Who the fuck do you think created the atmosphere of fear? It was the people who crashed the planes, you fucking moron! Should the media have glossed over the single most important event in American history in years?
Corner Gas is a great show. It's funny, but it doesn't use crude humour or laugh tracks. Anyone would feel comfortable watching it with their young kids.
He means the Conservative Party of Canada, which was formed by the recent merger of the old PC party and Canadian Alliace, which had split apart years back (the CA was the reform party at that time).
I have to correct myself - I said it was a more than one month wait for an MRI. It is indeed more than one month, but more than I remembered. It's *22* months.
"No its an excuse to spend 180 billion on his pals, the military contractors, 19 billion on handouts to US businesses taking over Iraq and 1 billion to friendly Iraqi political forces (numbers approximate but the spirit accurate). Thats some charity all right."
You're right, if the money goes to rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, it IS charity, even if the Iraqis aren't the only ones who benefit.
"No, they were lying to line their own pockets as the article explained."
Opinion articles by the left wing - not that it matters, corruption is rampant in countries like Iraq.
"You just described what is going on in most of Africa, South America, Middle East and Asia as well as some former Soviet Republics. Perheaps you should enlist in the US army, they will need your help to go beat all those people up."
And what if I am actually of the opinion that the worst of those dictatorships SHOULD be replaced by democracies? However, there are limited resources, and that is not possible.
"Perheaps other then agriculture there is no significant industry in that province and agriculture is going to hell world-wide due to the wonders of WTO. What makes you think Saskatchewan and not Bejing is the place to setup that next hi-tech plant thats being built? You cannot compete, since you want more than one bowl of rice per day, an insolent worker that you are."
My point was that Saskatchewan has all of its eggs in one basket - agriculter. There is a lot of oil in Saskatchewan, however, unless some major gov't policy changes here, there will be no major oil industry in Saskatchewan until Alberta has nearly depleted their reserves. The government is competing against other businesses through crown corporations in many sectors. Sasktel, for example, has expanded to compete with ISPs. It's a lot harder to compete when your competition has gov't funding.
"Maybe thats what they teach at the Conservative Academy of Twisted Wordplay but thats not what I and a vast majority of people you are likely to run into believe. It was an attack. On me. Personally. Which part of me is irrelevant. Could be my character or my left foot. I understood it the way nearly everyone would: "a personal attack = attack on my person". I responded. Next thing you will be using the enthymology of the word "fuck" to debate its meaning as a word used to attack people and try to convince me it was meant as a mild expletive of surprise. In that context of course. And if I fail to dissect every word, punctuation and whitespace of your reply, it will be taken as an implicit surrender."
How you interpreted it is irrelevant, because the phrase "personal attack" has it's own meaning. It is more than simply the sum of its parts. Did you look at the site I provided? "Fuck you" was in response to a personal attack, although what I meant was "fuck off." "Fuck you" is not a personal attack, by the definition of personal attack.
"Oh wait, wouldn't this be, like, a personal attack? By your own definition too. Spite, ignorance? So you are right because anyone who disagrees is a liar or an idiot? I think I understand your position now. By some weird coincidence that is the same very world view that just about every believer of "conservative" philosophies I run into pronounces sooner or later. Go figure."
Except that for one thing: I was completely right in what I said. Therefore, if you call me a liar because I said it, you are wrong. This could be for two reasons: you are ignorant about the topic, or you knew that you were wrong and called me a liar out of spite. If I'm right, then it's not a personal attack, it's the truth. And I'm right. The status of Saskatchewan's oil exploration is an indisputable fact. QED
"Oh wait, wouldn't this be, like, a personal attack? By your own definition too. Spite, ignorance? So you are right because anyone who disagrees is a liar or an idiot? I think I understand your position now. By some weird coincidence that is the same very world view that just about every believer of "conservative" philosophies I run into pronounces sooner or later. Go figure."
No, because you've demonstated a lack of knowledge about this.
You started this off by calling me names, I didn't start the attacks.
Seeing as you seem to have no interest in playing nice, I'll leave you to your fantasy land.
You're free not to believe me, but I'm neither lying nor exaggerating. There has been oil exploration in Saskatchewan, but it has been very limited. As I said before, if you look at an oil exploration map of Alberta and Saskatchewan, you will see that all pretty much all of Alberta has been assessed. When you look at Saskatchewan, the explored area consists of a small amount in the south, and a few scattered patches. Of course, you'll just call me a liar, but out of ignorance or spite, not because you know me to be wrong.
Saskatchewan is very much the same as Alberta in terms of resources. They were settled similarly early on. They've had the same amount of time to grow. Saskatchewan has been run by the Sask NDP (which is different from the other provincial NDP governments, and from the federal NDP. I point this out because you don't seem to realize this, with comments about "well we've got an NDP government and we're doing fine!") for most of its existence. Alberta is pretty consistently conservative.
Alberta thrives, and Saskatchewan's economy suffers and our population is *shrinking*!
I think that's more than simple coincidence.
