Wilber

And

Nash sucked to. He must have had the most bench time. For some reason this team couldn't step it up. May be the long layoff hurt more than anyone thought it would. Most of the Europeans went home to play in their elite leagues. Most North Americans took the year off. The Americans were just as bad. Just shows you how competitive international hockey is at the top level. There isn't much between a gold medal and no medal.

Guess we don't. Just heard on the radio that Harper is caning present agreements as of next March.

"Oh they shouldn't print this kind of trash! I don't wanna see a pear being used that way!" OMG we'll have fruit growers rioting and burning down Safeways because they are selling pears to the US military. I thought all this started with 9/11 or was it the first time these maniacs tried to blow up the World Trade Center back in 93. When people are more upset about a cartoon aimed at creeps who blow up loaded busses, shopping areas, night clubs, embassy's and wedding party's, than they are about those who commit these acts, it's already too late.

But if a group of radical christians protested, burned the Canadian flag, and became violent at the sight of penis slurpers in the National Post, would that be a reason to include penis slurping in all the dailies? And would it be morale-boosting to the hooligans to say "C'mon, enough with the penis slurping!"? Just who was it that put penis slurping at the same level as blowing up a bus full of innocent people? I didn't know it was that dangerous.

Okay, Abu Gharib is news. Do you want more bananas in prisoner's butts on the front page? (Actually updated reports say it might have been a pear.) What it comes down to, once again, is the fact that your only reason for wanting to see the cartoons printed is because you equate all muslims with suicide bombers or radical danish-flagburners, and want to instigate a fight with them. Once again, I'm equating that position with the position of those radicals (not the actions, the position): y'all just want to start a good ol' war. On the contrary, I can separate most Muslims from the suicide bombers. To me those cartoons are only about the suicide bombers. I don't see these people as Muslims, I see them as a fanatical group who uses a religion as an excuse for their actions. They are not the first to do so, Christianity has had it's share in the past. The war started some time ago, or didn't you notice? Why is it you and Army Guy keep associating things with gross sexual acts. I'm starting to wonder about you.

I think that kind of article belongs in whatever publication decides to print it. Saying they can't denies them freedom of the press. But I don't think they should put penis slurpers on the front page, because I know some people are for some reason offended by that. I don't think it jeopardizes freedom of the press for them to exercise good judgement and take those peoples' delicate sensibilities into consideration. Same-same. Do you think suicide bombers take other peoples sensibilities into consideration? Get real. A cartoon about people blowing other people up and the fact people are killing and burning allegedly because of that cartoon is news. Pornography is not news, gay or otherwise unless it is someone being caught dealing in something like child pornography.

Better late than never BHS. Well put

Are you being sarcastic or thinking out loud? Be carefull you don't fall off that fence.

If the whole argument is whether the news media should be free to print such things, then I agree with you. They should be. But the topic line said the "PM is distressed." He expressed disapproval of printing it, but he isn't about to lock Ezra Levant up. Therefore, the press is still free and the debate is really about whether the press should print the cartoons. I think anybody who chooses to print them is not really concerned about the non-issue of freedom of the press (because that isn't really in jeopardy) and is more concerned with drawing offence in order to instigate a fight. I see, they should be free to print them but they shouldn't print them. That's clear.

If it is so wonderful, why are the police not really pushing for it? It could possibly work as you describe but how often are you going to have a situation like this? If you were to give the police departments of this country 2B and an additional 90M a year they could find far more productive uses for it that would make a real difference to our communities. Ask yourself this. Is the owner of a registered gun likely to commit a crime with it, then leave it at the scene, pawn it or leave it anywhere else the authorities can find it? If the gun was stolen or lost and the theft or loss was reported prior to it being used to commit a crime, it would be the same as if it was never registered at all, unless you knew who stole it. Possible but not likely and you would still have to prove it. If a police officer runs a check on a car he has pulled over and finds the driver is a registered gun owner, what are the odds of a law abiding person who registers his guns having a loaded rifle or shotgun laying on the back seat of his car? What are the odds of the hood with the loaded handgun tucked beside his seat having registered guns at home? The concept may sound wonderful to many but when you really hold it up to scrutiny, it ain't worth 2 billion plus 90 million a year.

"You have still not answer the question do you think they are news worthy, or where they printed to provoke a group. Can anyone out there educate me on why these cartoons are news worthy when they were first printed , or do you think they were printed to provoke a response." Heaven forbid someone should print a cartoon about a group that is dedicated to the elimination of everyone who doesn't share their concept of religion. Heaven forbid someone should offend people who put suicide bombers on crowded buses and in shopping areas to blow themselves up. Who do you believe it is OK to offend? Is there anyone? I can't believe I'm reading this stuff. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but how about the fact that these five month old cartoons were resurrected (by Muslims not Danes) right after Hamas was elected by the Palestinians. Just a coincidence and would I be offending someone by pointing it out?

It's actually a provincial jurisdiction. Trouble is the Feds take in 70% of the tax dollars and they love to use that to meddle in provincial affairs because they have a lousy record of looking after their own responsibilities such as fisheries and defense.

I fail to see why shorter wait times complicate our system just because they are provided by private clinics. It's the first time I have ever heard anyone insinuate that shorter wait times could be a bad thing. Every time I go to my GP I am going to a private practitioner operating out of a private clinic, Every time I go to a specialist, I am going to another private practitioner. Why should I care if surgeries and other procedures are done by private clinics as long as they are paid for out of the public purse? Why does everyone working in the system have to get a paycheck written by a government. If a government builds something, they don't set up their own construction company to build it. They often don't even operate or maintain it. Companies compete for contracts and they hire the best they can get for their money. If there is competition between clinics for the public system's money, the ones who provide the best service will get the business and do well, the ones that don't, won't. It's up to government to set standards and ensure they are maintained, regardless of who is providing the service. I'm all for making our public facilities as efficient as possible but if they aren't up to it, or we can get a better bang for our buck using some private facilities, let's do it. We already have two tier health care when it comes to access. People injured on the job, among others, already go to the head of the line.

