Signals.Cpl

The government wants to add more accountability to the FN and there is a backlash and protests it seems directed mainly at hiding the problem. It seems to me that the conservatives are incompetent when it comes to dealing with the media so if they had gone and done annual audits the media would have brought on a storm...

As soon as it becomes available the report should have been released by the government. What we have been hearing for the last few weeks was the harsh treatment that the natives endured at the hands of the government and how we should be sympathetic to their cause so essentially we have been receiving a flood of one sided news, suddenly the other side is presented in the form of a report and Theresa Spence is ducking the media. Her people are claiming that the news is one sided, well it has been and strongly in their favour and now they are complaining that the Canadian people are getting a glimpse of the mismanagement that is going on and their chief complaint seems to be that its none of our business what they do with OUR money, its our job to hand them as much as they want with no accountability attached because of historic grievances that most of us were not alive to be responsible for. If any federal department handled their business the same way, people would demand action instead of throwing more money down in to organization that has zero accountability.

My point is not about self esteem, my point is about setting unrealistic and unhealthy role models through which young women hurt themselves and in some cases this leads death. Same reason why you wouldn't want to have every actor in a teen oriented movie or tv show smoke and discuss how awesome it is for you... Would you be of the same opinion if we were to see the media in general portray steroids in a very positive light while ignoring the nasty side effects? Do we live that to the parents? When every media outlet every source of entertainment that a girl cares about bombards her with a picture of what she should look like with the only means of getting there being unhealthy eating habits. Maybe not starve themselves but the many start watching their weight and trying to "lose" weight because that is what everyone is talking about? With the increased reliance on technology and models who are slimmer and slimmer with every year we are seeing a rise with eating disorders, either that is a result of a generation of bad parents or thousands of unrealistic and unhealthy images thrown at them with every day. What about underage drinking and smoking? Do you think that every kid who has done either of those things has bad parents? If you saw Dora the Explorer light up a smoke wouldn't you be a little pissed off? After all good parenting should prevent smoking or such other bad habits no matter at what age the media influence starts...

The whole point is to remove the unattainable image which so many strive for through unhealthy means. When you see a 9 year old start to starve herself because she wants to look like x,y or z she is putting her health at risk. Parenting takes you only so far, at some point the massive number of images that bombard girls is astounding and overwhelming and parents protect their children from harming themselves in an attempt to look a certain way. Do you think that the parents of every teen and pre-teen who has an eating disorder is a bad parent and/or failed as a parent?

Why not? I believe the US has reached the tipping point, they cannot sustain many more tragedies such as the recent shootings without doing something and I firmly believe that Americans are intelligent as a nation and can find the solution when they start ignoring both extremes.

If you are going to go on a shooting spree I don't think that will bother you too much besides it is easy to make, remove the guns and a substitute is found promptly. No, I am not saying that mainly because regulating molotov cocktails is in my view virtually impossible simply because the materials needed are of everyday use and it will not raise any suspicion if I go and buy them unless I make it my mission to inform everyone as to what I am doing. My point is that banning guns without dealing with the underlying causes means that we will see a rise in violence using weapons that are much harder to control since many mass casualty weapons could be made from everyday materials that raise no suspicion at all.

How did you get being right from that? Because it works and because its right... you seem to argue simply because you dislike guns rather than because you think removing guns from the equation would do much in the way of removing violence. More programs eliminating gangs by destroying their manpower source, give kids another option, a bright future, something to fight for and you defeat the gangs eliminate guns and you still have the gangs, you still have the violence, and you still have the manpower source. I don't think its Americans not wanting that solution, I think its Americans being to polarized on this subject to be able to clearly see the solution. At some point more and more people will support this and less will support the two extremes which means that we will see the underlying issues being dealt with at the same time removing automatic weapons from civilian hands.

