JerrySeinfeld

Yes. Yes it was. Ditto. Not to mention it puts you at a massive disadvantage. If you are concerned with peoples "loyalty" because of their ethnicity or religion or what not, you can be distracted to the real threats, i.e. those who look like "friendlies" or "loyalists" on the surface but in reality, are far from it. Hmmm. It's a pretty complicated thing to consider and not that simple. Think about the Taliban threats of yesterday. As I said in the original post, I'm not in favour of internment camps. What I am saying is that today's world provides for a very complicated "war". And our multi-culti sensitivity is a huge weakness. We KNOW that the Taliban has threatened us. Yet we can't start profiling recent afghan immigrants or visitors. Well, we try to but there is constant outrage against "watchlists" etc. The Islamists know and understand this "tolerance" and softness when it comes to a long war. The Islamists know the war is not popular, and in a democracy that means it's our weakness. It's just a scary though with no easy solution. Think about it.

OK - I made the title intentionally inflammatory to get some interest... But it's an interesting question. I admittedly don't know a tonne about the internment. But I do know it was because we were at war with Japan, no? I'm NOT saying it was or was not right. But there is a thought to the loyalties of persons who lives here but is from another country. Where are your loyalties? Let's say you move to Saudi Arabia to work in the oil industry and we end up in a war with them. Would you be loyal to Canada or to Saudi Arabia? This issue also raises the whole can of worms of multiculturlism - and about people like Roach (from another thread can't remember his first name) who immigrate here but refuse to take the oath of citizenship until it is changed to suit them. If we live in a country that is so oversensitive that we not only consider it OK for immigrants to flout our oath of citizenship, but the courts actually hear their case and consider making a change...then perhaps internment isn't such a bad idea. After all - if a newcomer refuses our values, our symbols, our traditions, our "way of life", who is to say their loyalty lies with our country at all? I am not advocating internment camps. What I am doing is putting forth some interesting thoughts about what it means to be Canadian. Thoughts PLEASE

I didn't see any attempt to change Landsea's research on hurricanes. If anything, had he stayed on the IPCC committee, we would have seen the same result as we have in the 2007 report: no evidence that hurricanes get stronger with global warming. Did you even read the letter? Trenberth blatantly contradicted known research and lied to the media.

I happen to agree with Bush that partition leads to war. As far as decades go, it isn't going to happen. Do you really want the Republicans out of office in Washington for that long? Even Bloomberg has signed up as an independent today so he can run free of Republican connections. I know. It's a sad day when politics trumps whats right. Many republicans were lining up behind "detente" back in the day too, but reagan stuck with his principals and saved the world bless his heart.

The issue here has a whole lot more to do with the behavior of the IPCC leadership in general and Dr. Trenberth's in particular. It demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the "2500" scientists who supposedly agree with the findings of the lead authors. It literally undermines the credibility of the entire report and any future reports from this organization.

An open letter (quite scathing) from a meteorologist, researcher at National Hurricane Centre and former contributing scientist to the IPCC This is interesting on many fronts, not the least of which is the continuous accusation by climate alarmists that it is the DENIERS whose research and claims are tainted....enjoy.

Bush is now hamstrung in Iraq. He has pushed the forces to the limit and it still isn't taming Iraq. They could be there for decades to come if his policy continues to followed. Partition leads to war. Bush himself has said so. Partition could work - but I agree we should be there for decades if thats what it takes.

Answer: Liberal governments Importing known caribbean gang members as "ethnicly diverse immigrants" and then thinking that registering farm rifles in saskatchewan will make things better. It's a classic liberal recipe for election victory: 1. Celebrate Diversity at the cost of safety. 2. Alienate law abiding western Canadians. 3. Impress the Toronto Star. 4. Laugh all the way to victory. 5. Leave it to the conservatives to clean up the mess.

No. If there are 20,000,000 people flouting american law and living under the radar, the watch list is only watching 2.5% of that number. I'm simply pointing out that 500,000 isn't a big number, which seems to be the point of this thread. Maybe - but attempts have been foiled. Let's face it - alot of the jihadi's aren't too bright. We all think of these intricate plots, but in reality the 9-11 attackers were just a bunch of blow hard bad-tippers at a strip club on Sept. 10, 2001. And you're right: it's a "watch" list - not an "arrest" list.

