dialamah

Yet they had the resources to spend months setting these two up? Look at this timeline of events Included in this timeline is an indication of the ability, knowledge and organizational ability of these 'terrorists'. In May, the police (spend time and resources) drive Nuttal to Whistler .... In June, the cops (spend time and money) take the pair to Kelowna and put them up in a hotel room so thay can 'work on their plan' in peace. I have no doubt that if they'd simply watched the pair for indication of actual terrorist activity, they could have watched for months, years or decades and still not had any indication of a terrorist plot.

For these two, they'd have to fit it in between looking for drugs, getting high, coming down, getting sick, looking for drugs, getting high .... etc. Anyway, I didn't say that their actions were commendable or that they shouldn't face some consequence. I don't think the peace-bond is unreasonable. Although some on this board would disagree with me, I don't think 'free speech' includes targeting people for violence, or inciting people to engage in terrorism. If the cops really thought they were incipient terrorists, they could have simply watched them - when they started collecting materials and making workable, realistic plans - that would have been the time to step in. What isn't reasonable is the cops doing everything for them and then claiming they were terrorists. If my four-year-old declared his intention to write a book, and I then put a pencil in his hand, then explained to him the plot, and used my hand over his to write all the words, does that prove he's an author? Not likely. In the same way, the police doing all the planning and providing all the resources for these two doesn't make them terrorists.

Yes, they are definitely saying things, though Amanda appears to be nodding out through most of the video. What do you suppose happened during the break just after John turns to Amanda and says "Maybe we should have written it down?" And then when the camera comes back on, John is suddenly a lot more articulate, specifically mentioning that he's doing this of his own free will and hasn't been recruited -- I bet that was important for the court case! But then by the end, again, John is completely confused, not sure of what he's saying, combining biblical teachings and jihadist rhetoric. If I saw and heard these two on the street, I'd assume they were out of their mind stoned and barely capable of walking, let alone planning any kind of an attack. Perhaps a syringe dangled is just as effective. The point is that without the help of the police, they were incapable of doing what they claimed they wanted to do. They weren't smart enough, organized enough, or have enough money. If they were spouting this crap without police involvement, then perhaps they ought to have been charged with hate speech, or inciting to violence (is there a law against that?), or maybe encouraging terrorism if such a law exists. But to set them up the way the police did to carry out an actual terrorist attack was just wrong.

Nuttal and Korordy did have some big plans: 1. Kidnap the president of the US 2. Taking control of a nuclear sub 3. Shoot rockets at the legislature 4. Blowing up a passenger train on Vancouver Island (there are no passenger trains on Vancouver Island) Fortunately, however, the RCMP stepped in to provide them with an actual workable plan, as well as the money, knowledge, and other resources to carry it out. Never mind that the two weren't even able to organize themselves well enough to hold down a job - the police decided to make them into "terrorists" and provided them all the help they needed. As the judge said: “There was no imminent risk of harm to the public or the need to disrupt ongoing criminal activity,” Bruce said. “The police were acutely aware that without the constant supervision and direction provided by (the undercover officer), the defendants would be incapable of completing their part in the plan. “Moreover, the fact that the police went to such great lengths to eliminate the many obstacles the defendants placed in their own path to accomplishing a terrorist mission, as well as obstacles the police concluded the defendants could never overcome because of their vulnerabilities and their lack of resources, renders any risk perceived by the RCMP quite farcical.” She called Nuttall and Korody “not very intelligent; gullible and quite naive and childlike. To say they were unsophisticated is generous.”

I think the peace bond is a good idea for these two. They may not be the brightest bulbs in the universe, but doesn't mean they can't learn that some ideas are just wrong.

Like any fanatic of any ideology.

They gave them cash; if you want to help an addict on the street, do you give them cash on the assumption that they'll spend it on what they need or what they want? If they were obviously impaired in some ways, yes.

Yeah, right decision. Every time the media helpfully posted the most damning video or audio evidence, it was obvious that these two had some degree of cognitive damage. I hope they got some rehabilitation along with their jail and court time. A couple of druggies mouth off about how they'd like to make a political statement by killing people - how seriously can you take that? The cops saw an easy target, and took advantage. Funny how my white 'normal' (ie: home owner, job holder, non-drug user) neighbor who bullies and harasses a bunch of people, including threatening to kill them, rates nothing more than a visit from the police and advice to his victims to "record what he says or does" because the cops can't do anything. This guy already has a bunch of guns in his house, so the police wouldn't even have to 'help' him get the weapons.

That's not what was said. It's kind of the same as when some people say something like "Muslims are terrorists", and if there's an objection, you jump in and say "But they didn't say *all Muslims* so it should be assumed they didn't mean *all* Muslims, they only mean the ones who are terrorists".

This article helps me understand about the people who support Trump.

Perhaps there is, do you have some ideas to share?

1. Understandable, knowledgeable and neither robotic nor impatient. Gender doesn't matter, nor does accent as long as I can understand what they are saying. I didn't know that call centers directed calls to same-gender techs. Is this a common practice, because I haven't noticed getting directed to females more often than not. 2. I don't understand why you used the phrase "honest business". It sounds as if you hold a belief that dishonest businesses rely more on and/or have more to gain from using information from FB. But it does seem to me to be a bit of a non-issue, unless you can expand on your question to explain your concerns?