"Please provide a credible impartial source stating that the number of people dying this way (I doubt there were many) would be greater then what the war brought on. And I dont mean sources like people who wanted to take Saddam's place at our expense, say, Chelabi and his pals. Even if you find one (which I doubt), factor in the huge increase of world-wide hate towards US because of the war, abandoning the search for Osama, rebounding of Taliban, abandoning of Afghanistan's rebuilding, abolishment of the international law dealing with aggression, $200 billion expenses, etc etc."
It's interesting that you don't bother to note that of the $200 billion, quite a lot of money went to rebuilding Iraq - that's charity, even if a US or US friendly company benefits from it. US money is being spent rebuilding Iraq.
As for Iraqis killed by Saddam, you have to factor in the less tangible stuff as well as more direct killings. How many palaces did Saddam build while his people starved? How much money did he funnel to his personal wealth? You can blame the sanctions, but he was smuggling oil out of the country constantly, and using oil for food on weapons.
Factor in him staying in power for an indefinate period of time - which could be twenty years (at least his regime, should he have died before then) or more, and that's a lot of people dead. There is no denying that massive torture existed. Even if it was five years before it collapsed, you have to account for warlords fighting for control, Kurds fighting, etc.
"You must be kidding, his authority eroded so badly that his top level commanders were lying to him about their army's capabilities, scientists were lying about weapons. He had no longer any clue what was going on. That is the final stage of a collapse of a dicatorship."
They were lying for fear of execution. It's not uncommon. Ever heard of a yes-man? You know, someone who agrees with everything the boss says or suggests in order to get ahead and avoid conflict?
"You are making me laugh. You should consider running for office. "The bottle is empty, but it is not an empty bottle". Kudos, you should be able to survive in politics with no trouble."
You quoted that out of context. The fact that you did not dispute the ad hominem part suggests that you know I'm right but don't want to admit it. "Personal attack" means an attack on one's character, as opposed to merely an attack that's personal. As in attacking my intelligence or calling me bloodthirsty. Hence, "fuck you" is not a personal attack in the sense I have used it the phrase (the sense of an ad hominem).
Alberta has more money because its gov't encourages business. Saskatchewan has loads of oil, but the oil companies are scared to invest in Saskatchewan because of our business-unfriendly policies. Look at an oil exploration map. The exploration stops right at the Saskatchewan border, with only a few minor areas explored.
Hypochondriacs aren't the ones getting hurt, it's the ones for whom a month is too long to wait. A month can mean the difference between life and death, or paralyzation.
"No such thing as "just a few". With our proximity to the utimate in greed based health systems just next door and doctors just green with envy, just a few is all it takes to start the feeding frenzy of greed."
Fear tactics used by the left wing. Again, Alberta continues to do fine (better than we are, by a long shot) with their minor amounts of privatization. I'm not supporting an elimination of free health care, just about nobody is. Rather, I support the option of a few pay services for people who don't want to wait. These services would NOT replace the same free services with longer waits...
"I know, that is why Musharraf was elected the President and thats why he lawfully retains absoulte control over lawmaking and executive branches of government. Right. Window dressing notwithstanding (Saddam had a parliament too, you know). I think you should look up the term "totalitarian". The only major difference is that Musharraf doesnt put his statue on every corner. Oh, and that he, unlike Saddam, actually has nukes. But I see, because Pakistanis do better economically that is the yardstick by which you measure "better off". I guess Saudi Arabia or Quatar are beacons of freedom then."
I said far from "THE", not far from "A." As in, it's totalitarian, but not to the same degree as Saddam's. I never said it was free. I'd never move there...
"You mean that allowing that corrupt government to fizzle out (as everyone who bothered to investigate knows the regime was totally out of touch and falling apart on its own) and trying to stimulate a peaceful transition ala Eastern Europe would be more bloody?"
His gov't wasn't falling apart. It was doing a rather nice job of keeping things under his control. Even if it fell apart in five years, that's five years wasted under him that could have been spent setting up a stable gov't and infrastructure. Not to mention that there would be lots of fighting over who gets control after it fell. As for his killing sprees ending - Saddam was killing and torturing people up till the end. I never said that Saddam would kill his people with WMDs. I said he'd kill his people.
"My bet is that following an Al-Queda sponsored, 3-way civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiias we will be talking millions."
I doubt there will be one. However, that same war would happen if Saddam's regime fell on its own.
"Try that on your boss or a cop or some Hells Angels dude on the street. You will quickly find out how truly impersonal it is."
A personal attack, as in an ad hominem fallacy. "Fuck you" is not a personal attack. It's personal, but not a personal attack. Nice try at deflection though.
" governments of any stripe just as any private enterprise (ever hear of bankrupcy?) can be incompetent and not being able to manage money or medical equipment"
But when you vote a gov't that is being irresponsible back into power, it sends a message that you don't care how badly your money is wasted.
"- many healthcare workers and doctors are greedy and quite willing to sabotage the whole system to make a killing when things go private and thus prone to keeping MRIs not running full capacity, overprescribing the test to fill the devices capacity etc etc."
Alberta is doing OK with it, despite being a nasty horrible right wing government (nobody wants fully privatized health care!).
