help save the environment!!

Absolutely,
I wasn't trying to debate which is better or worse vis a vis ira / al qaeda.
I don't think terrorism is a valid protest method for anyone.

my point was:
the bombings are, unfortunately, not a new situation for london.

Niel,

thanks, I will ;)
( specially as you are okay with it. )

if I was in a situation where a motor vehicle would be other than an un-necessary expense, I would probably get one.
but 4 blocks from grocery store, 1 block from hospital and doctors office, at most 1 mile from being where I can get what I want / need, a vehicle is not required. :)

In communist countries, there is NO say about the environment typically. The state sets the policy and like it or not you follow. Good example: china is building LOTS of coal fired plants, and air is becoming horrible.

In the Soviet Union there was little respect for the enviroment if the state wanted something. This is because in a capitalist country, environmental agency is the govt. Industry is separate and it is watching over them. There is a real libertarian principle behind it: to prevent you forcing your chemicals onto my land or air or water.

In a communist country, govt and industry are either the same or closely sanctioned by govt. So there is NO effective enviromental regulation.

If you are proposing that there should be NO environmental regulation then you are stupider than I thought. Education doesn't always work. Re: there are economical alternatives to producing chlorine in the US WITHOUT emitting 55 tons of mercury a year into the air. (more than power plants emit). Yet this easy fix has not been required by Bush admin.

Tailings pond in southeast US broke and wiped out towne (no one was killed). Bush admin when they came into office STOPPED investigation and fines of this company that had irresponsible record previously. This is TYPICAL of a communist regime, cronying with industry and making execptions for their buddies. Another Bush regime communist trait: they want to be able hold people forever w/o trial. All that would be required is allegation of terrorism.

Maybe you get your 'facts' from Rush Limbaugh's A**? He makes them up fast and furious.

I don't know if others here really appreciate just what is available to you at your doorstpe Jaqui.

In England, you have a few local shops but if you want more, it's like going to Surrey to visit the mall.

For Niel,Jaqui lives near a MAJOR shopping mall, the harbour, our largest city park, the epicenter of Vancouver's busines sdistrict, he is a few blocks from Yaletown, Vancouver's 'chicken-hawk turned trendy' area (sorry Jaqui, just being honest here :)) where most IT development, startups, graphics and design companies are.

There is NOTHING a person would need that is not easier and quicker to get to on foot than by car.

It's like living in the center of London (except MUCH smaller and even more condensed if that' spossible) without ever needing to leave London for work. There is a couple of MAIN streets, a HUGE mall that runs below them using the same footprint. A cross the street and you are smack dab in teh middle of Vancouver's biggest office buildings and commercial district, a few blocke the other way and you're in the middle of the artsy, creative design area.

No need for a car at all, in fact a car is a major drag in that area, epsecially since the MAIN street (Granville) has no passenger vehicle access at all anyway.

To get elsewhere, all of the suburbs are connected to downtown Vancouver via the Skytrain (above ground rapid transit), it runs every 4 minutes on average and gets you anywhere in 30 minutes. Only two train routes that follow the same line and branch off the loop back to meet at one point.

To drive in downtown Vancouver is
1) pointless
2) expensive (parking is astronomical)
3) useless, you can't park near your destination nor can you even drive down the street in many cases.

You did it again, another 'TOO HOT FOR TR' topic!

:D

.
It's refreshing to get a clear and articulate message on the subject, something our Canadian friend (OZ) seems incapable of. And contrary to what our Canadian friend (OZ) might say, I believe that living one's life based on a core set of values makes it easy to reconcile some very difficult issues that a person faces in life. I must admit, however, that there are a couple of issues (pertinent to today) with which I find myself in conflict with my core set of values, one of which is the abortion issue.

On one hand, I believe in total self responsibility and the total freedom to live one's life as one sees fit, as long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of another. Working up from that basis would lead to the conclusion that a woman certainly does have the right to exercise control over her own body, regardless of the particular issue being considered. For example, I would be in favor of legalized prostitution, legalized drug use, legalized tattoos (I know, they are legal), or whatever else she (or he) may want to do to herself (or himself). (So much for me toeing the Republican Party line -- another instance of Oz blowing a stupid and unfounded smoke screen). On the other hand, however, I believe that a woman, like it or not, has a unique role in nature, inasmuch as she is given the inherent responsibility to ensure the very continuation of the human race.

When faced with such a conflict, I might ask myself the question, "What if EVERYBODY did it"; and the answer to that question might help me determine on which side of the conflict I should fall. In this case, the answer is obvious. Like it or not, women are faced with the responsibility of being the incubator in which all human life itself is developed. And as such, I believe that the responsibility should be taken very seriously. And when I established the premise that everyone should have the right to live one's life as one sees fit, as long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of another, does that take into consideration the rights of the baby, the fetus, the embryo? Does that "whatever" have any rights? If you say yes, then the answer is obvious; if you say no, then I might ask, why not?

As a compromise, if you can call it that, I would settle for some definite and absolute answer as to when life begins. Logic would tell me that it begins at conception. Your explanation, where you defined an embryo, a fetus, and finally a baby, is mincing definitions, at least it could be argued as such. So I just don't buy it; because, as I explained, what if EVERYBODY aborted their embryo or fetus? (And then let's abort ALL caribou "fetuses", and see how that would go over.)

I will tell you this, however; given the state of society today, I'm damn glad that I'm not a woman. The internal conflict I would have to face might be unbearable. And my heart truly does go out to the women faced with such a dilemma.

Thanks for your courteous reply. Oz could certainly learn a lesson from you.

...nor dismissing Canadian concerns outright whenever those concerns are inconvenient to an American. Consultation does imply that before initiating new action that differs from the status quo, agreement will be reached. When agreement is not reached, such action does not occur, according to a literal interpretation of the agreement. Don't call it a veto if you like, but until the second party to the original agreement concedes to alter the terms, the status quo remains as the legally required situation.

It has been claimed, but not established, that most Americans would be benefited, on balance, by more drilling than already occurs along the coast of this large area of Alaska. I do not agree with that view because I think all benefits derived from use of more petroleum as fuel, regardless of the location of any of that petroleum's source, is irrelevant compared to the long-term result that we will be more dependent on petroleum, collectively, and the vast majority of that petroleum will still inevitably be transported from unfriendly countries that provide varying levels of support to Al Qaeda. If there were sufficient North American reserves to stop funding Al Qaeda with our purchase of gasoline, it would make sense to drill enough to stop importing oil from enemy rogue states, and from "allies" who turn a blind eye to terrorists, all of whom are required to make a pilgrimage to that country I haven't named, before they die for their religion.

I am just surprised that it is possible. How is the umbilical cord made? Where does it attach? You can't just shove a recently-fertilized egg into the gaps between a man's digestive organs, can you? I'm just impressed, and I promised not to argue about this, so I'm not going to bring up any of my problems with any of the related issues -- on this thread!

Your attempts at third party flaming are simply hideous. What a spineless and weak individual it takes to flame someone in third oarty conversation. As for my eloquence with you, in each and every case, you start the name calling and attepmt to make any comment I make seem belowe your superior intelligence, which in itself is actually quite funny and doesn't paint a very nice picture of yourself for others.

Just like a computer, garbage in, garbage out. If you were the type of person who offered open minded opinions based on real thought, instead of rash conclusions derived from a fixed set of values that you apply in blanket form to any issue addressed, you might actually get some reasonable comments toward yourself. Niel has been around a bit, but you have been quite scarce, fortunately he hasn't been bullied off this board by you as so many have in the past.

Though the concepts we BOTH offered are nearly identical,I also described each and everyone of your comments and provided my view on each exactly as you had asked me to, in very simple terms, you only accept what is worded as eloquently as you desire, make that by sosmeone with whom you desire to converse with rationally, showing you to be a typical arrogant Republican as all of your comments for the last 5 years or so have shown.

As for you NOT being a staunch Republican, who the hell are you trying to kid this time? How stupid do you think Niel is? He's seen your typical right wing comments here too. And as for you NOT being a staunch right-wing, Republican, single focused individual, how do you explain your comments that anything Bush says you will believe over and above ANYTHING democrat says, which is not even worth your consideration?

You just finished going out of your way to explain how you only believe Republican comments and obviously Republican values, yet now you claim to not be the Republican people think/claim your are. [b]LIAR[/b], now we KNOW you're a real Republican?

Why don't you make one of your core values, consistency, it may help us all as you straddle the fence and flip-flop as it suits your cause.

You don't really agree with Niel's points at all, you have read the exact same issue from other peers (not just myself) several times in the past and completely shot down the issue as you stick to your 'core values'. You have specifically argued at what point a BABY is a living human being before, no I am not going to search through your endless BS to find the post, you know you've defended it and others that have been arpound have seen it too, no need for further proof. Deny it all you like if you wish, I know otherwise as do many others here. [b]LIAR[/b]

You defend whatever suits your desires at any given time,core values my a$$.

