gc1765

Of course you can still run a candidate...the ONLY difference is that candidate would be labeled "independent" instead of "Liberal". I didn't see that part, but I don't take issue with Layton insulting Dion's environmental record...

To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised that number is not higher.

If that was what Jack said, I would agree with him. But Jack's beef was that this was some sort of "undemocratic" backroom deal, depriving Canadians of a choice in the election. That is B.S.

Actually, polynewbie is a global warming denier. Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it...

Looks like your prediction came true: Link

I'll repeat a post I made in another thread: "Just heard Jack Layton complaining that the Liberals are depriving people of choice by not running a candidate. Nice try Jack. The NDP might not be such a bad option if this guy wasn't the leader. Gues what Jack, I'm not running in the next election either, does that mean I am depriving the people in my riding of a choice in the election? " Seriously though, someone please explain to me how this is undemocratic. Voters in that riding can still vote for the Conservatives, NDP, Green, any minor parties/independents... If you're still not satisfied with those choices, run yourself! What if an independent ran with "liberal" values? Is that still undemocratic? Come on...

Just heard Jack Layton complaining that the Liberals are depriving people of choice by not running a candidate. Nice try Jack. The NDP might not be such a bad option if this guy wasn't the leader. Gues what Jack, I'm not running in the next election either, does that mean I am depriving the people in my riding of a choice in the election?

Well, actually, he lost power because under the constitution, he was not allowed to seek a third term (kinda like the U.S.). The reason why reformists lost is debatable. I'm sure it has something to do with feeling threatened, and electing a hardliner who they thought would best defend against foreign threats. See post #58 in this thread. I'm not sure whether or not the 2004 elections were rigged or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. I'll be sure to read more about it, thanks . P.S. by rigging, do you mean banning candidates, or was there a problem with the actual voting? I know a lot of candidates were banned... I agree, it would have been nice to see another reformer elected. I have faith that when Iranians stop feeling threatened, that is when all of this "axis of evil" rhetoric ends, they will re-enter the path to reform. This is yet one more reason why the Iraq war was such a huge mistake and it is kinda related to my signature.

You tell me.

So, I take it you agree with me that Khatami and his supporters are moderates, i.e. 80% of Iran? The link says the crowd was 60,000 people. It doesn't say anything about how many of them were chanting.

Good question. How about this one: If Iran builds a nuclear bomb, and they leave it lying around without any sort of security, and al qaeda comes along and steals it and attacks the U.S./Canada, should we retaliate against Iran?

How does this relate to our argument about moderate vs. extremist Muslims? I'm not saying they weren't chanting it, I'm saying prove to me that everyone was chanting it. In other words, you are making two different claims: 1) That at least some people were chanting death to america 2) Thateveryone was chanting death to america. I take no issue with #1, you proved that quite nicely, thanks. I take issue with claim #2. Please prove number 2 is true. Your links that you have provided so far have not done this. There's no point in repeating myself. You can respond to the comments I have already written, otherwise I assume you have no rebuttal.

That's pretty much what I was going to say. Personally, I don't see much sense in the gun registry, but I'm sure the RCMP has a much better idea of it's effectiveness than I do. I say give the RCMP "X" amount of dollars and let them decide if they want to use that money for a gun registry or to hire more police officers, (insert other ways to prevent crime), etc...

And that point being...? I'm not playing any games, I asked you a very simple question. You claimed that every single person in the stadium was chanting death to america (or whatever) but your links do not say that every person in the stadium was chanting. It's pretty hard to even imagine how the reporters would determine such a thing. Did they go around the entire stadium to make sure that everyone was chanting? Somehow I doubt it...but if you want to make such a claim, you are going to have to back it up. Why don't you go back and read what I wrote to M. Dancer.

I never said he did.

Where did the reporters say every single person in the stadium was chanting death to America/Britain? What does that have to do with Khatami or his supporters?

Do you think it's wrong to chant "death to Iran" but it's ok to carry out in practice?

Actions speak louder than words... CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 19-21, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it?" Favor 26% Oppose 68% Unsure 6% "If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?" Support 52% Oppose 37% Unsure 11% "All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the United States made the right decision in going to war in Iraq or made a mistake in going to war in Iraq?" Right decision 39% Mistake 59% Unsure 2% Sources: http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm and http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm 39% (or 52% or 26%, take your pick) of 300 million is how many??

How do you know every person in the stadium was chanting "death or America (or Britain)"? Were you there? How about the nearly 80% of Iranians who re-elected This Guy

How is it irrelevant? You take issue with "death to America" or "death to Britain", but you seem to have no problems with "death to Iran"...

Of course they would. Just as millions of moderate Muslims would feel uncomfortable being labeled as one of the members of the "axis of evil"....especially when the only other "axis of evil" member without nuclear weapons was invaded. What is your point?

Ok, let's pretend there are millions of people who want "death to America"...how many millions of Americans would support a war against Iran?

Fingerprinting helps the police solve crimes. The question is, can the gun registry do the same?

Should they be held responsible if they knowingly give their keys to a drunk? Or knowingly give a criminal a gun?