Wideleft
-
Posts
3,024 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Wideleft
-
-
3 minutes ago, Noeller said:
the Classic-leaning Rock station I program was getting so many requests for him, we added a few tracks. "Perfectly Good Guitar" gets a lot of love...
Saw him and Lyle Lovett a few months ago. Their between song banter was almost as impressive as their songs. Fabulous show.
-
1 hour ago, Atomic said:
This is basically how I feel. I think the Paris Climate Accord is a joke and although you have ~195 countries involved, will even 10% of them actually hit the goals set out by the agreement? I doubt it. It's more for show than anything else.... people will reduce their emissions as technology allows it (in terms of generating clean energy efficiently and reducing emissions from vehicles by switching to electric or otherwise). It will be a natural process driven by innovation, not government intervention.
However, because the agreement is actually so toothless, withdrawing from it will cause more problems than it will solve. It's making even more enemies for Trump and America whereas they could easily just stay on with the agreement and ignore its goals like most other countries will.
Sometimes the spirit of an agreement is more important than the details and that is why the Paris Agreement in hindsight was so important. 195 countries officially agreed that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed - that was not a small accomplishment.
The markets are changing, but without government aid (which was far smaller than what the petroleum industry was receiving) we would not have seen the acceleration towards green technology that is so evident now.
- blue_gold_84, Wanna-B-Fanboy, JCon and 1 other
-
4
-
-
29 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:
that's pretty much what I am saying. The term "Refugee" just gets applied to everyone now, even if they are just illegals who don't want to go back to the country they came from. I sympathize but I also know there are thousands of people trying to get into Canada legally, and it seems that under this system people can just walk across the border and boom they are now in. What's stopping millions more from doing just that?
Simply not true when it comes to actual journalism which I highly recommend. It is those on the right who prefer to lump refugees, expired visa holders, immigrants, blacks, mexicans, etc into one big bag of "others". If the word has lost all meaning to you, your sources of information probably can't tell the difference either.
-
1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:
I dont know a lot about the details but I understand KBF's perspective here. What are these refugees escaping by leaving the US and walking into Canada illegally? And why are we just assuming its legitimate, opening our arms and welcoming them in? If they are being vetted, great, but if I try to walk across the border I dont get vetted, I get arrested and deported back to Canada and I probably face some charges.
If your VISA runs out and you stay without a renewal, you are not a refugee. Are we talking about people that have been in the US for 20+ years?
You would get vetted if you tried to claim refugee status in the U.S. Let's keep comparing apples to apples here.
-
14 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
Men dont decide for women that the woman will have the child and they (the man) will raise it alone. I guess it could happen but would be rare and either way they can't impost that decision. We can deep-dive into the issue but I think my main point still stands. As a pro-lifer, I want to see education and family planning made available more widely and geared towards young people.
Totally agree.
-
42 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:
and how much are these illegal "refugees" costing taxpayers? Does anyone care?
I'll answer your rhetorical question with a rhetorical question: "What is the cost to taxpayers of doing nothing?"
You don't think that shutting down a refugee program would actually stop refugees from arriving, do you?
-
16 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
Its interesting that while it takes both a man and a woman, only one retains rights. We allow that because its her body. But what if a man had the option of opting out of parenthood as well?
Men do it all the time. One quarter of single parent families have the dad as the primary caregiver.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/
-
5 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:
ok - well that's interesting. Are any being returned to the US after vetting? Just curious.
Since it's government, expect it to be a lengthy process. I have no idea at this point what the stats are at this point.
-
17 hours ago, Atomic said:
How can the argument be overly cynical when it has already happened, in regards to the sex of the child (aborting female babies disproportionately)? Is it that much of a stretch to think the same issue might crop up in regards to other characteristics?
I don't disagree with any of this.
Obviously, this is never a simple issue, but China has taken measures to prohibit sex-selective abortions which is impossible to enforce effectively. Also know that murders and abandonment of female babies stemming from the one child policy was also a significant issue, so prohibiting abortions leads to other problems which are obviously not insignificant.
The larger picture to consider is why abort and kill female fetuses and babies? A large reason is that you have a 5000 year old patriarchal civilization where carrying on a family name is more important than raising a daughter. I can simplify that by saying men sticking their noses into women's reproductive rights.
