InstantForum.NET v4.1.41BC Civ Forumshttp://www.1bcciv.com/forums@1bcciv.comThu, 08 Jan 2009 09:15:02 GMT20http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxA good old fashioned BRAWL!!!!![URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050827/wl_nm/venezuela_march_dc]Chavez supporters, foes clash in Caracas [/URL]I love it!Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:08:58 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxHah!, I should've known by the title this was going to be an ugly thread:PBe patient with me as I've just got through this and feel a need to respond...;)Ness:[QUOTE]common Scipio, I hope your exagerating. If this is how you feel, your more brainwashed by conservative america then I thought.[/QUOTE]Yes because only the conservatives 'brainwash' people...[QUOTE]I guess that’s the difference between liberal Canadians and conservative Americans. We don't mind getting tips for improvement (we actually appreciate it), where you can't stand anyone even suggesting an improvement.[/QUOTE] Because it runs counter to our 'brainwashing' I guess...[QUOTE]I see you're a book man Scipio, and clearly not open minded in the literature you chose to read. Have you done these studies on THC yourself, or did you read about the effects in some journal written for the Republican party of America.[/QUOTE]Because to be 'open minded' you must agree with the liberals I'm guessing? Apparently one can't have a differing opinion and be open minded? A very [i]closed minded[/i] thing of you to say :( Seared:[QUOTE]Besides, standard Canadian opinion is china = ally, america = destroyers of the world.[/QUOTE]Yeah, why is that?[QUOTE]Say something about the US and you're told 'Shut up ya leftist freak, I wish someone would bomb your nation already... Isn't this getting old yet?' with really nothing backing it up.[/QUOTE]Who told you that? Sounds similar to the stuff you get on the right ([QUOTE]I guess that’s the difference between liberal Canadians and conservative Americans. We don't mind getting tips for improvement (we actually appreciate it), where you can't stand anyone even suggesting an improvement.[/QUOTE])[QUOTE]Are you telling me that you have not once considered the financial benefits being reaped by special interest groups because of the war?[/QUOTE]Special Intrest Groups benefit no matter who's in charge or what's going on. Granted, many of those SIGs represent corporations and such (which doooo provide jobs) but some are also represent the average joe. Many SIGs are just representations of large groups of people (NAACP for example...)My point is, what is the difference between Boeing benefitting and Jesse Jackson? :( [QUOTE]And the reason behind the war may not be terror but instead a claim on every last lucrative contract to come out of the war? Most info I see is pointing towards the Iraq war not being about terror.[/QUOTE]You say 'Most Info'...so you are reading something that says it was about terror. I think alot of people (especially on the left in the US) don't realize there were [i]multiple[/i] reasons for Iraq. You see, in this country most libs will tell you it was all about Bush lying (forgetting that every other country on the planet believed the same thing) because he wanted the oil or contracts for Haliburton. But, one of the hopes of setting up a democracy in Iraq (oh, not to mention stopping the Genocide that was going on there :rolleyes: ) is that it will be an example for other countries in the middle east as an open and (dare I say) Liberal society (though compared to what was there 'W' is about as liberal as they come:P). Yeah, it's rough. But typically it's taken about a decade to pull this kind of stuff off in the past. The question is, do we (i.e. the US) have the patience for it? (cause we know the rest of the world doesn't. Thank God those war hating French weren't around to complain about us back in WWII...oh wait:P)[QUOTE]But I remain skeptical until I have proof that this war was for the reasons stated and not a hidden agenda[/QUOTE] As expected, we all approach this from our own point of view...however, just because one supports this war don't make the assumption that that person is stupid or brainwashed. To do so shows you not only think you know everything, but that, in fact, you don't.I have no comments on Pat Robertson other than to say he's a bit off his rocker. :( As for Castro, I hear the medical system down there is great if you need Band-Aids or abortions...that's about it though. [QUOTE]Scipio, I understand than security is a huge concern after 9/11. But it has been manipulated to be the only concern that anyone even bothers taking into account. And by using terror, any action seems to be jutsifiable. [/QUOTE]You'd be suprised really at how that's not the case. Take for instance the border with Mexico. A huge opportunity for terrorists to get in and yet little has been done about it (in comparison to what [i]could[/i] be done) not to mention the fact that all those prisoners over at Gitmo are still breathing. What do you think the Al Queda would do with 1000+ prisoners in the name of 'security' :( Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:27:02 GMTClayhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Translation: Cuba's a top notch despotism.You know, the more I hear about Chavez, the more I like the guy. He's my kind of dictator. [/QUOTE]If a dictator uses his reign to promote good descisions and help the public in general, but on the same side supresses freedom of speech and democracy...Then again[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez]chavez[/URL] under international scurtiny has won elections and is expected to win the next with nearl 70% support.Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:35:20 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxKeep on truckin' Scipio! ;)Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:00:56 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxI was at a conference on obesity and marketing that my supervisor at McGill put together back in the spring. There were BIG name scientists from all over the world. There were also some big name business people, the owner of the Quebec branch of Subway, an entrepreneur who runs a chain of healthy-gourmet restaurants in Montreal, and the director of science for the Coca-Cola company.It was in short, an absolutely AMAZING occurrence. There was a Harvard research physician there who runs the childhood obesity unit at their hospital. It was obvious from some comments that he had made in earlier sessions, that he was definitely antagonistic to some of the big-name food companies that sell junk food like Coca-Cola. When the Coca-Cola ladies time to speak came, she naturally gave a talk that was focused on how the corporation is concerned about doing its part to curtail the obesity epidemic, and what it was doing.After her talk, it was clear that this firebrand Harvard prof, who is probably 45 years old, and very accomplished