's and selling fireworks is because they have been secluded into miniature portion of their former land and have had an entire nation develop around them. THIS is assimilation for survival, not evolution. The old 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

IF an Indian Tribe in Western USA wants to survive, they must be able to compete in an indutrialized environment, they can't go hunting in teh city around them. They call a local phone provider and have lines put in, they buy computers from a local vendor and have access installed. They hire a development contractor to retain the value and prosperity of thier tribe by building infrastructures that allow them to gain from the world around them.

People living in Butthole Canada, do not have these ammenities or abilities at thier disposal. The nation in that area (which is a MASSIVE undeveloped portion of Canada, with a very small population and no infrastructure, not a suburb of a local city) does does not provide the ability for these people to call a phone company, hire a building developer and open a casino, there would be nobody to buy anything from them either.

So your conclusion, based on all of your past comments,is that if they don't CHOOSE to develop, or simply CAN'T develop, a modern society in Northern Canada, then they need to step aside and let busines do as it pleases with the land.

The land is owned by the USA, those effected do also live in Canadian territories, thus it is unimportant, it's not thier land and you can drill what you want.

As for the treaty between our governments, it was intended to protect the Caribou herd from ANY industrialization or potential harm to the habitat that may cause damage to, or deplete the herd.

SOMEHOW, through some BIZARRE source unavailable to even the most knowledgeable sources on the subject, you can prove that this WON'T effect the herds and WONT effect those who rely on them or live in the area. I suppose there will also be no pollution, no damage to the surrounding environment and no bilge oil dimpuing, as there has been for decades from the Alaskan projects.

You sir, need t be running a country of your own. You know how easy it is for a remote society to develop into an economic success, even without any existing infrastructure. You udnerstand exactly what environmental effects will be hundreds, or thousands of miles from your home and so much more, how can you possibly stand living in a country that doesn't know or alt least can't prove all these things you know?

And once again, as so conveniently easy it is, the impact that the Alaskan oil projects have had on Canadian shorelines are simply a NON issue? Something that doesn't need to be addressed as the key issue is caribou.

It's our shores, then it's OUR business, unless you find some wild shipping route that means that it is not OUR problem to deal with. But I am sure you know how to solve that too, your government could use someone like you, you seem to hold all of this secret information that so many have worked for years to try and discover themselves.

One again, as you failed to do so already, please explain exactly how the people in that region begin to become evolved to suit YOUR way of life.

Easy to say, now make it happen.

Try and do it without just relying on your title to draw attention to absolutely nothing of any substance too.

Been playing Ages of Empires too long or something? Create some berry pickers, chop down a tree or two, build a castle, make some fishing boats and you're good to go!

.
....you evaded all my points.

Try again.

How much polution is there up in Alaska from the drilling and shipping of oil?

How do the locals feel about this?

How do YOU feel about this?

Paint me a picture, first hand if you will.

You have stated that it is NOT a wasteland WAAAAY up there. What is it?

(your cute when your pissed, oh elfish one! Ok, your cute anyways!)

You wouldn't understand someone's point unless it was your own. You have proven this on many subjects, with many peers and over many years now. There is NO point.

Secondly, you never answer questions directly yourself, yet you expect as much from others? Doesn't work that way.

Thirdly, I provided numbers BASED on your own,figures and even MORE toward supporting YOUR claim. You claimed that only 2% of the abortions are for rape, my figures are based on 1% but are still showing a staggering amount of abortions performed every year that SHOULD be performed.

You refuse to allow YOUR money to go toward helping others who have not earned it themselves. Yet you insist that people should have no option than to go without if they are raped? Nice man, I pity your wife and children. DO you ask them to goose step to the dinner table?

Your post stated:
[i]". What are your acceptable exceptions?"[/i]
Women who are raped and will not be able to care for their young and don't deserve to be forced into a position of doing so. The muderer isn't the mother or the abortionist, it's the rapist who caused the pregnancy.