"- private clinics have to get paid by someone and would have to serve the same number of patients as current public ones and turn a profit. Tidy one at that. What do you suppose the overall cost will be? Add at least 50% to our current cost. Are you not aware of efforts within US to reduce their truly gigiantic and costly (much more expensive then ours, nearly double per-capita) system by introducing Canadian style administration? See, turns out we spend a fraction (3%) of the money on administration while they spend 30%. Add 27% to our current cost. Small "use" fees? Thats how they start. Once you get that, its just a matter of "improving service" and "offerring new options" before the fees are on par with the US. You do realize that 1/7 (43 million) of all US citizens do not have any medical insurance or benefits? That dying from uncured illness is a normal thing among those people? But then on the other hand, doctors in the US are over twice as richas ours. I wonder if there is any connection. No... scratch that, actually I believe that this item alone is one of the leading causes of all of our equipment and resource "shortages"."
Seeing as I don't want US style health care - just a few private MRI clinics and the like - this is irrelevant.
"That is not the point. Noone claims that Saddam is a saint. Murderous, imbecillic dictator? Sure. Number of dead? Huge, 150.000 of them alone killed by allies in the first gulf war (remember the Highway of Death?). War to remove him? Impractical, ill-advised, badly planned, rush, worst alternative of all choices. Anyone with a brain knew this beforehand although the general public seems to be waking up only now and spin control is in full force. Iraq is just about gone. International laws fucked. Support for US world-wide abysmal. Osama Bin Laden? Having a field day setting up new network in previously near-unreachable to him Iraq, quite a comeback after actually getting near defeated in Afghanistan."
Removing him saved lives. The lives of Iraqis. It's an investment in the future of Iraq. Could it have been done much better? Unquestionably so. Should it have been done? I think so, and so do quite a few Iraqis.
"Real agendas of neo-cons are suspected by many to be different and quite contrary to the public chest beating displays."
Suspected by many? Obviously. Nobody trusts anyone with different political interests. I find the views of the left to be suspect.
"Not to mention the world is full of worse nutcases then Saddam and somehow the Bushsits wanted him so badly they were willing to do anything to get him... or maybe something in his country, noone can tell. Why? There is absolutely no moral ground to stand on for the neocons. This is being interpreted around the world as a lesson to all bloody dictators that they can stay bloody as long as they do the bidding of the US government. Even sale of actual and real WMD material by Pakistan (also run by a bloody dictator) does not provoke any calls for "regime change" from the White House. I could go on like this for a long while, there is just so much crap in the neocon's utopia."
Pakistan is far from the totalitarian state that Iraq was, and it's people are far better off than Iraqis were. Think marsh Arabs, for example.
"I'd rather have a pack of thieves then a bunch of Bible-thumping, warmongering, healthcare-destroying, corporatist maniacs running the show."
I never disclosed my religious beliefs, and furthermore, my religion is irrelevant to this.
I live in Saskatchewan. You know what our left wing government does to us? I keeps our MRIs (both of them - two MRIs for a million people?) understaffed, so that they aren't run at night. Instead of allowing private clinics to open, our brilliant leaders let the lines grow, and sometimes ship patients off to Alberta to use one of their *private* MRIs! If I pay a small fee, (far less than our gov't pays for MRIs in province) I can have access to an MRI in days (in Alberta - can't have that money stay in Saskatchewan, it would be unfair! It's fair to let people spend small fortunes destroying their health with tobacco and fast food, but it wouldn't be fair to let them spend it staying healthy!). If I can't afford it, I instead end up waiting more than a month to get the same service, at a higher cost to the Sask gov't (which is in the middle of a financial crisis).
But private MRIs will destroy our medicare. Just like they did to Alberta's (never mind that Alberta's medicare is in far better shape than Saskatchewan's).
"CIA analysts thought otherwise. Who is telling the truth and who is doing a snow job? Can you tell? I know you can, I am sure God speaks to you at night telling you what is fact and what is vicious propaganda. Your self-richeous and, oh soooo informed, attitude is a dead giveway."
No, the CIA didn't think otherwise - at least not about the total number killed. If you include the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam is responsible for the deaths of nearly two million people, IIRC. In any case, it's more than a million people total. I don't believe the fatalities in Iraq from this war have *quite* reached that level. And don't give me any shit about the US funding Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, because I think it was stupid and short-sighted of them to do it. You see, I don't have to follow one ideology blindly.
"Pull your head out of your rectum please."
Ah, another personal attack. You know, you're starting to sound dogmatic. Ironic, isn't it?
"Really? Please specify then which Canadian or US TV network has more of it."
Seeing as you seem to define lump integrity and the left wing, I'm not going to bother. I'll just note that our left wing government is now in the middle of a scandal involving handing out $100 million of tax money in bribes.
" the neocon's wet dream of conquest and bloodletting"
You know what? Fuck you. Me not liking the CBC doesn't mean I like killing people. How about gassing kurds? Saddam killed far more of his own people than this war ever will, and in far more brutal ways.
The CBC also has a noticeable anti-American and anti-Conservative/pro-Liberal+NDP slant. My taxes fund this slant. That is FAR worse than Don Cherry's comments (and listen to the support for Don Cherry!).
