Hicksey

I've seen all the conspiracy theory videos and powerpoint presentations too. They are quite funny. Much more humorous than accurate I'd bet.

So what is happening here? Indians taking back North America one plot at a time? This is what happens when you leave a liberal in charge.

The major dispute was how to proceed. France (Oil), Germany ($11B owed), Russia (Oil) and China (Oil) didn't want to proceed with a war because they believed it would interfere with the committments made to them by SH. Canada jumped on board because it is en-vogue to be anti-US. I can only play with the cards I am dealt. Bush is what we have. I'll take imperfect over not at all every time. What about instances like the Taliban/AQ/Afghanistan where a terrorist organization takes control of the country. It has already happened, it likely won't be the last time. And it just happens they completed the most devastating attack on North American soil since Pearl Harbor on 9/11. If such a nuke makes it into one of those planes what does that do to the death toll? 9/11 to me was a painful reminder that today a reactive policy should have been a pro-active one. We should act to prevent such actions instead of waiting and reacting.

*Yawn* Do we really expect anything less from them? I've come to understand that liberals and conservatives often read too far into what each other say and as a result never hear what each other actually says.

You think? Not everybody agrees with that outlook. Some people think that your labels are a smoke screen. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0608c.asp I ask you this. Where would Israel be today without US support? I submit it wouldn't be. Why is killing Jews less wrong than killing Arabs? Israel is surrounded by countries that want them dead. Leave them to their own devices and Israel will end up in history books and no longer on a globe. It that what you want? The only reason Israel has to target civillians is because the chicken-hawks that are Hezbollah hide within their civillians and fire at Israel. Who we support in the battle aside ... Why can't this entire region get along with each other, or those around the world? They're the only ones that cannot, or refuse to.

Go back and look for all the quotes. Every world leader, including ours at the time, was out telling everyone how we knew that Iraq had WMDs. I won't deny that once there, there wasn't nearly the WMDs that everyone had believed and that the intelligence machine broke down horribly. Despite that, I still think the Iraq war needed to be fought--but not today. I think that we need to start preventing North Koreas so that rogue states can be dealt with easier. How do you deal with KJI now that he has the threat of nuclear weapons? We need to keep such weapons out of the hands of nations professing to want the complete destruction of others. The next burgeoning NK is Iran. We should have went into Iran when we went into Iraq. What if Afghanistan had gotten ahold of nuclear weapons and 9/11 had been the start of nuclear warfare? These are chances I do not want to take. I would rather keep these countries in line through conventional warfare in several smaller battles. I don't live in fear, but I also choose not to play ostrich and just ignore these countries until we have a bunch of little NKs to worry about.

So, you equate the non-stop Bush=Hitler mantra to being "front line cheerleaders of the Bush Administration" (your words)? Give me a break. Short of Fox News, talk radio, and the likes of the Sun newspapers in Canada, conservatives have no voices in the press at all. If you think the press is conservative, you must be farther to the left that you admit. And you need to know a lot more about me before you call me a Bush drone. He is a Republican. I am a conservative. The two are not mutually exclusive these days. I evaluate each move he makes and support or decry it according to what I believe is right. I give Bush plenty of shit. Even on this issue. I am not in any camp. I vote for politicians based on what they support that I do. Whichever one supports the most of what I believe is right I vote for. I give no politician a free ride because I vote for them. Ask a few of the more conservative posters here. I have been all over Harper on a few things. I vote on party positions, they earn my support by their actions.

