Wilber

For some reason, I shoot pool better when I am 'half in the bag'... That's about it, though. I can do almost anything after a doobie. Too true. Any 'health benefits' from either come at a price. Pot does have some legitimate medical uses, though. Alcohol is good for cleaning wounds. Drugs reduce anxiety and can help with calming the yips. They do nothing to improve skills. You think you can almost do anything after a doobie, so do drunks. That's one definition of being impaired. Poor judgment.

It is generally agreed that inhaling smoke from any burning substance is bad for you and can, if not will, eventually kill you. There are those who seem to believe that marijuana is an exception. What are the odds? Pot and booze may have some therapeutic uses but let's face it, neither is particularly good for you. Any health argument is 90% bogus in both cases. For those who claim they perform better under the influence of alcohol or cannabis, how the hell would you know? You're stoned for gods sake. What do you think the word "impaired" means?

I don't know about it being the opposite of love but I agree with the rest. It is an emotion that has never lead to anything good for the hater or the hated. Far too serious to be trifled with. Unfortunately it has become a catch all word for anything that bothers many people.

I hope you didn't take the previous post personally Newbie. It is a general question because it is part of the title of this thread. The word is used so often, I am left wondering what it actually means to people today. Perhaps I should have started a new thread.

Good post. I share those sentiments exactly. Some people on this forum think I hate George Bush. But it is his actions and those of his administration that upset me. My family's background is American so it's ridiculous to assume I have hatred for "all" Americans. Unlike the thinking of some on the right I can distinguish between the US Gov't and it's citizens. What does the word "hate" mean to you? In general and when it comes to George Bush. Just curious because it is used so often for so many things, from not liking a particular food to exterminating a whole group of people. I think that too many people don't think when they use this word. It can be interpreted so many ways. It seems to be a fashionable word these days and an extremely scary one because I never know how to take the people who use it so freely. How far would they go to express this hatred?

Not unbelieveable but about where Christianity was 500 years ago. Hopefully they will grow out of it. Unfortunately, in a global economy with such things as jet aircraft, the internet and WMD's, I doubt that they will have 500 years to do it, or that the rest of the world will be able to wait for them.

That would be fine, except every time anyone critisizes the government or it's policy they're called "anti-American" by some idiot rightwinger. Rightwingers are the ones who need learn the distinction between governments and people. I think there are those on both sides of the fence who need to learn that distinction. Our politicians saying they "hate the bastards" and their flunkies calling their head of state a "moron" isn't criticism. There are those on both sides of the fence who need to learn the difference between criticism and an insult.

When you cut and pasted from this article you omitted this bit. "The BBC's Mike Donkin in Kabul says reformists, like the government under President Hamid Karzai, want a more liberal, secular legal system but under the present constitution it is hard for them to intervene. Precedent The Afghan Human Rights Commission has called for a better balance in the judiciary, with fewer judges advocating Sharia law and more judges with a wider legal background. Several journalists have been prosecuted under blasphemy laws in post-Taleban Afghanistan. The editor of a women's rights magazine was convicted of insulting Islam and sentenced to death last year - but was later released after an apology and heavy international pressure. Mr Karzai's office says the president will not intervene in the case. Observers say executing a converted Christian would be a significant precedent as a conservative interpretation of Sharia law in Afghanistan. But it would also outrage Western nations which put Mr Karzai in power and are pouring billions of dollars into supporting the country" Would Afghanistan have a Human Rights Commission if western troops weren't there? Would Afghanistan have a womens rights magazine it western troops weren't there? Few would argue that Afghanistan doesn't have a long way to go but change doesn't happen overnight anywhere. It wasn't so long ago in Canada that women were the legal property of their husbands. Do we walk away and leave those trying to promote change to the jackals?

Forget how you feel about a government. Governments come and go. There is no need for them or us to like the particular government in power in either of our countries in order to answer this question. The question said EN MASSE, not as individuals. A fair question and a simple one IMO. I don't agree with all my friends all the time or vice versa.