[i]I'm against murder;[/i] as am I,

[i]I'm against euthanasia;[/i] as am I in MOST instances, unless a person has no ability to possibly have a reasonable life/enjoy living such as those who will be in constant pain until they pass, or those who are completely and irreversibly brain dead. In the case of a pet, it is a common issue for sick pets with irreversible damage to be euthanized. Animals are life too.

[i]I'm against assisted suicide;[/i]see above.

[i]I'm against the death penalty; [/i] So am I, but only because the world has a constant habit of sentencing many innocent people to life in prison or th edeath sentence.

[i]and I'm against taking the life of a developing baby.[/i] So am I, in the case of a developing baby. With am embryo in it's embryonic period, before being considered a fetal period I don't se ethis as taking a life. Yes it is taking a 'potential' life, just as every womans monthly cycle does, but I don' tconsider taking a fertilized embryo, prior to gestation into a fetus, SPECIFICALLY when it is a result of rape, as being murder or taking a life.

Your CORE values don't alow you to see reason in your judgements, yet this also make it easy to pass judgement I suppose. You don't HAVE to have a valid reason, beyond it being a 'core value' where are the REASONS you don't want raped women to be able to abort an embryo that woul dnot have a fair life? If this fetus IS to be allowed a fair life, how do you propse the mother raise this fetus that she hasn't done aything to bring upon herself?

How does the 19 year old college girl support furthering her studies and supporting her child after she is raped? Now you can't say welfare because that is against your core values too.

You are free from realistic consideration of topics this way, it is also seen as a cop-out by many.

SO while YOU see the world much like many animal's does, in black and white, instead of the shades of reality that are needed to conduct a fair and reasonable society.

Sooo many questions, yet you can answer them all with one statement because of your BS core value crap, a cop-out from using thought.

Don't consider the individuals involved, just make sweeping, blanket generalizations to guide your life with, how 'disingenious' of you.

yup, and you have an issue with that?
I don't. :)

the imported halucinogen the natives are using more often now.. the peyote.
( actually growing it in the interior )

Is the foetus alive?

I will state straight off that I do not believe in the existence of the human soul so there is no "divine spark at the point of conception" to deal with. Obviously the embryo is "alive" in the simplest definition of the word from the moment of conception or even before but to the same definition the Malarial Plasmodium ? the world?s biggest killer of humans - is equally alive.

If you want a definition of whether an embryo, foetus or unborn baby is alive in some other sense then you will have to redefine the term to your own satisfaction.

I?ll give you a quick view of my perspective and you can either agree or disagree ? obviously!

It is generally observed that if one structure is, in evolutionary terms, older than another, then it also appears earlier than the other in the development of the embryo.

The backbone is one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos. Other significant features appear in the developing embryo (to 12 weeks) and foetus during subsequent weeks. Superficially, the foetus becomes more and more obviously human as it develops.

However, the key marker, the Cerebrum in humans, the most sophisticated part of the brain, is also the one to develop last. The development of the cerebrum is marked by the appearance of the sulci - the folds. The primary sulci start to form at 25 to 26 weeks and are complete at week 33 with the secondary sulci a week or so later.

The evidence therefore shows that, although the foetus is formed from human DNA, it does not have the characteristics that make us all individual human beings until very much further on from the point of conception.

Pro-life studies have purported to show that the "Child recognises its mother?s voice" and "feels pain" and other examples of supposed higher though. Such examples of instinctive behaviour are also found in any other embryo at a relevant stage of development.

To sum up; it is not a baby or an unborn child at 12 weeks, it is an embryo. It is not a baby or an unborn child at 16 or 18 weeks, it is a foetus.

As for abortion, I?m not actually in favour of it and were I a woman, and pregnant, I might find it difficult to contemplate. But I?m not a woman and so cannot get pregnant. The foetus exists as a parasite on the mother and can seriously affect the body chemistry before birth and affects the life of the woman after the birth for the rest of her life. I have to believe that it?s the woman?s choice whether, at least up to 18 weeks, to allow this bundle of non-sentient cells to develop further and so radically affect her life. Abortion should be the right of all women and the woman alone as they have to suffer all of the physical and most of the psychological consequences of the procedure.

It [b]is[/b] a Human Rights issue and the woman is human, too.