gc1765

Going in circles?

Yes, you can decide whether you want to change Al Gore's words or not.

If you think it's the same thing, then stop using the word "invent"

You did. Unless you can show me where Al Gore used the word "invent"

I've gotta agree with both Riverwind and Who's Doing What.. Yes, most Americans aren't that stupid, and they probably have to talk to quite a few people before fiding some idiots. And yes, there are a few idiots in Canada who would also come up with stupid remarks. ...but that doesn't mean it's not absolutely hilarious. I don't believe it has to do with anti-Americanism, or being jealous of the U.S., I think it's simply meant to be humorous, period.

...and yet it's Ok for the Gore-haters to change his words...

Well, I am convinced. I have had it with the Liberals. I can't believe I actually considered voting for them, but there is NO WAY I am voting for them now. Seriously, eating a hot dog with a fork and knife!? That's about the lowest thing anyone could possibly do. Raise my taxes, support the war in Iraq, I don't give a damn, but for the love of God, DO NOT EAT A HOT DOG WITH A KNIFE AND FORK.

The Globe and Mail appears to disagree: Link "QUEBEC — The parties in Quebec's budget crisis seemed to cast their positions in concrete Friday, leaving little evidence of a way out that could avoid the second provincial election in four months." ... "We will cut taxes," Mr. Charest yelled, in case any doubt remained." Then again, it also says the Liberals are behind in the polls: "Recent polls have also showed Liberals lagging badly behind both the ADQ and the PQ."....so maybe not.

You think the National Post is racist? Anyways, I need a subscription to view the whole article. From the caption I can't see how this is related to Gerard Kennedy.

I think Ricki Bobbi said it best:

That's kind of what I would have suspected, but it's nice to hear confirmation on that. Hmmm good question. I would have thought so too, but then again, I would have thought he would be dead a long time ago. Yet, he was releasing videos years after 9/11. Although, I can't remember seeing any videos of him recently, I wonder when the last videotape was released?

Here..... and here.... I still don't see where I said al qaeda is not being pursued. I said it appears to me to make more sense to go after al qaeda more so than the taliban. Try to keep the quotes in context, it is you who argued that we are in Afghanistan to get rid of the taliban rather than al qaeda. I'm asking why that is the case? Why should we focus on the taliban (as YOU implied) rather than al qaeda? I never said anything about what is actually happening over there. That's precisely why I asked the question earlier, about how much of our efforts are focused on the taliban and how much are focused on al qaeda. I was hoping someone more intelligent than myself on the topic (for example, armyguy) could answer that question. I don't believe I've ever argued one way or another whether we should be in Darfur. I simply asked armyguy why he thought Afghanistan was a more worthy cause than Darfur? He had a very intelligent response with some good points.

Where did I say al qaeda isn't being pursued? I simply asked how much of our efforts are going towards eliminating al qaeda, and how much of our efforts are going towards keeping the taliban out of power. I have yet to get a response. Of course not. I never said as much. What I am saying though, is that if this is about reducing the threat to Canada & allies, wouldn't it make more sense to go after al qaeda (ie bin laden) more so than the taliban?

Care to show a little civility when debating? Why would we go after the threat enablers rather than the threat itself? If some guy goes on a killing spree and then hides out in his neighbors house, who do you think it's more important to catch: the guy who did the killing, or the neighbor?

And why don't we want them to regain control? Because they are the threat? I always thought al qaeda was the threat.

Canadians were not targeted on 9/11. Because of our involvement in Afghanistan, it is possible that we will be specifically targeted. That being said, who are the enemies that are a threat to Canada? The taliban or al-qaeda? How many of our troops are specifically looking for al-qaeda leaders like bin laden?

Serveral reasons, The first is we have already choosen our cause, that being Afgan, with our limited resources we can not help everyone, nor does it make sense to drop everything and run to the next project or mission because it is a more worthy cause. If that was the case that is all we would be doing is running around not really accomplishing anything. We have already invested a huge price in the Afgan mission, both in dollars and lives. and are just now seeing the fruit of those labours, does it make sense it just give up on all that when the outcome is still uncertain. It takes huge amounts of cash to restart a mission any where, not only to build new infra structure, clean water sources, air strips, fuel and ammo dumps the list is endless, this monies are always taken out of DND's budget and although it is growing it can not afford to be set back by hundrds of millions just to set up a new operating base. For the military, we already know the enemy and how they operate, we are finally getting the equipment we need to effectivily fight them. yes it is true some of this equipment can be used in Sudan, but jungle or savana type terrain requires different tactics and equipment, which would put us back to square one, giving the bad guys a huge advantage. something you don't want when your outnumbered in a very hostile enviroment. Darfur will only happen if Sudan agrees to it, And that is not going to happen, they are quit aware that western militaries are very busy and occupied at this time, and could not mount a suffient force to make a regime change. and with only 3000 UN troops there now, in a area the size of france they can operate as they please. This will force the UN to sit and watch thier actions as they know any force will be a toothless one, unable to back up and threat of use of force... It might have a better chance under NATO, they may even be able to get more numbers from the Euro's, that part is uncertain. And finally in Afgan we have a numerical advantage over the enemy, plus we have all the tools of war already assembled. it makes a big difference in sucess or failure. Good post. Thanks.

If anything, being in Afghanistan probably puts Canada more at risk for terrorism.

What, in your opinion, makes Afghanistan a more worthy cause than Darfur?

Excellent post.

Yep, the best way to counter someone misleading people is by...misleading people

It could be from former Conservative voters, or it could be from former Liberal voters (where the Liberal votes are in turn replaced by former Conservative voters). It's likely a bit of both, but I'm not sure how that is relevant.

How does that undermine Dawkins' claims about the evils of religions? Sunnis & Shiites (or Protestants & Catholics) have different beliefs (even if they are considered the same religion in a broader sense), and each believes without a doubt that they are correct and everyone who does not believe what they do is wrong.

I think it's hard to defend the atheist position. It's about as hard to prove that there is no God as it is to prove that George Bush is not actually an alien from another planet. I don't believe in God because I have no reason to (i.e. I haven't seen any evidence for a God), but that doesn't mean I can prove that God does not exist, just as I would not be able to prove that George Bush is not in fact an alien (though I have no reason to believe he is). So, I'd call myself agnostic. However, I think there is a distinction to made with respect to being an atheist (in general) and being an atheist towards a specific religion. I am an atheist to Christianity. There are many ways to prove that the bible, on which Christianity is based, is not correct. In fact, it can be "proven" wrong. So, I guess that would make me an atheist towards Christianity. I could probably find flaws with other religions as well. That does not, however, rule out the possibility of God(s). There may very well be a God, and it may even resemble the Christian God to some extent, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that God, if it exists, is not the "Christian God" as described in the bible.

Actually, they are right about where they were during the 2006 election...but support for the Green party has gone up quite a bit. It's likely that a lot of those new Green votes came from the NDP.