Care to tally the latest civilian death rate due to Bush's little incursion? Willing to wager that the average Iraqi won't say they were better off under Saddam? I don't buy that line of thinking. It's been demonstrated time and time again that the only thing sitting around pretending there is peace does...is simply pretend that there is peace. But doing nothing but negotiate and gloss over serious problems is more dangerous than just avoid problems. It creates bigger ones. Look at last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah. Everyone calls for a ceasefire, Israel pulls out, Hezbollah re-arms with improved weaponry and does it again. Same goes for Iran and the same wuold have gone for Iraq. The illusion of peace in the mid-east has proven to be the most dangerous thing of all - and has only prolonged conflict. At least with Bush - we shattered that illusion. Things need to fundamentally be changed in that part of the world - the only part that has never been colonized by civilized nations. Can we do it with force? Maybe. Maybe not. But the old system of doing nothing wasn't working. Do we need to partition Iraq like Korea? Maybe. Point is: the illusion of peace was dangerous. The decision to shatter that illusion has created an honesty and critical debate which goes beyond the bullshit of administrations gone bye - as they each got their chance at a mid-east-peace photo op to be followed by another round of suicide attacks by the palestinians or bombings by Hezbollah. Way to go GW Bush. Finally someon had some balls.

Why should we be surprised that two countries in which there is a WAR going on be ranked as a bad place to be? Your just mad because the sit-com trained world has Attention Deficit Disorder and any problem they see on TV is usually solved in 22 minutes - or an hour at the most - so a four year battle of wills is just too much for the nervous nellies ni the spoiled west to handle. Contrast our attitude to those of the Taliban and Radical Islam, who can't wait to die for their cause, and will continuously support their cause for generations.

One of the commenters raises a good point. The argument given is the same one used about Saddam's WMD's. Haha - that's brilliant But the environmentalists have been doing it for decades - so the credibility factor is even lower. Hasn't the end of the world been coming for a long time for these watermelons? Didn't Jimmy Carter estimate we'd run out of oil by the '90s? The end of the world is nigh - but never quiet nigh enough for these crisis peddlers (the environazis)

Shouldn't it be alot more than that? Aren't there an estimated 40,000,000 people living in the country illegally?

I'd like to contribute to this by suggesting a concept that I don't think alot of terror apologists grasp - and bear with me on this for a moment: They think they're superior to us. This is a completely foregin (pardon the pun) concept to alot of non-conservatives - they can't even fathom a world where other people - brown, "multi-cultural people" - people we are "supposed" to feel sorry for, and to clbrate once a year during "heritag days" in Canada, people from poorer counties, actually think we are scum - not even human. I'm not sue why, but alot of people on the left seem to have this view that the west is superior to everywhere else on the globe. I know - it sounds contradictory to their general surface attitudes (emphasize SURFACE) of being more "sympathetic" to other cultures. But I really think it's a disguise - this "sympathy" for other cultures. Underneath is this underlying feeling that we are so much better (western civilizations) than everyone else - and that we wield an all powerful control over others. It's easy to be "snsitive" to other cultures when your idea of other cultures comes in the form of onc-a-year parads, diffrent kinds of food or the trusty brown sidekick in the "culturally correct" movie. This left-wing view of world cultures is an "original Startrek" view of the wold: We are the powerful, tehcnologically advanced imperialists dominating all of thes other less fortunate un-advancd societies. But what they don't factor in - and should - is the reality that, yes: admit it. Non-white people can hate too. And they can do it with more violence, agression and impunity than we ever dreamed possible in today's world. They can do it right out in their streets - in public. They can do it by dancing in the strets when people die. They can do it in their places of worship. Heck, nowadays in todays' culturally sensitive world" they can even do it in OUR streets in the west. How's that for cultural imperialism? We keep whining on about how WE are the imprialists - but are we? Or is the cultural imperialism happening in reverse? Are we exporting OUR ideas to Islamic countries - or ar they exporting theirs to OUR countries? Ask yourself - who would have more trouble on their hands- a woman weaing a miniskirt in Saudi Arabia? Or a woman wearing a hijab in Toronto? I think we all know the answer. So in conclusion: Yes it is a reality that other cultures - non-white - non western ones, can hate even more visciously than we can. Not all Muslims do. But I can say this: the ones that don't certainly acquiesce to the ones that do. And that's a probem. Why do they hate? Think of this. Think of you most frothing at the mouth consrvative in the USA. SOMeone who would shoot an abortion doctor. SOmeon who dosn't think women should vote. Someone who thinks his religion and culture should be the only one. That the othe cultures and religions are inferior. The left wing's WORST enemy. ANd anti-abortion, anti women's rights, racist. Got that image? That is the mullah recruiting officr for your local terroist cell. Today's modern radical islamic trrosist is the model for intolerance. So for the lefty who thinks all we ned to do is bring even MORE toleranc for thes people, the joke is on you.

