Leaderboard

Or it could be a non-violent way of expressing great frustration.

I draw the line where someone feels threatened or where physical assault occurs. If someone rips apart a Quran at a meeting, that is violent but not threatening. Ripping up a Quran on a Muslim family's front walk would be violent and harassing, and possibly threatening. I don't agree with Altai that the act of ripping up a Quran should result in jail. I believe I understand what H.E. is trying to say: Altai's cultural norms are different than ours and we are only too happy to criticize and condemn her just as we (or some of us, anyway) do Muslims generally. At the same time, we ignore our own culture's acts of violence and inhumanity because we so firmly believe we are in the right. The innocent victims of our violence are not comforted because we aren't Daesh; they are just as injured or dead as they would be if Daesh were their attacker. But most people in the West ignore or are unaware of the actual extent of our collateral damage, partly because our kills don"t get the exposure Daesh kills get; our governments certainly aren't forthcoming about this issue and the media reports on it are often ignored, downplayed or disputed. It helps that we are so certain of our moral high ground that we simply discount the reality of the horror our military interventions impose on the people in the countries we are "helping". And I'm not pointing fingers either; I do exactly the same thing. In my heart I know Daesh is evil but its only in my head that I understand that the States and Canada and all our allies together have killed as many or perhaps more innocent people than has Daesh. I don't believe that either Altai or H.E. think tearing up a Quran is as bad as killing 100 people. But I haven't read every post on this thread so if they said that somewhere please do quote it for me, if you want.

If Stephen Harper ever tried this, the Nazi references would be loud and plentiful. JT is the worst.

Keep in mind that Chong's policies involve more than just carbon taxes. He wants to offset it by (for example) reductions in income taxes. The end result is that the average Canadian will end up with about the same level of taxation. However, those who choose to use more fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a hummer to work every day) will end up paying more, and those that use less fossil fuels (e.g. by driving a civic) will pay less. From a purely libertarian/economic point of view, that's actually the fairest thing to do. If you accept the science (which is neither conservative nor liberal, but, well, science), global warming will have an effect that will impact people in different ways. Either way, the government (and ultimately the taxpayer) will end up paying for it somehow, whether its immediately (carbon taxes, cap and trade, subsidized green energy) or in the future (higher food prices, loss of property in coastal areas through rising sea levels). The idea that people's contribution to the solution to the problem should be proportional to how much they caused the problem in the first place actually seems like a pretty good idea to me. Leitch is too close to being a Donald Trump-lite for my liking.

I don't cheer on and support my country or any other country that tramples on other people's human rights for the sake of "economic and political interest".

ISIS came to be only after U.S.' decision to go into Iraq. When you bully, attack, kill and shit on people, you will receive resistance and a feeling of vengeance. Sometimes these feelings can turn into an ugly response, like the crazy man who drove his car into the people in London. People like yourself, who support these American adventures around the world, should accept these attacks and should take responsibility for them. Why? Because you support fueling the animosity.

Yes. Agreed. Others have rewritten or reinterpreted their books to align with the new world. Muslims haven't yet.

The Liberals are proposing, once again, through unilateral changes to the rules of parliament, to give the government new and draconion power to limit debate and push through legislation. It would let liberal ministers adjourn the house for any reason, and let the government prorogue parliament for any reason. I guess this is by way of illustrating that wonderful respect for parliament Trudeau talked so eloquently about prior to the election. I don't believe I've seen Coyne quite so sarcastic in quite some time. The latest chance to refresh our acquaintance with how deeply cynical the Trudeau people are — not have become: are — is the clutch of grubby expedients the government is now trying to stuff down the opposition’s throats, in the name, prettily, of “parliamentary reform.” Scholars of the Trudeau style will recognize the expression “reform,” like “merit-based appointments” and “evidence-based policy,” as a tell that some kind of humbug is afoot, and this is no exception: this is no more aimed at genuine reform of parliament than the Harper government’s Fair Elections Act was aimed at making elections fair. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-renewed-attempt-to-rewrite-house-rules-shows-liberals-are-not-to-be-trusted

Such a scurrilous attack on a young person who shows way more common sense than the lot of you combined. All the western folk, the land of the great debaters, the grand philosophers, who are too petrified to address anything that doesn't fit their narrow minded conservative, Islamaphobic mindset.

