FOWL

Well as I used to be far more left leaning, and gradually my opinions shifted pretty far to the right, I can see both sides of many of these arguments. The vast majority of people with more left leaning are truly trying to make society a better place, and in a perfect world they would be the best choices, except the reality of corruption at the highest levels of society has lead me to have to reasses and come to the conclusion that I have to err on the side of personal liberty up to the point that that liberty harms others of course. I totally see the point of fully automatic weapons having no purpose other than full scale combat, however, given the US governments violent recent history of oppression, I also can't blame someone for wanting serious firepower! I am pro handgun, I don't own one, but I see no reason people shouldn't be allowed them. As I stated on the issue of privatisation, I feel neither option is good! Well I feel roads should one hundred percent be a public project. After that it gets tricky for myself, but is definately an issue that both sides have solid points on.

Okay, I don't KNOW that ALL apes hunt, but I do know that chimpanzees, our closest relatives, do hunt as packs, swarming monkeys on all sides and driving them into waiting apes which then savagely kill and eat. I've seen video, it is a fact. No I've never taken an anthropology course, but I do know that the vegs who say our canine teeth are proof that we evolved as vegetarians are out of their minds.

thank you for responding jonyak. I won't go into too much detail about the issues brought up, but I'll just give a quick assesment and you can debate further if you wish. In terms of guns, I'm not a gun nut, but I do agree that they are an important human tool that I feel people should be able to have if they so wish. Of course they were made to kill things, but we live in a world where having some security in your home is a positive thing. The number of gun accidents is absoutely miniscule, and there have been numerous cases of rampage shooters being gunned down by gun carrying citizens, and curiously enough, these cases are never trumpeted by the media, as tyrants through history know a key to control is disarming the population. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, and we see a concerted effort to disarm the American public today which is likely a losing battle! I disagree with gun control personally. In terms of privatisation of all institutions, I have mixed feelings. it is a fact that government will do everything with a bloated beurocracy and waste immense amounts of tax payer money. Furthermore, it negates the freewill of deciding to opt out of certain services. Such as, if you want to be self sufficient and create your own energy, you still have to pay property taxes to maintain infrastructure. This issue is a complicated one, and I haven't fully come to terms with what should be privatised, and what should be public. I tend to be libretarian, but am not an anarchist, so it is tough decision. I do agree that environmentalism has been hijacked to act as a control mechanism, the royal families and massive tycoons pump large amounts of money into these groups to serve as a control mechanism, and I believe it's usage there has only just begun. However, people should not be allowed to harm their neighbours, so things like pesticides, toxic dumping and all pollution that can be proven to have an adverse affect need to be governmentally restricted. So I am against his views about wanton environmental abandon, but I do NOT support the stealing of property already privately held, which is happening at an alarming rate in the US, kicking family farmers off their land to make way for superhighways and the like. Frequently flimsy environmental reasons are given, and then flagrantly ignored once big business/government gain control. Social security I tend to support, but as an able bodied human I refuse to take part in when unemployed. I personally would prefer to see everyone have the other half of their paycheck back and see how voluntary charity would function with a massive influx of DI, but I wouldn't argue this point too strongly, as social security is one thing I am willing to allow democracy to decide for me.

Sorry about that django!!! The internet really doesn't help convey tone, I have to get used to using smiley faces! I was just ribbing you a bit about having feet on both sides of the fence. I totally get where you are coming from, although I disagree about bigger government merely due to the history of govt. on every nation right through history. I understand the utopian ideal for what government could and should be, I just feel that it is unrealistic, and corrupt people and organisations will always find a way of infiltrating governmental organisations, which is why I believe govt. needs to be restricted and have it's power drastically reduced.

Well I like Alex Jones personally as an American political commentator www.prisonplanet.com He's not quite mainstream, but does have a radio show syndicated nationally with many massive guests. His daily show streams constantly out of his www.infowars.com website, worth a listen I think, very hardcore news show.

