Leaderboard

I do not support or condemn abortion. I do support a womans right to choose. One of the truly annoying things about Pro Lifers is this bullshit , constant conflation that being ProChoice means you support abortion. Hey Prolifers, its none of my business what a woman chooses . And news flash: it is none of yours either. Get thee out of that uterus.

Well, i rewatched the video...and looked it up. And "very limited circumstances"? There is nothing of the sort, in fact, if you watch the letter scrolled behind her, you can clearly read that there is no data available for the amount of people who are using this clause - which in itself is kinda troubling. This is just you trying to explain it all away - nice try. Then you grab the "tried and true formula" - Islamaphobia, hysteria, false report yada yada. So desperate!

Hey Dems, Georgia called. It's not them, it's you.

It was a coordinated invasion. Yes the invasions occurred same day same time even at very early hours in the morning and yes Stalin and Churchill colluded for sure on this invasion. The two ambassadors went to see the Shah together to inform him of invasion.

Lying CBC says the Flint Michigan slasher yelled, "God is great!" No he did not! He yelled, "ALLAHU AKBAR!" Michigan airport knife attacker shouted 'Allahu Akbar', says FBI http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40360428

Oh no ! Terrorist from Canada attacks in Flint, Michigan. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/michigan-attack-police-officer-1.4171043

Uh...I'm referring to the Shah's father. Pretend like you don't know why Persia was renamed Iran. Pretend that Stalin didn't invaded Iran. It has everything to do with the Persian Corridor...Lend Lease route to the Soviet Union. All that Western built infrastructure...airports...highways...oil fields...railways...etc. Mousie's deal with the Communist Tudeh Party (that had already tried to make Iran part of the USSR) only sealed his fate in the very hot Cold War environment of 1953...Stalin had just died, etc.

Here's one reason why the bible cannot be taken too literally. There are inconsistencies in it, even contradictions. That's why we have to look at the forest (the larger truth) and the not the trees (the literal "events" described therein) to get the picture. Otherwise, we condemn the Bible to the realm of claptrap. I'm sure you, a good Christian, wouldn't want to do so! Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing the Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? Look to is yourself." Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself. The chief priests gathered up the money, but said, "It is not lawful to deposit this in the temple treasury, for it is the price of blood." After consultation, they used it to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why that field even today is called the Field of Blood. (Matthew 27:3-9) but in Acts, we have: He [Judas] bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language 'Akeldama,' that is, Field of Blood. (Acts 1:18-19) Same point, that Judas payed for his crime. You don't betray Jesus Christ. But if you start getting too literal, it would seem a contradiction that Matthew says he hanged himself, and Acts says his intestines spontaneously exploded. That's why you cannot take the Bible word for word. Just a couple of examples.

I say not, otherwise they would have done so without so much foreign investment and technology. The Royal Navy was Iran's biggest oil export customer. "After 1953" we still find many foreigners involved with production and exploration. Even today, there are many hundreds of foreign oil services companies keeping Iran's petroleum industry viable: http://iranoilgas.com/companies/listforeign?p=1

Such was not the case 100 years ago, and not the case in 1953, otherwise Iran would have been able to develop petroleum production, transport, and export markets without British/American capital investment and technology.

This is OT but what the hell, It looks like the offer of the gift was not well received by the leaders of the indigenous peoples. It appears the building in question is not conducive to indigenous culture. It's been categorized as a "left-over" by critics and indigenous architects. Translation: "we want land and money where we can build our own freaking building with our own freaking symbols". That's probably what will happen in the long run.

With Islam or Christianity yes. Not with Judaism. .http://www.interfaithfamily.com/spirituality/conversion/Why_doesnt_Judaism_promote_conversion.shtml

My understanding is that hatred of the West's actions is just one of the motivating factors for terrorism and certainly that excuse has not even been invoked by many terrorists. They are also motivated by what Islam teaches. I'm not ignorant. I just don't think all terrorists are protesting the West's actions. And I also don't think killing innocent people is a good excuse for it. Neither is the religion. I said there is no excuse on either side and you're arguing with me on that.

That is not what Goddess said. I don't make excuses for either side. I really think that's rude to change my words and then keep the quote saying that's what I said.

No, I think stupid is the problem.

...but you acknowledge that there is a clause in our law that allows "veiled" people to have firearms licences without a picture....right?

Shit just got real: Saudi Arabia Deports 15,000 Qatari Camels After the deportation order was handed down, thousands of camels were trapped at the border for days with little food or water.

If steel didn't lose a lot of strength with heat, it would be impossible to forge.

Because what he is touching was HOT steel that was deformed because HOT steel looses it;s strength to a great degree, them it bends and allows floors to collapse into lower floors. Bye bye building.

