gerryhatrick

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1164125941.shtml Unbelievable.

I think you are right, Afgan could be another Iraq if we are all not prepare to go the distance in regards to funding and personal issues.. What do you mean by "personal issues"? And regarding "Afgan could be another Iraq if we are all not prepare to go the distance", are you saying the USA hasn't been going the distance thus far? 130+ thousand troops AT LEAST for the last several years seems like going the distance to me.

His biographer, Paul Wells, sounds pretty unimpressed by it all.

No. So long as the link is still active, search engine robots will follow them. Are you saying that spam companies have search engines that go looking for websites that contain their links? If that's the case then I change my position on it....Greg would be right to want a report so he can zap them.

Shakey, you make him sound like Bush!

Are you serious, Gerry? You want us to discuss an alleged North American unification plot without commenting on whether the guy making the allegation is believable? For godsake kimmy I never said that. Why do you continuously misrepresent me and create these off-topic exchanges? Incredibly I said the exact oppossite! Debate and comment on whether he's believable/ "a wackjob" (I said) or not. Just don't waste the forums time questioning if he's a member of the US Government as has been done (and subsequently wasted even more time and space).

Cameron you know as much as I do from the news. I've posted a link to the story. If you want to pursue that I'd suggest emailing this Republican Congressman and asking him what leads him to say that. My impression is that his opinion is all that has been reported on thus far, and I would be surprised if anyone from the CPC did confirm it.

What a disgusting topic. LifeSiteNews? Sure-thing. Are the Conservatives against anal intercourse for close-in-age relationships? No. OH MY GOD, THE CONSERVATIVES WANT TO ALLOW "ANAL INTERCOURSE" WITH 14 YEAR OLDS!!! LifeSiteNews is into gay-bashing, nothing less. And thus this topic is a gay-bashing, flame-inducing topic.

I know if I was a terrorist intent on blowing up a plane I would try to make myself as conspicuous as possible. Or, so to throw them off, I would do just that! It doesn't say they were "kissing or banging their heads on the floor", it says they were praying. And the suggestion that they would try to make themselves sonspicuous to get kicked off is ridiculous.

Why would you think this has played out in any way, shape, or form yet? This "stronger stance" only occurred days ago. Some think it's showing strength and standing up to the Chinese. Many others see it as pure politics. I think there's no question it was simple politics. He's seeing the election around the corner and so he thinks talking big with the communists over human rights will gain him some sorely needed respect among Canadians.

This is news. It appeared in both my local dailies. Whether it's got any merit or whether this MEMBER OF THE US GOVERNMENT is a wackjob or not is for us to debate and comment on. If the news is too much for some posters and drives them to personal and off topic nonsense then they should refrain from posting.

Why, because it's an opinion you don't share? You're calling lots of people trolls or flame-baiters lately. Global Warming is not an "opinion". It is reality. I'm sorry if you can't or aren't able to see it, but we're not talking about what someone's favorite color is here. LOL, Still angry and still no debate comes from you. Why not take a short vacation from this forum? Happy Thanksgiving! You're new so I'll let you know...off topic personal banter is frowned upon by the admin.

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 if I knew already. There's either be a cop investigation or a funeral. I'm not sure I understand your question. No feedback on this yet jbg....? "There wouldn't be a ratzinger investigation if I knew already." Is that in English, Canadian or French? Fixed for you.

To prevent the second (and the third and the fourth and the fifth and .... and the next who just logged in) person from reporting it too -- obviously. Why would Greg want to be get a million PMs about the same spam message???? You're missing my point. I'm saying encourage NO PM's for spam. None, nadda, zip. Greg will either see them and delete them or they can sink into oblivion.

Well that's one possible position. I am very interested in continuing to communicate and engage the entire regime. Diplomatic respect will enable that, and subsequently human rights and other important issues can be raised. But maybe the Bush approach is the best one.....don't talk to them (except angrily, through the media) and hope that they start toeing the line because you're angry! It's been my impression The Bush approach (like the Clinton approach before him, and the Bush approach before Clinton) has been to suck up to China at every opportunity. Perhaps you can provide some cites of Bush's numerous public criticism of China and it's human rights violations. I was not referring to the Chinese specifically in citing the "Bush approach". The Bush approach is what I've seen with North Korea, Iran, Syria, ect....which is to just practice the megaphone diplomacy and not talk to the nation directly. Sorry for that confusion.

It's not a matter of me insisting. I'm trying to be reasonable about it. You claim that this Republican is not part of the Government, and after I politely point out that he's a Congressman you claimed that he's akin to the NDP. The Executive and Legislative and branches are quite distinct in the US - as you know. And individual legislators are quite independant as compared to Canadian MPs. There are lots of wacko US congressmen out there. They're not even hard to find. Their utterances do not in any way reflect the thinking or policy of the Executive branch, or, in most cases, their own parties. But nevertheless, he IS a part of Government down there.

Why would you want anyone to post that it's been reported? IMO the best is NO posts, NO reporting. Let them sink into oblivion...if you happen to log on at the time (prior to the sink to oblivion) then you can delete.

go right ahead.

Well that's one possible position. I am very interested in continuing to communicate and engage the entire regime. Diplomatic respect will enable that, and subsequently human rights and other important issues can be raised. But maybe the Bush approach is the best one.....don't talk to them (except angrily, through the media) and hope that they start toeing the line because you're angry!

It's not a matter of me insisting. I'm trying to be reasonable about it. You claim that this Republican is not part of the Government, and after I politely point out that he's a Congressman you claimed that he's akin to the NDP.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. He's a Congressman. Is that not part of the Government? Yes, I suppose it is. But that's like saying the NDP speaks for Canadian policy, I don't buy that. Uh, if the NDP was in power perhaps. I appreciate your attempt to downplay this, but could you make it a little more factual. First you claim that the guy isn't in Government. After having that error pointed out to you, you decide to draw a parallel with the NDP...which clearly is NOT a governing party.

Do you have any evidence for this? That there is no environmental lobby? Inherently they'd support the alternative energy sector. Where do you think these hippies get their money? Now you are grasping. If alternative energy companies were giving hundreds of thousands of $'s to environmental groups to push Global Warming then you'd have a point. As it is you have less than nothing with that.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. He's a Congressman. Is that not part of the Government?

I don't believe I said it was to the "detriment" of the U.S. You need to take more care with your accusations against other posters. The interests of Israel are not by definition contrary to American interests. The fact is though that there is an Israel lobby active in Washington. To claim otherwise is just willful ignorance.

Methinks you are having a problem with the concept of satire. It's actually an anti-Muslim movie, if anything.