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording."
Most digital thermometers display at least one decimal place if they're in Celsius mode. Just like my scale displays one decimal place when set to measure in kg. Of course, this is more accurate than you're getting when you measure in pounds. So the metric system is actually *more* accurate in this sense.
For example - I know that the temperature here last night was -44.9C (not including windchill).
Obviously this means that Pepsi is not aiming to increase gross sales, or is planning on lowering prices.
(Just how much Pepsi would one have to drink to get 40 gigs of "free" music with this, anyway? I hate to think of the effect of that much more sugary diarrhea on kids' waistlines...)
You don't need to be active to use carbs, and low calorie (if by low calorie you mean a diet that involves being hungry at any time) diets are unhealthy, because it makes your body save any energy it can. They hinder weight loss, and can make your body start metabolizing its own muscle in some cases.
Low carb diets aren't good, ever. If you are recieving the right proportions of the right fats, carbs, and proteins, you will burn energy even when you're not exercising (however exercise in some form for ~45 minutes, 5 days a week is necessary for ideal health).
The ketones from burning protein (as in a low or no carb diet) are harmful to the kidneys, even if you get enough water. From a losing *weight* (but not necessarily fat) perspective, a low/no carb diet is good. From a health perspective it is not. The initial weight that you lose on a low/no carb diet (like the Atkins diet) is primarily water and glycogen (which carbs are turned into for readily available stored energy). After that you will start losing fat... but you will often also start to lose muscle mass. When you lose that muscle mass, you burn fewer calories, and that slows down fat loss.
There are few people who can't afford 45 minutes of exercise 5 days a week. Loads of people say that after work they haven't got the energy, but a healthy exercise program (nothing much, mostly brisk walking, with probably a small amount of weight bearing exercise) will GIVE you energy, because it increases insulin sensitivity as well as endurence.
In any case, everyone needs carbs for ideal health. It shouldn't be sugar (granulated fructose is good, it's got a GI of only 19 but it's more expensive than the standard sucrose that you buy, and you usually have to buy it from specialty stores I think), it shouldn't be wheat bread (even whole wheat), and it shouldn't be processed stuff like pastries. Those things WILL decrease insulin sensitivity and eventually cause weight gain.
The Atkins diet is certainly better than the high carb/ultra low fat/low protein diet that is promoted by most health agencies now, but ideally it should be 50% carbs, for everyone. Remember, it won't cause weight gain if it's low glycemic and eaten in reasonable proportions. And eating Atkins isn't an excuse for not exercising, since it's unhealthy to begin with (again, better than high carb/low fat/low protein) and will not make you lose more fat than a 50% carb low GI diet (but will make you lose more muscle).
"As an aside, I fear the same sort of thing has set in with this whole low-carb craze we've entered. Once again, a good idea, reducing the amount of processed carbohydrates consumed, has been undone by our society's frightening inability to practice moderation of any sort and by corporations who gleefully repackage their wares to fit the insanity du jour- witness the "low-carb cheeseburger" by Hardee's, as clearly the least healthy part of a sandwich consisting of an enormous grilled ground beef patty smothered in toppings was the bun, and also the abomination unto all that is sacred that is "low-carb 'beer.'" I can't wait to see what the next diet fad will bring us."
From what I've read, carbs should make up about 50% of ones diet. The problem is that people don't understand about good and bad carbs, because everyone tells them, "a calorie is a calorie," which it is clearly not.
And the same principle applies to fat, although people at least understand a little bit about, "good," and, "bad," fats. People just don't care enough to do anything about the quality of fats they eat, or the balance in the kinds of fats.
Refined sugars aren't entirely to blame. Complex carbs can raise blood sugar faster than table sugar. Maltose has a glycemic index of 105, which means that eating pure maltose will raise your blood sugar faster than eating pure glucose!
Actually, looking some stuff up in a table I have here, jasmine rice has a GI of 109! For reference, table sugar (sucrose) has a GI of "only" 61, and a white bagel (complex carbs in bagels, remember) has a GI of 72. Sure, refined sugars are bad, but there are many things that are worse. Hell, even raisins have a GI of 64.
Skimming over your post, I'd agree with everything you said if instead of simple sugars or refined sugar you said high glycemic foods.
PS - "healthy" cheerios: almost everone has seen the ads. They have a GI of 74 so they're worse than table sugar if you don't consider fiber or vitamin and mineral content.
I would like to draw to attention the fact that in Saskatchewan there are are not enough technicians to run our MRIs 24/7, but people can pay to have their pet run through the machine at night. Not a human though! Even though it would shorten the lineup for everyone else.
No, no. In Saskatchewan, we ship our patients to private MRIs in Alberta! Sound a bit off to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Who the fuck do you think created the atmosphere of fear? It was the people who crashed the planes, you fucking moron! Should the media have glossed over the single most important event in American history in years?
Addendum: remember that earthquake in Iran? They refused the aid that Isreal offered. Now think about Isreal actively attacking a Muslim country...
What? Worse than Saskatchewans? I doubt it.