Such objects become the focus of partisan rage in place of the human beings that hold them dear. Burning humans in effigy is a popular demonstration activity around the world. Banning such actions is not compatible with liberal (small L) concepts such as freedom of speech/expression. I do not rip or burn Qu'rans...I recycle them as they are only books.

I heard on the The Rebel the other day that there are approx. 20 criminal so-called refugees crossing into Canada every day. Total that up and that works out to approx. 7000 illegals entering into Canada every year which is great for Americans but it is not so great for Canadians. We are getting swamped with all these so-called refugees being allowed into Canada. The costs are tremendous to the Canadian taxpayer's who have to foot the bill for these criminals by having to help them pay for their asylum requests. No problem getting a demonstration going against Trump in Canada, but there is no concern about all the illegals entering into Canada. The priorities that most Canadians get themselves involved in just makes no sense to me at all. Liberalism is obviously running rampant in this country, and that it is not good for any country, especially Canada. All liberalism programs and agendas are never good for we the sane people. Common sense and logic appears to not exist in the minds of liberals. My opinion, of course.

I understand your point. I've just been wondering how wanting book-ripper-uppers jailed and kept under surveilance and giving books the same rights as human beings would impact other things. For instance, the Hebdo cartoon was viewed as an act of violence towards Muslims and so the killings for drawing it have been justified. Where do you draw the line? Or are you agreeing with Altai and Hot Enough that ripping up a Quran is the same as murdering?

This expands on that idea. Trudeau - and I said this before he got elected - showed all the signs of a man who was uninterested in other people's opinions if they disagreed with his. He does not like disagreement or dissent. Not on any issue he considers to be important, anyway.

It's still a violent action. A non-violent way of expressing great frustration would be to say "I'm very frustrated". Breaking things, wrecking things and throwing things are still violent, even if they aren't directed at a person. Just ask anyone who lives with a person who uses those tactics during an argument.

Yes its on topic, we are relating the 9/11 event and God's existence with this topic. All the subjects has ties with Islam. All of them are covering the same territory. This is what you told me in another topic of me, which was savagely derailed under your supervision.

Or more likely great contempt.

Why do you keep asking people questions about something specific, then when they answer your specific question, you name-call and accuse them of ignoring some other issue that was not even being talked about? You are making no sense, and are completely all over the map. I'll ask the same as Betsy asked you, Are you okay? Because you don't seem to be okay.....

Hi granpa, its on topic, so I was talking about what "hot enough" says. Ripping a book is just a repressed state of an urge for violence. Do you remember the soldiers making "infidel" tattoos on their bodies before they are being a part of the crime their govt commits ?

Wonderful! Start your thread! No, I believe it was YOU who wanted to discuss syntax issues. Again, are you on crack? Or just so blindly in love with Islam and so filled with hatred for the West that you can't discuss anything properly?

Yes, this is what I am trying to tell. These people ripping a book as a first step and then they are bombing schools full of civilians and kids as second step or they are simply applauding crimes committed by their govt.

They can't help it....Donald Trump is just the latest American bogeyman to help define such political things in Canada. Democracy is only working when the outcome favours the alt-left in Canada.

That may be a fair assessment. And that's why I want the conservatives to actually be involved in the discussion about climate change... so they can approach the issue with a more fiscal/business oriented mindset.

Jihad in an Arabic word. Obviously you won't find it in books written in Hebrew and translated in English. But the essence of "fighting in the name of God" is the same. What reason has God to kill every living being in a certain city or tribe? When barbarians from Mongolia used to conquer their enemy cities, they would create mountain of human skulls and enslave the women for trade, in the name of blue skies and unseen Gods. Muhammad killed a whole Jewish tribe in the name of God's word when the tribe violated a peace treaty. Crusaders claimed their wars were inspired by the word of God. It seems like rulers have been using God's name to empower themselves for centuries now.

