betsy

When property rights of bars and restaurants' owners were tampered with......it's just a matter of time when good old Cushman and company will be breaking down our castles' doors. I can't wait to see what the Green Party will do if it becomes our government. Anyway, the government should operate 24-hour a day drop-in centers in every corner of every street...so people who want to smoke in their houses (which is probably the only place left to be able to puff away), can drop off their children everytime they want to smoke at home. Or the government should issue gas masks for every child in every household! If the government can build shooting galleries for drug addicts...then the government should be able to build puff-houses for cigarette smokers! Otherwise, better for you guys to scream at the government to ban cigarettes altogether. That's preferable than losing your own right to do as you please within the walls of your own home! Then after cigarette smoking...let's move right on to Barbeques! Crackdown time! No mercy!

Unfortunately, and not that I hold Hitler to be a model for anything postive, the rise of the Nazis is a pretty good indicator of how Europe, particularly the Continent, responds to perceived threats from outsiders. I am Jewish and am in no way a Nazi supporter. It's just the experience of how Europe behaves; the Nazis had lots of help from other Europeans in filling the death camps. There might have been help for the Nazis from anti-semites in Europe...are you suggesting that Nazis and Europeans are equivalent? A pretty good indicator of how the world reacts is the 5 year war to free Europe and the Jews from Nazi tyranny. There had also been massive help from Europeans and from the allies in support of the Jews. And that is known to be a good thing because most Jews were either unable, or unwilling to defend themselves. Fortunately for the Jews, Israel has reversed that trend and become one of the most efficient and dedicated defenders of democracy and freedom in the Middle east and the world. Presumably you are comparing the Islamists to the Nazis. Otherwise are you suggesting that the Muslims are the equivalent of the Jews in the war? All civilizations have a history of rejecting "strangers" in their midst. Why would you expect Europe to be different. We're talking about the 21st century now. Whatever problem you have about historical rejection, today's problem is one of an enemy in our midst.

But you take things out of context. You insist that I am, "hell bent on labelling all gays as pedophiles." Attacking an organization that purports to "speak for all gays" (which we know is not true).....is not attacking all gays! If you had read the old topics "Pedophiles waiting in Line", and "EGALE"....you would understand where I'm coming from. In a nutshell, when ILGA was working with pedophile groups, most notably NAMBLA....only the high offcials of ILGA knew what was happening! Majority of their members did not know that the leaders of ILGA were in bed with pedophiles!

They are getting away with it because people are "afraid" to cause any "waves". We've allowed them to squash our views, our opinions...and any forms of criticisms. It had been quite an effective tool, this use of accusations of bigotry for everything said that goes against their views and demands! We've even made our own governments bow down and appease (afraid of being labelled), even if it meant chipping away at true Canadian values. That is why people ought to wake up! Do not fear the labels that they hurl at you! These labels are so commonly used and abused...that they're practically meaningless. Being called a "bigot" these days amounts to nothing more than just being called, a "jerk!" Speak up! Give your criticisms if you have any! Don't be afraid to call a spade, a spade!

Let's not forget the most important fact: we fight in Afghanistan for our own interest...including that of other countries that believe in democracy. Helping to re-build Afghanistan comes as an important bonus. IMO.

