gerryhatrick

Where is the link for this topic? How do we know you have details (most of which are missing) correct? How do we know your shrill outrage is justified without some objective facts? LINK!!!

I agree with the defence department. Someone needs to give us a break in the future... sooner the better. I disagree. The debate was held (what was it, 4 hours? 2?) and the vote was two more years. Canadians now should bear the brunt of that decision. As well, it does not good moving our troops from region to region to quickly. Maybe it will save some Canadian lives, but it can't help the mission. Just when they're getting to know the area and the people they get replaced with other NATO nationals....no good.

dog, actually. But I know that's what you meant. Damn f key always getting in the way when you want that g key!

My point is that if your kids were abused would you want them to be questioned as part of an "investigation" of the priest or would you want them just to be left alone to recover? Even if the investigation were done at the Papal rather than Diocese level? The bloody investigation should be done at the POLICE level, and my kids would have probably told what happened to them because I would have explained to them that by doing so they would be brave and save other kids from suffering as they did. It's pretty simple....if you're telling people in your organization to withold knowledge of abuse allegations and any evidence regarding them that comes your way you are obstructing justice.

You misunderstand. I have been accused of cross posting for posting a topic that was based upon the same news that was presented in a post. The accusations continued unabated over this particular situation, although I repeatedly pointed out I was posting a new topic and the existance of a similar post WITHIN an unrelated topic did not constitute cross-posting. The complainer stuck with the accusation in spite of the explanation and would not take his complaint to the admin (whom he thinks are part of a leftist conspiracy) so I was forced to ask the question here. Post and topic, two different things for this conversation. To answer your comment though, I think it's subjective. You have to judge the topics as being new and unique news or not. It's not enough, for example, to say there are two Garth Turner topics, therefore it's cross-posting. One of them deals specifically with him being "turfed", the other with quotes from his blog. Very different topics based upon different news pieces. As the admin says, cross-posting is an IDENTICAL thread.

Please don't badger me ... or my friends. I am hardly badgering you. If you want to see what badgering is look at your last 2-3 hundred posts to me.

More great stuff from http://www.garth.ca/weblog/ : http://www.garth.ca/weblog/ This guy is quite a writer.

Good grief, I'd say this has legs! Check out this CTV story on it: The blog musings of MP Garth Turner: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

His comment on Global Warming 2 days ago was pretty courageous, and I don't doubt cost him his place in the party. It was harsh, but true.

It's too bad for Garth, but good for Liberals. It's further proof to everyone - supporters and otherwise - that the Harper "Administration" (as Garth apparently called it!) wants only party robots. This story has legs, methinks.

Actually, in the 1970's the crackpots argued there was man-made global cooling. To equate that with the situation we face now is either dishonest or ignorant. What you heard about in the 70's was a news story or two on a speculation by a scientist or two. It was never a fully accepted reality in the scientific community as Global Warming is. And you're not an idiot, so I think you know everything I'm telling you here, so it's a mystery why you'd bring that up in an attempt to cast doubt on the reality of Global Warming.

From your Strategic Council post: So what does that mean? Does that negate a straight up poll on parties?

Now answer my question. How would you feel if your kids' identities were revealed publicly as part of a Ratzinger "investigation" if he decided to vigorously investigate? You seriously asked that question before? A Ratzinger "investigation" revealing my kids....hmmm. Have to think about that one. Would I already know myself? There wouldn't be a ratzinger investigation of I knew already. There's either be a cop investigation or a funeral. I'm not sure I understand your question.

Reminds of a discussion I had with some friends who work on the Hill about Dhalla. "Beautiful face ... dumptruck arse." Do we really need more people with big butts in Parliament? Nice friends.

Yep. Lotsa hate these days.

Cross posting is simply posting the identical posting in multiple areas of the Internet or in this forum. What you are refering to is ok - so long as the new thread isn't identical to the original thread. Every attempt should be made to ensure that a thread - dealing with each topic - does not already exist. Multiple threads on the same topic just clutter up the forums. Thakyou Greg. Just to be clear, if a POST (not a thread) refers to a news event, for example, and then I start a THREAD concerning that news event, that's not cross posting?

This is a pathetic topic.

Ahhh, but you ignored it all together and never even mentioned it. Why would I mention that poll in this topic? It was posted as another topic. That would be cross posting. It's the polls Ricki, not my posts. I understand you have a fixation on me, but I'm not the one doing the polling.

I'm not a parent, but I'd be a little pissed. Being said, what actually happened isn't what you stated. How is it different? Ratzinger signed a letter instructing Bishops to conduct their own investigations into sexual abuse allegations and instructing them that evidence can be kept secret for 10 years past the age of majority of the accuser.

Ah, but that poll was Oct 10-12. This new one is Oct 12-15. And most of the "constant publicity" has been negative. One more poll in a week or so will show a true trend, if there is one.

I agree with you on that. Let's responsibly reduce our C02 output as much as is humanly possible. Let's put all of our brain power into doing it. Let's elect leaders who speak about it as a priority and have solid proposals for doing it. It would be hard to damage our society more than Global Warming will.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home I could offer a bevy of reasons that would explain why I think this is happening, but I'll just point out one. Ok, two. The freeze out of the press and the continuous finger pointing at the Liberals. Canadians are starting to see this Government as petulant and immature, and that's quite the turn off.

I'm sorry cyber, but I've been through it all before on other forums. I've presented links that showed the science and the consensus. Whatever link I provide, there's a skeptics link from some industry-funded liar...or some general non-specific argument like "all scientists are being paid" for example. It's an endless dance and I won't do it any longer. The debate is over...global warming is happening and we're causing it. We need to take action. Maybe you disagree, that's fine. If so, the vast majority of Canadians disagree with you, which is why I don't think this topic needs to go down the road you wish to take it. This topic is about the PM and his comments which offer hope to the skeptics.

I reject the premise of your question. Look, let's discuss the topic. I'm all too happy to see the skeptics hopeful over the PM's view. I hope they sing it from the rooftops. Canadians need to understand how seriously this PM takes Global Warming so they can make an informed decision at the balot box.

I've voted Liberal in the past. I even voted PC before. Never have voted for the CPC, and until they undergo a transformation by wringing out the far-rightwingers they're currently infested with I can't see myself voting for them. edit: what I've seen of Rae so far I like. I'm not wild about Layton, but if Iggy got the leadership it would be hard not to go NDP.