and established, was about to lunge across the room at her throat. When the moderator recognizes his request to ask her a question, he holds up a laptop on which he has pulled up a Coke website with an ad of some sort on it. He describes the ad, it evidently in his estimation promotes excess consumption among children. She responds that (paraphrasing) "David, I can't comment on that ad, but I can say that we as a corporation have made the recognition that, we can be profitable and promote health, and we are doing it. The reason for us participating in this conference is an honest desire to try to achieve this goal more effectively."This did not satisfy him at all. To him, the big corporations are evil, and all he wanted to do was drive a stake in her heart. He was virtually quivering with hatred that she had evaded his attack. The room was quite awkward, people averted their gaze from him, it was unconformtable to see a grown man, a scientist and a scholar, so overcome with his irrational blaming hatred that he could not even participate congenially in a conference. Lunch was immediately afterward, and everyone sort of shunned him for while, but several people came up to her to make a friendly remark.He had failed to recognize that, simply by BEING there, she and her employer had taken a big step of trust, and were showing their sincere desire to participate in the amelioration of the problem. But for him, in his radically leftist, revolutionary mindset, as a representative of the capitalists, she could never be trusted, never be spoken to with anything except attack.The point: being an idealist can make one just as much a dogmatic villain as can being a pragmatist. The dialogue that was being engaged in (with the exception of his single juvenile assault) among scientists, public health, business, and community leaders (there were also philanthropists participating, it truly was an all-star cast) was precisely the sort of thing that will contribute to the eventual elimination of the obesity epidemic. And this sort of dialogue is BUILT on the notion of Freedom of Speech, and consensual discourse that people like Castro, Niyamev, Stalin, Putin, Chavez, Mao Tse Tung, etc., etc., etc., have shunned as anathema to their "utopian revolutions."Perhaps the Harvard prof would understand if he were forced to go and work in one of these societies where his right to speak freely was not a fundamentally protected basis of the society.Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:50:36 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxYou know, the more I hear about Chavez, the more I like the guy. He's my kind of dictator. ;)Fri, 26 Aug 2005 08:15:50 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Yes he is a dictator that has suppressed rights, but he's also had many positve accomplishments that have led to huge leaps in the quality of life for a citizen of Cuba... [/QUOTE][QUOTE] Ms. Bravo extols Castro's virtues on almost every front including his support for free health care including surgical procedures unavailable in other Third World Countries, and Cuba's universal education for all its citizens up to the tertiary level. These accomplishments are important, yet many contentious issues are simply ignored. [/QUOTE]Translation: Cuba's a top notch despotism. I am sure they are all taught about the free market and democracy. Teach them to read so that they can read the propoganda. Any other possitive accomplishments from Fidel?Fri, 26 Aug 2005 03:13:15 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxMy take on Che and Fidel and probably many of those guys who were involved in that movement is as follows.As young men, they saw their nation being exploited by corporations that were primarily from the U.S.. They were bright, ambitious, idealistic, and compassionate men. They were also proud of their national identity, and they did not want to simply become another protectorate of the U.S. like Puerto Rico, nor "defeated" and annexed by the U.S. like Tejas. Based on these mostly meritorious sentiments, they started a revolution. They took to arms and kicked out the U.S. corporations, but now they found themselves in waters that their idealistic visions of socialist utopias did not prepare them for. As their successes accumulated, seedy characters began to come out of the woodwork, seeking to "join them." Radicals and opposers from every direction began to take position and action against them. Soon they realized, if they did not fight fire with fire, their long-term vision would never persist. Soon they were engaging in summary executions, purges, and suppression. As the years of the revolution drug on, their sponsors from the East had more and more influence, swaying their initially idealistic dream more and more toward the true Soviet model of communism, i.e., a government based on terror, a nation ruled by an elite mafia, in which any dissent is punishable, in which the thoughts or wishes of the masses are not as important as what the state deems to be "in their best interest," and in which free enterprise, personal motivation, and merit are irrelevant because the state insures that everyone is rigidly held to standards of mediocrity in as many ways as possible.In short, dreamers, misled by their idealism into purveyors of nightmare.Any government that actively suppresses freedom of speech is despicable.Thu, 25 Aug 2005 19:18:58 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] What you do not seem to realize is that, the sentiments on which Dubyah based his campaign victory, pervaded American hearts and minds on the morning of September 11th 2001. Bush did not create the source for the modal American national security concerns at present. He has simply acted on them. [/QUOTE]Scipio, I understand than security is a huge concern after 9/11. But it has been manipulated to be the only concern that anyone even bothers taking into account. And by using terror, any action seems to be jutsifiable. [QUOTE]I'm sorry to remind you, that such a threat is just as real today as it was in September 2001,[/QUOTE]Sept 11 was preventable, but none of us could even beleive it was possible. I sure didnt... nobody did. Had we been as dilligent prior to 9-11 as we are now, I doubt 9-11 would have occoured(assuming some of that info stating the warning signs were there prior to 9-11 are true... Mohammand Atta, one of the 9-11 ringleaders, was identified long before 9-11). Please don't take this as a critism of it was handled... I'm saying now that we know better, we won't make the same mistake. Had a similar situation occoured today, this info wouldn't be ignored.