-
10 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:
please elaborate. I respect you a lot Mark, so I am open to more info from you on this topic. I honestly don't agree with anyone just being able to walk across our border and being given asylum with no vetting, but perhaps there is more to the story and I trust you to give me that knowledge. Thanks.
That is not what they're doing. They still have to report to authorities, but under the Safe Third Country Agreement, they must cross the border first and then report. Vetting/interviewing/consulting still happens - it's how they enter the building that is different.
-
27 minutes ago, Atomic said:
Sorry I'm missing your opinion on this. You believe it's ok to abort a baby based on sex, and by extension, other perceived characteristics? Or it's not ok?
I believe it is a mother's right to choose whether she is capable of carrying a baby to term or raising a child in a healthy, safe environment. A mother who would abort based on the unlikely scenarios you describe probably shouldn't be a parent anyway.
-
9 minutes ago, Atomic said:
It's similar in that it is something that greatly affects the life of the person and parents could potentially use it as a justification for an abortion, which is what the question is about.
Is it okay to abort a baby based on predicted characteristics? Does it matter? If a gene is discovered that predicts autism and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay? If a gene is discovered that predicts homosexuality and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay?
Sexual orientation and health conditions are obviously very different things but the similarity is in the fact that both could be used by parents to decide whether to keep or abort a baby.
Abortion is not a decision to be taken lightly by anyone and with the exception of Republican (Pro-life) Congressman Scott Desjarlais (and a few others) it is the hardest decision many women have to make. The argument you make is so cynical (and I am a cynic) about human nature that I would suggest these babies would be better off not being born in the first place.
If you want to reduce abortions, do your best to make sure society takes care of kids when they are born. Vote for parties that encourage planned parenthood, universal daycare, school meal programs etc. Arguing about stopping abortions when kids are born into poverty, danger, addiction etc. and not first condemning political parties that abdicate responsibility or aid to these kids is disingenuous.
-
1 hour ago, Atomic said:
You completely missed his point obviously. We are approaching a point in genetic science where we will be able to look at the genetic sequence of a child to determine some of its characteristics and vulnerabilities to disease. It's the same process that is used by 23andMe.
Now imagine that soon-to-be parents have the genes of their unborn baby analyzed and they see something concerning... oh this child will have X disease or this child will be mentally challenged. The existence of a 'gay gene' is very controversial but the issue is far from settled. Someday there may be genetic indicators of homosexuality/bisexuality or other sexual preferences. Now parents decide... Well we better abort it. Is that ok?
These issues are coming as science gets more advanced, there is no question about it.
I don't think I'm missing the point. This is a reach and a justification to deny women the right to control their own body. The challenge to liberals was laughable as progressives have been the leaders of the human rights movement for decades.
As mentioned, we have already seen selective abortions and murder in countries (like China (one child policy)) based on sex. Why do you think mother's have ultrasounds? We don't need half-ass scientific predictions to justify the "Pro-life" movement. And you can bet that it won't be liberals struggling with the gay gene dilemna - it will be the conservatives.
-
40 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
I agree. There are different ways to help people that are or face becoming refugees. There are choices people make that increase or decrease their chances of surviving. An unborn child makes no choices. Their heart beats, their brain develops and someone decides it was an "oops" so away it goes. While a lot of good people who dont have the opportunity for any "oops" wait to adopt. In most cases of abortion, its a selfish decision. And some will now be angry I wrote that, but even if you're pro-choice, I dont see how you can disagree.
This discussion is going to get a lot more complicated when parents can be told whether their unborn child will have medical issues...or be too short...or be gay...or what have you. Designer babies. it will be interesting to see what the Liberals say when the first abortion due to "gay gene" occurs.
Wow! That's a similar argument made when gay marriage was proposed. Conservatives said it would lead to people marrying their dogs.
-
49% of Trump's followers are fake/bots.
-
4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
Clearly that was written by a biased opposition to him, just by how many points were worded. But assuming the bulk of it is generally accurate, the Cons are unbelievably stupid. And its this kind of bullshit that will make me a liberal *puke*
I agree about the explicitly biased wording and was hesitant to share for that reason, but a little research would back up the claims based on everything else I've read. He's also ever had one "real" job in his life - selling insurance for 6 months. And the Conservatives complained about a drama teacher....