You don't know what you are talking about. Canadian provinces have more power in many ways than US states so if you are saying that Canada should be more like the US they you are saying the federal gov't should have more powers. For example, in the US the states do not collect royalties on natural resources which means all Albertas oil money would be going to Ottawa - not Edmonton if Canada was like the US. Really? Alaskan Permanent Fund

Hollus "To those of you that seem to think the children are incouraged by their parents to engage in stonethrowing you are mistaken. Of course they love their children more than they hate Israel, the children engage in this defiance themselves and catch hell from it from their parents. Can you picture any parent sitting at their kitchen table when their child arrives from throwing stones at fully armoured tanks- obviously posing no threat- to which the tanks routinly return lethal fire; could you picture that parent saying: "oh great johnny, maybe you dented the steel. If you throw enough rocks maybe you might eventually do some damage." No, I dont think thats what its like. From what Ive heard and read, parents go searching for their children if they suspect they might be stone throwing because they want their children to live." I've no doubt the Israelis are deserving of some share of the blame. I see your list. What were the sources? So the parents aren't responsible for their children's actions because they won't listen to them and the children aren't responsible for their actions because they are children. I guess you're right, it must be the Israeli soldier's fault that children are throwing stones at them and they should stand there and take it like adults, right. Those parents of suicide bombers you see being interviewed saying how proud they are that their children are martyrs obviously loved their children more than they hate the Israelis as well, I suppose. GossHacked "I am against the grain on this. I know alot support Israel, but I cannot. I personaly do not recognize Isreal's right to exist. Just so we are clear on this. This is my view on this." Israel does exist whether people choose to recognize it or not and nothing short of another genocide will stop it from existing. It's time that was recognized by everyone. Until it is, nothing will change in the Middle East.

Huh? What part of "the troops don't enter into it (that is: the policy debate)" don't you comprehend? Harper's in Afghanistan to photo op and drum up support for the policy. The troops are props in a political kabuki. So unlike heads of governments of other countries, Canadian heads of government should not be allowed to visit Canadian troops in war zones. Your nose is out of joint because no Liberal PM has ever taken the time or thought enough of them to do so. I said at the beginning of this thread that this sort of behavior by our politicians is so un Canadian that some would have trouble with it. I'm dam glad one of them finally got off his ass and went somewhere to tell them they are appreciated. It's their job. There may be some political gain from this but it doesn't change the fact he did the right thing by going there. He obviously made no points with you or those like you but I guess it doesn't matter because in your eyes he can do nothing right. On the other hand I have also heard some people say he made them proud to be a Canadian. Harper made someone proud to be a Canadian. What a swine. Got to go for a few days. See ya.

You don't think we should support the people who carry out this country's policies? I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. I'll assume you aren't. He's saying that questioning the policy does not indicate support or lack of support for the troops. He didn't say that we shouldn't support our soldiers or that he doesn't support them. He's saying that there is a difference between supporting them and questioning the policies that affect them. And here I thought the title of this thread was "Harper is in Kandahar". Do you think he should be there supporting them on our behalf, or discussing policy with them?

"The 'common enemy' approach that is used on mindless masses to combine them in a direction that benifits the directors is an effective tool. I'm quite surprised (and disappointed) they have used it so well that they can influence great thinkers who suddenly only have a thirty year memory span though. Kudos." Not to mention some on this forum.

You don't think we should support the people who carry out this country's policies?

The damning evidence in the video isnt in its beggining. If your not willing to even watch it than I have no interest in debating your lazy intellect. Plus your reply does not address any of the points in my post. If the jet fuel didnt burn off, and if it was burning in the building, than why did the heat trace not show up on the thermo imageing? GO BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO. Perhaps my lazy intellect has something to do with the fact I have made my living working on and flying heavy jet aircraft for the last 33 years, including Al Qaeda's weapon of choice.

