gc1765

Did you read the article? "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." Guns are much more effective weapons than expired chemical weapons.

I already debunked that myth in post #4.

He is proud that he supported the bombing and killing of more than 1,000 people?

Except when, if there wasn't a problem, the "science" and thus the "scientist" wouldn't be funded. That creates a lot of pressure to find a problem to solve. There's lots of money to be made in finding a "crisis" hear, even though it has the look and feel of a science fictio novel. Which is perhaps why Michael Chrichton, a sci-fi writer himself, recognizes "man-made global warming" as fantasy. If you want scientific funding, you are going to have to convince other scientists that your idea has merit. It is scientists, not politicians, who determine who gets the funding. Scientific funding has not increased as a result of global warming studies, so the money spent on studying it has to come from other areas (and thus taken away from other scientists). So, the idea that scientists are making up global warming to recieve funding doesn't make any sense.

And when it reaches the atmosphere, that water vapour condenses again. Humans aren't going to change the amount of water vapour in the air (unless of course the temperature of the earth changes through global warming).

It's very clever reverse psychology, obviously perpetrated by the left-wing in order to dissuade people from voting for conservative parties.

That would be nice. Do you think that is what they will do?

I agree. Until the kids are old enough to decide for themselves, who is going to decide for them? It would make sense that it's the parents choice.

I thought you were vehemently opposed to personal insults? At first I thought perhaps it was a simple spelling mistake, but seeing as how you've done it more than once I can only assume that's not the case...especially for someone who is so critical of everyone else's spelling.

Link Do you think that was the appropriate thing to do? How does the right for a woman to choose compare with the right to resist medical treatment after birth based on religious grounds? Are there similar arguments for both scenarios? Are you opposed to one but not the other (abortion vs. this case)? Comments?

Why would you trust a poll from a website that openly declares itself "conservative"?

Ricki, everyone makes spelling mistakes...though I do find it quite funny that you made a spelling mistake in the same post that you pointed out WDW's mistake.

Why would the Liberals allow the Conservatives to use their footage in their attack ads? And why would it be an issue? It's not as if the debates weren't public...they were on TV, I watched them.

You are probably right, though my memory is not so good as I wasn't such a political junkie back then. I do remember the ads making fun of Chretien in '93 though. I cringed when I saw the Liberals go negative in 2006, and it likely contributed somewhat to their defeat. The Conservatives certainly weren't any better. My favourite was the one where the Conservatives accused the Liberals of planning attack ads WITHIN their own attack ad. I couldn't believe the hypocrisy. Worse still were the debates...I can't remember how many times Harper talked about 13 years of corruption, 13 years of inaction etc....

I think it shows weakness to focus on your opponents weaknesses rather than your own strengths. If you believe in your policies you should have no problem highlighting them, instead of highlighting the mistakes of your opponent.

I thought you were American?

I've never heard anyone on the left defend suiciding bombing.

Who has ever been manipulated into having an abortion or donating stem cells??

The media did the exact same thing for the Liberal attack ads before they came out during the 2006 election campaign.

Not allowing homosexuals to marry is what made the West a great place to live and the rest of the world a shithole??

Good point...but I take it from this post that you are not so much opposed to the fact that Arar received a settlement as you are to the fact that the civil servants were not punished? I agree with that, if it can be proven that civil servants made mistakes then absolutely they should be dealt with, but that doesn't change the question of whether Arar should receive compensation (of course the actual dollar amount is another issue - and I agree it is very high).

At least some of the women would be relatively safe. I don't belive that given the choice between high risk of disease and low risk of disease that very many people will choose high risk. Anyways, if you think nothing is going to change, the question is...why should it be illegal?

The brothels could be privately owned (or in addition to government owned), in which case it's simple economics. There is an inherant risk in the black market which would require prositutes to charge more for the same services to make up for that risk. Combine that with the fact that customers are going to prefer legal prostitutes to illegal ones, as it would be safer for them as well...no one in their right mind is going to pay more for a service that is more dangerous to them.

Good to hear.

If I can play devil's advocate here... If you own a car, everytime someone else crashes, you pay money through insurance. Doctors have malpractice insurance to protect them financially from mistakes, and we all pay for it. One could argue that the people responsible were in a position (much like doctors) where the potential for mistakes can happen. Would you feel better if the government paid for some sort of malpractice insurance for government employees, which would cover a situation like this? Now, if someone did something intentionally to cause Arar to be tortured (which from the little I know about this case, I believe that is what happened) they should certainly be disciplined. But that doesn't mean compensation shouldn't be paid (Incidentally, if a doctor were to intentionally injure a patient would they still be covered under malpractice insurance? If not, then I guess my point isn't valid).