Of course, how could he give the country away now? He's already given it to Putin. Can't give it away twice now, can he. It will suck billions of dollars out of the US economy... money that could be spent on (for example) high-tech research and development, or schools, or roads and similar infrastructure; all things which will actually benefit Americans.Or he could give everyone tax rebates, and have people spend the money that way. And then there are the other issues: - The wall will cause environmental problems, as a wall will sub-divide many animal species and possibly leading to extinction. Do you think baby Jebus likes it when animals go extinct? - In order to build his wall, Trump will likely need to expropriate (i.e. take away from people involuntarily) people's property. Do you think Baby Jebus likes it when people's stuff is taken away from them? No, it won't. As has been pointed out before... Proportionally, illegal immigrants are involved in fewer crimes (theft, murder, etc.) than natural born Americans. And even then, most illegal immigrants do not cross the US/Mexico boarder by land anyways. You know, I noticed a pattern here: I have pointed out many serious moral failings with Trump. Yet time and time again you seem to ignore those failings. just so you can go back and repeat stuff that's already been debunked. These moral failings are why many people look down with revulsion at Christians. Supposedly, Baby Jebus preached messages of tolerance, of helping your fellow man. The bible has messages about not lying. You have this large group of evangelical Christians, who claim to believe in Jebus. Yet those same people who claimed to believe in Jebus: - Voted for a man who, prior to the election exhibited some very non-Christian behavior (racism, adultery) - During the election, made statements and made promises that were very non-Christian (racist, such as bringing back "stop and frisk") and lied on a regular basis (i.e. "I will bring back manufacturing jobs"), far in excess of his political opponents - Following the election, continued to lie (e.g. Obama's wiretapping). So much for the commandment about "bearing false witness" - Has tried to enact policies that are very non-christian (such as cutting foreign aid, and trying to stop refugees. So much for helping your fellow man.) All so that he could supposedly appoint a Supreme court judge who would curtail abortion, although as I pointed out, overall Trump's policies may actually cause more abortions in the long term. I think its pretty fair to say, christian=raging hypocrite, is it not?

How is it going to be more expensive to operate a business under Chong's proposal? He will not tax trade-dependent industries or the oil and gas industry. He plans to cut taxes by $18 billion while phasing in the carbon tax over a decade. Nobody else is proposing to cut taxes that fast. Currently, we have a hidden carbon tax; they're called green subsidies and regulations and for some reason the Conservative Party has supported them and increased them. Let's gut all these regulations/subsidies and shrink the size of government.

Why shouldn't Conservatives support Chong's version of a carbon tax? Just because some people feel climate change is a hoax? Chong also has support from undecided voters, the people who actually decide the elections.

Trudeau had the same position as Chong and he won 40 seats in Quebec.

Logic based on the same information will never change, it was the same in the past and it will be the same in the future.

EH? Who's denying you to speak your mind? To give an opinion? Actually, you're the one who seems to want to deny me to give my opinion about your stupid opinion! You've made more than just an opinion when you stated that a Christian can wear anything provided it isn't "faulty propaganda." Heck, when it comes to spirituality or belief in God......how can you even judge what's faulty or not? That's simple logic, no? Lack of logic? Uhhhh.......that's funny. Here's ANOTHER logic for you: Once you say something in a forum - it can be responded to. Once challenged, you'll end up owning it! Your lesson in forum discussion: Don't say anything stupid in a forum if you don't want to wear it around your neck!

Who said I support ISIS? I said you are as bad as an ISIS supporter. Because both you and the ISIS supporter are okay with death and destruction. Just because I disagree with many of U.S. and friends' foreign policies, it doesn't mean that I support the latest bogeyman, ISIS. That's an extremely shallow way to think.

If you mean living in a "Western" nation that pursues economic and political interests around the world just as many critics like you do, then I most certainly "support" past, present, and future policies. The difference is that I will not pretend to be sanctimonious while doing so.

The reason terrorism was able to thrive in Iraq was because the people who had control over the country, for many years, were no longer there. And the occupying force failed to bring order and control into the country after their shock and awe. This created the perfect situation for mercenaries to come from all over the world to join ISIS and make some cash. I'm sure some were idealists, but many went there for the cash, provided to them by Saudis and the Gulf States.

