Drea

So now people who bow their heads down to pray whilst flying in an aircraft are suspect? During particularly rough turbulence this would include most all passengers! The drunk should have to pay the doctor for his added expense. He should also be forced to publicly apologize as should the airline.

Why not mandatory family counselling? If a child is out committing crimes under the age of 12, I'd say the entire family is in need of intervention, not just the child. The child is simply exhibiting symptoms (committing crime) of a larger problem (his/her family). If my 12 year old committed a crime, you bet I'd be there trying my darndest to find out how I could help him get back on the right track and how I went wrong in the first place. If a family refuses counselling the child should be taken away immediately. Counselling would enable the courts to determine if the child is simply acting out or if the child has been taught to be a criminal by the parents. IE, Dad calling the police "pigs" etc. If Mom and Dad hate/are afraid of authority chances are junior will be too.

Abstinance may sound like a good idea but it will never fly in today's western society. Sexuality is much too pervasive to ever get rid of so our best bet is to educate our young people. Telling them no you can't have sex simply won't work like it did in the 50s. When I was young there was no way I would have agreed to abstinance -- I always figured yah gotta try on the shoe before you buy it! I tried on alot of shoes before I the right fit Hollywood will not take promiscuity or violence out of movies because sex and violence sell movies.

for those who have a 50-50 custody arragement, sure. But these are rare. The only one I know about is the next door neighbour's 13 yo son -- he spends one week with Mom and the next week with Dad. Poor kid, never knows whether he's comin' or goin'. He's been kicked out of two schools and has nowhere to go come September. Could this be due to the nutty living arrangements? I think it could be. How can a child grow up properly with rules etc being changed on a weekly basis? I don't believe 50-50 custody works. That being said, I am truly an advocate for father's rights and believe that too many children are being denied their father's love. Money will never replace actually spending time with the child.

Yes! Deny access and the child support payments stop. Period. My brother has not seen his daughter in 3 years... he doesn't even know where his ex and daughter live, he simply sends his cheques to the Ministry and they forward them to her. Now he is fighting for full custody. The mother can go to hell. Mothers can collect from more than one father??? Pffft. Ridiculous. Yes it should be calculated daily -- $300 per month works out to $10 per day. Therefore if he has the child for 6 days out of the month, his payment goes down to $240 for that given month. Of course, the dad who spends $300 on his child on their weekend together could then say he doesn't have to pay that month. I don't think that would work. Also, the mother won't want to lose $60 so she will be more likely to deny access. In her little mind if she keeps the child she gets to keep $60, if Dad gets the child she loses $60. I don't think that would work either. If support payments are exceedingly high (much more than the child's month-to-month expenses) then half of it should go into savings.

Sorry to disappoint you but I have no use for alcohol. Makes me feel all queezy, yuk! Yah, it was a small thing -- why are people making such a big deal of it? I never much liked the man but geeeeeeeeezzzz I feel sorry for him -- he is now the world's worst villain Doesn't the world have more to worry about than one man's stupid drunken comments?

My own great sympathy for terrorists. You say kill them all -- I say find out why they've become terrorists. Why? Well, according to what you wrote earlier, killing terrorists is what causes "moderates" to become terrorists. That is correct. If you kill a man's brother, no matter what he has done, the man will be angry (and possibly kill you) at you, not at his brother the bad guy.

My own great sympathy for terrorists. You say kill them all -- I say find out why they've become terrorists. Why? Perhaps once we understand what drives a person to commit atrocities then we can stop the initiation of NEW terrorists. One can only defeat an enemy if one understands the enemy.

Ohmygosh! Do you mean to tell me people die in wars! And it's ugly! Oh! My! GOD! I'm shocked. Honestly. BTW, congratulations on reducing the intellectual level of your argument to that of crazed anti-abortion fanatics who wave bottles of dead fetuses. Oh get off it already. You have already been reported to the moderator, must I report you daily? The comment "It's ok folks, none of this is really happening. No one is really dying in the ME, it's all just fake photos." was meant facetiously. We can no longer believe anything that comes from any source now can we? Are the pictures of the roasted children real or fake? Perhaps no one has died at all and it's just fake photos and fake news stories we are seeing on the TV and reading on the internet. Do you NOT suspect what you see? You should. Nothing can be taken at face value today.