Google how to make a molotov cocktail, six of those weapons and a walkthrough Sandy Hook a few days before the attack would have likely led to more deaths. Think about the teachers who managed to hide their students from the gunmen, now imagine if he instead of shooting the teachers tossed a molotov cocktail in the classroom teacher dies right along with his/her students. If the gunmen in the Columbine shooting had succeeded with their bombs the 13 dead and 21 wounded would have most likely been astronomically higher considering the number of bombs they had placed in the cafeteria as well as the car bomb they had prepared for the first responders.

And removing guns from the equation does nothing more then switch the tools of violence. If nations were fiscally responsible then taxes don't need to go up, but even if it costs money that people are unwilling to pay what does removing guns do for the overall problem? This forum has a nice ignore feature, I will express my opinions and you are free to ignore them if you please but unlike you I have a complex set of opinions that are taken from different sources and political beliefs rather than just having all of my political beliefs come from one political ideology. Are you a psychic now? No I don't, I want people to focus on those programs because that is the way to solve the problem, remove guns and people will find other ways to kill each other as violence did not mysteriously appear with the invention of gunpowder and the firearm, it has been with us as a race since the beginning of humanity. I dont support positions that promise no result and are only a waste of time and resources as gun control is when it relates to violence, if we focus on removing guns without doing anything with regard to the underlying causes problem persists, if we focus on the underlying causes without implementing any gun control measures we can see change but most likely not fast enough and like most things the right answer is in the middle where a combination of combating the root causes as well as stricter gun control will create the best solution. To me it seems you are gung-ho for gun control wether it works to solve the underlying problem or not, you seem to be the person who doesn't like guns and thinks no one should have them just because you don't like them rather then because it would solve anything.

I am not arguing that it creates more gun violence... no guns=no gun violence, this is not even up for debate my question is does removing guns from society decrease violence overall or does it shift it over to other means of committing the violence.

And where is the proof that removing guns without fixing the underlying issues does anything but change the tools rather than violence. There will always be violence unless we fix the root cause of violence rather then the method use to commit the violence.

I think it is better that the guy has to live with whatever scars and pain come from that injury. Since he is a criminal I assume he hangs around with a crowd like that and I would say this sends a serious message to them every time they see him...

Well you are all over the place, you answer with pretty little pictures from time periods we are not discussing then you throw around "answers" that are as twisted, unintelligible vague as possible while attempting to make fun of the conversation as a whole. I am beginning to see that you are here to confuse the issue rather than discuss the issue and any related events.

Lets get back to the proof that Saddam had WMDs in 2003... I mean after all there was little in the way of up to date intel on the subject and it makes no sense that a brutal dictator who knew he was getting removed from power suddenly decided to play nice and not use the weapons and give them to Syria... 1) Why would Saddam do that? 2) If he did that why to Syria? Why not Iran? He donated a good chunk of his Air Force to them in 1990-1991 so why not throw in the WMDs that he apparently had? If we are following your logic he grew a conscience and didn't want to use them. Its funny how with your selective reading skills you will choose some random portion of the above post and either make a lame attempt at humour/sarcasm or you will decide to go and post another one of your pretty and irrelevant pictures.

And I am actually shocked at your level of selective reading... Let me try this again but this time I will use small words... Syria...did...have...Russian...made...weapons...before...2011...but...there...is...no...guarantee(too big of word for you I guess) way...for...us...to...determine know...where...the...rebels...got...their...weapons... Its like talking to a wall, you ignore the questions you don't like and mangle everything else. You remind me of fox news...

Seems to me you are having serious problem with time perception...we are not talking about 1973 we are talking about 2011-2012 and where the weapons for the rebels are/were coming from. I don't take it personally I am having a hard time following your disjointed posts...

Are you drunk? Finally an admission of being wrong... you ran out of arguments that made an sense out comes the humour... and no the Soviet Union was not the antagonist through the cold war, that was a shared role with the US. I guess you really don't like the hard questions, when you run out of the pretty pictures to show us and can't come up with any argument you resort to a lame attempt at "comedy"... don't quit your day job kid... you aint gone make it in comedy.