All wars entail some loss of civil liberty. Really, are you truly ready and willing to surrender some of your liberties in order to gain a sense (a false sense at that) of security? Well a couple few people with better minds then you or I could ever hope to possess would differ. A smart man ole' Benjamin don't you think? But let's see what Dorothy Thompson had to say of the subject. Or as Edward R. Murrow stated Sounds about right, if your rights, freedoms and liberties are taken away from you by force, you can gain them back with force. But if you give your freedoms, rights and liberties away then you have little or no recourse. Do you honestly trust ANY Government to return to you any of the rights, freedoms or liberties you surrendered to them? If so, then you are sadly a fool and a slave in the making. Evidence to date strongly suggest you are wrong here. While the Afghanistan invasion can be tied to the events of 9-11 and terrorism, the main war in Iraq cannot. Even Bush and his cabel have publically stated that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely no ties to the events of 9-11. The Iraqi War may not be a war of choice for most Americans, it is however THE War of Choice for Bush and his merry band of Neo-Cons. The planning of the Iraqi Invasion by the PNAC core goes back to the Clinton Administration. After Bush was selected (not elected), all they need was an excuse and pretext to execute those plans. The events of 9-11 gave them that excuse and they ran with it. So far the Iraqi Adventure has proved to be a major dismal failure. It has cost the lives of almost 2500 US servicemen and women, all but bankrupt the US treasury (The only thing keeping the US from defaulting is continuing handouts from Mainland China and Japan, god knows what will happen when they call in their markers), created a terrorist training heaven in Iraq, destroyed the good will off traditional US allies around the world and shown once and for all, the US is little more then a paper tiger. North Korea is laughing itself silly at the US, China holds enough US debt to bankrupt the US overnight if it so wished. Nations such as Iran and Venezuela are cutting major deals with China to sell oil in Euros and not US dollars. These are just a few of the many things that the Bush Administration's ill planned and poorly executed War of Choice in Iraq have brought to the American people. If Bush just beefs up homeland security after 9/11 and does nothing else, what message does that send? If every time a suspected despot decided to build up their weaponry (everyone was out there before Iraq claiming that Iraq had WMDs including all the leaders of the countries that opposed going into Iraq) we just let them do whatever they want, won't we end up with little North Korea's all over that are much more difficult to deal with? I think Iraq was a war that needed to be fought. I also think the timing was off. We needed to send that message to Iran more than Iraq right now. The war needs to be fought. I'll grant you that Bush isn't exactly going about it as we would. But name me one liberal (Democrat or Liberal) that has pledged to fight it. I'll take a Bush over a Kerry/Martin ten times out of ten. What's more telling about US politics is that a bungling POTUS like Bush can be a two term POTUS. That tells me that the Democrats have even less to offer. More than anything its sad that our neighbors to the south have so little from which to choose their leader.

Many people don't even know they have HIV because they can't afford to be tested. How do you isolate them? And how do you isolate someone who shows no symptoms? I think an HIV test should be a free test provided by our government. IMO, no government can say they are serious about doing something about the spread of AIDS until we have it. To go even further, I think that we should have a national AIDS testing initiative to make sure everyone gets tested once per year. Isolation would be based on those results, obviously requiring a subsequent test to erase the possibility of a false positive. I am not talking about putting people in some desolate area, isolated from proper health care, to die a painful death. I just think that we should have a place where we can send people who test positive to remove them from the general population and remove the possibility that they can reproduce or infect others. I think that such an initiative would cost far less than to leave it to science. Less money, less new infections, less lives. Bill Gates has already donated $600 million that the cause has burned through, and I have no doubt that his most recent $500 million will be gone long before any more significant gains are made. Like I said before it is not politically correct, it is not a really nice thing to do to people already dealing with a life sentence, but it will save lives. If we are serious about AIDS we cannot wait around for scientists to burn through research dollars like there's no tomorrow, or wait for people to change their behavior. Many more people will be infected and die.

As some people have mentioned here though much of the disease can be defeated by behavioral changes. In many places, fear and ignorance are spreading the disease. It takes leadership to help combat this. You missed my point. Behavioral change has proven not to be a front under which AIDS can be beaten. The cost to defeat AIDS will be much higher than just that. Remember leper colonies? Its not politically correct, or even a nice thing to do. But if you remove it from society, put it in its own and prevent reproduction within that new one, AIDS dies with those people. I know it sounds harsh. It is. But it will work. And much faster than our current course. Many less people will die from AIDS because many less new cases will happen. People that insist we drive little death trap cars do so knowing that people driving such cars are 5 times more likely to die in a collision at more than 30 mph. They are willing to sacrific lives for the environment. More people will die in collisions to save the environment. Why then will people not make such sacrifices to eradicate AIDS?

No, it was the debate the renewed mission. At first the Conservatives said no and then they decided to let the debate happen. The Liberals are divided on the mission and voted as such. A free vote is something the Conservatives consider a good thing, right? Yeah, I saw that. A few token backbenchers made the Liberals look moderated when if you look the leaders voted against leaving them there in lock-step with one another. All the while the leadership of both the Liberals and NDP continued to vilify the CPC in the media for leaving troops there with the "new mission." I think that if the Liberals planned to cut and run at the first whiff of real fighting, they should never have sent them in the first place. As usual they're willing to send our military anywhere as glorified social workers, but as soon as our military has to act like a military they want to bring them back.