Both Niel and I had both pointed at the exact same issue, though Niel is far more accurate in his description of the gestation period, in essence the posts show nearly identical beliefs based on the exact same theory, that the early fetal and the even earlier embryonic stage are not considered fully developed human beings, in niel's conclusion as well as my own.

Your selective 'favoritism' is seen as blatant, make that pathetic, sucking up and a hideous attempt at making it seem like a unique and refreshing view, even though you have argued the same point many times.

For someone that has always made a point of noting when people show thier true colors, yours have been showing yourself as a very ignorant and irrational human being.

I guess people were right in the first place, even though on some occasions I have actually gone to bat for you and defended the logic behind your opinions, even when I disagree with you.

Your comments are not very clever at all, you just THINK they are, you ridiculous and unqualified third party comments are very weak and extremely spineless, but...that's you to a tee as lately.

Don't know why you disappear for months and then return with the same old BS, one would think you'd learn over time, but you don't. Perhaps it's because so many people get sick and tired of you, you need to give the forum time to find some new voices before you start to hush them again.

Have you ANY idea of just how many people have stopped posting on TR because of your incessant BS and flaming of others opinions? Do you know how many people have left because they are sick of your constant bashing of anything UNREPUBLICAN shared here?

Get a life, go beat up some children or something, that'll make you feel big and clever.

One point you raised was Americans depend on oil and if it is more and more accessible they wil continue to depend on it and depend even MORE on it than now, if that's at all humanly possible.

I agreewit hyour views, work on better energy sources, WORK to bring new innovations into teh publie light, promote these technologies, campaign about their importance and the importance of Americans to all do some small part in reducing their energy consumption.

This is what you miss that others don't. We get the pubilc messages, the TV spots andconstant programs on evolving energy sources, new ideas etc. It is brought into public awareness and the eagerness to use these products quickly replaces a reluctance to accept them.

They should jack up the price of gas in the US. People complain now, if they paid as much as we do or WAY worse, how much Europeans pay, there would be an INSTANT change. Once it is publicly announced that your money is being wasted on GAS and prices are going up, when you could be banking it and getting fit at the same time, things would change much faster. Hit 'em where it hurts...the wallet.

Get Bush to start driving a hybrid or electric car, get Bush to announce that he wants Americans to start an energy conservation program, it will see instant change.

I'm not getting drawn into the middle of flame war between you and Oz. You guys - fighting or agreeing - are too interesting to read without getting caught in the crossfire.

To answer your question "Does that 'whatever' have any rights? If you say yes, then the answer is obvious; if you say no, then I might ask, why not?"

Well, no. Not really. I generally regard "Rights" - Animal Rights, the Rights of the Unborn Child - to be a misuse of the word. With rights, to me, there are concomitant responsibilities within society. I probably see it in this way because I come from a different culture to you and the concept of individual freedom and "inalienable rights" doesn't mean the same to me - or as much! - as it does to you.

So, instead of rights, the unborn child receives from society a commitment to protect it until it is born. This commitment increases as the foetus nears term and becomes an unborn baby by anyones definition. This is set against the wishes of the woman backed by medical advice. What we end up with is a sort of "sliding scale" starting with the morning after pill, relatively easy to obtain first trimester abortion and ending with a moratorium on abortions at the current 24 week limit in the UK. Although the number of late abortions is very small, I'd quite like to see that reduced to 22 just to be sure - and to stop the pro-lifers using "killing babies" as propaganda!

Other countries have different limits, France, Italy and Germany have 12 or 13 weeks, Sweden 18 weeks and the US applies limits after after 26 weeks. Australia has no limit but I suspect that there aren't many post-24 week abortions here or anywhere else.

Postscript: Q: "What if everybody did it"

A1: Then I would be a fool to do otherwise
A2: But everybody doesn't do it

1850 the beginning of the end of the coldest period of the "Little Ice Age" that was coming to an end.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Temperatures were warmer 1000 years ago than they are now, even though that was before the Industrial Revolution. The warmer temperatures from 800 to 1100 enabled more productivity in the farmlands of Scandinavia, resulting in increased populations of the Norse to usher in the Viking Age. The increased populations of the Norse people caused them to go out and seek new lands and raid lands from the Baltic to the Black Sea, and along rivers inland to much of Europe, and east to Russia and Ukraine. These higher temperatures also enabled them to settle and farm coastal Greenland, which is now too cold to raise wheat and othe crops that the Viking settler raised 1000 years ago. However, the "Little Ice Age" caused the Viking population to die out in Greenland.

Wine production points to a warmer climate until 1300 than exists today: "The cultivation of grapes was extensive throughout the southern portion of England from about 1100-1300. This area is about 300 miles farther north than the areas in France and Germany that grow grapes today. Grapes were also grown in northern France and Germany at that time, areas which even today do not sustain commercial vineyards. At the time of the compilation of the Domesday Survey in the late eleventh century, vineyards were recorded in 46 places in southern England, from East Anglia through to modern-day Somerset. By the time King Henry VIIIth ascended the throne there were 139 sizeable vineyards in England and Wales - 11 of them owned by the Crown, 67 by noble families and 52 by the church (English-wine.com). In fact, Lamb (1995) suggests that during that period the amount of wine produced in England was substantial enough to provide significant economic competition with the producers in France. With the coming cooler climate in the 1400's, temperatures became too cold for grape production and the vineyards in southern England gradually declined." (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html)

Perhaps the warmer temperatures we experience now is just the natural warming from coming out of the "Little Ice Age", with the warming trend starting in 1850. I say we are now returning to a period of normalcy, to a climate humanity enjoyed from several thousand years ago to about 1150, with the "Little Ice Age" a cold period interrupting the normal climate of the last few thousand years.

.
Again you show your hypocrisy and dishonesty

Sorry, dude, but YOU threw the first flame, insult, or whatever it is you want to call it. And don't try to throw up yet another smoke screen saying you attacked the message, not the messenger. That's bull, and we all know it.

The first flame, insult, or whatever it is you want to call it:

".....arrogant and very ignorant comment actually."

"..... your little sect of 'chosen ones' would not fill a Volkswagen....."

Not to mention you completely twisted my words while ignoring the real intent of my message -- and intentionally, I'm sure

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178209&messageID=1815776

That was your first reply to my first message, and after I had been absent from these threads for close to a month.

Sorry, dude. You threw the first flame, you did it intentionally, and you and I both know it -- and you did it the very day after I sent you a very nice email!

You are lacking in character; by your own admission you think there's something wrong if a person tries to live a value-based life; and you as so self-centered and pompous, and so full of yourself that it's almost sickening. What an absolute moron you are.

I'm through with you, dude. You are an absolute waste of both air and my time.

CuteElf typed: "They have an ice scraper built into the horn to brush aside snow and ice"
...
That sounds like a cool accessory to have if you live in a cold climate with lots of ice. So, does that mean that when Caribou get into their cars, all they have to do is blow the horn, and an ice scraper automatically clears the snow and ice from the windshield? What kind of cars or trucks do Caribou drive that have that option? And do the porcupine parasites in their ears ever distract them when they are driving and attempt to use cell phones?
:-)

Context: The part of a text or statement that [b]surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning[/b].

Now as always you insist on taking every comment you read, no mater who from, and taking it out of context. When your OWN comments are quoted and provided in full, then you claim they are out of context.

Comprehension: The act or fact of grasping the meaning, nature, or importance of; understanding.
-The sum of meanings and corresponding implications inherent in a term.

Your failure to provide the context in which a comment is made, results in a lack of comprehension in your 'claims' and rude assertions.

As for your LOVELY email, I also replied accordingly, so that doesn't even have a place here. I don't care if you're the nicest guy in the world, it doesn't mean I am going to just side with everything you say, especially when you make such absurd comments as you have here, including a scathing title that isn't supported in your comments.

You CLAIM;
[i]And don't try to throw up yet another smoke screen saying you attacked the message, not the messenger. That's bull, and we all know it.

The first flame, insult, or whatever it is you want to call it:

".....arrogant and very ignorant comment actually." [/i]

Now the above comment was taken completely out of context, YOUR smoke screen doesn't support your claims though, my comments were clear,as follows IN FULL.

You claimed [i]" But remind me why we should pay much attention to those folks who don't really know much about what's really going on. If they don't know what's really going on, how can they possibly make any viable suggestions or offer any real solutions?" [/i]

This was in response to my comments about most Americans not knowing that Canada is the largest single exporter of oil to the USA. You said YOU knew, the politicians know and the oil companies know, others just don't qualify to offer an opinion. Thus placing your KNOWLEDGE far above the comments of others and inline with that of the politicians and oil companies. THAT IS CALLED ARROGANCE.

To that I said:[i][b]Your comments[/b] make the majority of America seem inferior in your eyes. A pretty arrogant and very ignorant [b]comment[/b] actually.[/i]

Perhaps you can explain, now that the entire paragraph is quoted, exactly where in that comment I was not addressing your comments directly and instead aiming at you as you so suggest. Of course you can't, and like you say, everyone knows it.