Corner Gas is a great show. It's funny, but it doesn't use crude humour or laugh tracks. Anyone would feel comfortable watching it with their young kids.
He means the Conservative Party of Canada, which was formed by the recent merger of the old PC party and Canadian Alliace, which had split apart years back (the CA was the reform party at that time).
I have to correct myself - I said it was a more than one month wait for an MRI. It is indeed more than one month, but more than I remembered. It's *22* months.
I should finish this off...
"No its an excuse to spend 180 billion on his pals, the military contractors, 19 billion on handouts to US businesses taking over Iraq and 1 billion to friendly Iraqi political forces (numbers approximate but the spirit accurate). Thats some charity all right."
You're right, if the money goes to rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq, it IS charity, even if the Iraqis aren't the only ones who benefit.
"No, they were lying to line their own pockets as the article explained."
Opinion articles by the left wing - not that it matters, corruption is rampant in countries like Iraq.
"You just described what is going on in most of Africa, South America, Middle East and Asia as well as some former Soviet Republics. Perheaps you should enlist in the US army, they will need your help to go beat all those people up."
And what if I am actually of the opinion that the worst of those dictatorships SHOULD be replaced by democracies? However, there are limited resources, and that is not possible.
"Perheaps other then agriculture there is no significant industry in that province and agriculture is going to hell world-wide due to the wonders of WTO. What makes you think Saskatchewan and not Bejing is the place to setup that next hi-tech plant thats being built? You cannot compete, since you want more than one bowl of rice per day, an insolent worker that you are."
My point was that Saskatchewan has all of its eggs in one basket - agriculter. There is a lot of oil in Saskatchewan, however, unless some major gov't policy changes here, there will be no major oil industry in Saskatchewan until Alberta has nearly depleted their reserves. The government is competing against other businesses through crown corporations in many sectors. Sasktel, for example, has expanded to compete with ISPs. It's a lot harder to compete when your competition has gov't funding.
"Maybe thats what they teach at the Conservative Academy of Twisted Wordplay but thats not what I and a vast majority of people you are likely to run into believe. It was an attack. On me. Personally. Which part of me is irrelevant. Could be my character or my left foot. I understood it the way nearly everyone would: "a personal attack = attack on my person". I responded. Next thing you will be using the enthymology of the word "fuck" to debate its meaning as a word used to attack people and try to convince me it was meant as a mild expletive of surprise. In that context of course. And if I fail to dissect every word, punctuation and whitespace of your reply, it will be taken as an implicit surrender."
How you interpreted it is irrelevant, because the phrase "personal attack" has it's own meaning. It is more than simply the sum of its parts. Did you look at the site I provided? "Fuck you" was in response to a personal attack, although what I meant was "fuck off." "Fuck you" is not a personal attack, by the definition of personal attack.
"Oh wait, wouldn't this be, like, a personal attack? By your own definition too. Spite, ignorance? So you are right because anyone who disagrees is a liar or an idiot? I think I understand your position now. By some weird coincidence that is the same very world view that just about every believer of "conservative" philosophies I run into pronounces sooner or later. Go figure."
Except that for one thing: I was completely right in what I said. Therefore, if you call me a liar because I said it, you are wrong. This could be for two reasons: you are ignorant about the topic, or you knew that you were wrong and called me a liar out of spite. If I'm right, then it's not a personal attack, it's the truth. And I'm right. The status of Saskatchewan's oil exploration is an indisputable fact. QED
"Oh wait, wouldn't this be, like, a personal attack? By your own definition too. Spite, ignorance? So you are right because anyone who disagrees is a liar or an idiot? I think I understand your position now. By some weird coincidence that is the same very world view that just about every believer of "conservative" philosophies I run into pronounces sooner or later. Go figure."
No, because you've demonstated a lack of knowledge about this.
You started this off by calling me names, I didn't start the attacks.
Seeing as you seem to have no interest in playing nice, I'll leave you to your fantasy land.
You're free not to believe me, but I'm neither lying nor exaggerating. There has been oil exploration in Saskatchewan, but it has been very limited. As I said before, if you look at an oil exploration map of Alberta and Saskatchewan, you will see that all pretty much all of Alberta has been assessed. When you look at Saskatchewan, the explored area consists of a small amount in the south, and a few scattered patches. Of course, you'll just call me a liar, but out of ignorance or spite, not because you know me to be wrong.
a l- attack.html
Saskatchewan is very much the same as Alberta in terms of resources. They were settled similarly early on. They've had the same amount of time to grow. Saskatchewan has been run by the Sask NDP (which is different from the other provincial NDP governments, and from the federal NDP. I point this out because you don't seem to realize this, with comments about "well we've got an NDP government and we're doing fine!") for most of its existence. Alberta is pretty consistently conservative.
Alberta thrives, and Saskatchewan's economy suffers and our population is *shrinking*!
I think that's more than simple coincidence.
"Please provide a credible impartial source stating that the number of people dying this way (I doubt there were many) would be greater then what the war brought on. And I dont mean sources like people who wanted to take Saddam's place at our expense, say, Chelabi and his pals. Even if you find one (which I doubt), factor in the huge increase of world-wide hate towards US because of the war, abandoning the search for Osama, rebounding of Taliban, abandoning of Afghanistan's rebuilding, abolishment of the international law dealing with aggression, $200 billion expenses, etc etc."