And I assume you would understand that in such a situation those are the first things to protect and/or consolidate to secure locations hard to loot a base when there are a few thousand heavily armed soldiers protecting it while looting awl mart and its 60 year old security guard doesn't seem like an equivalent task. And what does their relationships from 20 some years ago have to do with the situation now? I realize that they were armed to the teeth by the soviet union but your idiotic argument first that NATO had no access to those weapons thus couldn't be them, then that it was too James Bond type of thing seems to be born out of desperation to defend a position that is indefensible. So with you its either all or nothing at all? It couldn't be that NATO threw a few hundred rifles and MGs in to the mix it was either NATO supplying Syria with all their weapons or none at all... Still no reply as to why Saddam would toss aside his WMDs... I realize you like to avoid the hard questions. No WMDs in Iraq and you jump to the conclusion that he tossed them over the border to Syria, but why Syria why not Iran? After all he did donate a good part of his airforce to the Iranian government in the gulf war... right?

And why would the syrian government arm and equip the rebels? You don't know what you are talking about, since your initial argument was that no NATO weapons means no NATO interference yet when it was pointed out that NATO members have substantial arsenal of Soviet era weapons thus making your argument moot you run out of arguments and start spewing more BS around... It could be that every Syrian has a rifle and ammunition at home, or it could be that someone supplied weapons to the rebels to get them going in the right direction. You have a hard time believing that NATO could have supplied weapons to Syria because it does not fit your world view, yet you have no problem that Saddam moved his entire arsenal of WMDs in to Syria even though there is absolutely no proof of that ever taking place... I wonder why would Saddam send away his WMDs if he had them? Why not use them knowing full well that he is going to be defeated one way or another? Explain to me why a dictator who has shown complete disregard for human lives decided to donate the only weapons that might have made some sort of a difference? Someone somewhere needed to light the fire, and in this case the fire was weapons, no initial supply of weapons == no revolt as one would assume that the government and military would have a monopoly on all of the heavy weapons. You can kick up all the dust you want, but at the end of the day arming Syrians with a few hundred or a few thousand rifles sure makes more sense and is a tad more realistic then a dictator who sends away his only chance to actually hurt the nations arrayed against him.

I understand that, but wether the people are in the house or not it still is burglary in one form or another.

Running out of arguments are we?

In what definition does it state that burglary occurs only if the building is empty? Home invasion seems to mean burglary while the residents are home... wether or not there are people in the home does not seem to be relevant at all as in either event the action is burglary one just has a fancy name to be more specific.

Nobody has to invent a thing, you hold WMDs crossing the border in to Syria at the middle of the night as truth without much facts to support it, you see it as completely believable yet a few thousand rifles being tossed in to the conflict seems out there as unbelievable James Bond type of stuff. Russia may have had thrown thousands if not millions of rifles in to Syria but there is not guarantee that the Rebels had access to those weapons from the beginning, you can make any argument you want but if the Syrian government had a tight grip on the weapons in question the weapons the Rebels had must have come from some other source...

I am not saying it is or is not NATO's war, I don't know and I couldn't care less as to whose war it is... my position is that NATO aiding the rebels is possible and in fact plausible as they have the means and motives to do so. I don't think anyone is giving Russia a pass, but Russia is relevant only as far as the UN is concerned if this becomes a NATO led war then Russia will have no say in the matter. I don't know why you have this tendency to go to the extreme's where NATO is either not involved completely or they are flooding Syria with Russian weapons, I stated that NATO has members who maintain substantial arsenals of Soviet era weapons and some of them have factories producing weapons as well so your statement that NATO has nothing to do with Syria because the only weapons visible are Russian is false... Are you suggesting that Russia is selling weapons to both sides?

Don't forget the other 5 million victims...