Seeing as the first two words of that reply(that you conveniently excluded for some reason) were: "YOUR COMMENTS", your claim that it was aimed at YOU and not "Your comments" is pretty absurd and WAY off base.

Second out of context quote from Maxwell:
[i]"..... your little sect of 'chosen ones' would not fill a Volkswagen....."[/i]

When in actuality the entire comment was:
[i]"Have you ever met another American? I often wonder because it seems your little sect of 'chosen ones' would not fill a Volkswagon, yet alone represent the majority of American views."[/i]

YOU had created a little group of those who understand and excluded the rest of America as a reasonable voice, or those that have no validity in thier comments, as shown here (in full of course).

[i]"I knew that Canada supplied the U.S. with oil. But you probably know that I know.

And the people who make policy know that Canada supplies the U.S. with oil. But you probably know that they also know.

And the folks who are connected with the U.S. oil industry know as well. But you probably know that too.

The people of whom you speak, the ones that don't know that we get a lot of oil from Canada, are the ones who also don't know a hell of a lot about a number of other things as well -- and they're the ones who claim to know what to do or not to do.....and the ones who never offer any real solutions to problems, but only pay lip-service to silly complaints.....and the ones with pie-in-the-sky, la-la-land desires.....and the ones that speak from emotional reactions instead of reasonable and rational planning.....and the ones who continually make stupid, ignorant, and unfounded claims.....and.........

But remind me why we should pay much attention to those folks who don't really know much about what's really going on. If they don't know what's really going on, how can they possibly make any viable suggestions or offer any real solutions?"[/i]

If that's not secluding YOURSELF, the POLICY MAKERS and THOSE INVOLVED WITH THE OIL COMPANIES from ALL other Americans as having the only worthwhile voice, then what is it? How is THAT not understanding your comments? How is THAT "Twisting your words". ?? LOL You've got to be kidding? :^O

You made one of the most self centered and arrogant claims against the majority of America's population and yet you whine that you were bashed and not your comments directly?

Give your head a shake, Maxwell! If you don't like the way your comments sound when they are repeated, then think before you make them. You made a ridiculous and very condemning comment toward a GREAT DEAL of your country's population as not having a voice worth listening to, yet now you are trying to DEFEND that claim?

The only spite shown here was from you toward anyone not as educated on issues as you and a select few are. Again, this little sect wouldn't fill a Volkswagon, and yet all other comments are strictly ignorable and unqualified in your mind?

Way to go Max, you insist on having your comments dragged through the mud by focusing more attention on what you've said. Taking someone ELSE's comments completely out of context and then blaming THEM?

Think again, you may think the rest of Americans are stupid but anyone can see your way out of line and offering very self absored COMMENTS here.

Again though, please show me where in my comments I attacked you and not the message as I VERY clearly pointed out (but you very conveniently excluded from your claims). I won't hold my breath, it can't be done without quoting me out of context.

Now for your eloquent closing after your out of context LIES about how you were flamed:
[i]"You are lacking in character; by your own admission you think there's something wrong if a person tries to live a value-based life; and you as so self-centered and pompous, and so full of yourself that it's almost sickening. What an absolute moron you are.

I'm through with you, dude. You are an absolute waste of both air and my time." [/i]

[b]THAT[/b] would be a direct flame toward me, not even a slight mention of a comment in which you are referring to. You've been here long enough to know that such comments will not be tolerated by the peers and staff of TR.

First of all, it's a complete LIE. I said I don't believe in your 'Core Values' that you apply in blanket form to anything you have no real rational answer for. You assert yourself as someone who uses a core set of values against any and ALL issue you face. Abortion is wrong because you don't believe in taking human lives, yet when rape is an issue, you use that exact same defense.

This proves that you are incapable of considering the various apects of a situation and instead see all as one. Murder is murder, even if the person who was raped isn't really the murderer, hasn't been negligent and done anything to deserve someone else's child growing inside of her and possibly ruining the rest of her ilfe after being raped. How about life with exceptions ,as not every situation is black and white.

I said NOTHING about not believing people who live a VALUE BASED LIFE, please quote that comment, IN FULL FOR ONCE. I did say I don't believe a strict set of core values can be applied to all sides of an issue, there must be SOME reason and rationality behind condemning various issues, abortion isn't a black and white issue, though you seem to feel it is. Core values are suppose dot be a way of guiding you to a 'reasoned' conclusion.

In short, you are saying 'Abortion is murder and I don't support murder therefore I cannot support abortion.' You offer NO consideration for the multiple reasons for abortion that would not support your core values.

Your entire post is complete hypocrisy, LIES and out of context quotes, proving a severe lack of comprehension.

It's not up to me to "prove" anything to you; I simply stated how I feel, and why I oppose communistic enviro groups. You can take it or leave it. Your choice.

The "proof" you ask for is out there, in abundant supply. All you have to do is look.

Check our site such as www.propertyrightsresearch.org, www.freedom21santacruz.net, www.eco.freedom.org, http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest53.htm, or www.americandreamcoalition.org.

As you should already know by now.

You can make all the assertions and comments you wish, they are absolutely USELESS and will go completely unconsidered unless you are able to support your claims with either fact or sources to echo your reasoning.

This is how credibility is gained. Someone who constantly makes comments but refuses to further explain or support them is very quickly written off as a waste of time. Not trying to give you a hard time, but if you can't, or aren't willing to, support your own assertions, conclusions or facts, then they aren't going to be accpeted nor listened to in future.

and avoid the quills you need to use a 'sky hook'.

As a boy scout, no doubt to keep us from lighting something on fire, we were often sent on searchs for sky hooks and other esoteric devices.

They have to be ground very find to avoid pain when you take a long hollow wooden tube and blow the powdered snuff up the nose of the other ritual celebrant. Very similar to indigenous Amazon tribes using 'Yopo' hallucinogenic snuff.

By your replies.

is true, I've cooked a feast for a birthday ceremony where peyote tea was a part of it.

( I've learned quite a bit about the traditional Native beleifs by attending sweatlodges, I've been firekeeper for three different "Elders" at sweatlodges. )

where the warming trend is caused by pollution, and we are actually going deeper into an ice age.

we'll have to wait and see which it is. unless we can stop all pollution.

I m also familiar with sweat lodges. An old employee and good friend was very active in his tribe as well as being an advocate for the first nations.

I have also done a lot of work with several bands, in Vancouver and here on the island.

It just seemed like people were making fun of the miniature porcupine parasite.

I just wonder which companies to boycott as a libertarian conservationist.

I haven't found any recentinformation on the parasite myself, it's just something I learned in school one year. One guy,I assume for a project at school because there are no other pages, has a webpage available though with a picture of it. They look almost like a tic.

http://skipper.freewebsitehosting.com/

First of all, being a Libertarian state officer, I can tell you that environmentalism, in its current form, is NOT libertarianism. The current environmental situation is pure communism--and I fight it constantly, on a local, state and national level, every day. I, like you, firmly believe in being a good steward of the environment, but communist controls are NOT the answer.

Libertarianism says that I shouldn't violate your rights, and you shouldn't violate mine. Anything else is no one else's business. You tell me how the current environmental movement fits that mold.

The Sierra Club doesn't think that land-use controls go far enough in cotrolling what humans can do with their own property--I know because I have personally fought to keep them from destroying what little property rights we have left in my state.

How does that fit into Libertarianism? It doesn't.

Sure, I have no right to violate your property by poisoning it or trespassing on it, but what I do on my own property is none of your business--or government's.

And how many times do I have to say this: I DO NOT support Republicans OR Democrats. The whole "I'll bet you're a George Bush supporter," or "I'll bet you get all your ideas from Rush Limbaugh" bit is really beginning to sound like a broken record. I voted for Michael Badnarik.

The eco-terrorists are groups like The Earth Liberation Front and PETA, who burn new housing developments because they don't want new human "infestations," or the animal rights groups who bomb or burn stores that sell furs. We've had more eco-terrorist attacks in the US than attacks from Middle Easterners, but you don't hear about that on the news. I wonder why.

As for global warming, that myth was debunked by science, a long time ago. The earth has ben heating and cooling, off and on, long before man ever showed up.

And you can thank what little greenhouse gases we have for the surge in new green growth. That is what you enviros want, isn't it? More trees and green space?

Check the facts.

.
It's good to see another person say the same things that I've been saying. There aren't many of us who visit these threads, but it is nice to see another.

Don't hold your breath in hopes of converting anyone or even getting them to understand the libertarian perspective. Most of these people base their opinions on either their collectivists ideals and/or their unfounded emotions -- the "feel good" crowd.

I have been beating the drum of individual liberty around here for years. And I have two maxims that I repeat often. It's wrong for a government to take a dollar from the person who earned it, only to give it to a person who did not. And I can advance my (libertarian) agenda, and live my life without infringing on the rights of a you (meaning whomever I am addressing), but you (that person) can't advance your agenda and live your desired life without infringing on me.