It's interesting that you don't bother to note that of the $200 billion, quite a lot of money went to rebuilding Iraq - that's charity, even if a US or US friendly company benefits from it. US money is being spent rebuilding Iraq.
As for Iraqis killed by Saddam, you have to factor in the less tangible stuff as well as more direct killings. How many palaces did Saddam build while his people starved? How much money did he funnel to his personal wealth? You can blame the sanctions, but he was smuggling oil out of the country constantly, and using oil for food on weapons.
Factor in him staying in power for an indefinate period of time - which could be twenty years (at least his regime, should he have died before then) or more, and that's a lot of people dead. There is no denying that massive torture existed. Even if it was five years before it collapsed, you have to account for warlords fighting for control, Kurds fighting, etc.
"You must be kidding, his authority eroded so badly that his top level commanders were lying to him about their army's capabilities, scientists were lying about weapons. He had no longer any clue what was going on. That is the final stage of a collapse of a dicatorship."
They were lying for fear of execution. It's not uncommon. Ever heard of a yes-man? You know, someone who agrees with everything the boss says or suggests in order to get ahead and avoid conflict?
"You are making me laugh. You should consider running for office. "The bottle is empty, but it is not an empty bottle". Kudos, you should be able to survive in politics with no trouble."
You quoted that out of context. The fact that you did not dispute the ad hominem part suggests that you know I'm right but don't want to admit it. "Personal attack" means an attack on one's character, as opposed to merely an attack that's personal. As in attacking my intelligence or calling me bloodthirsty. Hence, "fuck you" is not a personal attack in the sense I have used it the phrase (the sense of an ad hominem).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/person
Alberta has more money because its gov't encourages business. Saskatchewan has loads of oil, but the oil companies are scared to invest in Saskatchewan because of our business-unfriendly policies. Look at an oil exploration map. The exploration stops right at the Saskatchewan border, with only a few minor areas explored.
Hypochondriacs aren't the ones getting hurt, it's the ones for whom a month is too long to wait. A month can mean the difference between life and death, or paralyzation.
"No such thing as "just a few". With our proximity to the utimate in greed based health systems just next door and doctors just green with envy, just a few is all it takes to start the feeding frenzy of greed."
Fear tactics used by the left wing. Again, Alberta continues to do fine (better than we are, by a long shot) with their minor amounts of privatization. I'm not supporting an elimination of free health care, just about nobody is. Rather, I support the option of a few pay services for people who don't want to wait. These services would NOT replace the same free services with longer waits...
"I know, that is why Musharraf was elected the President and thats why he lawfully retains absoulte control over lawmaking and executive branches of government. Right. Window dressing notwithstanding (Saddam had a parliament too, you know). I think you should look up the term "totalitarian". The only major difference is that Musharraf doesnt put his statue on every corner. Oh, and that he, unlike Saddam, actually has nukes. But I see, because Pakistanis do better economically that is the yardstick by which you measure "better off". I guess Saudi Arabia or Quatar are beacons of freedom then."
I said far from "THE", not far from "A." As in, it's totalitarian, but not to the same degree as Saddam's. I never said it was free. I'd never move there...
"You mean that allowing that corrupt government to fizzle out (as everyone who bothered to investigate knows the regime was totally out of touch and falling apart on its own) and trying to stimulate a peaceful transition ala Eastern Europe would be more bloody?"
His gov't wasn't falling apart. It was doing a rather nice job of keeping things under his control. Even if it fell apart in five years, that's five years wasted under him that could have been spent setting up a stable gov't and infrastructure. Not to mention that there would be lots of fighting over who gets control after it fell. As for his killing sprees ending - Saddam was killing and torturing people up till the end. I never said that Saddam would kill his people with WMDs. I said he'd kill his people.
"My bet is that following an Al-Queda sponsored, 3-way civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiias we will be talking millions."
I doubt there will be one. However, that same war would happen if Saddam's regime fell on its own.
"Try that on your boss or a cop or some Hells Angels dude on the street. You will quickly find out how truly impersonal it is."
A personal attack, as in an ad hominem fallacy. "Fuck you" is not a personal attack. It's personal, but not a personal attack. Nice try at deflection though.
" governments of any stripe just as any private enterprise (ever hear of bankrupcy?) can be incompetent and not being able to manage money or medical equipment"
... or maybe something in his country, noone can tell. Why? There is absolutely no moral ground to stand on for the neocons. This is being interpreted around the world as a lesson to all bloody dictators that they can stay bloody as long as they do the bidding of the US government. Even sale of actual and real WMD material by Pakistan (also run by a bloody dictator) does not provoke any calls for "regime change" from the White House. I could go on like this for a long while, there is just so much crap in the neocon's utopia."
But when you vote a gov't that is being irresponsible back into power, it sends a message that you don't care how badly your money is wasted.