I think it comes down to certain parts of the population that have a foolish, romantic view of this enemy. They hail the islamo-terrorists for fighting the evil Bush. I think their hate for Bush has completely consumed them. I think that along with the above and that many naively believe that if we just remain 'neutral' and 'be nicer' to them, that they'll leave us alone.

Isn't 'what?' what the UN is for??? To be an honest broker? Why must we act independently of the UNSC when that's what they are for in the first place? Don't we pay member dues for just such an occasion?

We could eradicate AIDS inside 5 years if we really wanted to. But nobody wants to pay the price to do so. I believe that AIDS will not be cured with research dollars. The cost to eradicate AIDS will be much higher than money. But nobody wants to do that. Instead we perpetually spin our wheels trying to beat a disease we don't have near the technology or knowledge to beat.

The Liberals are never wrong, remember? According to them the CPC should have reconsidered and brought them home immediately. I didn't think we were revisiting that stupidity here. So I just made the assumption that everyone knew that and went on from there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what the UN is for? If we still need to do this despite our status in the UN, why do we pay them dues?

The reason he hasn't is because the federal government has supported an appeal of the judge's decision. If you don't believe it, look it up. The idiots that are negotiating with McGuinty haven't a clue. If they left the land it would likely be handed over in due course. How can there be meaningful negotiation when the natives already possess the land in question for all intensive purposes? What reason is there for them to even be at the table short of political correctness?

Here ya go Bushbot...........someone (not the articles writer tho) seem's think along the same line as you do...so much for freedom, democracy, free speech, free press, free will.....roll on the 5th Reich, American Style. Fill Article Seems we have a lib-bot here too. Only idiots equate Bush to Hitler. Look at these zealot Muslims and look at Bush -- which would be the greater evil? Would you rather be under the rule of the Taliban or Bush? The enemy we fight wants to do to us what Hitler did to the Jews. Bush has been fighting this fight for 3 years now, is that what he is doing? Did you give one second of thought to what you posted before you posted the drivel your leaders are feeding you? There are much better fronts on which to fight your fight. Lib-bot? LOL, sorry to disappoint Jr, but up until the merge of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance, I was a card carrying member of the the PC's, now I am a proud independent centralist who kowtows to no one. As for living under either the Taliban or Bush, the answer is neither. As far as I am concern each is as bad and as evil as the other. One is group of radical Islamic fundamentalist and the other is backed and part of a group of radical Christian fundamentalist. Both would try to control yours and mines lives, how we live it, how we think and even how or who we screw. I say a pox on both their houses. If either gained control of Canada, I would don my combats once again, grab a rifle (you can still get your hands of the old FN-C1 or FN-C2 if you know where to look and who to ask) and start/join the insurrection. And Bush has been fighting Muslim Fundies for the past three years? Oh really? Where? Afghanistan? Right, there’s a good fairy tale for you. Afghanistan was where AQ was based out of and the fight against the Taliban is still on-going. However, Canada and NATO are now fighting that fight in the main, the US has all but pulled out, deciding instead to concentrate on Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 and was not home to AQ, until Shrub decided to go in and make it terrorist friendly. Bush has done more harm then good in the so-called War on Terror and has proven he is indeed “a uniter”. Trouble is he has united much of the Islamic and Arab world against the west all the while; he has caused a huge divide not only among the American people but has turned most of America’s traditional allies against him. At the same time he has all but bankrupt the US and depends on handouts from Communist China to keep his economy and war afloat. But let’s get back to the original post shall we? The poster was calling for the deportation of all Liberals. I seem to recall two other nations that went that route, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. As I said in my first post, so much for democracy, free speech, free thought, free will, the right to dissent and all the other trappings of a free and just society. I have a number of friends in the US from both sides of the political spectrum, Liberal (Democrats) and Conservatives (Republicans) and although they differ on many issues, the one thing that they are united on is that the US is in serious trouble and the root of that trouble lays squarely at the feet of one George W. Bush and his base of radical Christian fundamentalist and the neo-cons who have taken over the Republican Party. In mind that choice is cut and dry. Bush is fighting for a level of freedom. In my mind that's what its all about. The Islamo-fascists are fighting against freedom. They scare me much more than the religious fanaticism that seems to scare you so much. Many of the views of the religious fanaticists are largely not popular enough for them to be legislated. As such, that is the major stumbling block to the religious fanaticists along with liberal courts that on the whole overturn every gain they make. The islamo-fascists would just force it upon us and kill those of us that do not comply. I really fail how you can call one as evil as the other. And if they got the US, what do you think happens to us? With an afterthought for a military and a bunch of liberals that refuse to use it short of sending them out to their pet causes as glorified social workers they'd take Canada before dinner. This really is WW3. It won't be a traditional war in the sense of WW1 and WW2. It will likely be fought over 20 or more years in a series of battles on many different fronts. I like my way of life. I want to win it. If we have to kill a few of our enemy to do so, whatever. Because of liberals and the media we're actually being handcuffed because they're insisting we fight politically correct battles where it would be much smarter to go in and win each quickly and decisively because each time we show any sort of weakness our enemy is further embolded to continue. I consider Bush a bad president because he has no clue how to run his homeland during wartime. Having said that, I have to laud him for fighting for what I think is right even though it is unpopular. I have always hated politicians that govern by the poll. Screw the poll. Do what you think is right now regardless of its popularity. The other party will likely undo it in a few years if you're wrong anyway. I don't want such a *insert your favorite breed of pussycat here* for a leader.

