Wilber

That means nothing. Spain was part of the Empire at the time. That doesn't mean a majority of those living in Spain were Christian at that time but it does mean there was a state religion and that religion was Christianity.

It is completely not possible. There is some thought that there was a Christian presence in Spain as early as 44 AD. Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire early in the 4th century. Muhammad wasn't born until late in the 6th century. No doubt there were many different religions in Spain before the Muslims arrived but Christians were there centuries before the Muslim religion even existed.

Antipathy toward Israel perhaps. That's all ? Maybe not all but a good part of it. Look at how Jews in general and Israelis in particular are portrayed in much Arab media. Difficult to reconcile that with the idea that Jews were the victims of one of the most diabolical crimes in history.

Antipathy toward Israel perhaps.

The Crusades must also be taught. They are at least as important in defining the would we live in as the Holocaust. An objective history of the period will not shed much credit on anyone, Christian or Muslim.

If we insist on dredging up old colonial wars and referring to one of us as the conquered this relationship has no future. The US had their civil war over 100 years after the Plains of Abraham but were able to move on as one country. What's the matter with us?

Scary, more than scary.

Quebec did make up its mind: the Yes side won the referendum and Quebec didn't separate. Thinking Quebecers should all behave as one is silly. Just as silly as thinking everyone else should all behave as one. Democracy and Free Speach recognize that we don't all behave as one. We have had two referendums which is one too many. How many more? In or out? Make up your mind, once and for all.

Excuse my confusion. What happened at the Plains of Abraham? In other words, might makes right. Back to the middle ages.... Are we a country or are we not? Quebec should make up it's mind. Being a country within a country is not tenable indefinately. A good first step would be to stop refighting 250 year old wars between European colonial powers. It is our responsibility to deal with what they left us. Steyn may not be right up to speed on Quebec politics but he articulates what an increasing number of people in English Canada are thinking.

When did Muslims become a race? I always thought it was a religion.

Most provinces would never have joined Confederation under that condition. It would be great for Central Canada though, they would have the population the seats and the power to make the rest of the country their economic colony.

The large number of those Japanese "aliens" were citizens. Many of the younger ones were born here. The same wasn't done to Germans and Italians, it was based on race, not nationality. Hopefully we are beyond that.

I wouldn't call subversion and military pressure legitimate forms of protest in our society. Propaganda definitely is. Government is one of its biggest proponents.

If you are going to have a proportional system you will have to get rid of individual ridings. Depends if you want to be represented by someone who may not live anywhere near you.

Put a couple of bills on your hand, pile some coins on top then close your fist. See what happens.

Correct.However, there is no need for debit cards. There is no need for credit cards really either. I'm sure the fraudster would look at the signature and know how to remotely sign it before using the card. Sheesh. It's a waste of time. It may be a waist of time but if you don't sign your card, it is stolen and used, the bank can deny any responsibility. Debit cards aren't perfectly safe either. Debit card skimming Cash may not be the most convenient thing to use but it does have its advantages.

I agree with Charles, they should change the way they count out change. Start with amount due and count up to the amount you gave them, the time honoured way that was used when people didn't have machines to tell them how much is due. That way they would start by giving you the coins. Most don't count out change anyway because the machine does it for them. I find that whenever there is glitch in the system and the register doesn't tell them how much change to give, half the time I have to tell them because they have trouble figuring it out for themselves. It really doesn't matter to the cashier whether they give you coins or bills first. They should be doing what is most convenient for the customer. It's the courteous, sensible thing to do. How do you use both hands to mess with your money, grab the stuff you just paid for and get out of everyones way at the same time? When it comes to waisting time, I hate picking coins up off the floor because someone has slapped them on top of bills and they have slid off. The older a person gets the more difficult and inconvenient it becomes.

Of course Churchill knew. British scientists were directly involved in the Manhattan Project. Klaus Fuchs the physicist who betrayed the secret to the Russians was a Brit.

I think the Brits should grovel, (no one will believe it anyway) get their people back, then tell the Iranians that the next time they try to interfere they will get their asses blown out of the water and mean it.

Somewhat reminiscent of Glen Clark in BC.

Agreed, if you just look at them as commercials, they suck.

Good point. I hadn't thought too much about it but agree. I hate it when they pile the coins on top of the paper. Some of them invariably slide off onto the floor. Putting the coins on the bottom should be basic training for cashiers. If they still counted change in the old manner where you start at the amount charged and count up to the amount paid it would be the natural thing to do.

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/288525231600452.php Bullish on Boambardier You buy their stock then. I lost a fair chunk of change on it. Told my advisor that I wasn't interested in investing in any more companies that required government largess to stay in business.

That's not an offer. It certainly isn't. Here is the country which sheltered him and allowed him to operate his training camps offering to try him for crimes committed in and against other countries. A real offer would be to have him tried in Holland by an international court like the Lockerbie bombers.

Which are not enforceable when it comes to state sponsored terrorism. International criminal law is always enforceable, because it governs all, and criminals can also be extradited to be tried in other countries, so again, I am unclear, what you are referring to? what "state-sponsored terrorism" are you referring to? I think this is why I do not understand what exactly you are referring to. State sponsored or state supported terrorism. Only if those countries have signed extradition treaties that they are willing to honour. Do you think that there was any chance that a Taliban government would have extradited Bin Laden from Afghanistan?