"- many healthcare workers and doctors are greedy and quite willing to sabotage the whole system to make a killing when things go private and thus prone to keeping MRIs not running full capacity, overprescribing the test to fill the devices capacity etc etc."
Alberta is doing OK with it, despite being a nasty horrible right wing government (nobody wants fully privatized health care!).
"- private clinics have to get paid by someone and would have to serve the same number of patients as current public ones and turn a profit. Tidy one at that. What do you suppose the overall cost will be? Add at least 50% to our current cost. Are you not aware of efforts within US to reduce their truly gigiantic and costly (much more expensive then ours, nearly double per-capita) system by introducing Canadian style administration? See, turns out we spend a fraction (3%) of the money on administration while they spend 30%. Add 27% to our current cost. Small "use" fees? Thats how they start. Once you get that, its just a matter of "improving service" and "offerring new options" before the fees are on par with the US. You do realize that 1/7 (43 million) of all US citizens do not have any medical insurance or benefits? That dying from uncured illness is a normal thing among those people? But then on the other hand, doctors in the US are over twice as richas ours. I wonder if there is any connection. No... scratch that, actually I believe that this item alone is one of the leading causes of all of our equipment and resource "shortages"."
Seeing as I don't want US style health care - just a few private MRI clinics and the like - this is irrelevant.
"That is not the point. Noone claims that Saddam is a saint. Murderous, imbecillic dictator? Sure. Number of dead? Huge, 150.000 of them alone killed by allies in the first gulf war (remember the Highway of Death?). War to remove him? Impractical, ill-advised, badly planned, rush, worst alternative of all choices. Anyone with a brain knew this beforehand although the general public seems to be waking up only now and spin control is in full force. Iraq is just about gone. International laws fucked. Support for US world-wide abysmal. Osama Bin Laden? Having a field day setting up new network in previously near-unreachable to him Iraq, quite a comeback after actually getting near defeated in Afghanistan."
Removing him saved lives. The lives of Iraqis. It's an investment in the future of Iraq. Could it have been done much better? Unquestionably so. Should it have been done? I think so, and so do quite a few Iraqis.
"Real agendas of neo-cons are suspected by many to be different and quite contrary to the public chest beating displays."
Suspected by many? Obviously. Nobody trusts anyone with different political interests. I find the views of the left to be suspect.
"Not to mention the world is full of worse nutcases then Saddam and somehow the Bushsits wanted him so badly they were willing to do anything to get him
Pakistan is far from the totalitarian state that Iraq was, and it's people are far better off than Iraqis were. Think marsh Arabs, for example.
Not to mention that
"I'd rather have a pack of thieves then a bunch of Bible-thumping, warmongering, healthcare-destroying, corporatist maniacs running the show."
I never disclosed my religious beliefs, and furthermore, my religion is irrelevant to this.
I live in Saskatchewan. You know what our left wing government does to us? I keeps our MRIs (both of them - two MRIs for a million people?) understaffed, so that they aren't run at night. Instead of allowing private clinics to open, our brilliant leaders let the lines grow, and sometimes ship patients off to Alberta to use one of their *private* MRIs! If I pay a small fee, (far less than our gov't pays for MRIs in province) I can have access to an MRI in days (in Alberta - can't have that money stay in Saskatchewan, it would be unfair! It's fair to let people spend small fortunes destroying their health with tobacco and fast food, but it wouldn't be fair to let them spend it staying healthy!). If I can't afford it, I instead end up waiting more than a month to get the same service, at a higher cost to the Sask gov't (which is in the middle of a financial crisis).
But private MRIs will destroy our medicare. Just like they did to Alberta's (never mind that Alberta's medicare is in far better shape than Saskatchewan's).
"CIA analysts thought otherwise. Who is telling the truth and who is doing a snow job? Can you tell? I know you can, I am sure God speaks to you at night telling you what is fact and what is vicious propaganda. Your self-richeous and, oh soooo informed, attitude is a dead giveway."
No, the CIA didn't think otherwise - at least not about the total number killed. If you include the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam is responsible for the deaths of nearly two million people, IIRC. In any case, it's more than a million people total. I don't believe the fatalities in Iraq from this war have *quite* reached that level. And don't give me any shit about the US funding Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, because I think it was stupid and short-sighted of them to do it. You see, I don't have to follow one ideology blindly.
"Pull your head out of your rectum please."
Ah, another personal attack. You know, you're starting to sound dogmatic. Ironic, isn't it?
"Really? Please specify then which Canadian or US TV network has more of it."
Seeing as you seem to define lump integrity and the left wing, I'm not going to bother. I'll just note that our left wing government is now in the middle of a scandal involving handing out $100 million of tax money in bribes.
" the neocon's wet dream of conquest and bloodletting"
You know what? Fuck you. Me not liking the CBC doesn't mean I like killing people. How about gassing kurds? Saddam killed far more of his own people than this war ever will, and in far more brutal ways.
Again, fuck you.
The CBC has no integrity. But thanks for pigeonholing me.
The CBC also has a noticeable anti-American and anti-Conservative/pro-Liberal+NDP slant. My taxes fund this slant. That is FAR worse than Don Cherry's comments (and listen to the support for Don Cherry!).