Well part of that is the out of control inflation going on in the US now, (remember, the Canadian dollar, which is also inflating, just at a much slower rate) over the past few years has almost doubled in value compared to the American dollar. So I would assume that is why gas prices have not inflated as heavily in Canada compared to the US.

haha. Well I totally understand where vegetarians come from, and understand that if you see meat as murder how you would want to restrict people from doing that. The problem is, some vegetarians argue that humans are naturally veg (which is biologically ridiculous, all the other apes hunt) and so considering we are naturally omniverous, I would hope you would support a humans right to choose whether they want to partake in the diet they were designed for or not. Of course as I said, I understand why vegetarians make that choice, and don't deride it in any way.

No way, I'm WAY too hardcore about food. Then I'd just start throwing tantrums and spreading viruses. Oh man, did I say that out loud???

Thanks for posting that article! Interesting! I agree with it (aside from the mild plug for Giuliani and Thompson, YUCK!!!). It would be interesting to have seen alongside those numbers taxes collected by government as a percentage of GDP, (as it should be, but isn't congruent to government spending.) The sad thing is that the US really isn't the small government low tax nation it was created to be. Their taxation is approaching that of Canada's, it's just the money goes to military and population policing services. Very little goes to social programs that actually benefit anyone (other than corporations of course!). It's also hilarious that Bush who campaigned as a conservative out to slash government did the exact opposite, increasing govt. spending more than Clinton did! In the US in present day you get the tax and intrusion of big government, and virtually none of the benefits!

Wow! Well you've got the politician thing down pat! Sort of say it all so you don't actually say anything! You got my vote!

Just from my own research. I'm not claiming to have the same opinion as the IPCC authors (clearly!) and obviously the authors agree with what is posited there, but it is also fact that many scientists names were added who did not agree with the conclusions and petitioned to have their names removed. Also, dissenting climatologists do get papers published, I definately got that wrong, but the funding for research is clearly on the AGW side of the debate. In it's current incarnation, carbon taxes are in a roundabout way a tax on life as virtually everything in our society is shipped using fuel. One of the positive aspects of GW movement is that it is bringing more awareness to shopping locally which I feel is essential for a number of reasons. However, if as some groups have suggested, taxes are levied on cattle and other livestock for their "emissions" then that is entirely a tax on life. The British government even released a report last year suggesting the entire population be forced into a vegetarian diet to combat global warming. While that is a long way off, I still find that troubling. I have to say I really respect this forum and the members ability to discuss extremely controversial subjects without resorting to name calling and other petty internetism. I hate to be nationalistic and I'll, but I guess that's because it's Canadian!

It's some pretty facinating algorhythms at work there! It used to be after uploading a bunch of my music and plugging in who I felt I was similar too (I'm not similar to anything, so I just typed in everything I like.) I could put on "sounds like Fowl" and hear a randomised play list of all my favorite music featuring releases I don't own yet. Then they switched it up, and now it seems (or perhaps these rhythms just took a while to take hold of my list) that what listeners of your music listen to affect what gets played in your list, creating bizarre swirls of links through the magic radio. Unfortunately, I have a friend who makes ambient music, and he's scrobbled my music a whole lot, and now my similar radio station is all ambient!!! hahha, totally opposite to what I do, but it's still a facinating system.

Good point Phish taper. My statement was oversimplified. Obviously there is a place for computer models in science, but when it comes to something as massive, complex, and untestable in the real world as the Earth's climate, no one model can possibly be sufficiently accurate. Our collective understanding of the Earth's weather patterns are still lacking, there will always be minutiae (or even huge undiscovered factors) which we are unaware of making the models unreliable. These same computer models cannot accurately predict the weather more than a week in advance, so how are we supposed to trust decade long predictions!? Certainly not more than what the ice core samples tell us about Earth's climatological history.

Jaimo, the motivation for climatologists is, if they want to be published, they pretty much have to support the mainstream view. And the political climate controlling that is, "this is a way more effective vehicle for controlling society than the phony terrorism scare ever was." Children are being innundated with the world is ending paranoia, (as had already begun when I was in school, and I bought into hook line and sinker) so that virtually any law will be passed to cheers in the future as it will be better than the extinction of our species and all life on Earth. An hour voluntary lights out is just slow incremental training for the government shutting down all residential power whenever it feels like it. Or whatever they choose. Can't you see? A tax on Carbon Dioxide is a tax on life itself. That is the goal, total return to serfdom. If you think this sounds nuts. JUST READ what the environmental think tanks and population control groups publish.