I can't recall many times when anyone in these threads agreed with me. There may have been one or two over the years, but for the most part no agreement and no rebuttal, just silence.

And when I ask the collectivist-type thinkers (especially the "feel-good" subset of them), to cite the Constitutional authority for such transfer of wealth social programs, I always get the same reply -- silence.

I can cite mine, however..........

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
-- James Madison

"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

..........but I always get the same reply, which is more silence.

I just don't get it, other than to suggest that people are deathly afraid to take full and total self-responsibility. And they're willing to give up their individual liberty thinking they've put those fears to rest. What a bunch of frogs; they're getting themselves cooked -- and us too in the process.

But welcome, nonetheless.

I'm not interested in your personal beliefs--and your attempts to force them on everyone else.

This country was founded on the principles of life, liberty and property. Sorry if you can't accept that.

You can crusade for whatever you will, and I'll support your right to do so--just stay off of, and do not involve, my property, or anyone else's, while you do it.

Have a nice day.

(BTW, thanks Maxwell Edison for your support. Since the other thread was maxxed-out, I had to reply here.

I know how you feel; it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.

Keep up the fight for liberty!)

.
Well, it's said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And without private property rights, a nation will go to hell in the preverbial handbag.

"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty."
--John Adams

"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."
--Milton Friedman

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."
--Samual Adams

"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety."
--George Mason

"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race."
--William Howard Taft

That's some powerful company I have.

And what company do you have?

"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
--Karl Marx

More Marxist ideas:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

----------

I prefer my company, rather than yours. And as another one of my mentors said:

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the congress is in session."
--Mark Twain

.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=166339&start=0&tag=search

Be advised, we're surrounded by turkeys.

.
Oz Media is worthy of being on your ignore list. He's the biggest Bozo around here.

"Totalitarian communists regimes simply want to transfer all assets into their hands from other private individuals, there is no moral imperative in this action, it's simply greed.

"The capitalist point that resources are theirs to exploit for their own personal gain no matter the consequences to others is also simply greed."

The truly capitalist claim is that each individual's [i]personal[/i] resources are theirs to exploit for their own personal gain. It is a fact that in a [i]free[/i] market -- not the present economy, I said a [i]free[/i] market! -- each individual's personal resources, meaning all their capital, will have been [i]earned[/i] my voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.

I take issue with the implication that capitalists' profit is gained by harm to others. Any time that one entity's (individual, corporation, PIRG, etc) gain comes at the expense of the public, there are [i]always[/i] manipulative government measures keeping certain interests in "business" contrary to the wishes of the public -- aka, the free market. Far worse, the solution is often [i]more[/i] regulation, compounding the labyrinth effect that obscures the real source of the problems, which, in the first place, can only be the coercive power unique to government. Because as long as transactions are [i]mutually volitional[/i] -- and laws, for example against fraud, are correctly enforced -- all trannsactions will be [i]mutually beneficial[/i]. Only the government can take money that you would prefer to keep. It's true that we all must eat, sleep, poo, etc, but with the exception of government-mandated monopolies -- common among utilities, such as the ones that manage our poo after we flush -- the market chooses [i]whom[/i] to pay. One criterion which you're [i]free[/i] to consider, and to weigh according to [i]your[/i] beliefs and means, is the environmental impact of companies [i]you[/i] support with [i]your[/i] money.

Don't presume to make any of those choices for me. Amendment 2 exists for the exact reason that each person has the right to make such choices individually.

I remember from elementary school that government "involvement" in certain enterprises is "necessary" (read: justified) due to "scale". In "economies or industries of scale," supposedly, no private interest is wealthy enough (powerful enough!) to provide adequately for the [i]needs[/i] of the entire public.

That is absolutely false, as is every consequence that proceeds from that assumption. The Interstate Freeway system -- and I'll assume it really was a legitimately important tool for national defense -- was a justifiable government expense as such. The Internet, likewise. But it isn't the purpose of government to create markets. And in cases not related to defense (a role named in the Constitution as the federal government's responsibility), then if there is not a sufficient market for an expense, however tantalizing the futurist vision may be, using tax money to pay for that project [i]means[/i] taking money from all in order to indulge some preference of a subset. Even if that subset is the vast majority, the Constitution exists to prevent abuse by limiting what may be "justified" by any subset of the population, however numerous that subset.

To get back on track, if environmental concerns cannot be addressed by boycott, then such concerns are, [i]by definition[/i], less important to the public -- aka the market -- than the benefits of whatever produces the pollution. The money you own quantifies your ability to "regulate" markets. The eloquence and accuracy with which you describe your concern for the environment may give you some ability convince others to join you in a boycott of businesses that pollute too much in your opinion. And there end your rights to affect the role of businesses on the environement. You do not have any right to impose government regulations, regardless of the incomplete reading of the Constitution and any legislation or court decisions based on such evasive, selective recognition of inalienable, self-evident rights.

Money gives even the poorest consumers better access to "making a difference" in such matters than any possible access to politicians, whose price to bribe is higher than gas at a competing station, or a commuter bike to replace your car, or any other competitive option in any other market. Considering how much capital is redistributed out of the hands of the market -- aka, the public -- in order to perform the regulatory functions that are the right of the individuals who comprise the market, I have found it impossible to rectify government encroachment into the economy with any premise other than Marxism -- selectively applied, I'll grant, but Marxism with the [i]claim[/] of a "moral imperative" is nothing new, and is still Marxism. Ironically, it's difficult to see any philosophy expressed in Marxism other than Kant's "universal moral imperative" which judges the moral import of any action by only one criterion: its benefit to any and all [i]except[/i] the person acting. That premise absolutely denies the right to pursuit of happiness, and in fact forbids [i]pursuit[/i] of (one's own) happiness. That philosophy, practiced honestly -- meaning with absolute consistency -- leaves each person only to hope -- not even to plead, that would be an action! -- that somebody will chance to act in their interests, which they would not be permitted to even describe! :D

I highly recommend "Give Me A Break" by John Stossel for a thorough description of the impoverishing effect of even the best-intended, noblest regulation. That book also shows that poverty is correlated to more dramatic reduction in average life span than smoking, obesity, [i]or any other risk factor[/i]!

Economic freedom = good

Government interference = bad

It really is that simple. I have tried for the past eight years to find exceptions, and none stand up to scrutiny.

"Keep up the fight for liberty!" Ve MUST succeed! Ve MUST stop the inferiors!

Ya! Sig Heil! Sig Heil! Sig Heil!

DOH! :^O

Maybe you can form a little sect and wear armbands and cool boots too. Perhaps have all non-Republicans wear a gold star so you know who's worth listening to and who needs to be gassed. Oh I forgot, you condemn everyone who doesn' think your way already, no need for boots or armbands, then you wouldn't be able to pretend you are someone you are not when it suits your agenda.

Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about. - Mark Twain

And a really retarded comments from your fearless god.

"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- George W. Bush

The illiterate shrub has spoken. lol

Musroom cloud? Whatever Mr.Bush, go hide in your hole now and let the country move on intelligently without you.

"even tho much of this is a result of economies that are NOT capitalist". WRONG!

If global warming is caused by man then the significant factor is the production of carbon dioxide. This [b]must[/b] be differentiated from pollution which is a completely different animal altogether. Any mention of global warming on this site previously has had the gw-deniers launching into undeserved diatribes about Chinese and Russian power stations. So, some figures...

Carbon dioxide emissions in megatons due to the burning of fossil fuels and flaring of natural gas 2003. Source from UK government figure.

No particular order. You can do your own per capita sums if you want.

Region/Country 2003

Canada 600.18
United States 5,802.08
France 409.18
Germany 842.03
United Kingdom 564.56
Western Europe 3,895.76
Eastern Europe &
Former U.S.S.R. 3,099.33
Middle East 1,203.21
Africa 957.85
China 3,540.97
India 1,024.83
Japan 1,205.54

World Total 25,162.07

This next bit's not aimed at you but I can't be bothered to post twice! :)

In the UK, we had our taste of "pure capitalism" from the end of the eighteenth century onwards. Then nasty interfering government stepped in and damn me if they didn't cut profits by introducing lots of namby-pamby laws!

Factory Act 1819 Limited the hours worked by children to a maximum of 12 per day.
Factory Act 1833 Children under 9 banned from working in the textiles industry and 10-13 year olds limited to a 48 hour week.
Factory Act 1844 Maximum of 12 hours work per day for Women.
Factory Act 1847 Maximum of 10 hours work per day for Women and children.

But that really cut profits down , so, after a lot of lobbying and bribery...

Factory Act 1850 Increased hours worked by Women and children to 10 and a half hours a day.

There's a nineteenth cantury folk song - "From Hull and Halifax and Hell, the Lord deliver me"

Leave capitalism in charge of the future of the planet?

You can no longer whine about the US "breaking" this agreement because they are not breaking it.

