crazymf

I think those girls should have went to visit Jimmy Hoffa. End of story.

Insulting my intelligence now? Go away...

Take a number. Why don't you leave it alone. You're off topic. That's how problems start on discussion boards.

The difference between straight and gay marriages is that in a straight marriage, the man takes it in the *** after the divorce. hehe The problem is people thinking marriage is easy come easy go. It's a general downslide of society and peoples values. I have no problem with the government making divorce difficult. Maybe it would be easier for some to stay together and work things out. I think government should fine each partner in a divorce a sizable sum of money to ease the burden on society and social programs that they may incur after a divorce. That would go hand in hand with giving married people tax incentives to stay married. People may think twice then.

Unless you're talking about a cigarette, it is also derogatory. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So what? Maybe I want to be derogatory. It's a free country, isn't it? Is there a rule somewhere which says I have to be respectful towards everyone in it? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LMAO I must be a sensitive redneck....or is that a contradiction of terms????

Unless you're talking about a cigarette, it is also derogatory. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> While we're all whining about syntax, I notice no one cares if I get called a redneck, which is a derogatory term in it self. I prefer to be called a traditionalist conservative from now on and will be offended at anything else. Otherwise, it's queers and fags for you...

The sooner that North America is one country, the better we'll be. Hard pill to swallow for some I guess.

Are you volunteering? Saved us "major bucks" how, exactly? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How can I volunteer to come and get some more, I'm not American. And if you're trying to call me a dopehead, whatever, please stay on topic. Saving us money prosecuting and jailing the bum of course. We don't need idiots like this creep around here. Until Canada legalises dope, it's illegal. Some of us buy that. Too bad a lot of people don't. Where do you stand on it IMT?

Ok, ok. Look, my sick sense of humor gets going sometimes. I apologise for the Ontario slashing and also feel like the post has gotten out of hand somewhat regarding this hate thing. The thread was ripe for a conservative red neck to spout off so I did. Instead of useful debate, my words get twisted and used in whatever context suits the moment. 'Queer' is just a word to me but if it offends some of you, I'll quit using it. I'm going to leave it at 'I do not agree with gays getting married in the same sense as a man and a woman'. It's not right.

I guess you missed the part where I said 'lighten up'. Text has no inflection whatsoever so I'll have to just tell you to believe me that my second last sentence was obviously meant in jest. And nowhere did I infer I was going to shout at anybody. Just because I use the word 'queer', it does not mean it is in hatred. Sounds to me somebody is a slight tad sensitive here. Again, lighten up, I may be redneck, which by the way, is a very derogative term in itself, but at least you know where I stand. Why don't you tell me where you stand instead of just shooting me down?? Besides, the post was about red neck Alberta and being anti gay. Well, I'm not anti gay. I'm just anti gay around here. I think gays in Toronto are fine. As a matter of fact, I am in favor of homosexuality in Ontario. It fits.

WAY TO GO UNCLE SAM!!!!!! Come on over and get a few more dopeheads. Maybe start with the Olympic snowboarding team. You should be rejoicing guys. They just saved our tax paying public some major bucks. Come and get some more!!

The world is full of libertarians who have 20/20 vision looking back. I'm in Canada and have an average at best understanding of politics and been called a red neck anti gay conservative(recently). The lines between conservative and liberal seem to be cast in stone in the USA but quite a lot more undefined with right, left and shades of grey in between in Canada. I sometimes feel the way you guys do, while other times am strongly for the Bush strategy. It's just too easy to sit back and criticize what has happened. I personally think the events since 911 have something more to do with stimulating the American economy than promoting freedom. America has always stuck together in the face of adversity, Hitler, then the cold war, etc. However, when there's no 'enemy', I think the Americans get bored, funding for the military goes down, the country loses it's 'edge' and 'readiness'. After all, how can you be a superpower without demonstrating it every now and then. I think every president should be critiqued after his tenure and if it's deemed that he did more bad than good, in the klink with him. Maybe the decisions would be different and more cautious then. I posted an article here a couple of days back illustrating this point. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3630 By the way, welcome to the forum Ironside, I'm new here too.

