poochy

I guess Kim Campbell is also just a stupid bigot. “I’m always very concerned about cultural practices which suggest that women bear responsibility for the sexual behaviour of men,” she said, referring to coverup garments like the burka. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-gender-equality-under-threat-from-society-of-immigration-former-pm-kim-campbell Thank goodness there are learned people on this forum who cast aside the nuances in an argument that they either don't understand or that are simply incompatible with their broken ideology, someone has to yell bigot.

There it is again, now tell us once more why we needed the gun registry.

That guy...

I would rather have criminals spend more time in jail than say have a gun registry that targets the most law abiding people in the country while accomplishing nothing, then again im ok with judges using their discretion while also not having legislation that does nothing but make paper criminals out of legal gun owners. I find it difficult to understand why some are so happy about no minimum sentences for actual criminals, while being for legislation that accomplishes nothing while targeting the wrong people, it's a logical disconnect.

Well you're right, and rushing to judgement is always wrong i suppose, but in this case it's really hard not to.

Well there has to be some sort of bar, otherwise the debates could get so muddled with who knows how many party leaders (of parties that have no real chance of winning anything) that they would be pointless. Maybe they are pointless already, idk, but i think this year could be interesting, i suspect the contrast between Mulcair and Trudeau will be startling, with Harper somewhere in between.

You are suggesting that anyone who runs federally should be invited to the debates? They don't even need to lead a party, let alone one of significance.?

No she shouldn't, if she is than all of the other fringe parties should be. She really has nothing to say, anyone could spew all kinds of unrealistic nonsense about the environment but eventually the reality of people needing real jobs to feed their families kicks in and the pollyanna vision of our green future goes by the way side.

If Mulcair was leading the liberals i would probably be voting for them, but the NDP is too left, and Trudeau is an empty suit.

Right, which this guy didnt, and the former cop murdered him.

There wasn't much thinking going on either side, but police officers have training, and while i dont think the victim thought it through, as in, 'if i run away he won't shoot me in the back' if you have to think about that likelihood just in case he might be a little amped up, and he might gun you down, then something is horribly wrong with the police. Maybe there really is, but i'm more inclined to think this guy is an aberration, we should all hope so.

True, and being shot in the back for nothing is always wrong, i don't think there needs to be any qualifications of what happened, someone was murdered, that's all.

Such a waste of time, ignored

Cops, under their uniforms, are just people, this one is apparently a murderer, and maybe a racist, idk, the point i was making is that constantly jumping to the, black person shot=racism, the actual evidence in this case supports that belief, but not in all, and even if the police are racists, even if the whole town is run by racists, it doesn't mean that a police officer should tempt fate with a suspect in an effort to make amends. You can't attack or rush a police officer and not expect to be stopped, in the real world that happens with you being shot in the chest, not the leg or some other fairy tale nonsense, but you should be able to run from one without being an imminent threat to the officer or public and not be shot in the back, I think we would all be better served by making those distinctions.

I have to agree, in this case there is no point in splitting hairs, knocking a taser from someones hand, or anything esle for that matter, is not justification for a street sentence of the death penalty. If only you were equally capable of understanding the circumstances of other incidents like this where the shooting was justified.

How easy it is to justify your worldview, anyway, back here in reality land, shooting a man in the back as he runs away from you is murder, to almost everyone.

Unhuh, but this wasn't a back door way of equating me with someone who has been condemned by almost everyone for his anti homosexual law? Right, sure it isn't, either you knew exactly what you were doing, or you're a little slow, and btw, my comment concerning my lack of interest in participating on subjects where any dissent has you called a bigot has nothing to do with me wanting to be protected, or with forum decorum, If I can't call you an idiot for making things up i don't want to be called a bigot for disagreeing with any aspect of someones interpretation of feminism. That quote she made wasn't even to me btw. But over and over people here are called racists, bigots, you name it, and it seems perfectly acceptable. You made the accusations, I simply said why i had no interest in posting there, which had nothing to do with you, or the governor of Indiana, but that didn't stop you. So facilitator, go back, parse my posts, and find any serous post I've made that is anti gay, good luck, or maybe you could just apologize for making that connection, as you knew damn well what you were doing.

Of course, if I don't agree with all aspects of someones feminist or other progressive ideals it's clear that I am against equality, not only that, i am now for discrimination of homosexuals. Golly gee, i mean, no one has ever made that ridiculous argument before, so is this the best you have to offer? I guess ill flag you baseless accusations...lol, hey, maybe it's you who don't belong here.

No, there seems to be a lot that you don't get. Some women, like some men, you can actually discuss things with, some women, like the one who brought all of this on, are impossible to speak with about these issues, simply because she is not a reasonable PERSON, which has nothing to do with her gender. The subject matter obviously does, she is not a reasonable person, and will inexorably accuse you of sexism or bigotry if you dare to question the paradigm she subscribes to making any argument to the contrary an absolute waste of time. Perhaps you also subscribe to belief that because she is a woman any question of her beliefs on what might be considered womens issues is offside. Rabble has a feminsit forum, the rules are, thou shalt not question any of the founding ideals of feminism, as if they were handed down to us from Gaia, making the entire thing a redundant echo chamber, this person would be happier there im sure. But perhaps you think, "I need to call you out on your pedistal white man espousing on women's rights." Is a reasonable way to respond, she wants to preach, not discuss.

lol, it's called physics dude, you should learn some, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. www.amazon.ca/Physics-For-Dummies-Steven-Holzner/dp/0470903244 that should get you started

O hey, i didnt realize that thread was in a new sub forum, there isn't any point in responding to it, if you don't carry the only allowable opinions not only are you wrong, you are also a sexist. So there isn't much to debate.

i also heard that there were no other combustibles in those buildings.

But that only happened in the real world.

I heard that fuel burned in a forge burns at exactly the same temperature as in does in free air. OMG DA SCIENCE!