[QUOTE]If you are seriously interested to learn why I think Castro is a villain, ask me and I'll take the time to provide sources for you to examine yourself. [/QUOTE]I'm here for that reason scip, you've taught me alot... keep it up. And yes, I do know of most the human rights violation side, though the info is hard to find in Canada. Do know that I go a bit overboard in a devils advocate attempt. Yes he is a dictator that has suppressed rights, but he's also had many positve accomplishments that have led to huge leaps in the quality of life for a citizen of Cuba...Comment on a pro castro documentary:[QUOTE]Ms. Bravo extols Castro's virtues on almost every front including his support for free health care including surgical procedures unavailable in other Third World Countries, and Cuba's universal education for all its citizens up to the tertiary level. These accomplishments are important, yet many contentious issues are simply ignored. [/QUOTE][QUOTE] Human Rights Watch Report in 2000 that states that Cuba has routinely imprisoned and/or harassed "peaceful opponents of the government" [/QUOTE][QUOTE]Chavez means to power through intimidation, and violence are simply not comparable to the way September 11th changed American consciousness[/QUOTE]Yes, the comment was a bit overboard... But the comparison was aimed at only caring about the threat of violence (be it from terrorists or from the governemnt)[QUOTE] For whatever reason, person's who self-identify as Democrat have been far more eager to put this reminder of our enemies out of mind, and to act as if a similar threat does NOT exist today. [/QUOTE]Hmm, you see scipio, the opposite side of that I see is the self proclaimed republican that cares only about the threat like nothing else exists. Completely ignoring all other issues because of the thought of terror.addit:And on that note, it's just another reason why some middle ground needs to be acheived in the near future. A party with some centralized views that can address both issues and not ignore one for the other.lol, and another addit, geez we sidetrack easily Scip. Back to the Chavez situation mebbe?Apparently he's got some proposal to use a state owned gas station that has 14k gas stations across America to provide cheaper gasoline to low income earners within the USA.Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:58:47 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Besides, scaring the carp outa your public with fear tactics to get them to vote for you is really no different than scaring them by threatening to shoot people who vote the other way. [/QUOTE]Seared, I love you buddy, but with this statement I believe you have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are, with respect to all issues-Dubyah, absolutely full of bologna! :p Chavez means to power through intimidation, and violence are simply not comparable to the way September 11th changed American consciousness, Republican policies, and American desires for a leader who would act on principle and with a vision for the long-term, instead of acting in pursuit of short-term denial.What you do not seem to realize is that, the sentiments on which Dubyah based his campaign victory, pervaded American hearts and minds on the morning of September 11th 2001. Bush did not create the source for the modal American national security concerns at present. He has simply acted on them.For whatever reason, person's who self-identify as Democrat have been far more eager to put this reminder of our enemies out of mind, and to act as if a similar threat does NOT exist today.I'm sorry to remind you, that such a threat is just as real today as it was in September 2001, and the only thing that is going to cause that risk to decline, is a radical transformation of the Muslim world. A radical transformation of the Muslim world is not going to be achieved by NOT invading despots, and NOT taking an aggressive stance.As far as Fidel goes, I am not surprised that you, as an exemplary leftist Canadian, have bought the anti-anti-Castro shpiel hook-line-and-sinker. I've seen the documentaries about how great he is, made by Canadians.I believe you are profoundly deluded my friend, and as such I don't see much point in taking the time to find and post links to the innumerable sites that document the atrocities of the Castro regime, the farce of their "utopian" development, and their collaboration with the Soviets in spreading violence and oppression over the past 30 years. If you are seriously interested to learn why I think Castro is a villain, ask me and I'll take the time to provide sources for you to examine yourself.Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:00:02 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxYa, Fidel is looks like he's about to turn to dust in that pic and his reign probably isn't much longer and I'm really curious what all will happen we he does exit the political stage... [QUOTE] Interesting contrast no? Dubya, whom you firebrands find such fulfillment in labeling as equivalent to these gangsters, WON ELECTIONS. TWICE. Majority rules. [/QUOTE]Chavez won 2 elections as well hey? He is very popular amoung the poorer and working class peoples as his policies tend to help them and not the exceedingly wealthy (exact opposite of bush).Besides, scaring the carp outa your public with fear tactics to get them to vote for you is really no different than scaring them by threatening to shoot people who vote the other way. And ya, Castro is a horrid dictator!!! The only reason you think that is the anti-communist brainwashing ya get to go through.[QUOTE] In its first hundred days in office Castro's government passed several new laws. Rents were cut by up to 50 per cent for low wage earners; property owned by Batista and his ministers was confiscated; the telephone company was nationalized and the rates were reduced by 50 per cent; land was redistributed amongst the peasants (including the land owned by the Castro family); separate facilities for blacks and whites (swimming pools, beaches, hotels, cemeteries etc.) were abolished.Castro had strong views on morality. He considered that alcohol, drugs, gambling, homosexuality and prostitution were major evils. He saw the casinos and night-clubs as sources of temptation and corruption and he passed laws closing them down. Members of the Mafia, who had been heavily involved in running these places, were forced to leave the country.Castro believed strongly in education. Before the revolution 23.6 per cent of the Cuban population were illiterate. In rural areas over half the population could not read or write and 61 per cent of the children did not go to school. Castro asked young students in the cities to travel to the countryside and teach the people to read and write. Cuba adopted the slogan: "If you don't know, learn. If you know, teach." Eventually free education was made available to all citizens and illiteracy in Cuba became a thing of the past.The new Cuban government also set about the problem of health care. Before the revolution Cuba had 6,000 doctors. Of these, 64 per cent worked in Havana where most of the rich people lived. When Castro ordered that doctors had to be redistributed throughout the country, over half decided to leave Cuba. To replace them Cuba built three new training schools for doctors.The