I got this from google.
7 6
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-337
"Copying for Private Use
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording."
Germany is third world?
Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
A small mining town in my province got -52.3C not including windchill... the coldest place on Earth yesterday.
Most digital thermometers display at least one decimal place if they're in Celsius mode. Just like my scale displays one decimal place when set to measure in kg. Of course, this is more accurate than you're getting when you measure in pounds. So the metric system is actually *more* accurate in this sense.
For example - I know that the temperature here last night was -44.9C (not including windchill).
It's their choice, I'm not trying to stop them.
But you're a pretty cold bastard to not care about the entire continent's children losing their health and a couple decades of their life expectancy.
No, no, no.
The Pepsi drinkers are getting songs for *free.*
Obviously this means that Pepsi is not aiming to increase gross sales, or is planning on lowering prices.
(Just how much Pepsi would one have to drink to get 40 gigs of "free" music with this, anyway? I hate to think of the effect of that much more sugary diarrhea on kids' waistlines...)
You don't need to be active to use carbs, and low calorie (if by low calorie you mean a diet that involves being hungry at any time) diets are unhealthy, because it makes your body save any energy it can. They hinder weight loss, and can make your body start metabolizing its own muscle in some cases.
Low carb diets aren't good, ever. If you are recieving the right proportions of the right fats, carbs, and proteins, you will burn energy even when you're not exercising (however exercise in some form for ~45 minutes, 5 days a week is necessary for ideal health).
The ketones from burning protein (as in a low or no carb diet) are harmful to the kidneys, even if you get enough water. From a losing *weight* (but not necessarily fat) perspective, a low/no carb diet is good. From a health perspective it is not. The initial weight that you lose on a low/no carb diet (like the Atkins diet) is primarily water and glycogen (which carbs are turned into for readily available stored energy). After that you will start losing fat... but you will often also start to lose muscle mass. When you lose that muscle mass, you burn fewer calories, and that slows down fat loss.
There are few people who can't afford 45 minutes of exercise 5 days a week. Loads of people say that after work they haven't got the energy, but a healthy exercise program (nothing much, mostly brisk walking, with probably a small amount of weight bearing exercise) will GIVE you energy, because it increases insulin sensitivity as well as endurence.
In any case, everyone needs carbs for ideal health. It shouldn't be sugar (granulated fructose is good, it's got a GI of only 19 but it's more expensive than the standard sucrose that you buy, and you usually have to buy it from specialty stores I think), it shouldn't be wheat bread (even whole wheat), and it shouldn't be processed stuff like pastries. Those things WILL decrease insulin sensitivity and eventually cause weight gain.
The Atkins diet is certainly better than the high carb/ultra low fat/low protein diet that is promoted by most health agencies now, but ideally it should be 50% carbs, for everyone. Remember, it won't cause weight gain if it's low glycemic and eaten in reasonable proportions. And eating Atkins isn't an excuse for not exercising, since it's unhealthy to begin with (again, better than high carb/low fat/low protein) and will not make you lose more fat than a 50% carb low GI diet (but will make you lose more muscle).
"As an aside, I fear the same sort of thing has set in with this whole low-carb craze we've entered. Once again, a good idea, reducing the amount of processed carbohydrates consumed, has been undone by our society's frightening inability to practice moderation of any sort and by corporations who gleefully repackage their wares to fit the insanity du jour- witness the "low-carb cheeseburger" by Hardee's, as clearly the least healthy part of a sandwich consisting of an enormous grilled ground beef patty smothered in toppings was the bun, and also the abomination unto all that is sacred that is "low-carb 'beer.'" I can't wait to see what the next diet fad will bring us."
From what I've read, carbs should make up about 50% of ones diet. The problem is that people don't understand about good and bad carbs, because everyone tells them, "a calorie is a calorie," which it is clearly not.
And the same principle applies to fat, although people at least understand a little bit about, "good," and, "bad," fats. People just don't care enough to do anything about the quality of fats they eat, or the balance in the kinds of fats.
Refined sugars aren't entirely to blame. Complex carbs can raise blood sugar faster than table sugar. Maltose has a glycemic index of 105, which means that eating pure maltose will raise your blood sugar faster than eating pure glucose!
Actually, looking some stuff up in a table I have here, jasmine rice has a GI of 109! For reference, table sugar (sucrose) has a GI of "only" 61, and a white bagel (complex carbs in bagels, remember) has a GI of 72. Sure, refined sugars are bad, but there are many things that are worse. Hell, even raisins have a GI of 64.
Skimming over your post, I'd agree with everything you said if instead of simple sugars or refined sugar you said high glycemic foods.
PS - "healthy" cheerios: almost everone has seen the ads. They have a GI of 74 so they're worse than table sugar if you don't consider fiber or vitamin and mineral content.
I would like to draw to attention the fact that in Saskatchewan there are are not enough technicians to run our MRIs 24/7, but people can pay to have their pet run through the machine at night. Not a human though! Even though it would shorten the lineup for everyone else.
No, no. In Saskatchewan, we ship our patients to private MRIs in Alberta! Sound a bit off to you?