Leafless

Good for BC for making the military his career choice. We also have many dedicated Canadians who chose a military career. Why don't you stand up for members of or own Canadian military before patronizing individuals from a foreign country, unless of course you are a U.S. citizen. Actually I am not wrong the U.S. as an ally was losing the Pacific war. World War ll was bankrupting the U.S. This sounds familiar even to-day. They were spending near 50% of their GDP on World War ll and if they invaded Japan would have lost an additional 1,000,000 American lives. Deploying barbaric Fat Man was the most economical and from the American perspective the most justifiable way out, to end this war. No, I am talking about MAD- 'Mutual Assured Destruction' and its only a theory but has only up worked up to now as the current stakes are not worth it and still enforce this theory. But I thought only untrusted third world countries are the real threat who BTW have no nukes and not civilized capitalistic 'have countries' who harbour nuclear weapons.

Interesting to know these countries were also subject to nuclear annihilation...or were they? You must mean these countries have NOT YET utilized their nuclear arsenal. I gather only when they are losing, they will deploy them. Like I said, as capitalistic countries begin to fight for their survival, then we will see who the real terrorist are. What does BC have to do with anything. Is he part of a think tank or some unknown president? MAD is only a theory and has nothing to do with BC, unless we are not talking about the same MAD.

All that revenue that should have been in the E.I. fund and what do they do? Make it harder than ever to qualify for E.I. So what's going to happen, possibly in the not to distant future, when many Canadians find themselves unemployed. Er, the funds dry folks. PMPM and PMJC what a joke.

Real terrorism cannot be defined as all countries are not like the U.S., where 300-million people are living in the 'Garden of Eden' in their own little fantasy land driven by elitism. Who's business is it to decide what other form of political ideologies other countries utilize? I am not a supporter of communist ideologies but I can agree with certain items in his publication "Barbarism and Terrorism of the U.S. in Atom Bombing of a Civilian Population". But someone who is so much against communism, I never hear you being critical of Canada's totalitarian government that so badly lacks democratic policies.

If you say so. So COST equates to losing the war. There is nothing illegal making it difficult for your opponent to win, is there. No matter how you look at it the Allies were losing the war or they would not have nuked a civilian population. Let's hear more on RESPONSIBILITY and the responsible countries that harbour nuclear arms. Are they all like the U.S.?

The Japanese were being DISIPLINED by SIR U.S.A, for invading China, in the form of an U.S. embargo tha cut off that cut off 90% of Japan's resources which crippled both their economy and their military. This is why they attacked Pearl Harbour in an effort to keep the U.S. from sticking their nose in their buisness. Anyways only convential weapons were used in this attack and cannot be considered a terrorist attack. The only reason the U.S. nuked Japan is because after Pearl Harbour the allies were losing the Pacific war. Yes sir, the U.S. really showed Japan who was boss. This was a deplorable act: http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&t=issues&i=35

I can jay walk 1000 times, or speed 1000 times and if no police authority intervenes, what law has been broken? Simply to say, to jay walk or speed is against the definition of that law does not constitute any proof a law has been broken. Only a conviction will prove the law in question has been broken. The same applies to a victim that appears to have been murdered. You might have a corpse but if there is no perpetrator, what law has been broken? Without a conviction, all you have is the ASSUMPTION of the definition of that law has been broken.

The only reason Canada succeeded and any other capitalistic country for that matter is because they allowed themselves to be exploited by being part of highly successful U.S. capitalism and their ideology. Canada would still be a small backward country if it was not for the U.S. intervention. Canada is a small powerless country and basically has no say in oppressing any country, as Canada is simply part of U.S. capitalistism and their ideololgy. The U.S. chooses who it wants to be part of the favoured nations for basic self gain and ignores the rest. You know very well the U.S. cannot do what it wants with nukes or it will suffer a serious world backlash like it did and still does to-day, from the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Russia was never really a threat as most of their nuclear technology comes from stolen U.S. military documents and mostly they are another copy and clone country using inferior parts and materials. U.S. is still first in the world when it comes to nuclear technology for aggression or defense. But most of us are aware that an all out nuclear war would probably mean an end to civilization.

Your comparisons are silly. In fact all the countries that currently have nukes are the 'HAVES' and NOT the 'HAVE NOTS'. We will see who the terrorist really are when the 'HAVE' countries begin to suffer what the oppressed countries of the world have been suffering for years but cannot do sweet nothing about it.

I could very well insist radar detectors are meant to alert one to SLOW DOWN, you are driving to FAST and the received signal proves it. Are you against promoting safe driving? Radar detectors are a tool, an electronic radio device police use and have nothing to do with with breaking a law. The law cannot be broken unless you have a perpetrator, someone who physically breaks the law. A radio receiver does not break the law, unless police undemocratically and unfairly class this device as a tool that interferes with a perpetrator that could or might be breaking the law. If police are to dumb to come up with a device to that cannot be monitored that is their problem and not societies or citizens in a democratic free society that pay a fairly high price for a device to be warned they are driving to fast and must slow down. One hundred rapes or murders and no perpetrator one can only apply logic and SUGGEST and ASSUME the law has been broken. Without a perpetrator you lack the physical evidence and cannot prove anyone did in fact break that WRITTEN law. When a suspect cannot be found and after a length of time they close the books on that specific case without charging anyone for the alleged offense. Case closed. When one speeds, again, no law has been broken unless there is a perpetrator that has been apprehended and charged. Then this proves the law has been broken with the perpetrator as evidence. Everything you mentioned, yes is unethical and sometimes illegal even if used by police. But I think you miss the point in all of this. We are talking radio frequencies and a citizen's democratic right to receive out of public air space, if they posses the associated technology, any type of radio signal within that public air-space. Why the dramatic difference in U.S. law compared to Canadian law whereas in the U.S., only two states ban the use of radar detectors for private use. Obviously the U.S. democratically speaking is light years ahead in comparison to oppressed Canadians.