FTA You are a lawyer and they are judges. It is your job to ask questions, why would you be so nervous about answering a few? Hopefully the process can avoid becoming too political but why should ignorance be bliss when it comes to choosing our country's final arbitrators? I am quite interested in this. Aside from their published personal histories, we know very little about these people who can have such a huge influence on our lives.

"Because we both know that in this country we are capable of sitting down and discussing almost any topic without being offensive towards both sides. Would we be able to have the same conversation if a news paper depicted a cartoon depicting naked gay man bent over a table with a wedding gown on and another gay man jamming him up the arse with a tuxedo on." I don't know, who's house would you burn down?

"Most are as thick as a Gurkha's foreskin and could not find thier own country on the gloge. Two IQ points higher they could be a stump, dummer than dirt but being used well by their propaganda machine." Don't be dumping on Gurkhas now, they have been called the finest light infantry in the world. I have no knowledge of their foreskins.

"Wilber..........registration just does not work. It cannot work. If you like I can give you the technical reasons. But rest assured. The RFC said it woudl cost BILLIONS of dollars to try it the way they did. I am certain that when the AG accounting comes out we will once again be proven right. There is simply no way to do it on the cheap. There is no way that the data in it can be used for anything but confiscation and then only from those who obey the laws. The police in fact do NOT use the system for the purpose it was intended. The much flaunted 5000 uses per day is an outright distortion. The real question is HOW MANY TIMES IS IT USED TO SOLVE A CRIME>" I agree, it's a waist of money. I have never heard of it being used to solve a crime but if it had, I am sure our previous government and the pro registry crowd wouldn't have been shy about letting us know. The police do in fact use it, because it is there, so why wouldn't they. When it comes to telling them if they may be facing a gun in a particular situation, it is not a lot of use to them. They always assume there is a gun, they have to. I know this because my son is a police officer and I have asked him if they use it. I also know that he would trade the registry for a few more cops on his shift without much thought at all.

There's a lot of crap I don't need to know about that's filtered out so I never see it. Judgement calls are made like that all the time. Who's judgment, those who tell you what you need to know or your own? Maybe you don't need to know why people are rioting, burning and killing because of a cartoon but for some stupid reason, I think it's important. After decades of hearing "smart folks' tell me what is important only to find out later that they were full of it, I'm not as trusting as you.

"In theory it's great. Problem is we live in the real world and theory doesn't always translate. It's been a cash cow and from what I understand a total pain in the ass to gun owners. To top it off, police forces don't seem to be using it. How's that for your money's worth? Problem is it's too late for a refund. The billion dollars has been spent... we aint gettin' it back. The question becomes do we continue with the registry, continue to work out it's kinks and treat guns like cars but also increase government bureaucracy or really throw away that billion, cut back on government and de-regulate gun ownership." The police use it. Why wouldn't they? They just have little faith in it in the real world, especially as something that might keep them alive. The money has already been thrown away, the question is how much more do we want to throw at it when there are other things far more pressing when it comes to law enforcement. This argument has everything to do with ideology and little to do with real issues when it comes to dealing with crime.

If you didn't have access to foreign media through the internet, how would you know they are crappy?

I bet 90% of these people didn't know where Denmark was before this. I bet at least 50% still don't.

How does reprinting a poorly drawn cartoon ad nauseum make bad people go away? In fact, when does insulting people ever make them go away? Fact the fact--you don't want the cartoons reprinted because you want the opportunity to see them from a Canadian printing press; you want them reprinted because you (rightfully) dislike radical Muslims and don't care one way or the other for moderate ones. You think it makes you appear bold and willing to stand up to them, when all it really shows is that, like the radical Muslims, you just want to enflame moderates and get them into your fight. I have no wish to offend people I have nothing against. If people wish to object, I can understand, if they wish to be "inflamed", that is their choice. Moderates do not get "inflamed" by definition. It has nothing to do with me feeling bold by standing up to terrorists. I don't feel bold at all. It has everything to do with my own government and media conspiring to keep me in the dark because they know what is best for me. As I said, there is absolutely no way a Canadian could find out what all the commotion is about if they had no access to foreign media. There is not even a Canadian website (that I can find) that has these pictures on it. Don't you find that disconcerting in a so called open and free country? Have we become a nation of Chamberlains? He was well meaning to. To me it's not about freedom of the press, it's about my right to be informed. Yes I dislike radical groups that maintain I have no right to live and are dedicated to making that come true. And I don't give a rats ass if I offend them or not because it's not about them being offended, the fact that we exist at all is offensive to many of them. As far as I can see, that is who those cartoons were directed at, not the average Muslim. If I were a Muslim or follower of any particular religion, I would be far more concerned about people killing in my name and in the name of the Prophet I follow than I would about some stupid cartoons.

What I have heard is that the registry was undermined by opposition who deliberately sabotaged progress as a political tactic to cause it to go over budget and kill it. I don’t think the registry is the one solution we need, but if we could have implemented it without all the costly resistance it would have been a useful tool. Useful for what?

Some peoples only interest is to stick their heads in the sand, accept what they are told and hope the bad people go away.