death of young children from disease was a major problem in Cuba. Infant mortality was 60 per 1,000 live births in 1959. To help deal with this Cuba introduced a free health-service and started a massive inoculation program. By 1980 infant mortality had fallen to 15 per 1,000. This figure is now the best in the developing world and is in fact better than many areas of the United States.It has been estimated that in his seven-year reign, Batista's regime had murdered over 20,000 Cubans. Those involved in the murders had not expected to lose power and had kept records, including photographs of the people they had tortured and murdered. Castro established public tribunals to try the people responsible and an estimated 600 people were executed. Although this pleased the relatives of the people murdered by Batista's government, these executions shocked world opinion.Some of Castro's new laws also upset the United States. Much of the land given to the peasants was owned by United States corporations. So also was the telephone company that was nationalized. The United States government responded by telling Castro they would no longer be willing to supply the technology and technicians needed to run Cuba's economy. When this failed to change Castro's policies they reduced their orders for Cuban sugar.Castro refused to be intimidated by the United States and adopted even more aggressive policies towards them. In the summer of 1960 Castro nationalized United States property worth $850 million. He also negotiated a deal where by the Soviet Union and other communist countries in Eastern Europe agreed to purchase the sugar that the United States had refused to take. The Soviet Union also agreed to supply the weapons, technicians and machinery denied to Cuba by the United States. [/QUOTE]Further down[QUOTE] Of those who stayed, 90 per cent of the population, according to public opinion polls, supported Castro. However, Castro did not keep his promise of holding free elections. Castro claimed the national unity that had been created would be destroyed by the competing political parties in an election. [/QUOTE][URL=http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDcastroF.htm]All from here[/URL]The free elctions point may be his only flaw, but polls suggested 90% supported him anyway.Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:08:34 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxDid you guys notice how moribund Fidel looks in that photo in the CNN article that Seared linked in the post immediately above?Wonder what will happen in Cuba when he finally keels over? Increased stability, prosperity, well-being? Or absolute chaos, violence, internecine struggling for power? Based on the number of folks who have fled that nation over the last 30 years, and the way the current ruling party has dealt with opposition over the decades, i.e., a bullet to the temple, it seems reasonable to hypothsize that chaos is a serious risk.Guess those are the downsides to "utopian socialist" dictatorships, benign or not. No system to create checks and balances=no checks and balances=risk of chaos everytime the strong-man du jour loses power.Interesting contrast no? Dubya, whom you firebrands find such fulfillment in labeling as equivalent to these gangsters, WON ELECTIONS. TWICE. Majority rules.Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:27:16 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxThanks for bringing this back to topic LC... This assassination stuff seems silly... And I'm now beleiving that Chavez is simply trying to set himself up as the next eminently famous 'Castro' by villianizing the US. I'm not sure who started this assassination bit, but it seems a ploy to bring an 'underdog trying to stick it to the US' reputation to Chavez. I wouldn't be surprised if he created this rumour himself.Canker in the roof of your mouth if you could only ingore it'd go away, but you just can't stop tonguing it.Hehe, and I like the rummy comment ;) lets invade a few countries and setp a pro US government and then accuse other nations of interfering with the politics of other nations. addit: Holy geez, I flinched reading that article:[QUOTE] Robertson accused Chavez, a left-wing populist with close ties to Cuban President Fidel Castro, of trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent." [/QUOTE]You're kidding me... Is he still afraid of commies bent on destroying america? Muslim extremism from a catholic nation (spanish/portuguese? need to do research I guess)??? I get the feeling we'd be better off bumping off Robertson before Chavez. The controversy of robertson listed at the bottom of the article needs to be read before taking robertson seriously:[QUOTE] "It's clear from the teachings of the Quran and also from the history of Islam that it's anything but peaceful," Robertson said in a subsequent interview with CNN. "Of course there are peace-loving Muslims. But at the same time, at the core of this religion ... is jihad, and it is to subject the unbelievers either to forced conversion or death. That's what it teaches." [/QUOTE]That is one step beyond hypocritical. The guy saying muslims beleive in forced conversion or death, so lets covert or kill them before they can? It's people like this that has turned me against organized religion. I'd really like to see a public denouncement of Robertson... I think it'd take alot of heat off this issueAddit#2Found another article on cnn with robertson apparently apologizing. Hmmm, great apology[QUOTE] "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club." (Watch video)The controversy began Monday when Robertson called Chavez "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism across the Americas. (Full story)"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson Monday. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war." (Watch Robertson's comments)"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," he said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." [/QUOTE][URL=http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/08/24/jamaica.venezuela.oil.ap/index.html]here though[/URL] Chavez seems to be doing critical work in promoting South American relations and promoting a stronger economy between them. Hmmm, more research still needed.Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:28:01 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxBack to the topic at hand. It seems our very good friend, the stoic Christian, Pat Robertson, has been calling for the assassination of the ever photogenic Hugo Chavez. [URL=http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez.1534/index.html]Robertson: US should assissinate Chavez[/URL]Somehow he managed to tie in Islamic Extremists to Venezuela. Oddly enough, 98 percent of Venezuela is of the Roman Catholic or protestant brand. :confused: The man is clearly off his rocker, and not a very genuine christian at that. [URL=http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/robertson.chavez/index.html]White House dismissess Chavez assassination call. [/URL]and rightly so. but then there is this: [QUOTE]and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested Venezuela has interfered with the internal affairs of other countries in the region. [/QUOTE]:slaps hand to cheek: Gosh Rummy. You think you might want to take a good look in the proverbial mirror before making comments like that. :rolleyes:Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:47:53 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxI'm afraid I'm not as skeptical about the war in Iraq having little connection to terrorism. To me, it seems that one must willfully WISH that such connections are tenuous, in order for the prima facie evidence that they are substantial to be anything like "insufficient."Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:25:58 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxI did a rewrite here, so it was completely editted from orignal (mostly expanded and explained better[QUOTE] critiques of the current Republican administration.[/QUOTE]There we go Scipio, you're getting closer to where I'm coming from. And I'm not even critiquing this government per se, I'm still critiquing you. I'm not asking you to change your opinion... I'm asking please open your eyes and ensure you have the truth infront of you an know what the motives are before you make an opinion. Your government MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE, not to the special interest lobby, not to big corporate money... But to the people. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR OPINION ON SAID SUBJECT IS... I care that your opinion was based on accurate information and are not being mislead to come to a different conclusion than what you would have if you had the full story. Just an example, headline reads police shoot teenager dead. You think oh wow (too be honest, you're entitled to your own opinion and whateva it is good for you) and you're done with the issue (and even defend your opinion in a debate). What you missed that someone decided to skip the fact that the teenager had stabbed and was continuing to stab the officers partener when the officer fired. Different story hey? Without the full information, the opinion you formed was... well misinformed and probably incorrect. I don't want to tell you if your opinion is right or wrong scip... I wanna make sure you've got the full story. Are you telling me that you have not once considered the financial benefits being reaped by special interest groups because of the war? And the reason behind the war may not be terror but instead a claim on every last lucrative contract to come out of the war? Most info I see is pointing towards the Iraq war not being about terror. I'm asking you to critique you're own governement and find out exactly why the governments spent billions of dollars on military equipment. Is it to fight terror? Is it to finance lobby groups (arms manufacturers? Oil companies? Construction companies?) I'm not trying to make a conclusion from this... I'm trying to sober you up a bit a get you to look at what you're doing. If it turns out it's the best path and you're hearing the full story, then fine... Hold the path, I'll probably join you. But I remain skeptical until I have proof that this war was for the reasons stated and not a hidden agenda (and thats even hard to define... Was this the hunt for Bin Laden and WMD's or are we overthrowing a dictator or are we just trying to make some money?)Hold your govenment accountable Scipio... Don't defend it until you are sure you've got nothing less than all the facts.Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:32:58 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] I kinda feel like it's dealing with a drunken older brother that you care about and want to help... Just the second you speak up you get a bottle thrown at you and told to go away [/QUOTE]That is an interesting, and very instructive analogy. I have no such analogy for the way I as an American view Canada.You know it dawned on me as I was reading your post that, it really isn't so much the critiques of "America" per se, it is the critiques of the current Republican administration. Lets face it, Canada is currently left-wing, and the U.S. electorate remains predominantly in support of a President whom the left will eagerly label as "far-far right."Whatever, I personally voted for George because he didn't talk nonsense when it comes to the War on Terror, i.e., the "backing down is always the right thing to do, and using proactive force to remove ugly regimes is never the right thing to do" agenda which the Democratic party adopted as their mantra last year.I have little admiration for very much else of Dubyah's agenda, but I thought that, the cost of voting for Kerry's self-defeating foreign policy far outweighed the cost of four years of Republican fiscal policy.There are so many problems that the US needs to address that have little to do directly with national security. Reducing our reliance on oil being one, reducing our dependency on foreign labor and foreign money being another. Better regulation of corporations is another big issue that needs continued progress. But I doubt that Kerry's big money backers are really that much different than Dubyahs in this regard, and I doubt that having a democrat in there would really have made that much difference on these domestic economic issues. Most economic issues are not determined from policy that derives from the executive branch per se, though the Pres does have the capacity to influence it. In short, I do not think socialistic policy is the basis to vote for the Commander in Chief of the US, though I might agree with some of those socialistic policies.Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:39:18 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Its perfectly fine for the world to be condescending, arrogant, accusatory, critical, second-guessing, and even inflammatorily hateful to Uncle Sam, but seemingly not vice versa. It just gets old is all; [/QUOTE]Hehe, apparently you've never seen a canadian attack our own governement. We're as critical of ourselves as the US... The difference (to me atleast) is when you say something regarding Canada (to Canadians), you usually will get decent debate and facts to represent both sides. I think the key is accountability... The government needs to be accountable for it's actions and it's the people that must hold their government accountable. Admitadely we have barked up the wrong tree and actually found nothing was wrong in some cases. In others we discover how deep the corruption actually runs... And we become better for it (fool us twice... no?). Say something about the US and you're told 'Shut up ya leftist freak, I wish someone would bomb your nation already... Isn't this getting old yet?' with really nothing backing it up. I know we go about it in a less then perfect manner with