Maybe they are starting to. Perhaps the "veil" incident involving Straw was a simple act of defiance...the beginning. "Piggybacking On Terror In Britain By DANIEL PIPES August 29, 2006 Two days after British authorities broke up an alleged plot to blow up multiple aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean, the "moderate" Muslim establishment in Britain published an aggressive open letter to Prime Minister Blair. It suggested that Mr. Blair could better fight terrorism if he recognized that the current British government policy, especially on "the debacle of Iraq," provides "ammunition to extremists." The letter writers demanded that the prime minister change his foreign policy to "make us all safer" One prominent signatory, the Labour member of Parliament Sadiq Khan, added that Mr. Blair's reluctance to criticize Israel increased the pool of people whom terrorists can recruit. In other words, Islamists working within the system exploited the thwarted Islamist terror plot to pressure the British government to implement their joint wishes and reverse British policy in the Middle East. Lawful Islamists shamelessly leveraged the near death of thousands to forward their agenda. Despite its reported fears of Muslim street unrest, the Blair government heatedly rejected the letter. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett called it "the gravest possible error." The Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells dismissed it as "facile." Home Secretary John Reid deemed it a "dreadful misjudgment" to think that the "foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity."Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander rejected the letter as "dangerous and foolish." Undaunted, the "moderate" Muslim establishment pushed even harder on the domestic front. In an August 14 meeting with high government representatives, including the deputy prime minister, it made two further demands: that a pair of Islamic religious festivals become official holidays and that Islamic laws pertaining to marriage and family life be applied in Britain.A Muslim present at the meeting later warned the government against any plans to profile airport passengers, lest this step radicalize Muslim youths further. Why these ultimata and why at this time? According to the Daily Mail, the leader of the August 14 Muslim delegation, Syed Aziz Pasha, explained his group's logic: "If you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens." More ominously, Mr. Pasha threatened the government leaders. "We are willing to cooperate, but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems. Then we will understand their problems," he said. The press reacted furiously to these demands. The Guardian's Polly Toynbee condemned the open letter as "perilously close to suggesting the government had it coming."The Daily Mirror's Sue Carroll portrayed Mr. Pasha's position as "perilously close to blackmail." This was not the first such attempt by "moderate" British Muslim leaders at political jujitsu, to translate Islamist violence into political clout. The same happened, if less aggressively, in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings, when British Muslim leaders piggybacked on the death of 52 innocents to demand that British forces leave Iraq. That pressure did succeed, and in two major ways. First, the Home Office subsequently issued a report produced by "moderate" Muslims, "Preventing Extremism Together," that formally accepted this appeasing approach. As Dean Godson of Policy Exchange summarizes the document, Islamist terror "provided a wonderful, unexpected opportunity for these moderates to demand more power and money from the State." Second, 72% of British subjects now accept the Islamist view that Mr. Blair's "backing for action in Iraq and Afghanistan" has made Britain more of a target for terrorists, while a negligible 1% say the policies have improved the country's safety, according to a recent poll. The public solidly backs the Islamists, not the prime minister. I have argued that terrorism generally obstructs the progress of radical Islam in the West by stimulating hostility to Muslims and bringing Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny. I must admit, however, that the evidence from Britain — where the July 7 terrorism inspired more self-recrimination than it did fury against jihad — suggests that violence can also strengthen lawful Islamism. And here's another reconsideration: While I maintain that the future of Europe — whether continuing in its historic Christian identity or becoming an adjunct of Muslim North Africa — is still an open question, the behavior of the British public, that weakest link in the Western chain, suggests that it, at least, may be too confused to resist its Londonistan destiny." Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Miniatures" (Transaction Publishers). http://www.nysun.com/article/38748?page_no=2

Sony! I've started with Nintendo (got all the models up to N64)...and the thing that finally got to me was that, after spending so much time and money collecting games (which included researching what goes in my collection tracking some hard-to-find ones), I end up having to start over again with every new model. And it's impractical to have all these models sitting out gathering dust. So I switched to PlayStation and tried it out. I like it. So I got the PS2, and I got it late too. You can play old games to your latest model. I'll most probably get the PS3 in the future since it can still accomodate all the games from PS1 (though I'm in no big rush...I've got at least 15 games still waiting to be played on the PS2). Sony seem to understand what makes the gamers tick...and they do carry a lot of RPGs! With the older after-school kids (they only get to play it when they're around 6 or 7 and up...we've had an on-going rule that they've got to play actively before they can sit down and play), I use it for stressing the importance of responsibility (they've got to put back each game in their proper cases, placed in the proper containers etc..,) and respect for other people's property....and self-discipline. I've also used the games to stress the importance of patience and perseverance when they try to overcome levels or hurdles. I print out hints and tips from the web (having them read if they ever got stuck in a game). I use it as a learning tool. I find that it helps me bond with older kids too. Right now I've got an 8 year-old and a 10-year old after-school kids. As for spending more playing time than other things...I have to confess that sometimes, yes it grabs you. Just the same as tv would, getting people sitting for hours on marathon of soap or endless talk shows. That's where self-discipline kicks in. I just have to make a rule and impose it on myself.

The same applies to buttsex with a 40 year old. But being young makes some difference since the 14 year old is under-developed physically compared to a 40 year old. Besides the 40 year old has the maturity to make a decision for himself.