Here ya go Bushbot...........someone (not the articles writer tho) seem's think along the same line as you do...so much for freedom, democracy, free speech, free press, free will.....roll on the 5th Reich, American Style. Fill Article Seems we have a lib-bot here too. Only idiots equate Bush to Hitler. Look at these zealot Muslims and look at Bush -- which would be the greater evil? Would you rather be under the rule of the Taliban or Bush? The enemy we fight wants to do to us what Hitler did to the Jews. Bush has been fighting this fight for 3 years now, is that what he is doing? Did you give one second of thought to what you posted before you posted the drivel your leaders are feeding you? There are much better fronts on which to fight your fight.

Before the white men came to North America it all belonged to Indians of some sort. How much should we give back? We could possibly be giving back a city of 750,000 people in Manitoba. Do we give in every time they make a new claim? Does the Caledonia dispute set a dangerous precedent? There comes a time where it has to stop. That time is now I think.

You know what? I'm on your side of the conflict as far as Bush and the wars in the middle east, but I can't help but point out just how wrong you are. In a democratic system such as ours, a voice of oppoistion is as important as that which leads us. It is a significant part of the checks and balances built in to our system of government. Regardless of how badly we disagree with them, always remember that it is inevitable that we will once again be a voice of opposition. Now ask yourself: would you want the liberals to silence us as you would them? I highly doubt that. I have no problem with someone pointing how wrong they think our opposition is. I think they are. But I hardly want them silenced. To ask that would be to ask them to do the same to me. As long as there are political parties and spin machines (all parties have them) we will be burdened by the garbage they turn out. And there will always be loyal followers of each party that will swallow whatever garbage that the spin machines put out in the media. Maybe also of interest to you .... More than anything I place the fault for liberal domination of the media upon conservatives for sitting back and watching it happen while doing absolutely nothing to get their own representation within the media aside from a token newspaper or two. It hasn't been until the last 15-20 years that conservatives have begun to fight back and what little they have done has been done half-heartedly at that. And it hasn't even really been conservatives affecting the change. It has been entrepreneurs doing the work for us because it has been profitable. The internet and talk radio have been the two major prongs of the taking back. We still don't have our own Fox News in Canada. When the Progressive Conservative party died, it died because it made no progress. While I believe that liberals progress often for the sake of progressing, often ignoring the consequences thereof, conservatives have refused to progress when it is obviously necessary. They always do a haphazard job of getting their positions across, always let the Liberals define them before they get out to explain new positions, they have the worst ever sense of timing going public on positions that may not be popular and often shoot themselves in the foot erasing their own gains, etc ... I've learned to let what the press has to say go in one ear and our the other. Its easier to assume its all bull and assume there's an ulterior motive to it. If I'm happy with what they've done, why should I care what a bunch of liberal mouthpieces think? I refuse to let a liberal ruin what I see as a good thing. I hope they'd do the same.