All religious texts have sanctions against murder. Humans of any culture or religion have always had rules regarding who could or could not be *legally* killed, and they are all roughly similar: "Do not kill people of your own tribe, or you will suffer serious consequences." That the Bible also contains sanctions is against murders is no proof that our particular legal system is based in any way on the Bible.

How do you know a man in a man's washroom isn't a homosexual pedophile pretending to pee? How do you know a woman in a woman's washroom, isn't hunting for her boyfriend's next female victim and not just being friendly while fixing her makeup? Learning to distinguish between *behavior* and *people* is important, after all. Otherwise, you are blaming a whole bunch of people for the actions of a few, and limit yourself from being able to identify who the true criminals are. Plus, it's lazy thinking.

Yes, Trump would take the US back in time. Absolutely agree.

Right now, each of these MPs represents a party so we're effectively already voting for a party anyway, not a 'person' we happen to like. I fail to see the difference, but am willing to admit that's my ignorance. Perhaps you could explain what I might be missing? I'm sure that's true, but what I'd like to see is less of the constant "They're wrong" directed toward the sitting government, and more of a spirit of cooperation within all parties. I'd like to see the strengths from each political ideology contributed, rather than near-constant criticism and finger-pointing. Perhaps that's not really possible in PR either, but it certainly isn't happening now as far as can tell.

I think as a society, we do tend to support the 'punishment' model of dealing with people who don't fit into the white lower middle-class and up demographic. A lot people blame the poor for being poor, the unemployed for being unemployed, the addicts for being addicts and of course, lots of jail time for people convicted of illegal behavior. Was there any significant objection to more prisons, despite crime dropping for decades during Harper's governance? How much support is there for harm-reduction programs? How angry is the public if they happen to catch wind of programs designed to prevent crime, or aid criminals in to become contributing members of society instead of returning to criminal life? There may be outcry against particularly obvious examples of the way in which we unfairly punish poor people, addicts, non-whites etc., but the rest of the time we support that in our society - except for the ones who are generally referred to as bleeding-heart liberals with white guilt.

Oddly, I have wondered the same. Not like me to agree with you, but I definitely do this time.

Yes, pretty amusing. Trump claims he saw the speech ahead of time, but I also heard (haven't seen a clip) that he ran onstage to try to stop or distract? Anyway trust repubs to boo voting one's conscience.

Oh, then it's Christians manipulating politics in third world countries, engaging in warfare in those countries, killing civilians with drones because they happen to not be Christian! Thanks for the clarification! Funny, they call themselves Christians and they use the Bible to justify their oppression, pedophilia and murder of those who disagree with their version of 'truth'. Anyway, if you can deny them their Christian status so easily, then I expect when one billion Muslims tell you that Islamic terrorists are NOT following the Koran or teachings of Mohammed, you'll accept that, eh? Done with you Betsy.

Exactly, so it may be true that renters are unaware that they are also paying property taxes and all the rest. It could be true in some markets that a landlord will charge rent to only cover the mortgage, but I don't think it would be common.

If the rent I charge them covers my payment for municipal taxes, garbage, sidewalk, fire dept, busses, school systems, snow removal, water, infrastructure, street lights, nature trails, skating rink, park maintenance - then they are actually paying their portion of all of this, via their rent. It may be listed on city rolls under my name, but it's still them paying. I would imagine any landlord would do the same, so i fail to see how renters aren't paying their fair share. Of course, if its the habit of landlords to rent out properties and not include those costs, then your argument would make sense. Property taxes are part of the cost of owning a home, along with mortgage, interest on that mortgage, strata fees if they apply, etc. I expect my renters to pay the rent, which ideally will include all of that, plus enough for any maintenance/upkeep. That was in response to your statement "What do you think the municipality would say if told them you'd pay half the taxes because your rental was empty half the year and therefore no renter to pay said taxes?" I would have thought it obvious that if I fail to keep it rented, I can hardly expect renters elsewhere to pay the costs simply because it is a rental property. The conversation went something like this: You: the renters who pay no property taxes get to vote for frivolous things that the home owners are forced to flip the bill for. Me: What landlord doesn't include property taxes in his rent??? You: None, actually. Me: Asks for explanation ..... The explanation appears to be that because the property tax is charged to the owner, the owner is the one paying, even if the amount of the property tax is included in the rental that the owner charges. So, in your mind, the renter isn't paying these taxes, and they then make silly voting choices because they aren't paying the piper. Which doesn't make any sense to me; it seems obvious that if the rental fee includes the property tax, the renter is in effect paying that property tax, even if the landlord writes the check. Thus, renters do pay property taxes, along with other things mentioned. If you want to argue that some or many renters are unaware of the relationship between what they pay for rent and how much property tax might be on a given property, I could understand that argument. I might even agree with it.

A little too convoluted for me. Why I would own property and then expect someone else to pay for it escapes me. Anyway, this idea that people who don't own property or don't work automatically vote for political parties that property owners and workers disagree with is silly. I'm both a property owner and I work, nonetheless I support parties who make social programs a priority. No doubt there are renters and unemployed who vote differently.

I can raise the rent by a limited amount each year, but certainly true that if there's a sudden jump in property taxes, it may not be enough to cover. On the other hand, if I set the initial rent amount correctly, I should be ok. Also true, I'm responsible for property taxes on my own property; why should a renter be? They don't get the benefit of appreciation on the property, nor the increasing equity as the mortgage is paid down.