And may I add this medical info: "The lining of the vagina is tough, like the skin on our hands, so it can withstand the trauma of intercourse and child bearing. But the lining of the anus is too delicate to withstand any trauma. Dr Jeffrey Satinover says: "anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. These tissues... are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissue. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream." "Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom." In addition to the trauma of intercourse, semen can eat away at the intestinal lining. This allows a person to "infect themselves" as the bacteria from their feces enter the blood stream. As a result of this, a man is 2,700 times more likely to get an HIV infection from anal intercourse than he is from vaginal intercourse. " So in considering the age factor, a whole lot of physical damage could result in anal sex with a 14 year old.

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia. Others who had read the rest of the exchanges which you have omitted would logically think...that since Svend is heavily supporting the age of 14, and had crusaded for that gag law to pass, effectively gagging practically anyone to voice out any criticisms for this lifestyle....of course any skeptics and cynics to the political world would scoff: what's in it for Svend? I will say the same thing if it had been Hedy Fry or Harper or Bill Graham who had done what Svend is doing: opening the door for pedophiles through the help of EGALE, with a law that inhibits and intimidate anyone from saying anything that could easily be spinned to be translated into a hate comment. Quite a sly maneuver. What's in it for Hedy, or Harper, or Bill? That Sven happens to be gay....only add to the skeptism...and drama. And don't say critics will not have any reasons to be concerned or worried that this gag law can be manipulated and twisted quite easily to squash any criticisms. The accusations of "hate speech," bigot, anti-gay can be, and are easily and loosely levelled at, and irresponsibly, maliciously, and self-servingly thrown about so casually these days. What more example of what I've said...valid concerns being twisted to be labelled anti-gay or bigotted views than the one you had displayed here right now. You are a shining example of how the gag law can be manipulated and exploited. Besides, gay or heterosexuals....pedophiles, are pedophiles. Only in this battle, you know that pedophiles will be supporting and rooting for EGALE. After all, what EGALE is fighting for is to the pedophile's advantage. Practically, and mostly (if not solely) to the pedophile's advantage. Or those who like pubescent and post-pubescent children...somewhere around the ages of 14, or 13...or maybe 12 or 11. Maybe 10 or 9. Or 8. As for your pre-occupation with this novel concept, gay=pedophiles....like it's an off-shoot of another kind of bisexuality (is it?).... It is YOU who seem to automatically want to think that, gay=pedophiles. Twice you have insisted on tying the two together, like an old pair of shoes....or a married couple. Stop it, Gerry. Or we might think that in your subconscious you do really think and believe that, gay=pedophiles....and we just might buy that, thanks to you.

I think they're part of law enforcers operating the pedophile sting on the internet. I had mentioned it before in one of the threads a little while back.

EGALE's main position was to see that there is equality for everyone. Raising it to 16 had solved that. Everyone is equal! Those who think 14 is too low...and this include the law enforcers, not to mention those who are concerned about the reputation Canada is starting to get for attracting pedophiles to this country....are also satisfied with raising it to 16. Everyone SHOULD be happy! So what now? EGALE thinks 16 is too old?

On page two you made the implication, and I said: To which you replied: Gerry, why didn't you post my entire reply? You left things out to make it sound like the way you want it to sound. You were trolling with your silly little innuendo! Obviously you know I was talking of EGALE! Trolling with my silly little innuendo? Hardly. The comment you made before my "innuendo" was this: I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia. I did not post your entire answer, true, but I posted your immediate answer to my accusation that you're labelling gays as pedophiles, which was: Don't act hard done by, you exposed your true feelings right there so live with it. Okay, you've had your jollies Gerry. Now can you please humor this anti-gay and bigotted Betsy and get back to answering one simple question. What's wrong with 16?

We cannot seriously debate about that scenario....simply for the reason that we do not know how one would react if there is a race for survival. A person fighting desperately to defend himself from a Jason-like monster could pull the trigger once....while the hysterical woman may keep on shooting even long after the bullet chamber is empty. Desperation. Survival. In a matter of hours. Anything can happen. Sure, it may be deemed "overkill" in the end...but that conclusion can only be achieved through careful contemplation. And when you are racing for time (our scenario said the attack is happening in 24 hours)...and the stakes are this high....what do you think, one would even be worried about violations, let alone think about the Geneva Convention?