Pictures Are these photos doctored? (WARNING! Horrific Images) Shame on those who would publish fake photos! Everything we see is now suspect. It's ok folks, none of this is really happening. No one is really dying in the ME, it's all just fake photos.

So talking/negotiating is considered a reward? Tell that to the FBI/RCMP who negotiates with airline highjackers or kidnappers. Why not just snipe out the kidnapper? Why bring in a negotiator? Why does the FBI/RCMP train negotiators? Why negotiate with criminals at all? To save the innocents that's why. The criminal/kidnapper still will face consequences but the main goal of negotiating is to lessen the deaths of innocents. OK so kidnappers and airline highjackers was a bad example, but police forces ALWAYS negotiate with the criminal when innocent lives are at stake. The world I would create would be all three major religions either completely eradicated (not the people, the religions) or at the very least the 3 religions could share the "holy" land.

I believe nature is God. We are simply part of nature, nothing more nothing less. From Wikipedia: "Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the (truth) values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, irrelevant to life." I agree that dieties are irrelevant to me. IMO we need to find out exactly what the fighting is about. It's not about kidnapped soldiers. It goes back much further than that. Is it about the "temple mount"? Is it that both religions believe the area is theirs given to them by God? We need to analyze this from it's beginnings -- everything else that is happening today is a symptom of the underlying issue -- 2 religions fighting over the same piece of "holy" ground. Why not erect 2 (or 3) temples there.... one for the Jewish people, one for the Christians and one for the Muslims. Why not just share it? What difference does it make if the guy you are praying beside is praying to someone other than your god? Like little kids -- share already! I just think the world should just get along.

If you don't believe, you are an athiest. If you don't know, you are an agnostic. I am an agnostic but when it comes to choosing between a secular democracy (although one that may contain religious factions in its government) that respects personal freedoms and one which wants to impose a religious autocracy, the decision is a no brainer for me. I believe in God, not Jehova nor Yaweh nor Allah.... An atheist does not. I highly doubt that the secular nations, Canada and largely the USA, Australia, etc would allow any religion to "take over" the govt. That is the beauty of living in the western world, our secular population is there to keep the religious nuts in check. If I was forced to chose between Christianity and Islam -- I would choose neither. Would I be killed for my non-choice? Would I be labelled a "terrorist sympathizer"? *shiver* shades of a totalitarian (yer either with Christ or against him, yer either with Mohammed or against him) society truly are frightening. How anyone can be "for" or "against" a mythical figure is completely beyond my agnostic, scientific, logical comprehension.

It does seem Argus is advocating genocide, but in this case I do not feel it is something that should be reported to the moderator. In fact, it raises a valid question. Are we facing a global religious war? If we are, that means most everyone is going to have to pick sides, and generally it is prudent to hope that you kill as many of your enemy as possible, with the aim of getting the rest of the other side to quit the fight, or die. Obviously, Argus has picked his side. He then goes on to outline a brutal, but arguably winning tactic. Perhaps we are in for a religious war. As an agnostic which "side" should I choose? I don't believe in Jesus, nor Mohammed, nor Buddah, nor Vishnu. They are all myths. Ancient myths that have no place in the 21st century.

Please find my post that says this. I said if all the fanatical muslim terrorists are killed, then (some of) the moderate muslims would become terrorists. To this Argus replied that we should wipe them all out by saying this: "Then we kill them all too." (meaning the moderates) "I don't really care either." Your heritage makes absolutely no difference. I am a Canadian. That is my heritage. Why, thank you so much for the "apology".