Actually he's not.. That is precisely the issue he is debating you on. He can't. None of us can. The government of the day tells us what we can wear. Who you kidding with that liberal tolerance shtick. You telling me you would support a KKK hood and uniform being worn at a swearing in ceremony? That uniform you condone as harmless is seen as a KKK uniform to many women and men. The standard as to what you feel should be allowed hooded is based on your subjective trendy opinion not objective standards. if it was you would insist all citizens have the exact same standards when dealing with government and that means no exceptions, everyone show their face. You choose who you want to have special treatment so your posing as tolerant is necessarily selective and thefrefore flawed.. Your Youy get into bed with Muslim fascist symbols and think it makes you tolerant? I argue total face coverings symbolizes exclusivity the exact opposite as to the inclusive construct Canadian society tries to symbollize n the citizenship swearing. Why at a swearing in ceremony where someone agrees to be acceptedinto an inclusive society where women are equal to men do they cover their faces in an act which defines them as inferor to men and embraces an archaic sexual belief that a woman's face must be hidden because men find them too sexually provocative. You think a symbol that defines a woman as in need of covering up is the kind of calue that belongs at a ceremony embracing equality? Hell man, soldiers died so that Nazis did not impose such fascist crap on us. Why would I embrace people who believe in such sexual fascism that spits on the face of what this country has struggled to achieve? No I do not want people undoing essential basic freedoms fought so hard for. No I do not think total face coverings are harmless and meaningless expressions of culture. I believe such displays challenge the very essence of our laws and beliefs and challenge the very basic value of women being equal exactly what this country should NOT tolerate.. Don't ask me to feign tolerance of intolerant sexual fascists because you have liberal guilt and feel you might offend a Muslim.. You think these values you embrace mutually respect yours? What bubble do you live in man? The values that bring us the total face covering are brutal. They were created tp crush freedom of choice of women. Been there done that. I have seen it first hand where Muslims opted out of Israel family laws precisely because Zionism gives them the freedom to opt our of certain state laws. Violence against women in Muslim tribunals is condoned and tolerated and so some women flee to the Israel state family laws which are non denominational. Same goes with ultra orthodox Jewish women. You embrace antiquated treatment of women. Women in Saudi Arabia, Iraq. Iran, Bahrain, the UAE. Afghanistan, etc.,where sharia law is practiced don't make free choices. They are ordered to cover up on the penalty of their lives. Then that crap is imported to Canada who want it to continue and you argue its harmless, its just clothes? As a liberal I think you embrace values you define as superficial and harmless because your main concern is your own feelings and the feeling Muslims don't hate you but see you as friendly to them. I am not here to support or moddy coddle any sexual facist. They find it offensive I find their practices of covering a woman;s face up intolerant, wait. I haven't started. SAsk me about female circumcision, multiple marriages. honour killings, marrying first cousins, because if you think this is some simplistic harmless issue you are mistaken and I am not about to have your naivite welcome values that believe our very essential freedoms are religious and moral abominations. You are one naïve rat cuddling up to a rat snake. I am a mongoose. I deal with both of you the same way.

Yeah, you really aren't getting it. Why not just answer the question: So, we should loosen the gun laws in Canada to accommodate Muslims (or, lets say any religion)?

That is most likely part of it. There is also the strange alliance between Saudi and Israel. Israel doesn't like that Qatar is still supporting Hamas. Saudi FM: Qatar must stop supporting Hamas, Brotherhood Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir lays down several steps for restoration of ties with Arab allies. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/saudi-fm-qatar-stop-supporting-hamas-brotherhood-170607045918921.html

Betsy's solution is to let them die.

Since the highlighted premise is false, your argument fails, my point stands.

Himmler declared Der Großmufti Aryan and that was that...all was Halal.

You think your corny sense of humor can always save you. You were wrong. Be a man, sapper.

Then Canada played a role as well, since one of the hijackers traveled through Canada. It's your choice to try to twist and turn and push an incredibly false narrative, that Iran was somehow behind 9/11, but this will only cement your lack of credibility. The reality is that Iran has been fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS for over two decades. They are enemies in every way possible. To suggest that Iran was somehow behind 9/11 is ludicrous. Not that I expect you to care, but I just don't have the time to go back and forth with someone who tries to make outrageous comments like this. This is one reason I have DogOnPorch on ignore. You will be next if you continue to do this. Update: You've chosen to ignore content by DogOnPorch. Options You've chosen to ignore content by OftenWrong. Options

It's a disgrace on North America that we are not taking in more refugees and we continue to let Europe shoulder the burden. Shame on us. What is your solution Betsy to address these refugees fleeing from atrocious environments? Practically speaking of course.

You completely misrepresented my views. And if you are familiar with my posts you know how I feel about the burka.

Most "whiteys" don't actually agree with your bigoted notions of what society should be like.

Natives are not immigrants, just like British people are not immigrants to Britain. It makes no sense to call them immigrants by any current usage of the word. The only ones who call them immigrants are the rednecks and bigots who want to downplay their status in Canada.

Amen to that...here in the foxhole.

The Liberal's chickens are coming home to roost. More Canadians are pushing back from pent up frustration. ...and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Oh the irony.

Educate yourself. In its entire 2500 years history Iran was never a colony neither ruled by colonial rule. It was invaded by many but always got its independence back.

There was this one, too. Scary how fast it went.

This is why you are a hypocrite. Because you support nations that have stolen this freedom from hundreds of millions. You know who these nations are so we don't have to go any further than pointing out your stunning hypocrisy.

"Is there such things as Professionals anymore"? Not with you. You might want to start by learingn to match your verbs properly to their nouns., Try ARE there such things as Professionals anymore... Next coming from someone who can't handle more then one sentence answers before you explode or implode whatever neurological phenomena you aren't interested in an answer just others agreeing with you that you heap scorn on "professionals".. Your comments are illogical. Courts are swamped with negligence awards against professionals. Professional regulators within their own colleges' disciplinary processes can appear to be inconsistent or "doing nothing" because you read one decision you don't like. If you were regulated by a college or society your opinion would be vastly different. I'd explain to you further just how many regulatory colleges there are in Ontario but it might require another sentence.