For specific revisions...I have no idea since I am not pretending to know everything about the Geneva Conventions and all its addendums. My interest was just piqued when someone mentioned (was it you?) somewhere that some nations did not want to sign to Protocol 1. Another reason I mentioned it is the fact that I see so much onus placed on the good guys. My question is: what do you do to the faction that wants nothing to do with the laws...would not follow the laws...and in fact, practically violates every law? And spits on it! What do you do if on purpose they use civilians for shields...whether they may be willing or un-willing? If you go right in there and bomb them...you get dragged before tribunals! Just look what's happening to Rumsfeld! I am not denying that there were atrocities that happened in Abu Gharib....but to try and prosecute a man who had done nothing compared to what had been done to thousands of civilians and hostages by terrorists, under the protection and support of some nations. He's been villified more than the terrorists themselves! The unfairness and loss of perspective stinks to high heavens.

And where do I look? Since you made the claim, it is the norm in any mature and responsible debate...that you provide it, especially if asked....just so we know we are debating about the same thing.

Actually, the US and media's definition is more defining! Whereas this literal definition, ".....a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms." (Noam Chomsky), is too loose! -you want to say my definition is to loose but then argue for a definition that allows someone to claim anyone is "rogue" on the mere grounds they are an enemy?? does that sound logical to you?? The US' definiton is very defining. It states in exact terms what makes one a rogue state! It says: "Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria such as being ruled by AUTHORITARIAN regimes severely restricting human rights, accused of SPONSORING terrorism, and SEEKING TO PROLIFERATE weapons of mass destruction." So you have to be an AUTHORITARIAN or dictatorial regime, SEVERELY restricting human rights, SPONSORING TERRORISM and SEEKING TO PROLIFERATE wmd! On top of that, you must be perceived as a threat to world's peace! Take note of the word "SEVERELY" when it described the restriction of human rights! Practically most nations trample on human rights! In varying degrees! Compared to your definition: "rogue state: a state that deviates from accepted international laws and norms. Ie: Iran and North Korea" Your definition would have easily included China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, a lot of Muslim-dominated countries, and practically all banana republics lining up from here to Timbuktoo! And some of them are under so-called democratic regimes! Heck, it may even include Canada if you consider our on-going problem with the Natives as a violation in your definition of accepted international laws and norms! Your definition define them all as Rogue States! It is your definiton that can easily claim anyone is "rogue!" So yes, it is very, very, loose! Unless of course, Women's rights, Children's Rights and Human Rights.... are not included in the definiton of your international laws and norms.

I guess whoever invented this knows that we live in a society that wants to see only what they want to see. I don't know. I guess I'm just too pessimistic at this moment.

"In an stark public warning, Eliza Manningham Buller, director-general of the service commonly known as M15, revealed that the agency's caseload had risen by 80 percent since January and was now involved in about 30 "Priority 1" plots. M15 has identified 200 terrorist networks involving at least 1,600 people, many under the direct control of al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan. "More and more people are moving from passive sympathy toward active terrorism through being radicalized or indoctrinated by friends, families, in organized training events here and overseas," she said. "Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers." "Killing oneself and others in response is an attractive option for some citizens of this country and others around the world. The threat is serious, is growing and will, I believe, be with us for generation. It is a sustained campaign, not a series of isolated incidents. It aims to wear down our will to resist." by Michael Evans From the Ottawa Citizen 10 Nov 2006 England has enemies from within. Somehow I cannot help but think the terrorists had learned from and are implementing some of the effective tactics of warfare that had ended the Vietnam War: become "invisible," and weaken the enemy through the pressures from its own citizens (divided they'll fall). Only this time, the terrorists had decided to bring "Vietnam" to their enemies' own soil. It is hard to fight your enemies....when you don't know who they are. When they are mixed with the population and seemingly leading normal, every-day lives. Just like the Viet Congs had worked as civilians alongside Americans in US bases in Vietnam...and were fighting and killing Americans during their off-hours. What is happening in Europe, especially this latest report from England...must be causing major concern for a lot of other countries, whom are also vulnerable to such a scenario. The only sort of hope for countries like us who as of now have not yet experienced any massive-scale attacks...is that hopefully, plans are already being developed to deal with this kind of warfare tactic. And hopefully when the time comes that our government need to act in however shape or form it deems necessary....we be all united to stand behind it. 100%.