I thought this was supposed to be debating the issue, not toothless blather and disagreement. If you are going to toss the powerful word 'hatred' around, you should back it up, not just tell all the members they're wrong and you're right. Better yet, come on down to Alberta. IMT and myself are going downtown tomorrow night look at the queers on 97th street and take poll to see how many are married. Lighten up...

The mad cow situation transcends politics and borders. Our two governments are handling it politically, which is 180 degree the wrong direction. Closing the border to beef is irrelevant as the problem equally exists on both sides. This problem is in the hands of each farmer individually and must be handled as such. How can the government expect each farmer to hold the federal interests above his own when the consequences of an infected animal means the possible end of his livelyhood? This is one situation where I believe adequate funding and compensation can actually help in the long run. Educate the farmers, vets and stockyards to the situation, and don't let their businesses fail as a result.

Sounds great!! Tell us another fairy tail. I believe that if Alberta truly has the will and power to separate, we could use the same resources to re-establish the Canadian political landscape. I would suggest starting with territorial representation in the federal elections rather than by riding. I would like to have my say in who is in government in Ottawa rather than the election be over before I vote. If we can't start having productive agreeable change, then I'd vote for separation.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...ack=1&cset=true I've often wondered if the USA actually needs an enemy for it's military to stay funded and it's economy to boom. This article tweaks my theory, but is it fact? July 5, 2005 latimes.com : Print Edition : Editorials, Op-Ed Print E-mail story Most E-mailed Robert Scheer: Bush Is Serving Up the Cold War Warmed Over The "war on terror" is turning out to be nothing more than a recycled formulation of the dangerously dumb "domino theory." Listen to the way President Bush justifies the deepening quagmire of Iraq: "Defeat them abroad before they attack us at home." If we didn't defeat communism in Vietnam, or even tiny Grenada, went the hoary defense of bloody proxy wars and covert brutality in the latter stages of the Cold War, San Diego might be the next to go Red. Now, the new version of this simplistic concept seems to say, "If we don't occupy a Muslim country, inciting terrorists to attack us in Baghdad, we'll suffer more terror attacks at home." The opposite is the case. Invading Iraq has, like the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan before, proved to be a massive recruiting tool for Muslim extremists everywhere. Even the embattled CIA, which the White House is struggling to neuter as a semi-objective voice on foreign affairs, recently declared the Iraq occupation to be a boon to terrorists. ADVERTISEMENT Yet the president stumbles on, demanding that we support his Iraq adventure lest we sully the memory of the victims of Sept. 11, 2001. "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand," said Bush last week. Actually, no. We fight in Iraq today because Bush listened to a band of right-wing intellectual poseurs who argued America could create a reverse domino effect, turning the Middle East into a land of pliable free-market, pro-Western "democracies" through a crude use of military force. This is rather like claiming a well-placed stick of dynamite can turn a redwood forest into a neighborhood of charming Victorians. Furthermore, it is not Bush and his band of neocons who are fighting — and dying — for the Iraq domino, but rather raw 19-year-old recruits, hardworking career military officers and impoverished or unlucky Iraqis. And foreign terrorists linked to Al Qaeda are in Iraq because it is a field of opportunity, not because it is their last stand. For four years the White House has framed the war on terror as an open-ended global battle against a monolithic enemy on many fronts, rather than employing a modern counterterrorism model that sees terrorism as a deadly pathology that grows out of religious or ethnic rage and must be isolated and excised. From the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush has systematically sought to parlay the public's shock over a singular, if devastating, terrorist assault by a small coterie of extremists into what amounted to a call for World War III against a supposed "axis of evil." But these countries — Iran, Iraq and North Korea — shared only a clear hostility to the United States, rather than any real alliance or ties to 9/11 itself. In the process, Bush has justified an enormous military buildup, spent tens of billions of dollars in Iraq, reorganized the federal government, driven the nation's budget far into the red and assaulted the civil liberties of Americans and people around the world, all without bothering to seriously examine the origins of the 9/11 attacks or compose a coherent strategy to prevent similar ones in the future. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden remains at large, as do his financial and political backers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. But why has the White House pursued this nonsensical approach over the loud objections of the country's most experienced counterterrorism and Islamic experts? Because it allows the administration all the political benefits the Cold War afforded its predecessors: political capital, pork-barrel defense contracts and a grandiose sense of purpose. And because the war on terror has no standard of victory, it can never end — thus neatly replacing the Cold War as a black-and-white, us-against-them worldview that generations of American (and Soviet) politicians found so useful for keeping the plebes in line. It's a one-size-fits-all bludgeon. The terrible, unspoken truth of the war on terror is that the tragedy of 9/11 has been exploited as a political opportunity by George W. Bush, Halliburton, the Pentagon and the other pillars of what President Eisenhower dubbed the "military-industrial complex" in his final speech as president. The former general who led us in World War II warned of the dangers of an unbridled militarism. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," said Eisenhower, a Republican, in 1961. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Consider yourself warned.