Not sure where you're getting your quote from, but I can't find it anywhere. The Defense Minister is already on record saying that this was not about regime change. Also, Secretary of State, Albright said this: Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on: "I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. […] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word." What U.S. did in Iraq gave no indication that they wanted 'regime change' or to remove Saddam. They just wanted to weaken Saddam and his military. This is exactly what their actions showed.

With respect to the topic of why Michael Chong sucks, here are some reasons: 1. He has said that the Charter enshrines Canadian values. Given the preamble of the charter, the implication of this is that 'recognition of the supremacy of god' is a Canadian value thus atheists are unCanadian. 2. He is completely against any reform to our health care system and has gone as far as to say that support of our health care system is a Canadian value. Newsflash: According to the World Health Organization Healthcare rankings, Canada is ranked 30th, the USA is ranked 39th, and France is ranked 1st. Moving from our entirely public system (well technically we have 13 systems) to a mixed system like France, Australia, Japan, Germany and all the other countries that exceed us in the rankings makes a lot of sense. 3. He is against the abolition of supply management. Yes he supports the completely immoral cartel on eggs/milk/poultry that harms the poorest in society by doubling the price of these goods, and has zero economic justification. You might think that this is a small issue, but I think it is a strong indicator of how an individual will approach problems. Is Michael Chong willing to stand against the status quo and powerful lobby groups to stand up for the wellbeing of society as a whole? The answer is clearly no. Australia got rid of their supply management, and they are better off as a result. Why can't we do the same?

Haha... Btw, the website that you quoted from belongs to Ahmeddiya community. In most of the Muslim world, they are considered infidels. They are thrown in jails for blasphemy, they aren't allowed to read Quran or greet using Islamic words. A lot of them ran away from their countries to take refuge in the West. Canada has a healthy population of these people.

Yours is even stranger. It illustrates your deep desire to avoid addressing such complex issues. In our grand system of justice, a person is considered not guilty until such time as it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed said crime. What does our great news media call the suspect? Could you put your name on the list of never to be called for jury duty people?

I spoke my opinion, which I'm sure you would not seek to deny me or anyone. I'm not at all sure what would lead you to think that my opinion has any effect on the school officials who made that decision. Your lack of logic astounds, Betsy.

And you avoided the issue, as is your wont. So many of you continue to blame people who are blameless, completely avoiding the issue - who were/are the biggest liars surrounding the events of 911, after 911 and before 911. Why did this man do what he is suspected of doing?

Don't get the whole "Well, if we can't fix it right now let's not do anything at all". And at least he's addressing the issue, rather than ignoring it. Not sure what 'boring speaker' has to do with it, or being 'bland' for that matter. Lots of criticism directed toward JT because he's neither boring nor bland. I think nonentity is a bit inaccurate for someone who's managed to be reelected five times. Although possibly no-one has ever run against him in his riding; is that the case?

You are not being truthful when you advance your frequent misunderstandings of the written word. That was illustrated in spades in the 911 thread.

No one appointed me. I wish you had the ability to actually discern what a person writes. You and Rue sure do love to read things into writing that is not there.

Here we go again. Read what I wrote, Betsy, not what you want to see.

Telling the truth about the war crimes and terrorism of the US in many places would see a body right dead right fast. Some folks just hold on to their "religion" harder than others. Are you not aware of the tens of millions who were slaughtered just because they held a belief that the citizens of a country should rule their country, not the USA?

And Orthodox Jews, Hutterites, Mennonites, Mormons, ... can wear what they want. The Christian boy can even wear what he likes, just not with false propaganda on it.

How old are you, Rue?

You say it's not canned then you can it once more. As has been pointed out, terrorist responses are responses to terrorism/war crimes/crimes against humanity/the theft of trillions in wealth/the rapes/the torture chambers, all of which has been going on for a good long time, long before the people of the Middle East ever thought of retaliating. And again, the retaliation for these century plus long evils has been so scattered, so infrequent considering the potential that it could very likely be another Operation Gladio. Remember, science says, clearly, that the seminal event for all this is a fraud.

What copy of the bible did you copy and paste?

Sane people do.

Ahaha, interesting to see you call someone else on it, but when I call you out on it, all I get is more of the same. Well you get what you give.