poochy

I would also like to see the list of white supremacist attacks or prevented attacks in Canada, also, even if you could find those, which you won't, it's fairly obvious that something new has been happening in this country in recent history, it's pretty telling that some of you argue that the threat and reality of muslim terrorism that is obviously on the rise is somehow less so that white supremacist attacks that don't actually seem to exist. So if you read the news, and you can count, you are a racist and a bigot. Could you point out the white supremacist attacks that i missed?

Yea, she hasn't actually said anything other than 'more women', which leaves us wondering why women need to be artificially injected into the forum at least more so than anyone else is, rather than finding it and joining it on their own. So if you can't actually provide real, tangible reasons, for wanting more women beyond just the more, it leaves people to guess. That guessing would include why women would only find a politics forum if it could be found by searching for, "women in politics" which has little to do with a political forum, rather than just politics. But hey, im sorry, i know im talking logic and reason here, i dont expect you to understand.

So women are only interested in politics if it concerns other women? With a narrow point of view like that perhaps it's best if there aren't more women posting here, this forum is easily found if looking for a Canadian politics forum.

You're asking these people for some perspective? These people are not well, they need help.

Aside from whatever politics is involved here, I find it difficult to understand why people feel any sympathy for someone who purposefully kiils someone in cold blood, under any circumstance, brutal, or otherwise. Life should mean life, i'm against the death penalty, but i dont beleive someone who crosses that line can be, or deserves to be trusted ever again, they don't deserve any more opportunity at normal life than they left their victim.

That's funny, i don't ever remember the girls being forced to the back of any of my classes while the were menstruating. http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/girls-should-not-be-segregated-on-public-school-property/ But i know, it didn't really happen, special case, not school run, bla bla bla, more excuses, etc etc etc.

I don't see that posters name anywhere in this thread, of course that doesn't prevent you from trolling him, to expect better from some of you is asking far too much, in fact the majority of the posts in this thread are from your side of the argument on the terrorist subject, to reasonable people that would indicate that most of us weren't overly concerned about that hole in the ground. No doubt you have convinced yourself otherwise, after all, what are you without your conservative boogeymen.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

The only time I worry for the future of this country is when i see that it sometimes spawns attitudes like yours. The idea that this country is a "piece of ****t" is utter lunacy, the nation doesn't have to fit your narrow point of view, nor are you the arbiter of what makes a good Canada.

Yawn

This seems a little familiar, btw you dont need any of the bullshit found in the discovery method to understand math.

As it should be. Perhaps i could ask my wife to find the time to join, but i don't think you will find the comfort you seem to be looking for. She isn't much for nonsense, and not just a man's nonsense.

lol, at moving the goal posts...while you're doing exactly that, but that is what you do, you get in over your head, you clearly lose the debate, you change the subject, or the goal posts.

No, what you would acctually be doing is preventing the male oppressors in their lives from forcing them to wear it. But this line of thinking is more about your biases than your concern for women's false choices, the typical left wing red herring on culture.

And you are an example of someone who consistently argues things that are over their head.

And any honest person would understand that it isn't really a choice. Unless you consider a cultural norm born out of the oppression of women a choice, i wouldn't, and no self respecting feminist who doesn't have an ideological conflict between defending anything that isn't white european and defending womens rights would. Over and over again you trip over your own broken ideology.

Jerry: Star Trek II. George: (identifying it) Wrath of Khan! Jerry: Right. Kramer and I saw it last night. Spock dies, they wrap him up in a towel, and they shoot him out the bowel of the ship in that big sunglasses case. George: That was a hell of a thing when Spock died... Jerry: Yeah... It really is a hell of a thing

Morality doesn't exist until we draw the lines, morality is only enoforced as a set of societal standards because the majority chooses to support those standards. Most of us think violence protests over fracking for example, is immoral, the science simply does not support the outrage. I don't beleive that violent protest is acceptable for any cause or ideology, it is by and large the more left leaning among us who do, most protests are for what most would classify as left leaning causes. Those of you who support this sort of, violence is ok if i agree with the cause, had better hope that the general attitudes of the country don't change a great deal.

Exactly, so you are making a value judgement on the basis of your beleifs, well here is a news flash, most Canadians dont want to see roads blocked or store windows smashed and they would be more than happy to see anyone who does those things arrested and locked up for a time. Contrary to the opinions of some most of us live perfectly good lives and don't think the government is out to get us for some reason or another, that's the reality. So if anti abortionists can't burn down clinics because that's 'wrong', and most Canadians think that smashing store windows in a protest against some imagined new world order adversary is also wrong, where does that leave us? You can choose anarchy or the rule of law, where violence isn't acceptable, picking and choosing when it's ok to burn police cars or what not just can't work.

Well, being so smart, why aren't you and others smart enough to understand that simply because you think a particular cause is just doesn't mean there aren't others who disagree or who have their own just causes that you would completely oppose, meaning that violence isn't the answer simply becuase you happen to agree with the issue being protested. In other words, it is never the answer, you or I don't get to decide when violence is ok based upon our beliefs.

Even if you are exactly what you say you are, and only that person, it would not change how ridiculous your posts are. So either way.

You don't support violence? You have been arguing it's merits for days now, i suppose you could be doing that from a purely academic pov but who are you trying to kid here, anyway, I don't think Smallc would deny that violence can bring change, but that does not mean that the violence was necessary, or acceptable. Who gets to decide just how much violence or property destruction is ok? In lieu of any possible quantification the only answer to that question is 0,

So when the violence comes in support of a view point that is the polar opposite of your own are you still in support of it? If anti abortionists smash all of the windows out of every clinic they can find and prevent women from attending would you be accepting of that violence as an expression of their beliefs and desire for change or will you not simply because you disagree with them? It cuts both ways. Violence isn't acceptable.

It must get boring, always playing with yourself.