For someone that prides himself on logical discussions, you have really fallen off the logic train and right onto the emotional roller coaster.

Don't let your Bush hate blind you. Even if we have a potential ally in the middle east, it is STUPID to not try to be as sell self seficient as possible, when ever possible. Do you regularly protest drilling in Canada? They should stop drilling and look for alternative fuel sources. Not a logical solution, it is? Go buy something other than patrolium products to run your vehicles and heat your home. After you have a working solution that is AFFORDABLE, let me know. until then, I think I will go have a carabu burger for dinner.

You have had one valid point, and that is holding the shipping to international law about dumping. Who is in charge of inforcing this? Of do they actually go into Canadian waters? (i don't know) Why doesn't the Canadian coast guard watch for this and put an end to it? If it is that big of a national crisis, what is Canada doing to stop the dumping?

Why do you continue to harp on other points that you "feel" are valid but have been shown not to be?

The herd will not disapear, nor will the people that hunt it.

A small section will have drilling. The rest is still going to be left as-is, just like the agreement between the two countries states.

All is well.

Get input, feed back. Ask peoples oppinion.

After you have done this, you take all the information gathered and make a decision. The consultant does not make ANY decision, but can only advise.

As for rogue countries, I suppose we shouldn't declaire ANY country that supports terrorists an enemy? We would then treat them like such with all economic and social sanctions possible. We don't need to take each one out, but ban all trade with them is a good start.

And of course, anyone that wants to die for their religion should have our full co-operation, to go solo.

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."
--- Ferdinand Magellan

Maybe we should drop som eflyers in teh Middle East

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1122749520008_6/?hub=Canada

Hey if we are gonna be lumped together as left wingers we may as well see what they have to say on the issue too.

"...an estimate by the American Microbiological Society that 100,000 Americans die annually due to waterborne disease."

consult - vt 1: to have regard to : CONSIDER 2 a: to ask the advice or opinion of <~a doctor> b: to refer to <~ a dictionary>

I urge you to CONSIDER the first definition: "to have regard to". What [i]regard[/i] must one party to an agreement have for the other, to consult, then completely [i]disregard[/i] the "advice or opinion of" the other.

Now, jdclyde, while I'm still feeling sarcastic, answer me: do you know what the word "agreement" means? Do you understand that [i]both[/i] countries [i]agreed[/i] on the importance of the caribou herd being discussed here? Whether any of us like it or not, an [i]agreement[/i] was signed, voluntarily, by [i]two[/i] parties, [i]both[/i] of which are responsible to keep that agreement.

I like to travel. I don't like having to wear another country's flag when I visit another continent. Backing out of international agreements with weak excuses such as the one you offered, JD, are the reason why US students attending foreign universities claim to be Canadian.

Where did you hear about the college students?

Now I know very well that Americans aren't welcomed with open arms in MOST parts of the world, being confused for an Americanis not a good thing.
I know Canadians are generally welcomed with open arms, excluding the recent Canadian forces sent to help the uprising terrorism from Taliban and AlQaeda surrounding Afghanistan.

But I hadn't heard about the students posing as Canadians.

And not just OZ

I never said all capitalists did I, there are always people in our societies who pretend to members but wish to be beyond what makes us a society. Legislation and governments are what are meant to protect us from them. Unfortunately some of them got rich and bought both these bodies so they could screw us out of everything they wanted.

By the way it's a merlin not a turkey.

Seeing as you wish to safeguard your constituition I am the least of your problems, Ive no plans to invade at the moment. Perhaps you should look a bit closer to home for those who wish to trample all over it and make your liberty worthless.
I want your constitution to work, it should be easy it's written down so why are you allowing some of those with capital to piss all over it in order to make a profit.
If you are telling me your free now I shall laugh even louder, freer than some yes, but there are individuals and organisations in both our countries who've accorded themselves the right to be freer than the rest of us.

I don't think I've seen the 'Idle but Deadly' one?!

I don't remember it, I suppose it's effective marketing then. :)

smoking during pregancy can harm the baby.

since I'm not gonna be getting pregnant any time soon that warning means those smokes aren't gonna harm me, only any baby I'm carrying. :D

"Factory Act 1819 Limited the hours worked by children to a maximum of 12 per day."

Thereafter, children who had pursued their self-interest by working longer days than that no longer had that right.

"Factory Act 1833 Children under 9 banned from working in the textiles industry and 10-13 year olds limited to a 48 hour week."

Orphans under nine were thereafter dependent, by state order, on charity. They were deprived of their right to support themselves by productive work and put at the mercy of whatever "social safety net" existed. Also, forced to be a burden to that net rather than a productive memeber of society, who might, despite anyone else's cycnicism, have spent some of their earnings on education. But they lost that right, and we will never know.

And so on.

Limiting the time that a person may spend in productive activity, according to the duration of a "full day's work" as estimated by a fat, pompous, powdered wig-wearing MP, just deprives the workers of their rights to be as productive as they would like.

People don't "get ahead" by doing the minimum amount of work possible. Laws claiming to protect people from working "too much" only protect them from [i]earning[/i] "too much". In how many cases have those laws prevented people from earning "too much" to remain in the same monotonous industry their entire lives, meaning enough to train for another, more productive and lucrative career? Once is too many times. Those "namby-pamby laws" limit the rights of the most industrious workers, on behalf of the less industrious ones. The best are sacrificed to the mediocre in one small step backward for British society, one giant leap forward for Marxism.

Very sorry.

Friends have mentioned that speaking English with the North American accent attracts dislike in [i]many[/i] foreign countries, but that displaying the Canadian flag dispels the hostility. My evidence is limited to my circle of acquaintances.

Is that in a tongue in your cheek.
Besides you missed an important bit out of the legislation 'poor'
Probably one of the main reasons why Marx & Engels rose to such prominance, all they really wanted was for those rich kids to have the same character building opportunities as the poor ones.
LOL

Tony: Besides you missed an important bit out of the legislation 'poor'

Ab: I didn't miss that. I did not mention it because it is irrelevant.

Tony: Probably one of the main reasons why Marx & Engels rose to such prominance, all they really wanted was for those rich kids to have the same character building opportunities as the poor ones.

Ab: What "character building opportunities" do you mean exactly? Their political views have very consistently provided to hundreds of millions of peasants such "character building opportunities" as torture, theft, and mandatory "re-education". What "main reasons" justify the realities of communist societies?

"Probably...all they really wanted..."? I do not claim to have access to private mental processes such as others' motivations, but I know what they described as the ideal society, what means they advocated to achieve their ends, and what has actually been achieved by employing such means. Certainly, what their ideas have produced since their first publication is more murder than any other single fallacy in the same period.

65 million Chinese peasants killed by failure of the command economy, and successful use of absolute power to kill couner-revolutionaries.

30 million Soviets killed, same dynamics.

3 million (of a total population of only 7 million!) Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge.

What do Marx and Engels have to say about that? What do you have to say about it?

There are many employment laws these days that are oftenoverlooked when in the best interest of and with the consent of both parties. Such laws protect the employee from exploitation, more than they hinder a persons ability to earn a living.

A child under 9 could have a job helping pick up around a friend's factory or shop, he can make pocket money and as your comments suggest, a 4 years old wouldn't be deprived by being forced to accept support, he could get a side job and buy a house if he likes, though he may need to have an adult nearby when cooking.

The retrictions allow for conviction where convictions didn't exist before.

By creating these laws, when an employer is found to be exploiting children, generally orphaned children or children from homes with no means of support, when they raid his operation, there are MORE charges that apply and MORE a-holes go to jail.

When I was a toddler I would help the lady who made up the rooms in my dad's pub. Each week she would call me in her office and tell me how I did and if I'had any tantrums or played up (I was only 4 MAYBE 5) then she gave me a pay packet with 50p in it or soemthing, that was a working man's fortune to me. I would go to the corner store down the road and buy a FEW candies and save the rest.

Fortunately, my father made it out without serving time because I had my first taste of working for money and being evaluated on my performance when I was a VERY wee lad.

You offered an entertaining analogy though, I would have thought you were offering tongue in cheek comments too.

I have found that a small Canadian flag on you rluggage or pin on your lapel help a hell of a lot too. It's always noticed and always pointed out, which means you always get free pints and stek&kidney pie at the pub.

I've even had a pub throw band members out when they turned up for sound check until he found out they were from Canada and not the USA, then it was "pints all'round" again.

It's crappy really, because in all honesty I DO like the USA, it's a very interesting country with a unique history and lots to see and enjoy.

I have been billeted at cubs and scouts houses as a kid when visiting US jamborees and found them most hospitible and kind people.

As a late teen, a friend and I would visit Carmel a lot and hang with friend he had made there at his dad's house, again it awesome friends!

I had two scouting offices (oregon and California) where I contracted talent scouts and spent a crapload of time there (AWESOME COASTAL DRIVE!)and found it fantastic, by then I was a bit older and dealing with people in an untrustworty industry but they were still decent people for the most part.