the critisms, bu my intent is rarely to critisize and make you defend your nation. It's an attempt to make you critisize your nation and attempt to better yourselves. What the Canadian media portrays the US as atleast (and some american media, admitadely leftwing)... well, heres a quote:[QUOTE]"Like a master pickpocket, George W. Bush distracts the American people with one hand while reaching into their pockets with the other. The distraction comes through the flash and bombast of explosive social issues like abortion, gay rights, public displays of religion, end-of-life decisions and creationism, on which Bush has delivered little beyond rhetoric. The pilfering comes through initiatives that take from working- and middle-class Americans and give to Bush's corporate backers, to whom he has delivered the goods big time. . . . [W]hat all of this really amounts to is a political revolution in the United States, creating a form of conservative big government that promotes not the general interests of ordinary Americans but the special interests of big corporations. This creates a sharply upward redistribution of wealth and power that threatens long-term prosperity. Job growth has been well below predictions during Bush's term, for instance, and many analysts predict hard times for the economy in years ahead." (8/9)[/QUOTE]I'm not trying to attack the US... First, I'm trying to find out if this is true. Considering I rarely see anything beyond terror and the most recent pro-life/euthanasia debate.... I beleive the above is true, hot topics are completely blinding many from the rest of the crap currently going on. I mean, if I declare war on a another nation and then proceed to give tax cuts to my weapon manufacturers (who have funded my bid for presidency)... Do you think there can be some hidden motives there (don't defend, question!). If this had happened in Canada I would have hoped it would have been investigated as a scandal and the gov't held accountable. But that fact is easily ignored... why.. Terror! Insert hot topic here! In the end, if I'm completely wrong... Great, you've changed my opinion and I've learned alot (and hopefully the time spent proving me wrong taught you alot to apply to future discussions). Once again, the only opposite side of the above debate is being asked what my opinion on our most recent science vs god, why aren't I too busy discussing terror to care about this, or get told to shut my leftist ass up. All I am asking is for you to question your government the same way I like to think we do. Hold them accountable for their actions! If the people don't, you might as well have a 'vote for your fave dictator' once every 4 years (your choice between 2 of course) and call that democracy. Sorry, but I feel holding your government accountable is foundation of Democracy... Not wandering into a poll booth and getting the happy feeling you've contributed.[QUOTE] I guess it's just the consequence of being in the limelight, but everyone and their dog has a canned opinion about Dubyah, whereas Paul's foibles, weaknesses, mistakes, etc., can harldy be considered to be the grist for the daily news factory output. [/QUOTE]Pauls foibles and consistent follies are brought to spotlight way too often to Canadians (specially where I am as conservative leaders constantly attack the PM). Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean it's not there. Remember that 1/4th of the goods we buy are american... more than half of the goods we export end up in american hands, we need to care about the US and have an opinion on it. Reversely, what portion of Canadian goods are consumed in the states? A tiny amount really... so the need to care just really isn't there. The US losing influence isn't helpful to any Canadian and our quality of life is directly related to yours. Why do you think I care when I see an American policy that I see as harmful to the quality of life we maintain? Reversely, if canada ceased to exist, do you think that'd even have an effect (besides the 1/4 of american exports going to canadians)?I kinda feel like it's dealing with a drunken older brother that you care about and want to help... Just the second you speak up you get a bottle thrown at you and told to go away :(Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:12:51 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxHey, I’m not saying M is 100% good for you. All in all, I believe an average person would be just as well not to touch the substance. But by your sentiment Scipio, I must also conclude you're ant-fast-food, because the epidemiologists, physicians, neuropsychologists, and other health professionals say you should never touch the stuff because of the harm it does to you. Yes, anything in excess has the potential to be harmful. The key is moderation. Most experts would agree that having 4-5 beers on a friday night, or ordering a pizza once a month, having a toke once a month or smoking a cigar once or twice a year with the boys has such mild effects, the long term cons are immeasurable. [QUOTE] Young man, I have done far more of anything and everything than you could ever imagine! In my day, I put all the hellions to shame. I know my pharmacology both experientially, and from a scientific standpoint. [/QUOTE]I don't know how you can come to this conclusion Scipio, you have no idea who I am. I also hear drinking coffee is extremely bad for your health, but working a full time job (I usually put in 50 hrs a week at work), and a full time school course load (5 third year undergrad courses, and maintaining my 90% average) leaves little options for alternatives, though many epidemiologists, physicians, neuropsychologists, and other health professionals would perscribe other upper drugs, and say they would be better for my health, only to pull them off the shelves the next year because several people used them and died of heart attacks or strokes. Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:32:47 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxYoung man, I have done far more of anything and everything than you could ever imagine! In my day, I put all the hellions to shame. I know my pharmacology both experientially, and from a scientific standpoint.As to the effects of marijuana, it is not simply the THC that one ingests. There is a plethora of compounds in that plant. Pick up any introductory Psychoneurobiology text and flip to the index. As Bastable recent post on the Flat Earth theory points out, there is someone, somewhere who believes anything, and can provide citations. I guess it all depends on which citations you choose to believe. Me, I'll go with the epidemiologists, physicians, neuropsychologists, and other health professionals whose explanations for their methods, assumptions, and findings I've read. If you're still dubious, let me know, and I'll send you some PDFs of actual articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.Just because a particular extremist group (e.g., right-wing