hades_ibex

I find it remarkable that "we" by definition are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys. It is their fault for the Crusades. We were forced to liberate lands from libraries and cleanliness. It was their fault that our military occupied their lands a hundred years ago. We were forced to civilize them. It is their fault that they have corrupt and reprssive governments. We didn't contribute to this. It is their fault that Iraq was invaded. These guys are hysterical. Look at them burning embassies. You people sound like an abusive husband who blames the wife for the beatings he dishes out. She's hysterical and has it coming.

"Jihad warriors"? Weren't the Crusaders jihad warriors? And "subjected"? Where would you have chosed to live? Moorish Spain or Christian Europe? http://www.africawithin.com/black_history/..._chapter18.html Cordoba was the most wonderful city of the tenth century. It was served by 4,000 public markets and 5,000 mills. Public baths numbered in the hundreds. This amenity was present at a time when cleanliness in Christian Europe was regarded as a sin. Education was universal in Moorish Spain, available to the most humble, while 99% of Christian Europe was illiterate In the tenth and eleventh centuries, public libraries did not exist in Christian Europe, while Moorish Spain had more than seventy, of which the one in Cordoba contained over six hundred thousand manuscripts. Scientific progress in astronomy, chemistry, geography, mathematics, physics, and philosophy flourished in Moorish Spain. Scholars, artist and scientists formed learning societies, while scientific congresses were organized to promote research and to facilitate the spread of knowledge. A brisk intellectual life flourished in all Islamic dominated societies.

There are a lot of people looking through some kind of reality-distortion prism. The Crusades were their fault? Can you explain how the British and French occupations in the 1800s were their fault too? I'm sure they were. We drop bombs from airplanes onto cities, and they are the savages? Someone asked Gandhi what he thinks of British civilization, and his response was, "I think it would be a good idea." Look in the mirror.

Except it is the other way around. We busted into their living room, held a gun to their head, flushed the Koran down the toilet and mocked their religion. They spit in our face, so we call them savages. I know the counter argument could be, "well they started it. Look at 911." This is total ignorance of history. But suppose 911 came out of nowhere. And suppose Iraqis (or Palaestinains, Syrians, Iranians) were behind 911. Did the US Air Force bomb Pendleton NY because Mcveigh was from there? Did the Brits bomb Belfast because the IRA was based there? Can Cuba bomb the US because Luis Posada Carriles is hiding out there? There are proven techniques to deal with terrorism. It essentially involves police work - even international police work. I still here people saying "This is war!". It didn't have to be.

I think you are all totally missing the point. You parrot this ideological nonsense that we all live in this utopian Western society where there is freedom of press and expression and all that. And by golly why can't the muslims just be the same? We've even got 200,000 troops in the area trying to force them to be like us. Dammit, don't they get it? If they just assimilated, they would be so much better. Has it ever occured to you that we have no right to take this view? If we just left them alone, they would sort this stuff out themselves - or maybe they wouldn't and there would be a period of civil wars or revolutions or whatever. Of course the problem is that most of the oil is there. We cannot leave them alone. (Would the US have invaded Iraq even if its biggest commodity were radishes and not oil? Only a few delusional people would answer yes to this). I reckon the Arab is entitled to be p*ssed off with the West.

Could I put 0.0097% cyanide into your morning coffee? Every morning. It is only 0.0097%

I'm not saying that there are any practical reasons to design it this way. But I could imagine at the last hour a popular independent (but not so popular that he would have a chance of winning) deciding he wants his $1.79 per vote to go to, say, the Greens. So the Greens could pull him into their party even though there is already a Green on the ballot. Or a party might have a point to make, and so they throw a couple of candidates onto the ballot in a particular riding. Maybe it is a protest against FPP. Or maybe there is some marketing gimmick for doing this.

Well, if you use your imagination you could conceive of some scenarios where a party might want to run more than one candidate in a riding. But it isn't that important. I just wondered if you could do it. I tried Elections Canada already, but didn't see the answer. I'll check again later. Thanks.

We are forgetting that Exxon Mobil just posted the highest profits ever for a company: about $4 million per hour ($36 billion on the year) - up 43%. Chevron, Shell and others are having similar booms.

So it is against party rules but not Elections Canada rules? I could imagine a smaller party that has no chance to win, but might be able to maximize their party vote (and their federal funding in subsequent years), by putting more than one name on the ballot.

Hello, I've just joined this forum. Thought I would say hi, and kick this off with a (silly?) question. Here goes: Is it against the rules for a party to run more than one candidate in a riding during election time? Of course you could ask "now, why would they do this?" Just wondering.