It seemed like a fair comment to me mono. In terms of overpopulation, for Canadians to talk about too many humans is totally absurd. It seems to be a fact that as a nation industrialises, the birth rate levels out and even drops to below replacement levels. Whether this would happen every where in the reason, and exactly why this is is certainly debatable. I think for starters, if we axed the private global banking system that has our nation, and ESPECIALLY third world nations enslaved to compounding interest, sucking all their resources and wealth out, perhaps we would see a drastic reduction in population growth. Even failing that, there is a hell of a lot of unused land out there. Don't believe me? Spend a day on Google Earth and come back and tell me there's no room for expansion. Now I agree that changes do need to be made in humans wastefullness and destructive nature, but it is my belief that the Earth can sustain many more humans. And if the dip in global temperature we've experience the past few years reverses and we get back on track with global warming, the fact is we will be able to support even more plant and therefore animal life on the planet. Not to mention the amount of protein there is in insect life which the west is not exploiting. SO no, I don't feel population growth is a problem. ESPECIALLY not in Canada.

My dad used to always say "how is it that every nation on Earth is in so much debt?? I don't get it, should it all cancel each other out?" It took me WAY to long to find out the answer to that question!

me too. If our debt were to other nations for real goods and services that would be one thing (I am opposed to that as well, but at least then SOMETHING is gained in return) but to be in debt to private banks for the issuance of currency is just beyond lunacy.

Hey Jonyak, I'm curious to hear some examples of nutjob Libretarians. Of course there are crazies in all walks of life, but I'd be interested to hear what opinions they held that turned you off.

D_jango, I'm ignorant on this one!!! What is a big-government Libretarian??? That seems like an oxymoron to me, but I am assuming what you mean is a strong regimen of social programs mediated by a strict adherences to human rights and personal freedoms? Is that somewhat what you mean?

Yes definately!

It's a complicated world out there! If you care to debate a specific point or ask a specific question I'd be happy to oblige. edit: oh, monorail cat deleted the comment. The cat merely asked if I could clarify my rants as they go all over the place.

I didn't see any billboards or merchandise personally, and in fact only found out about Earth Hour a day or two before it happened. But what I did find ridiculous was that they were broadcasting a live concert in support of Earth Hour on Television. Now I don't know the specifics here, but doesn't a television use WAY more energy than a house full of lightbulbs??? So turn off your lights, BUT DEAR GOD PLEASE STAY PLUGGED INTO THE PROPAGANDA MACHINE!

Absolutely. But for the people who refuse to examine any dissenting opinion claiming, "There is a scientific consensus, and any scientist who disagrees MUST be getting funding from the oil companies" is not being rational or scientific

Ya, I read that BBC article too. I have to say it doesn't impress me much. I too am skeptical of the solar winds creating more clouds theory, not supporting or decrying it, but there are a huge amount of far more compelling issues than the solar wind theory. The fact of the matter is, regardless of the specific mechanations involved, that planetary bodies across our solar system have been heating up at a similar rate to Earth, not just Mars. I even saw a GW article showing evidence that ONE planet had been cooling while admitting that everything else was warming, and said that proved the Sun had nothing to do with it. Complete bunk! The article also lies about the fact that the Earth actually HAS been cooling in the last seven years, but I suppose they are still using temperature taken in major city centers which are always warmer than rural temperatures as the UOG prof found. And failing all that, it goes on at the end to say SO WE NEED TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS. I don't know how people can't take the real science (not flawed climate models, that is not science, that is playing make believe) of the ice core data and admit that life on Earth has FLOURISHED at ten degrees warmer and 11 times more CO2 concentrations than we have now. And NEVER was an out of control feedback loop created. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks an extra 3% CO2 is going to spell doom is insane. It makes no sense.

Well obviously there are a number of interlocking factors which determine debt, but it can't be denied having currency we have to pay back with interest is completely illogical and ultimately makes no sense. However, it is totally rational that Ireland has an exploding GDP considering they have one of the lowest income tax rates in the world! Try to get your mind around that, less taxes, less debt, WILD!!!