Yes both you and Argus have been reported to the moderator. Here are all my posts on this topic. In this post I am advocating a dialogue between the warring factions. to which Argus replies: To this I reply: Then cybercoma chimed in with this: and I said: NO WHERE did I say that all muslims are terrorists. I did say that fighting over an ancient supposedly holy city is stupid.

I SAID that people fighting over a "percieved holy city" makes me sick. Please do not twist my post to suit your adgenda. For calling me stupid, you will be reported to the moderator, as has Argus who advocates the killing of all muslims. I do not support terrorists -- so do not label me such. I do not support any religion or group. This is a volatile topic, but please people, can you refrain from advocating killing all members of a group, or calling other posters stupid. Sheesh. It is possible to have a civil conversation. But only if one can step back and look at the big picture. The big picture being religions fighting over myths from ancient times! Silly when you think of it though aint' it? Fighting over an ancient city -- I shake my head at the silliness of both sides who advocate that they are the chosen/right/correct ones to live and worship in this ancient, supposedly "holy" area of the earth.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists. Then we kill them all too. I don't really care either. Because they're ignorant religious wackos. You don't need more of an explanation than that. Where are these mythical moderate muslims to be found? In Britain, where 40% told a survey they wanted Sharia law? In Canada, where most of their young men are sent "home" to find brides because their families don't want them marrying Canadian "whores"? You advocate killing all muslims? That dear, is hatred. Pure white-hot hatred. Isn't that illegal here in Canada? To spew your hatred? Oh that's riiiiiiight, it's only hatred if it's directed towards a group "other than" muslims.

How many Lebanese civilians have been murdered as of late? Who intentionally murdered them? Yes, even the innocent ones. We don't have the death penalty here... and for good reason. We don't kill our citizens. It's not about "pandering" to them. It's about negotiating peace. Peace does not come about by wiping out entire groups of people. Peace comes about when both sides know what the other side wants. This can only be accomplished by talking, it is not accomplished by warring. We should ban religion althogether. Then no one would fight over any one "special God-spot" on the earth. All this fighting is because some ancient book says some ancient city is "holy" and religious groups all think this "holy city" belongs to them. Frig! it makes me sick.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists. I know the "right wing" doesn't think negotiating with them is worthwhile, but would it not be productive to find out WHY they are terrorists? Why is a moderate muslim moderate? Why is a fanatical muslim fanatical? Until we know this we will never stop terrorism in the middle east.

For goodness sake it was a little tirade... nothing more. It's not like he stood on a pulpit (or soapbox) and spouted hatred. How many people actually heard what he said? A couple of police officers and a passerby or two maybe. Much worse has been said by much better people (I never liked him much anyway -- far too religious for my taste). So anyone who says negative things about muslims are "twisted and asking for help" or "not getting the answers they want from their own *insert group name here* group", or "Obviously something deep inside them is not working." or perhaps they are "sick and deliberately did this as a cry for help". Come on... it was a little tirade and people want to send him to the nuthouse because he "needs help". Sheesh. Sounds like 1984 don't it?

Oh really? The rest of the entire nation... rotting... jealous, desperate, poor, angry... Have you forgotten the jewel of the country, you know, the province to your left? The one with the beautiful scenery and clean water and JOBS, tons of JOBS. Pssst...it's called British Columbia.. but don't tell anyone, we wouldn't want Alberta to feel bad. huh?

Gost, IMO, Canada isn't becoming anti-Isreal OR anti-semite. Just like those who don't agree with the USA's current administration are automatically labelled anti-American. Both Isreal and America (the governments - not the citizens!) are acting like idiots these days and people have a right to dicuss it without being labelled anti-anything!

I agree with RB that a woman should first look after their career before running off and getting married in the "rush" of first love. All women should be financially responsible for themselves, and not expect a man to "save" them from career/financial responsibilities. And no, having a children does not "let women off the hook" from these responsibilites. Its 2006, not 1956 and many women need to wake up and realize this.

We're heading off to Cuba this February. We need to hurry before the US gets in and ruins it. "Bringing them democracy"... for Pete Sake... have they learned nothing over the past 3.5 years?