Christians) believe something, does not invalidate the science on which their dogma stands. Obviously, marijuana has its role some positive role to play in society. But I believe that it has even less place as a widely-available, generally-legal drug than do alcohol and tobacco, both of which, ideally should be illegalized, though obviously doing so simply is not pragmatic. Perhaps it also is not pragmatic to continue to maintain M as an illegal drug, but that does not change the point that it is an unhealthy substance to ingest.Sun, 14 Aug 2005 05:59:29 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxI see you're a book man Scipio, and clearly not open minded in the literature you chose to read. Have you done these studies on THC yourself, or did you read about the effects in some journal written for the Republican party of America. I can find plenty of literature on the subject that proves the quantity of THC in MJ is so low, that the effects you mention are none existent. I'm just curious Scipio, what is your experience in experimenting with drugs? Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:53:01 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxWell if you don't think my conspiracy thoeories about Paul sound silly, I may render a few more of them, if you're lucky :p There are numerous differences in the health effects of moderate marijuana use, and moderate alcohol use. One is essentially a condensed dilution of a compound that is a natural by-product of the Krebs cycle. Ethanol is produced as a result of metabolism. THC, and the myriad of other compounds in marijuana and tobacco, are pure and simple carcinogens, that are also psychoactive drugs. True, abusing alcohol is bad. But simply using marijuana is worse. Probably no point in debating the merits of pot with you, but there ya go!Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:21:07 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxYour missing the point Scipio, Seared and I don't mind when you, or anyone else for that matter "bashes" our governing leader. So long as you have facts to back up your accusations, a good debate can develop. I don't pretend to believe Canada is perfect, and I have many ideas which would make it a better place. And I guess that’s the difference between liberal Canadians and conservative Americans. We don't mind getting tips for improvement (we actually appreciate it), where you can't stand anyone even suggesting an improvement. Hence your quote, [QUOTE] Dudes, my sole point, it sounds kinda silly for me, an American to be much of any opinion AT ALL of Paul Martin, eh? [/QUOTE]I don't think is sounds silly at all. And as to the old man comment I made, your forgetting the benefits marijuana gives to society. And really, what’s the difference between having a few beers on a Friday night, or in the locker room after a playing hockey for an afternoon, and having a toke? Its just a nice way to relax sometimes. Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:48:14 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxDudes, my sole point, it sounds kinda silly for me, an American to be much of any opinion AT ALL of Paul Martin, eh? Even though I live here. I guess it's just the consequence of being in the limelight, but everyone and their dog has a canned opinion about Dubyah, whereas Paul's foibles, weaknesses, mistakes, etc., can harldy be considered to be the grist for the daily news factory output. You wanna talk about fear mongering, talk to the news media Seared! You know, all those "progressives."Its perfectly fine for the world to be condescending, arrogant, accusatory, critical, second-guessing, and even inflammatorily hateful to Uncle Sam, but seemingly not vice versa. It just gets old is all; its not that we really care what the majority of citizens in the rest of the world who have bought in to the modern day Puritan revolution that calls itself left-wing intelligentsia hook line and sinker. It's amazing, they attack somebody with napalm, then tell his family, you deserved that, you're too rich. And THEN, the apologists and theorists justify the actions of the barbarians that did it as being "culturally relative."As for gettin' with the times Ness, unfortunately marijuana DOES reduce male fertility, and DOES damage neurotransmitter function. Science: get with reality young feller.Maybe you guys will change your tune when they finally decide that Canada is not sufficiently deferent to their requirements and somebody takes a pot shot at Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal. Think it'll never happen. Maybe you're right. I hope so. I'd hate for Canadians to be jolted out of their blissful contentment by the harsh realization that there are millions of people who hate them, simply because they live free.[URL=http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html]Reality is Sometimes Ugly[/URL]Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:28:22 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxY'know scipio, sometimes it's very hard to tell what is e-sarcasm. hehe. Though I'm still strongly under the opinion Chavez needs to be ignored, we went sideways ;)[QUOTE] And Paul Martin keeps Canadian attention on soft-wood and beef embargoes. [/QUOTE]Not quite... Infact Pal Martins half assed efforts to address the situation (beef embargoes atleast) was sad at best and our own conservative premier, Klien, took the front. Moreover, Martin didn't even acknowledge it until pressure was put on him... Any action Martin took was after we yelled and complained long enough... and even then. Liberal support in Alberta is... Umm, I think one out of 26 seats are liberal while the rest are conservative? Though, I don't think he took action as he was way to concerned with his government crumbling. Any rally around 'Alberta beef' was done by volunteer work by local citizens and very little federal gov't. The 'beef embargo' issue was as much the local producers saying we've had enough and going to the gov't as it was Martin trying to keep anyone occupied.Even the recent floods, Martin was attacked on how little he seemed to care. Hmmm Actually, even the softwood lumber issues aren't Martin as the lead role... It's a provincial level that most of the work is being done at no? Hmm, research time ;)We don't have an issue to be afraid of or keep us at bay, with maybe the exception of medicare... Which once again I feel is nothing but fear mongering 'we don't wanna be like the US'. It's why we have nothing better to do than nitpick at our own gov't and eventually the much larger giant south of us.[QUOTE]Clearly the fact that Martin's party didn't even win a majority, and yet they control Canada[/QUOTE]Control canada? The gov't almost crumbled on multiple occasions and only made head way when it allied with the new democrat party (NDP).