On page two you made the implication, and I said: To which you replied: Gerry, why didn't you post my entire reply? You left things out to make it sound like the way you want it to sound. You were trolling with your silly little innuendo! Obviously you know I was talking of EGALE! Here is the complete post: "Well? What am I supposed to think? I mean why doesn't EGALE just agree to raise the bloody thing to 16...if equality is truly the issue...and not the license to diddle 14 year old boys? And lower? Why do they insist on opening the doors for the pedophiles? To think that they'd want to erase the shadow of NAMBLA. This "odd" reaction of EGALE only strengthens my suspicion that NAMBLA is still very much around....hiding under the skirts of EGALE"

5, 10, 50 posts in a row doesn’t make you anti-gay, your anti-gay comments do though. No, having concerns for youth don't make you a hateful lemming. However, if your hatred of homosexuals stems from your religious views then you may just be a lemming. Right I agree with 16, plus a close in age exemption. However in a previous post you asked "why don't EGALE come clean and explain why they don't want to raise the age to 16". I gave you their explanation and it's not a secret like you seem to imply. It took me 5 minutes to find an article explaining their position. It seems to me you like to accuse any politician or organization that lobbies on behalf of homosexuals as pedofiles. I'm not sure if it is part of Bill C-22 but the old law that forbids anal sex until the age of 18 should also be abolished. If that's not a part of the bill right now hopefully it is corrected in committee. So I ask again....what is wrong with the age 16? You and I agree on that it seems. I agree for the reason that it achieved the equality EGALE had been fighting for...and it satisfy those of us who think 14 is just too young. So everyone should be happy, right? I do not accuse any politician or organization that lobbies on behalf of homosexuals as pedophiles. BUT let's just say I do not completely trust EGALE...due to the unsavory history of a major gay/lesbian group that was found to have been working alongside pedophile groups. I do not know if you had read an old topic titled "Pedophiles waiting in line" and another old topic called "EGALE". In those two topics I had explained my position and provided sources that backed up my position. If you think that is an anti-gay comment....hey, what can I say. I know that it is not....but that's your opinion. I think we should not hesitate to question or point out or give our insights....just because somebody else might think what we say is anti-this or anti-that! We live in a democratic society after all.

Actually, she continuously makes the implication that gays are pedophiles. That is a hateful attack on gays, imo. Nope. I do not say all gays are pedophiles. In fact, in several previous posts from other threads I had explained clearly that I do not believe all gays are pedophiles. I had clearly stated that in another thread that I do not think EGALE is representing the whole gay community. I've always directed my tirade towards the leaders of EGALE! And had stated in another thread that EGALE could be hurting the gay community as a whole! Gerry, we've had the same skirmish for so long now, in numerous threads. Yet you continuously refuse to understand....or deliberately ignore what I had clearly stated before....and insist on twisting my concerns and statements to mean otherwise. I know you can be really stubborn and strong-willed with your view (as shown with your known opinion of Harper)......but this subject is beyond partisanship. It should be beyond partisanship. You should know by now that I do not care if you label me a bigot, an anti-gay or any other ugly name you could throw at me. But I do question why you would do that...unless you want to intimidate me, to shut up. And why would you want me to shut up? After all, you want to fight pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors....don't you? Am I right in assuming that of you?

Hey, I'm glad you think that way about those terrorists. They're truly cowardly crusading bastards, aren't they? It's not enough that they do their "hit-and-run" attacks...they hide behind children too! Way to go! For a while there reading your posts from other threads...I almost thought you're on their side!

I am not sure if I misunderstood the news report....but apparently the opposition delegation that went with Ambrose to this conference (consisting also of environmentalists and NDP) had purposefully embarrassed Ambrose by bringing up their concern right there. If it is true, why do these NDP and Environmentalists delegation have to display our dirty linen in public? Why did they bring it over there....the battle ground for those kind of disagreements is right here, in Canada! Our position about Kyoto is not embarassing, especially if several Kyoto members have been complaining about their own failures to meet the target. That is what the conference is for...constructive discussion. The behaviour of these delegation is what is embarrassing!

Well I'm fired up, AC! And if posting 5 in a row makes me anti-gay...then I must be anti-gay! And if explaining my concern for the youth makes me a hateful lemming...then I'm gladly a hateful lemming. Now that we've cleared that part, and gotten your name-calling out of the way...I don't see what you are so fired about. Apparently, we're both agreeable to the age 16! From what I understand with your explanation, EGALE want 20 year old homosexuals to be able to have sex with 14 year olds? They're not satisfied with 16? What's wrong with 16?