Yes, Mulroney is much older now and presumably gave Harper the advice to invoke national security as a reason to direct contracts to provinces they wanted. What Toews did was very important as Attorney General because it is at the heart of his policies as Justice minister now. Toews wasted money on gang trials that were broken up into smaller trials by defence lawyers. Many of these guys faced reduced charges. Toews office was underfunded and inept and let a man who sex with a 12 year old girl serve his time in the community. A review found his department to be substandard. This is the man that is Justice minister now. Older and wiser, presumably. Well, if that's true we'll end up moving from one government that completely refuses to punish criminals to another that cannot for its own ineptitude. Maybe what we need to do is examine each case seperately and figure out what suspension of priviledges would most punish each criminal. I know this is hardly a great example, but it gets my point across. My oldest boy responds much better to some punishments than others. For example, spanking him achieves nothing with him, but because he is such a busybody standing him in the corner and making him stand still is as much as torture to him. When I do this he knows I mean business and that the behavior should not be repeated. I wonder if could/should do the same for criminals? Could this serve as a more effective deterrent?

One of the biggest problems with what you suggest is that there continues to be a inexplicable lack of evidence that jail time actually works as a deterrent...in first instance or to prevent recidivisim. In a situation where this guy is an otherwise law-abiding first offender it is difficult to support the argument that jailing him is going to lead to a better outcome in the end. You need to be mindful that on a 12-15 month jail sentence as the Crown was seeking, this guy would have access to little or no counselling / treatment, AND, he would be kept on a unit with all of the other sex offenders left to discuss amongst themselves how to behave in society once they get out. Jail for criminals often makes the public at large feel better, but it is only because in their minds the sentence is the conclusion of the matter. For the virtually all first offenders, their sentence is just the beginning of who and what they will become to society once they get out. If this guy shows promise to put his abhorrent actions behind him (that is, to rehabilitate and never commit another crime) then making him live with pedophiles and rapists for a year is hardly better for society than putting him on a CSO (but don't forget, I still think the CSO he was put on was too light on conditions). FTA That sounds quite lofty. However, I would doubt the family of his next victim, likely raped during his court alotted time for the "necessities of life" each weekend, would find that too comforting. There are some crimes where (IMO) the rights of the victim should be regarded with higher priority than those of the criminal. If that means a lengthy jail sentence then so be it. We counsel all these people now and there's still a 50% reoffend rate over the 25 year period following each release. If we can't change them, we should keep them isolated from potential victims as long as necessary.

That sentence is wrong--even with the additions you noted. That man should be jailed--period. Sentences such as these are the result of the system itself whether it was a CA who suggested it, a judge that sentenced as such, a defense attourney who requested it, the court that upheld it, etc ... Considering the penchant for appeals all of the above have likely happened. And that's not to mention political intervention which is likely also a factor. I've called the system broken because its priorities are backward. I've called the system broken because it fails to keep the public safe from its most dangerous elements. How many times must a crminal reoffend while out on bail only to be allowed bail on the subsequent crime for lawmakers to realize that bail should be denied at that point? Instead the courts decide against such a measure and then pat themselves on the back for it. I'm sure the family of Jane Creba feels much comfort in their self-assumed righteousness. She was killed by a man out on bail for another crime. Another violent crime. These things don't happen this often in the midst of a system that works. I'm not pretending to have the answer to all the system's ills. But to try to tell me that a system that puts a criminal's freedom ahead of public safety isn't broken -- I don't buy it. Its time a crime meant time. A violent sexual offender should never get house arrest. Jail time is in order.

It is made readily apparent in THIS article, for those that wish to see it. The Liberals and NDP will likely to continue to play ostrich. While the GTA police forces and courts continue to ignore and play down the gun crime problem, and apparently sex crimes as well, they are getting tough on dog owners of all people. That story can be found HERE. Is it just me or are the priorities of our police, the judicial and penal systems way out of whack? We practically ignore murders by the dozen for two years now, we refuse to punish a man for sexually assaulting a woman and almost raping her, but we can ban a breed of dog seemingly overnight? Its gone further in Pickering, ON where they have imposed fines up to $5000 for dog incidents and mandatory training for dogs and owners of dogs known rough breeds. All this for unruly dog owners, but we (as a society) cannot punish the murderers roaming the streets in Toronto or even acknowledge the problem, we refuse to jail a violent sex offender instead giving him house arrest for a year and a further six months probation. Where did we go wrong? Why is it that we can slam down the gauntlet on the en-vogue crime of the day, but it is politically incorrect to do the same for murderers and sex offenders. What's with this nonsensical idea that these people are victims to society the same as their victims were to them? That fixing some social wrong will solve all? We've been enacting social programs by the dozen in this country and still we have not solved the crime problem. Where do we go from here?