-
11 minutes ago, Atomic said:
That would be a valid point if most refugees lives were in danger (some are, the vast majority are not). There is a big difference between importing 20-35 year old men en masse to our country and defending the rights of an unborn child who cannot defend itself.
You're going to have to define "danger" before stating whether or not the majority is safe. Safe from what? Rape? Starvation? Persecution? Murder? Drowning? Robbery? All the above?
_FiguresAtAGlance_Infographic(27JAN2017).png)
- blue_gold_84 and Fatty Liver
-
2
-
I did not create this. Feel free to challenge.
-
28 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:
It would be nice if they brought in TSN to film the Combine professionally, some of the camera work was pretty weak. They need to set up a couple of towers so that they ccan cover the entire event from a higher perch. If the next Combine is in Wpg. where is it held?
Pretty sure TSN doesn't have any full-time cameramen on the payroll. No reason that the same professional freelancers couldn't have been brought in to shoot. That being said, if you don't have a crew (and a director/switcher) calling for different angles at the appropriate times, you get out of frame shots because you have one guy trying to capture an entire sequence from a poor vantage point. That's hard, no matter how good a cameraman you are.
-
18 hours ago, Mark F said:
side note. Canadian farmers may regret their man Harper destroying the Canadian Wheat Board. Wonder what Mark H thinks. or KBF from a farming background.
As someone who grew up on a farm (and has followed food production with interest), I can tell you this much: The nature of agricultural production and food supply pits various ag sectors against each other. When grain prices are high, that hurts ranchers and other livestock/milk/egg production. Grain price spikes usually occur in times of global shortages (usually weather-related), so as long as you're in a part of Canada that had good growing (and harvest) conditions, you might have a very good year. If you are a buyer of feed grain, you'll still feel the pinch.
Every sector seems to hate dairy farmers because they have a sustainable program that manages supply (and therefore guarantees reasonable income). It's a system that has worked, but has also shown that if marketing boards are taken over by the biggest farmers, they can make the small ones go away (the same thing happened when Filmon removed the single desk sales mechanism for hog production, but to a greater extent-there are no small hog farmers anymore). The Trump team has already said they will be going after Canada to end Supply Management (as most American governments have).
Anyway, since farmers are divided by natural market forces, the have seemingly lost their ability to cooperate and form any kind of unified voice to advocate for themselves. All the successful lobbying in the Ag sector is done by the processors now and producers are left on their own. This forced independence has reinforced an almost Libertarian viewpoint (and I know there are exceptions). Farmers really hate taxes, even though they have some of the most generous tax breaks available. Since most farmers are now over 50, they are also very set in whatever ideology they have already had.
So to make a long story short, the ones in favour of disbanding the Wheat Board will tell you it was a great move regardless of how it has actually effected them (another farmer trait). They won't mention that they are happy paying for private companies operating expenses as well as their profit margins instead of only covering the CWB's operating expenses.
The farmers against the disbanding of the CWB are either fighting for a return or have likely moved on to other crops and are saying "I told you so" (another farmer trait).
It's hard to find published statistics on wheat production since 2012 (Wikipedia can get you up to 2014), it's also really hard to say how prices (more importantly, income) have been effected, because it's now up to individual farmers to market their crop. Wheat prices are a commodity, so the prices are set. How it grades at the elevator and what each farmer has negotiated in his contract is a whole other unquantifiable (at least based on the info I have tried to find) answer.
Don't think I even came close to answering the question...
- bigg jay, JCon, The Unknown Poster and 3 others
-
6
-
3 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:
Larroquette was the only thing i liked about Night Court. Other then that I h8 h8 h8'd that show.
He was a good Klingon as well.
There were only 2 reasons to watch Night Court and they were Markie Post.
-
22 hours ago, Noeller said:
Chaykin was such a beauty....Mystery Alaska and Entourage, he crushed it...
Dances With Wolves.....
-
18 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:
I honestly have no idea but it does take some time to recharge the battery so this is not something you do without pre-planning. Typically most recharging will occur at home overnight and the cost will be buried in your Hydro bill.
The now 94 year old inventor of the Lithium-Ion battery is now working on a glass-based battery which he estimates will hold a charge for 600 miles, recharges in minutes and is not as negatively effected by cold (until -20 C). Punch John B. Goodenough into your google news machine for more info.
The Music Thread
in General Discussion
Posted
One of those thousands of great acts no one's heard of.