Sedition is funny? Sedition: 1.-conduct or speech inciting to rebellion or a breach of public order. English is the majority linguistic language/culture of Ontario. If you call 4.4% French in Ontario common, I would call that "to funny" to be considered ANY FORM of a 'common language'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language_in_Canada

So according to you when it comes to Middle East Islamic countries vs. Jews and Israel, Israel is less nuke hostile than Middle East Islamic countries. Answer one question. Prove and on what basis that your nonsensical statement (it's far less worriesome for France to have nuclear weapons than Somalia, Less worrisome for the UK to have nuclear weapons than Serbia, less worrisome for Israel than Iran) is in fact correct. So in your mind countries who already posses nukes are peace loving countries and would never use them in an aggressive manner against another country. Why should any country keep nukes for defense, if in fact any country who already has them would never use them in an aggressive manner. BTW- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/742430.stm

Here is an update relating to Russell's nauseating discriminatory sign issue:

It seems France had more of a role with Israel becoming a nuclear weapon state and the Dimona nuclear facility. It appears the U.S. were down the backs of Israel and their potential nuke development but was interrupted with the assassination of JFK and President Johnston was less committed to non-proliferation in general relating to Israel and nuclear weaons. It also appears Israel for the most part developed its own nuclear weapons but without testing suggest its nuclear weapons were tested obviously by someone else and they had first hand information on nuclear weapon construction. This is an interesting article. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Isr...lear/index.html

Yes of course Canadians vote for parties not government, but the party becomes the government. All national parties are in political collusion relating to major political issues. Point in fact. Have you ever seen or heard of a national federal party strongly oppose and with the intent to eliminate 'official bilingualism' in federal government. And you probably never will never hear a political voice raising this issue, even if a majority of Canadians want an end to 'official bilingualism'. And the main reason for this? No national federal party would want to be responsible for the break up of Canada, would be the excuse given to the electorate if they happen to complain. This clearly establishes the fact that parliament in general is useless relating to representing the will of the people relating to important issues facing this country, RIGHT NOW, and the time has come to break this 'irresponsible leadership' by incorporating national referendums whether the feds like it or not. Currently Canadians have NO way, to have contentious issues like 'official bilingualism' to be properly addressed by ANY national federal party. This also establishes the fact we are ruled by a dictatorship.

Police are supposed represent the good and enforce laws for the benefit of society. Banning radar detectors for no other reason than that it interferes with their logic that police have the self-righteous exclusive use to use radar and you don't have the right to detect their signal is nonsense and makes police and their use of radar unethical. But this is nothing new in this commie country where citizens have little or no input relating to laws or how the country is run. It is up to police to devise a way so that their radar signal cannot be detected. In the U.S. radar detectors, relating to private use, are only illegal in Virginia and Washington D.C. In Canada they are legal in Alberta, B.C. and Sask.

The citizens of Canada are not the 'sovereign'. What say do Canadians have in the operation of their government outside of the initial right to vote a government to power?

Then maybe he should go back home and do what he does best....GROW PEANUTS.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/c...67-de22b25f2110 Isn't this what radar detectors are meant for is to encourage good driving habits when confronted with police bouncing an electronic signal off of your private vehicle. Lets face it, speeding is against the law, but no law has been broken unless one is caught in the act. Bouncing an electronic signal off your vehicle with the police vehicle generally being parked and somewhat hidden is NOT the same as being monitored by a police vehicle on the tail of your vehicle recording your speed. So in fact, with the case of radar, police are not physically establishing the fact you are speeding but depending entirely on the reading obtained electronically by radar. Is this ethical? Of course it is not ethical. And if it is not ethical why should it be unethical (and also illegal) for a motorist not to legally have a device, who's only job is to detect unethical electronic signals bouncing off of my private vehicle. IMO radar detectors and their use should not be illegal. Air space is free to everyone including any signals that happen to be in them and should be anyone's right to detect any electronic signals within that free air space. What are your feelings relating to police unethically using radar to convict you of speeding?

The Bernier saga reminds me of Adam and Eve and the apple bit and was highly predicable. Good riddance Bernier, you have only yourself to blame for being banished from the garden of political Eden.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world...1653974065.html What a dumb thing to say relating to Jimmy Carter's Middle East peace mission. Or what he is really meaning to say is that Middle East peace is doomed forever.

The answer of course is to discourage and eliminate ethnicity. Most Canadians are aware ethnicity is volatile. But in this glorious country ethnicity is promoted via 'official bilingualism' and 'official multicultural policies. Both policies have failed relating to eliminating major problems associated with ethnicity and at a huge cost to Canadian tax payers, both monetary and socially.

"Value, needs and wants are in the eye of the beholder." What an illogical statement. Gasoline and bottled water are not even related. All of society requires gasoline to produce energy for a multitude of uses: i.e., 1-U.S. gallon of gasoline =115,000btu's. 1-h.p.=2545 BTU/hr. 1-litre of bottled water =0-BTU's and we don't need bottled water for survival.

Who told you that? In 1990 this was not the case and a bottle of Perrier water could also have been harmful to your health. http://everything2.com/node/32591

Oh, come on. These 'official bilingualism', 'official languages', undemocratic, racist policies has been discriminating against English speaking Canadians for years with absolutely No invitation from the federal government to ever discuss why these discriminating policies were implemented initially. Outside of scrapping 'official bilingualism' and 'official languages' what else can be done outside of making official 'Mandarin'. And the list of languages to be made official, because of demand, will inevitably continue in our 'officially multicultural society'. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...0a-4e3cde979a1f