Then I don't see the big deal with the CBC having a bias. Truth is, the media must be made aware of, and accountable for, the influence they carry over the public. They influence the public immensely. This comes down to a public good vs freedom of expression debate. My instinct is the same as yours, that the press should be able to write what they please, but having seen the influence they carry, and the fact that the media is by nature going to carry a right leaning bias because media are corporate identities, I really don't know what is best. What do you think? The CBC is paid for by all Canadians. I can chose not to buy a newspaper. I cannot chose to not support the CBC.

I don't know anything about his motives. I do question his choices. We must all be responsible for our choices and accept their consequences. While I think his arrest does have political implications, traveling back and forth across the border when he hadn't taken advantage of the amnesty was foolhardy.

And with every home they demolish they create a new population of people with nowhere to go. Dont try and say that Israel does not target the general population. Did you read my previous post? Childen are sniped for no apparent reason or for throwing rocks at tanks. If your child or little brother or childhood friend was delibratly shot by the Israeli military; or if tanks and bulldozers showed up outside your home which your family has lived for generations; or if you wittenessed your loved one shot and bled to death 20 yards away from you for being on the street outside your home on a curfew day, and not even being able to approach your loved one for the military ordering you not to move; your opinion of them might change. I have no respect for parents or any other adults who send children out to throw stones at tanks and men with guns. I read your post. Your saying something doesn't make it so. More than enough children have been killed on both sides of this conflict.

If they accounted for the plane hitting the building they have taken into account the fireball than can come from a plane exploding, do not think for one moments they architecs of the WTC did not take that into account. They did. Besides most of the fireball happened outside both towers when the planes hit. Burning off most of the fuel. The money would not benefit the terrorists, but would benifit their families (if it ever got to them or someone made sure that their family is taken care of after your sacrafice. I am just not sure. WTC 1 or 2, suffered a huge ass bomb in the basement taking out several underground garage floors, and the fire in 1975 covered 11th and a couple other floors and burned for hours. Each time the building stood strong. My research continues. The statement that most of the fuel burned off in the initial fireball doesn't cut it. Those aircraft were each carrying around 40,000 pounds of pure kerosene. That much kerosene just doesn't explode and disappear, it burns for a long time. I started to watch that 9/11 revisited video but they lost me right there.

Too bad you can't separate a country from its ruling party. Bush is no more the US than Harper or Martin is Canada. I don't support Bush. I don't support the invasion of Iraq. I do support my neighbor when comes to fighting those who attacked him.

The Israelis have nowhere to go. They are not going to voluntarily let their country be destroyed. No number of suicide bombers will change that. Israel retaliates on a case by case basis against specific targets. Suicide bombers target the populace in general. They both end up killing innocent people but with suicide bombers it is intentional. Yes Israel has expanded its borders. They took Sinai in 1956 but have since returned it to Egypt. The one exception was the Six Day War when they took the West Bank and Golan Heights but it was Egypt that requested the UN peace keepers leave the area not the Israelis. Egypt and Syria were geared up to invade Israel but were beaten to the punch. In 1947 and 1972 it was the Arab countries who attacked Israel, not the other way around. After the surprise attack in 72 which came close to seeing Syrian tanks in Tel Aviv, it's no wonder they don't want to give the Golan Heights back. The West Bank is another problem. Blame enough for everyone there. If some people you knew were shredded at your local mall by a suicide bomber, your opinion of them might change.

Anyone who says that needs to have their head examined. When you look at how our military has been cut back over the past 30 years, obviously a lot of people need their heads examined.

I don't think you can remove his choice to join from the context of the draft, though. If he didn't want to fight it makes you wonder why he joined the Marines. The Marines are a voluntary branch of the US military even during war time and after special forces, are generaly the first into any conflict before the army.

Cut and Run Meaning To depart quickly. Origin A naval reference, originally meaning cutting the cable and running before the wind. A well chosen phrase, methinks.