The people who simply LIVE thier lives in peace in the USA don't piss me off, the people who build big businesses and achieve personal success due to hard work in a free society don't piss me off.

There has always been an air of big pride and partiotism, but that's okay, it's 'thier thing'.

But the recent years of simply helping themselves has been a race for personal gain with no concern shown at all toward the other man.

It's stab in the back time, survival of the fittest, let your brother fall if he can't keep up and 'we'll do what we want and don't need to ask anyone about it'.
The people who control the machine are my peeve, they have ruined what used to be a great place to meet people, have fun and do business.

Now the USA is starting to like Russia used to be in the public eye, 'that big place full of a-holes that's want to rule the world.'

If you want me to do something for you, don't ask and it will be done.

If you don't want something done, tell me to do it.

If you don't think I can do something, tell me I can't do it and sit back and watch in awe.

If there is something i haven't done before, then I am certain it's something I want to do right now.
(That theory has helped me learn endless things ,including sweeping chimneys :P, and I have no fear of TRYING anything now because I am confident I can figure it out somehow)

Which brings me to...
If something has been manufactured, by man or machine, I can rebuild it, make it better or fix it.

I have faith in myself, and that's pretty much where my religion sits.

I used to work for AECL, the designers of the reactor.

In fact, you will find that they used to promote the Candu as the safe alternative because they thought it could not be setup to make sufficient plutonium to make a weapon. India bought a Candu and experimented with it to make it workable for weapons production but its a stretch.

Some minute amounts of plutonium are produced as a by product, but if setup the way they are designed to operate, they don't produce weapons grade stuff. In fact, there was a successful test of burning a mix of weapons grade (from old nuke warheads) and regular fuel(slightlty enriched uranium) to actually make the plutonium unable to be used as a weapon (pacified). Unfortunatley, while the US and Russia had agreed on this in the late 90s, subsequent Russian leaders changed their mind.

James

.
You've only been posting in these threads for a short time, and you seem to have identified our Canadian friend, Oz Media, pretty accurately. He relentlessly attacks people, and in a most disingenuous way, and he attacks an entire nation -- and uses these attacks to avoid having to engage in reasonable and rational discussion when confronted with flaws in his assertions and/or arguments. He twists words, and he charges people for doing the very thing he has done himself. (Notice he criticized me for flaming, yet he threw the first flame -- and he danced around it when called on it.) Not to mention his numerous lies. He even lies about who he is and what he does, trying to put up this personal facade and such. We all know about people who continually talk about themselves -- and in this case, he does it with lies. He's quite the "wanna-be".

And you're right about his need to always get the last word. Just notice how many of the threads/tangents in this very discussion where his is the last post -- Last Word, Oz.

He is a total waste of time. And now you realize that as well.

I love your messages, by the way. Maybe there are more of us out there than I realize. Very well done, and very well said on all counts.

(Last word, Oz -- coming up.)

A few points.

First, the agreement is not being broken by anyone. There was clear intent shown that at some point there WOULD be development of natural resources. To say this agreement is being broken by exersising that clearly expressed intention is disingenuis on both yours and Mr. Oz's part.

Second, if you get a second opion from a doctor and it isn't the same opion, do you follow both just because you consulted with both? When in tech and your looking at hiring a vendor to impliment a solution, you consult with a few vendors and then chose for yourself the path you will take.

I didn't say you ignore the other side, but that doesn't mean you HAVE to follow everything the other side says either. You take everything into concideration, and disregard emotional BS that has no factual basis and them make a decision. The facts just are not out there to say that drilling for oil in agreeance with the agreement signed will wipe out the carabu, nor anyone that lives off of them.

Consult does not mean to ask permission.
"consult - vt 1: to have regard to : CONSIDER 2 a: to ask the advice or opinion of"

Opinion asked, and now a decision will be made based on facts and the best interests.

"Don't drill because it will only help a little" is a poor reason not to drill. Actually, it isn't a reason at all.

Sniviling about oil from Iraq (OZ) isn't a reason at all.

Oz, with your continued rabid hate for Bush and his administration, regardless of if a discussion concerns Bush or not is thrown out on a regular basis. Very hipocritical from someone that prides himself on not knowing his friends and families political preferences because it isn't an issue. Too bad for him his opinion means nothing on that issue as he gets no vote in American politics and policies.

If you had maintained a less shrill tone, you would have also maintained some credibility in this regard.

I have not blindly followed everything Bush has said and none, but you HAVE blindly hated Bush.

Get over it. Some people just don't care about your hate. Your hate is as important to me as your neighbors politics is to you.

State a fact, and let people make up their mind. Don't state an emotion and smash anyone who isn't controlled by that same emotion. And yes, I am putting my hardhat on, because I feel another smashing come....

I wish you both well, and really am sorry that hate has such a hold on your life. It is way to short to live it like that.

[b][i]Disclaimer: This is only my opinion. You are free to disagree if you wish. This opinion will not be changed based on emotional responses, flames, belittlement, nor the linking to sites that are from radical groups that represend one side or the other that do not present an objective look at a situation.

NO rant, no flame, but I did find your closign disclaimer amusing, reminded me of a kid when sent to his room. Opens the bedrrom door one last time and yells, "well I hate you DAD!" then slams the door and goes to bed.

As for Bush, someone obviously can't understand that a political drive for oil gain is something that the Bush administrtion is behind.

As for the agreement, you raised a point but did not see the error in what's happening according to your own ideals.

IF there is sufficient proof either way, that the development will NOT break this agreement, then yes drillingshould go ahead of course. But as YOU agreed, there is no conclusive FACT either way, in your eyes.

One saving grace for them is that it does not mention damage to coastline or birds inOTHER areas, just the protected area.

But whilst you claim there is no sufficient evidence that it will harm the herd, there is also no sufficient evidence that it will NOT harm the herd either, and therefore cannot be carried out until these questions can be answered with certainty. I you can act on a speculation, then so can others. If you THINK it will be okay, and others THINK it won't, then you need more conclusive proof before development can be undertaken. Somehow that'll be ignored though, because SOME people think that unless there's conclusive proff there will be harm, then thier CLAIMS that it won't be harmful are therefore valid. Proof is only needed on one side of the issue in some people's eyes.

As you said yourself:
[i]"if you get a second opion from a doctor and it isn't the same opion, do you follow both just because you consulted with both? When in tech and your looking at hiring a vendor to impliment a solution, you consult with a few vendors and then chose for yourself the path you will take.[/i]

But if one doctor says, 'NO you won't develop cancer if you smoke" and another says 'Yes, you'll develop cancer if you smoke" Do you just go with the first doctor's conclusion because it suits what you want to hear?

No, you press on and get FACTS before making a decision either way.

So unless it can be proven, with EXTENSIVE study of the area, which to this point seems to have only been partially conducted by ONE side, you simply cannot say it WON'T have negative effects on the herd or the people, just because it suits your sgenda no more than others can say it WILL just because it suits thier agenda.

People constantly bash the greenies for trying to protect the environment on a whim or questionable information. Yet they don't show the same concern about those who choose to potentially destroy the environment based on the same inconclusive information. if it turns out bad, then the president can save face by allocating money to try and rectify the issue, seeming as if it mattered all along and they were unaware of any impact it may have befor ethey began. An "ooops, we'll clean that up as best we can" mentality.

But one thing that is NOT coveredm as mentioned before is teh oompact that wil haveon my home, and I don't mean Canada as being my home but Imean literally MY HOME. I live right where this crap ends up, and after watching the natural life that relies on these waters and cosatline every year, it sickens me to think that so little concern is paid towards that part of the issue.

Dumping isnot rare, it's noto something a black oil tanker flying a jolly roger does, it's something global corpartions with billions of dollars do on a regular basis. And it doesn' tend up in YOUR backyard you don't see it. Out fo sight and out of mind. I do, I''ve seen a crew removing what appeared to be several DOZEN barrels of bilge oil dumpedona coastline, the barrels are often sealed, sorta, but they usually break open against the rock or even at sea before hitting our costline.

It's not just Caribou, but thousands of wild birds that have made the Sunshine Coast of BC thier safe house and immigration/breeding grounds.

In case you are unaware, Vancouver Island is actually an island in the pacific ocean. If tankers dumpin teh Pacific, the crap has one place to go, BC. It lands on our coastline o fth ewest of the island, it seeps through the Queen Charlotte islands and pollutes a MAJOR waterway for whale migration, a large porpoise and dplphin habitat, the world's largest gathering of bald eagles every June is right on that same piece of coastline too.

What I am getting at, is there is a LOT MORE to be considered other than the direct impact on the caribou herd. That's just the key focus regarding the agreement to protect that specific area.

My complaint is derived from the PROOF of years of waste being dumped on BC coastline due to the CURRENT Alaskan oil development. This will just multiply those negative effects, not greenie stuff, FACT.

A quick comment: You claimed ""Don't drill because it will only help a little" is a poor reason not to drill. Actually, it isn't a reason at all."