[QUOTE]and all the while they're buddying up to China [/QUOTE]If you consider that a good portion of our population is chinese... That would make sense wouldn't it? Besides, standard Canadian opinion is china = ally, america = destroyers of the world. If you though that, tell me who you'd buddy up to (and yes, you've seen the Canadian response to an American). Whether or not this view is correct, it's by far the easiest to take.[QUOTE]AND sending us all this super-strong weed, that is shrinking our testicularies into peas, and killing gabillions of brain cells. [/QUOTE]lmao ;) It's part of an invasion scheme!Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:14:10 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Clearly the fact that Martin's party didn't even win a majority, and yet they control Canada [/QUOTE]Thats the whole point of Canada's democratic system, the Liberals didnt win a Majority, and because of this they don't control the nation. Look at the latest budget for example, several key issues that would have been passed if the Liberals controled a Majority didnt get through. Several NDP, Bloc and Conservative policies have been brought into effect because the liberals don't control a majority. [QUOTE] AND sending us all this super-strong weed, that is shrinking our testicularies into peas, and killing gabillions of brain cells [/QUOTE]common Scipio, I hope your exagerating. If this is how you feel, your more brainwashed by conservative america then I thought. i'd imagin you would make similar allegation if porhibition was still in effect :rolleyes: . Give me a break! Get with the times old man. Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:58:47 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] bush keeps the American populace fixated on Iraq... Its a good tactic. [/QUOTE]And Paul Martin keeps Canadian attention on soft-wood and beef embargoes. Clearly the fact that Martin's party didn't even win a majority, and yet they control Canada is sufficiently proof that he is equally as repugnant a dictator as is Chavez . . . I mean look at all this Canadian hubris about "soft power," and all the while they're buddying up to China, AND sending us all this super-strong weed, that is shrinking our testicularies into peas, and killing gabillions of brain cells. Its sad that so many Canadians are so deluded to think that they live in a free nation, when in fact they are under the oppression of a gang of aging hipsters, who are even more morally bankrupt than the American Democratic party. :pSat, 13 Aug 2005 19:02:12 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxI'll see if I can find the article again (hello search engines) and I'll addit it in here when I find it... But it was entirely about ignoring chavez and he'll eventually go away. Any attempts to deal with him will ultimately strengthen his position.Had to laugh when I saw this :) Hehe, all civ players should know this:[QUOTE] The way he keeps in power is to turn the attention of Venezuela's people to an outward threat. [/QUOTE]Hehe, and bush keeps the American populace fixated on Iraq... Its a good tactic.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:19:10 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxThe Hell, You Say! :PThu, 11 Aug 2005 21:13:19 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] What Jerm, would you prefer the picture that Fox News has of him up? [/QUOTE]Hey, he's very photogenic. Do you think Fox News is conservative or something? :rolleyes:Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:01:29 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxI believe the economist has been quoted on this site as: [QUOTE] an arrogant left-wing rag, [/QUOTE]Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:29:39 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxSeanNo, I don't think I ever read the "The Economist", but it sounds like my kind of publication :cool:. Maybe I should apply for a job [IMG]emot/Laugh/laugh011.gif[/IMG] .Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:13:48 GMTDolfhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxWell the mic and big smile make him look more like a man of the people. He looks frienly enough to me, ha.Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:04:06 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxGreat minds think alike, eh, CivFan? :D Personally, I think the one over at Fox News is just as great as the one at CNN, what do you think? :pHere is the CNN pic for quick reference: [IMG]http://img320.imageshack.us/img320/5780/hugochavezcnn5vo.jpg[/IMG]We Report, You Decide!Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:27:12 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxDamn LC, I was just about to head over to Fox News tosee the pic they had but you beat me to it!Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:24:43 GMTCivFanhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxWhat Jerm, would you prefer the picture that Fox News has of him up? :rolleyes: [IMG]http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/9437/hugochavez0gc.jpg[/IMG]And really...with the attitude he portrays, the pic is rather appropriate, me thinks. What, is it Karaoke Night? And actually, his comments aren't as random as I originally thought...[URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164693,00.html]U.S. Accuses Venezuela of aiding Columbian terrorists[/URL][URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165011,00.html]Venezuelan Leader accuses DEA of Espionage[/URL]Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:17:59 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxDolf,Do you read "The Economist?"That's almost verbatum what they had to say about him LOLSWed, 10 Aug 2005 14:02:26 GMTSeanhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxIt is a nice picture of him though. Oh right, CNN.Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:28:10 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxHypocrisy?[QUOTE] Chavez, whose country remains a major supplier of oil to the United States, also is sharply critical of the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. [/QUOTE]Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:02:31 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033990-56-1.aspxChavez is a thug and a despot. The way he keeps in power is to turn the attention of Venezuela's people to an outward threat. I've seen articles where he's said things like this in the past. His rhetoric is becoming harsher, but that is the problem with the game he's playing. He has to keep increasing it to keep getting attention.He wants to be the next Castro, to be seen as a strong leader standing up to the US. Personally I think the best strategy with Chavez is to ignore him. No embargoes, no threats, nothing. He'll eventually fall victim to one of those famous South American military coups.The only reason Castro survived is there was a threat of a US attack, so he was able to keep attention focused on that and away from the domestic problems. Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:40:27 GMTDolf