That is just it now is it not? I have heard Bush in some ways say that the plan is working for there have not been any attacks since. And if another attack happens in the Homeland USA, then how is everyone going to feel about this war on terror? Will they keep supporting it? A terror attack can garner as much support as one can detract the support. And according to Bush, FBI and CIA, they have managed to break up many terror plots targeting the USA mainland. LA Skyscraper (turned out to be a false plot) Fort Dix. Who in their right freaking mind is going to attack a military installation with many soldiers and many weapons? This plot was just laughable. I doubt they would have hit a 'pc store' to make a copy of their Jihad movie. Too much of a risk, even for idiots. JFK airport plot. .... no commment on this one. When people come to the realization that the pre-emtive war on terror will in no way at all prevent the next terrorist attack in the mainland USA, it is doomed to fail from the start. And that is the bigger picture I have always been looking at. To answer your question, I will refer you to Bush himself. Maybe he can answer those questions for us. It's like both warm and cold weather is evidence of global warming. Lots of terror plots is evidence that the war on terror is working. And so are no terror plots

Yeah, where I am on the prairies doesn't seem to have much in the way of "normal" anymore. Either record-breaking dry conditions or record-breaking flooding, way more tornado warnings than ever before, more extreme cold in the winter, more extreme heat in the summer. I don't think anyone who knows anything at all is debating there is climate change happening and we are clearly in a period of transition. The informed debate is centred around the role humans have played in causing it and whether they can do anything about it. OK BUT.... Have you ever heard about the whole crime argument - how in many cases violent crime rates are actually falling but the public perception is that things are way more violent now than in the past because of the constant reporting of everything on the instant media? Now i'm not making any statement about climate whatsoever here - moreso about the media. Think about it. My suggestino is this: there may be some changes occuring in the climate. but that's as per usual isn't it? If you look back throughout the history of the world - the wooly mammoths and the migration across the "ice bridge" from siberia to alaska..etc. etc. there is one thing that has been constant: climate has always always always changed throughout time. My likely scenario is that the earths climate has all of a sudden gotten all this attention from al gore et. al. and so it's a self-feeding machine. SO maybe we're getting a FEW more storms here and there - maybe. But you also have to factor in that our media is so immediate - what with CNN, the internet etc. that EVERY little thing gets reported - and NOW. And because climate is the "issue du jour", a tornado in Kansas is gonna get alot more airtime than it did in the '70's when the only source of news was an hour a night with dan rather. You get the picture. I mean, think about it. Katrina wasn't big news because of the storm it'self. It was big news becauise it directly hit a city that is below sea level and shaped like a bowl. when the levees broke, THAT was the story. Yet somehow it's been bastardized into a story about CLIMATE. SO when all the experts last summer predicted a RECORD hurricane season with more and fiercer storms, but even when there wer i think only like 11 names storms last summer, there's always a storm or a flood SOMEWHERE in the world to keep the crisis at a peak...

Yes. And isn't it ingenius to travel aruond the globe wherever it's happening and say that if you vote for me (or give me and my friends money) I'll save you from it

Yeah, where I am on the prairies doesn't seem to have much in the way of "normal" anymore. Either record-breaking dry conditions or record-breaking flooding, way more tornado warnings than ever before, more extreme cold in the winter, more extreme heat in the summer. I don't think anyone who knows anything at all is debating there is climate change happening and we are clearly in a period of transition. The informed debate is centred around the role humans have played in causing it and whether they can do anything about it. OK BUT.... Have you ever heard about the whole crime argument - how in many cases violent crime rates are actually falling but the public perception is that things are way more violent now than in the past because of the constant reporting of everything on the instant media? Now i'm not making any statement about climate whatsoever here - moreso about the media. Think about it. My suggestino is this: there may be some changes occuring in the climate. but that's as per usual isn't it? If you look back throughout the history of the world - the wooly mammoths and the migration across the "ice bridge" from siberia to alaska..etc. etc. there is one thing that has been constant: climate has always always always changed throughout time. My likely scenario is that the earths climate has all of a sudden gotten all this attention from al gore et. al. and so it's a self-feeding machine. SO maybe we're getting a FEW more storms here and there - maybe. But you also have to factor in that our media is so immediate - what with CNN, the internet etc. that EVERY little thing gets reported - and NOW. And because climate is the "issue du jour", a tornado in Kansas is gonna get alot more airtime than it did in the '70's when the only source of news was an hour a night with dan rather. You get the picture. I mean, think about it. Katrina wasn't big news because of the storm it'self. It was big news becauise it directly hit a city that is below sea level and shaped like a bowl. when the levees broke, THAT was the story. Yet somehow it's been bastardized into a story about CLIMATE. SO when all the experts last summer predicted a RECORD hurricane season with more and fiercer storms, but even when there wer i think only like 11 names storms last summer, there's always a storm or a flood SOMEWHERE in the world to keep the crisis at a peak...