In that same sense, That's also a very poor reason to justify drilling too. So the above statement is just as good a reason as saying we need to drill for a little bit of oil.

IRAQ? Of course that's relevant, do you still actually believe you went there to save America from WMD, or to Liberate people ?

Are you off to Ethiopia next to build a half trillion dollar infrastructure to help them too?

Bush has to save face, for a while, if he starts jumping on Iraqi oil now, his game will be confirmed, he is forced to seek other avenues, it will support his BS.

Any pollution source in one country that potentially impacts another country is a matter for more than just internal concern.

50% of the air pollution on Toronto comes from the US, most of it from the coal plants in the Ohio Valley. Should we just sit back and not care about US regulations? Of course not, and neither does the US.

I am not concerned with an oil spill in centre of Texas. I am concerned that an oil spill will "spillover" onto Canadian soil. And I can tell you that the US would raise many concerns if we were drilling that close to the border.

James

[i]"But if one doctor says, 'NO you won't develop cancer if you smoke" and another says 'Yes, you'll develop cancer if you smoke" Do you just go with the first doctor's conclusion because it suits what you want to hear?"[/i]

That is EXACTLY what EVERY smoker in the WORLD has done daily for decades.

People all the time CHOOSE to listen to "facts" that only support what they already thought. Look at the followers of Michel Moore, Rush, MOVEON.org, NPR and the list goes on. There are nutbags at every turn, and everyone of them seems to really believe the BS that they spew.

And when a group does not distance themselves from people like that it undermines THEIR crediblity as well.

As for proof of the herds well-being, just look around in Alaska. If oil production didn't wipe out the wildlife there, why would it in new sites where the world is much more aware of the dangers and will be watching much closer?

I posted for Elf to tell me if she is wading to work in oil or not but she must not have seen my message.
[b]
And again about the dumping I ask you, why isn't the Candian coast guard doing something about the dumping? There are laws, but they don't do any good if no one is willing to enforce them.

How is it allowed to be such a continued problem? Or is it not just the US Government that has problems?

jdclyde, the problem with analogies is illustrated by the fact that even in the simple case of two pairs of words, the vast majority of students do not get every analogy question right on their standardized test.

As example:

fact:analogy::

(a) light:dark
(b) truth:fabrication
(c) clarity:obfuscation
(d) understanding:deception
(e) solid:fuzzy

Which is the [i]best[/i] answer?

Another example: "(Second,) if you get a second opion from a doctor and it isn't the same opion, do you follow both just because you consulted with both? When in tech and your looking at hiring a vendor to impliment a solution, you consult with a few vendors and then chose for yourself the path you will take."

In those situations, you would have the options of choosing one doctor or the vendor of your choice if and only if you were not already involved in a legally binding contract with a doctor or vendor, respectively.

Here is a summary of my legal complaint about drilling in ANWR: there is a binding agreement that states that both sides care about this herd. An agreement implies that the actions relating to the object of that agreement -- the herd -- ought to be directed at that mutual concern. 20+ years later, the goal expressed in the original agreement must be defined by subsequent actions, which seem uniformly to protect the caribou. It's unfortunate that the agreement was as vague as it is, but given its existence, it ought to be interpreted conservatively. Er, I mean cautiouly, you know that, right?

My more immediate complaint is that it will not do a little bit of good. It will not do any good at all. It will help perpetuate the problem of dependence on petroleum, which funds terrorists and tyrannical governments which manufacture despair, and thus terrorists.

First of all, people would LIKE to believe the forst doctor but they know without a doubt they are actually going to risk getting cancer. Th epoint is, people don't get two conflicting assumptions and then pick one, people look for certainty befoer making a conlusion regardless of what's nice to believe.

As for Alaska, that's NOTHING even remotely close to the issue in ANWR. There is a known and specifically pin pointed breeding ground, ANY development in that area will cause some disruption to this migration every year. Hoeww MUCh is the question.

Lastly, while it shouldn't be the coast guards DUTY to watch every boat coming in and out of Alaska, we have issues at sea they are needed for too, the dumping is Pbviously going on behind people's backs, under the radar so to speak.

the cost guard IS there, there IS a major issue now with four companies being charged with crimes of dumping bilge oil off the BC coast. It's a regular thing, by MANY international companies, and cruise ships in and out of Alaska.

BUT, whilst other companies ship and cruise there, the majority of the traffic is US bound.

Why should WE be reposible for enforcing a law that your companies ignore? If we didn't, would that then make it acceptable or something?

Well I stole the car but no cops busted me so it is okay?

If you can't ship responsibly without a constant eye on you, why would that justify opening a new shipping route to increase the activity? That doesn't make ANY sense at all.

I will have the last word, I am gettnig pretty sick of your constant third party spineless, wimpy comments with no validity to the, and underhanded bullsh*t that you spew like a child at any attempt to make a new friend.

Your last post is just a complete pack of lies and you know it very well.

Also, if you insist on talking about people in the weak assed, third party 'know what he did' manner of a 6 year old, please learn to grow some balls and speak to me directly if you have a problem, you bottom feeding pussy.

You have become such a sad sorry case here recently and to think your comments used to have weight sometimes. Now it's just pure bullshit day after day. and your latest stupid peer trick is to post your same complaints again? I don't want my tax money to go to ther people, WAAAAAAAAAAAA! :(
Pussy, get a real job and earn some more money then so you can afford it withotu crying abou tit all the time, it's getting pretty old now.

As for stepping around an issue, I went into great depth as to how you were wrong and clearly showed you post to be complete BS that time too, you're not even good at your BS anymore.

So don't even try and spew your self righteous crap here, you can't hide what you've said, it's been pointed out vey clearly how you lie and attempt to deceive people here, and at least I've got the balls to tell you so directly, you spineless loser.

I was content to bow out of the conversation, but I can't let this go.

Your Oz friend is a close-minded, self-righteous waste of time--and that's why he attempts to get in the last word. Use your time more productively to talk with people who can hold a mature, intelligent conversation/debate.

Ignore the board troll and maybe it will go away. :)

because they are suppose to be guarding your coast, hense the name.

If there is a problem with illegal dumping you can choose to inforce the laws in your region and stop the activity or you can do nothing about it and snivel.

I think you need to do the first option, but what do I know?

This isn't US politics, the dumping, yet you will blame the whole thing on the US while admittedly not all of the offenses are from US ships.

Much easier to enforce a law to keep the spillage from happening than it is to try to clean it up later on. If this is the dire situation you have described to us, how do you justify your comments

"Why should WE be reposible for enforcing a law that your companies ignore? If we didn't, would that then make it acceptable or something?"

If you don't want something done where you are at, you are responsible for enforcing the law where you are at. Your bright enough to figure that out, unless you would like to just keep passing the buck and the blame.

If dumping is taking place and it is a major crisis there then the Canadian government is who is to blame.

Sometimes I really wonder if different people sign on under your account. This enforcement should be something you would be all over, unless it really is just a way to slam US for a shortcoming of Canada that you don't want to accept?

.
I just have to "share".

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178781&messageID=1821414

But you're right. I need to spend my time more productively. This is nothing but a total waste of my time. (But it can be fun.)

Continuing to ring the bells of liberty......

My aspiration is to be Lord Ruler of SE Asia and the Pacific Rim.

All the coolest tech is there in SE Asia, and I'd be able to go dance with the aboriginal peoples in Australia all the time.

Did I mention I'd put a tax on prostitution too? hahahahaahha :D

Anyone who keeps on smoking after seeing those must have a strong addiction. Anyone who starts smoking after seeing those must not be very bright. Definitely stronger than the Surgeon General's warning on US cigarette packs, which is still a pretty strong warning, even if not as sensational as the Canadian warnings.

With all the warnings against smoking all these years, I would think that suits against tobacco companies would have no merit, since no one forced anyone to smoke, and it is a matter of personal responsibility. But with today's legal climate, there are lawyers that can get juries to go along with anything.

Gaaawd!!! Why don't you want drilling? Ever been there? I HAVE! There's nothing growing and only a heard goes through there once a year. Dont want to disturb that giant heard you say? well hell, that same herd goes by other populated areas without a hitch.

Oh, and those pictures of ANWR? I think they're in Wyoming somewhere because there's not a damn thing taller that knee height up there. I had to fly all over that state to every small village year-round to inventory the Native Corp stores. Most of the locals don't have a clue about it and the ones that do say, "hell yea!--more money for me".

I'm not making this up.

Ever see those Paul Newman anti-ANWR commercials? Thats a friggin Pine forrest?!?! And the waterfall--whats that about!?!? NONE of that is in northern Alaska--it's friggin frozen.

All the years I lived in Alaska, I only met a few against drilling--less than ten. They were all young, opinionated people who knew very little about economics, enviroment, and commerce in general. Sounds like I'm putting them down doesn't it but it's true. They just wanted to beat the drum that was popular to beat. They had never read the real studies about enviromental impact. they only knew what greanpeace and some other groups put forth by their 'doctors' who werent actually accredeted by any legitimate educational standards. Not to mntion that most of their reports weren't even generated by first hand research.