If that woman is a broad representation(no pun intended) of our federal government, then we need a western separation referendum asap. Just to pull that out of context for a sec, how small had you previously speculated they were?

Sorry, cybercoma used that word. I feel it's a matter of time before terrorism bombs come here because they already have. Remember the truckload of stuff the Americans caught crossing over from BC a few years ago headed for LAX? If the Americans can't keep bombs out and the British and Spaniards can't keep bombs out, I think it's a reasonable assumption to think it's ONLY a matter of time. It's my personal opinion that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. I don't have a crystal ball and don't believe in them. It's going to take leaders and military men with steel balls to get a handle on these radicals.

The fellow must have been an imbecile if he did not know about the bombing. Ditto if he acted like someone with something to hide. A wounded suicide bomber can still blow himself up. I used the word unfortunate, cybercoma used inexcusable. The fellow is a casualty of WAR. Don't forget that. It's only a matter of time before some of those bombings and attacks come home to Canada. Shoot to kill may become police tactics in the near future. All I can suggest is that everyone make it their business to know who their neighbors are on both sides of you. If everyone did that, the terrorists wouldn't be able to hide as easily.

That guy should get the Darwin Award this year. Wear a heavy coat and run from the police in the subway a few days after a bombing, swift.... That is a tragic scenario, but a sign of the times. I do not fault police procedure. This chap made bad choices but at least he had choices, unlike the people that died in the bombings. Unfortunate. http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n...-name_page.html Oh and I quoted from this site...

And then the feds decided to own the oil offshore so Albertas equalization payments to the Maritimes could continue. To me they're wishing they hadn't transferred ownership to us earlier. At least the PC's did something right in the 80's although it does say 'joint' ownership of the resources. Seems to me kind of unfair to pay world price for natural gas when it leaks out of my waterwell all by itself. I bet in Ontario they don't pay much for grapes when they're in season. How about paying the same price as us to help cover the trucking to get them here? Simplistic yes, but no simple answer to your thread.

You can walk down the street waving your shorts in the air too. I don't care about that either as long as it doesn't interfere with my lifestyle. I don't look for ways that it does, just as long as it doesn't. Hehe, wonder who's the husband there....

I have a cousin who's queer. Been that way since day one I'm told. He lives his life. I think he's in Montreal now. I've never discussed it with him and he keeps it to himself. Live and let live. If he got married I couldn't care a less. I have to admit it might be a bit weird if he ever brought his husband and stayed at my house, but I sincerly doubt that he'd EVER flaunt the fact that he was equally married as my wife and myself. So all you gays, go ahead and get married if you want because now you can. Then get back in the closet and shut the hell up about it. What is starting to piss me off is the militant attitude of enforced tolerence around here. WE HEARD, OK? Get over it.

Yeah I know. To outline that there's people like you and people like me.

Argueing with some of you is like wrestling a pig in the mud...after while you realize the pig likes it. You guys are queer lovers, some of us don't care for that kind of stuff. Whatever......