So overall- where you live has this spring / early summer lived up to Al Gore's billing? The reason I ask is that I'm sure at least a few times I've read some alarmist posters stating they are very afraid of how bad things are giong to be this summer in terms of the heat. June has so far and is forecast to be a particularly cool month in Vancouver with temperatures below average for most of the time. Now before you jump all over me about the differences between weather and climate, just bear in mind that the alarmists commonly point to short term weather trends as evidence of man made global warming so why can't I use it to refute? Second, this is just an innocent survey. How has it been where you are? Does your town have "a fever"?

I vote for a third option: this thread is about the absurd-on-its face claim that the Iranian government would support a faction that they have oppossed in the past (violently) just to poke a stick in the collective eye of the West. Think about it: what's in it for Iran? How does a strong Taliban benefit them? Oh I forgot: those are details. And we all know how you feel about them... There are many possibilities as to whats in it for Iran. First of all - Iran's islamic fundamentalist mullahs hate american and it's allies - and so does the taliban. America wasn't great fans of the USSR eaither, but wars make strange bedfellows. Second possibility (and likely): Part of why Iran is able to thumb it's nose at the rest of the world is because there is no accountability. The forces in place in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their very definition, represent the only countries in the world willing to actually take action. The rest of the world is a worse version of the league of nations. Those forces are currently occupied. Everyone - including Ahmedinjad - knows that another front in the war on terror could stretch the forces far too thin. An extended war in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the coalition forces busy while ahmedinejad prepares his israel nuke. There are many other possibilities as well but those are two possibilities.

First let me point out the fantasy world that I think alot of sportscasters / NHL types are living in. You touched on it when you wondered "what would happen to the Ducks if they weren't an amazing team?" In my opinion it's a myth that a market is not viable or bad becuase they attendence goes as the team's success does. Let's look at true "hockey" markets - some of which you mentioned. Example: The Calgary Flames. They were lucky to get 10,000 fans in the years leading up to and INCLUDING the year they made the run for the cup. Why? Because they were pathetic. Now how about the Houston Oilers? Houston Texas is not a football market? HA! They sucked - end of story - literally. I can find you umpteen examples of pro sports teams whose attendance and support drops...dramatically....when they team has long periods of poor performance. Personally I would say the example of the Maple Leaf's the Oilers or the Red Sox of the world - where fans will always show up regardless of performance - are the exception rather than the rule. SO the NHL doomsayers dreamworld of sunbelt franchises' arena bursting at the seams during losing seasons is a pipedream not even realized in the "legit" sports south of the 49th. Hockey is a niche sport in some markets, and always will be. But that doesn't mean their not good markets - they're just not the top of the heap. Anaheim has been around for 15 years and as far as I can recall, they've only won one cup.

Awwww! You're TRYING! See? It's not so bad being positive is it? Easy. Let me show you: Anaheim Ducks: Great Hockey Team Anaheim Ducks Franchise: Smaller Fan Base

I think, in the post CBA world and with the NHLs sunbelt strategy looking more and more like a dismal failure, hockey and demograhpics are inextricably linked. Really, we're talking about the future of the NHL. Besides, what happens off the ice is generally makes for more interesting discussion fodder. And what would happen to them if they weren't? They'd play somewhere else as an amazing hockey team. Who cares? What's your point, exactly? That businesses often attempt expansion of their markets and sometimes fail? That the NHL wants to be a mainstream sport in the USA and has a very tough time getting any foothold in the south? Whoopdeedo. What a revelation. Gee I haven't heard that regurgitated umpteen times on every sports show in Canada. It would really be interesting if it were...um...a business show. What I'm saying is it's irritating and obvious to hear about it. Why don't we talk about great hockey. The rest is noise. It reminds me of the CFL a decade ago. Pre game, half time and post game all devoted to the miserable "state of the game" (gosh what an overused phrase). It was downright depressing to watch. And so someone on here tries to start a thread about one of the best teams assmbled in recent momery, the classy job of celebrating done by the first so-cal team to win the cup, and everyone jumps on the pathetic negative "ya but that's not a REAL hockey market" train. If all you can talk about is that not every market in the NHL is an entertainment-starved, northern outpost with few other options for mass-entertainment (eg. EDMONTON), then perhaps you should study your own interest in the sport and go to business school instead.

Exactly - and reagan's foreign policies were criticized by many republican insiders too.

So, why would you not want to save the world from asteroid colisions? Yes - agreed. I think we should stop doing everything given the assumption that doing something might possibly, down the road, lead to the "end of the world".