Go ahead and look into it--they werent the ones that went up there to do the comprehensive research. They might have been up there but only to verify some minutia that they got from another report. My favorite is when they cite a ton of references as their source material. You people never stopped to notice that if they had to cite all these other people then that proves that they werent even the ones doing the research!--How the hell can they be experts then?

Oh...almost forgot--those references...the few that were legitimate research--their overall summary isn't even the same conclusion that your reading list is professing.

If you want to see government corruption, try coming over to Iraq with me, (where I'm currently working). This entire new government is corrupt. I'm so sick of trying to help these flea-market mentality people that I'm about to throw in the towel and move back to Alaska to start the drilling myself!

time for Marx, as far as I'm concerned his philosophy is as pie in the sky as ethical free market capitalism. The regimes you are talking about called themselves communist but they were not. The only redistribution of weatlh that occurred was from people who had it to the guys in charge.

American democracy has more in common with Marxism than Lenin or Stalin's Russia.

Mind you your leaders seem to be working on that.

http://www.fog.it/legislaz/londra-2001.htm

International Convention on Civil Liberty for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage

The environmental law enforcement program also offers statistics on many companies being fined on both coasts for improper bunker oil dumping.

There are bunker oil laws enforced all over the globe by all coast guards.

Our coast guard DOES catch offenders, not just US but many Canadian tankers and world cruise ships too. But that is not a point at all.

The USA is plannign ondrillin gand increasing exports of oil from the region, many of which pass by southward down the entire length of Vancouver island and the NOrthern BC coast.

Russia isn't increasing production, Russia isn't, and neither is anyone else, the US wants to increase the oil shipments and therefore increase harmful pollution to Canada's shoreline that even now is uncontrollable even with full global cooperation.

So it's a problem that is DIRECTLY linked to US actions and the efeects on anothers land...'again'.

"First of all, people would LIKE to believe the forst doctor but they know without a doubt they are actually going to risk getting cancer. Th epoint is, people don't get two conflicting assumptions and then pick one, people look for certainty befoer making a conlusion regardless of what's nice to believe."

People look for certainty much more consistently when [i]their own[/i] interests are involved. Self-interest is the most powerful motivator of integrity known to humanity.

Why don't you Canadian a**holes mind your own busines? You don't hear Americans criticizing your govt.

Oh yeah, that's right -- your country isn't important enough to care about!

but not due to oil drilling. warming in the north appears to have made vast clouds of mosquitos more numerous. MOre warm days overall and they breed quicker. On large portions o f their migration, there is no escape into water.

They literally have been sucking the caribou dry. Saw show on (NGC?) indicating numbers were down to half or a third or less of normal.

Before you laugh, it also happens to cows in Florida. Their blood becomes so thick they die. The mosquitos can take out a gallon or more fairly quickly.

So therefore, if both the oil tycoons and shipping companies are going to act in thier best interests, even to the extent of saving recycling money by dumping bunker waste at sea, then they need more proof of thier claims that it will have no effects. Fair enough?

If the WWF is known to have a personal agenda then they must ALSO provide more conclusive proof of thier claims that the effects will be detrimental in the protected area. Fair enough?

There is too much speculation and 'aaahhhh, what the hell, it can't hurt....can it?' going on, there needs to be a proper study completed by a nonbiased third party. Perhaps Price Waterhouse Cooper wants this one?

One thing that is purely undeniable as time and experience SHOULD have proven by now;

There are too many offenders in the water now to properly investigate and fine the companies associated, the fines are WAAAAAAY too low, just over $1000 on average. This is an ever increasing and very real danger to the BC Coastline and it's inhabitants. Yet while this waste also effects several protected forest areas and coasts in BC, THAT protection by OUR government is supposed to provide is not being considered it seems. Or if it is, I am completely unaware of thier involvement.

Increased passage of travel for these tankers that pass the BC coastline headed south for the US, who will be undertaking this project, WILL cause further irrepairable damages to our coastline, where I live. It is fact, it is proven and it happens all the time, it's not like some random accident every 10 years or something.

Therefore, it is only my logical and solid conclusion to oppose expansion of such a damaging industry in order to benefit another country's over consumption of petroleum fuel oil. Fair enough?

why we used to dump stuff in the ocean: an endless sink. Sure, it was OK at 1st; then as we grew and dumped more stuff in ocean it is now vastly affecting the ocean.

Huge levels of CO2 have been absorbed by the ocean, happily lowering atmospheric CO2 but dissolving diatom's skeletons with the resulting carbonic acid. No problem.. they only produced 70% of the earth's oxygen.

Toxic compounds that are fat soluble build up in the ocean also. And now tiny plastic particles are present in the centers the oceans in large amounts, are the predominate item floating in the water in some areas. Few have any idea what effect these are having.

We have no idea what turning the sun into a dump would do. We only think, because it is vast, that it will have no effect. Except for the vastness part, it doesn't sound like such a great idea. Let's pollute the one solar body outside earth that is absolutely critical to our survival. Wheeee!!!

While of course speculation, several recent sci-fi episodes deal with this very thing: Star Trek Generations was on last nite, with a scientist lobbing radioactive compounds into the sun to purposely get it to destabilize and explode.

And Stargate episode where they introduced trans-uranic compounds into a neighboring sun caused it not to explode but changed output levels so basically the people would be fried and crops die.

Suns exist as a balanced dynamic equalibrium between fusion processes and gravity. If for example fusion output drops a tiny bit, this can cause the opposing gravity to contract the sun's mass. This then heats up the fusion reaction again, even hotter to burn higher elements and can cause a nova, supernova or hypernova.

And I'm sure there would be those who would deny that doing this could cause any problem as we did it anyway. Solar flares? just part of the normal heating /ice age cycle.

Let's have a committee study it for years. Then they could either deny anything was happening or accept that it was happening but is too expensive for us to do anything...

And as we expand into space, we can start polluting other solar systems.

To the Universe and Beyond!!

Paraphrasing:
"America the beautiful, Man shed his waste on thee. And crown thy pines with billboard signs, from sea to polluted sea.."

due to underocean belt currents and local weather patterns, great portions of the earth can get hotter or colder even if the opposite overall trend is occuring.

if the earth heats up much more, greenland ice cap melting (one glacier alone in greenland, melting at an accelerated rate is making up 4% of sea level rise) floods arctic with fresh water, cutting off the thermal conveyor currents (gulf stream). Northern Europe may get much colder.

In any case we have a built in interest in keeping earth at what ever temperature it is at currently due to 70% of population living within a few miles of coast.

Particularly violent hurricane season in FL would seem to be a result of warming. Well, maybe all the Floridians can build their houses on stilts and get cig boats?

If you'd like definitive proof I'll need a night or two to finish the book. But theres a decent bibliography of the following:

- The known estimate of world oil has been calculated to roughly 2 trillion barrels of oil.

- Best mathematical guess in the early 1960s was that America would exceed peak production by 1971. In truth it was closer to 1972 but close enough.

- World oil production is expected to peak between 2005 and 2007. Since much of the actual data is considered "state secrets" it usually takes between five and seven years to accurately measure the true results.

- The easiest oil or the first 50% will be the first to be extracted, in low sulfer liquid form. The other 50% will be locked in less than desirable or less economical (to extract) sources like: Oil shales, tar sands and coal belts.

Now, lets really talk about economics. World oil production is simply winding down. Even our very food is based on cheap oil. Just ask any corporate farmer or Archer Daniels Midland. Farming by hand, frankly - sucks! No oil. No 300 acre wheat fields. You getting the economic picture, now? I could go on and on about big oil and how economies/monopolies are run and what happens when the parties over.

As a staunch environmentalist with the credentials too boot! Nothing would make me happier to let the oil lie. On the other hand I am also a realist the world, in this case the United States is going to drill for oil. Drill until theres not a drop left.

It doesn't matter that we aren't planting enough trees, grass or vegatative cover in general to absorb all the carbon we are pumping into the atomosphere. Oh no! Either way its a recipe for disaster. So... lets get it over with, now.

Lets all go drive our enormous light trucks, blessedly now called SUVs. The SUV is a marketing gimmick by the then big four automakers (Then President of AMC in 1969). The reason for the ploy was that AMC couldn't get thier arms around the new emmision standards about to go into place and needed some Federal help to keep from going out of business. Hence, the light trucks were excluded from the emissions controls and CAFE died as clever joke on the American public. Back to our nice little cul-de-sacs in Pleasantville, USA where a forrest or crop field once stood and wait for the enetible. No oil and no idea as to what the hell to do next!

Drill away me boys! Its a hopeless cause anyways.\

- beads

cattle in the tropics gain weight at half the speed in temperate zones. they've found people are healthier when cold also. burning off extra energy to keep warm does something good for us.

when you're outside you can always put on something extra to keep warm but when hot, there's only so much you can take off!