Rue

I am going to respond directly to you Keng and your comments which I place in quotes; "Where did I say gays were Nazis?" "QUOTE(kengs333 @ Oct 24 2007, 05:19 PM) What does the fact that almost every kid said "so what?" mean--it means that they've been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that homosexuality is normal. And that's how it works. Always go after the kids. That's what the Nazis did to perfection, this is no different. If you were in Berlin in 1938 and you would have asked children what they thought of Hitler, they all would have said he was a great man. Why? Because they were brainwashed to believe this." You also stated earlier; "The commonalities in the rise of Nazism and the rise of the "gay rights" movement are quite startling." So now I will spell it out for you in clear terms. When you use the above terms of reference you equate gays to Nazis pure and simple and no trying to deny what you said. Its there for everyone to read and the fact that you now try to couch it and pretend it is something different then what you intended shows one thing to me-you are either playing me for the fool or are engaging in denial. Which one is it Keng? "I'm suggesting that there are similarities in way that their respective ideologies crept into the psyche of their respective societies." The above words may be couched Keng but they equate what gays are and what Nazis are as engaging in the same behaviour and that Sir is what you have been called out on and I state again, it is unacceptable and utterly nonsensical for to follow such reasoning equates what gays are to society what Nazis once were. Its absolutely reprehensible and hateful because you know you are equating the right for gay people to exist and be treated with dignity and respect as being Nazi like. "I'm not sure they really were all that thorough in rounding up gays; labelling someone gay was a convenient way of finding an excuse to send them to the concentration camps--or to murder them outright. " That is precisely the problem with you Keng. You make statements clearly indicating you do not know the subject matter you profess. Perhaps instead of saying you are not really sure, then none-the-less making comments that assume what happened, you make an effort to find out what the Nazis did to gays because it is precisely because you do not read history, you repeat it in such an ignorant and odious manner to suggest the victims of Nazism are Nazis. I am glad I have this opportunity to show gentiles why for me the holocaust is so important, not just because of what it did to my people. but because of what it did to others such as Gays, Romanoes, Jehova's Witnesses, certain Christians both Catholic and Lutheran, socialists, communists, 7th Day Advenists and the disabled to name a few. I will not let this man take the name of the holocaust and its victims in vain and this is where my wrath is coming from. "Do you remember the night of the long knives? Truth be told, it sounds as though there was a great deal of sexual deviance among the high ranking Nazis--not that they were evil or sinful as it was." This Sir typifies why I must ask just what happened to you that your cognitive process works this way. Does this mean all hetero-sexuals are evil because of the crimes committed by hetero-sexuals? What kind of reasoning is this other then you slurring innocent people because you think you can blame them morally for the actions of other humans? "Well, just because a group of people was persecuted and victimized, doesn't mean that they themselves can't turn around and act the same way when they have control of a society." Again your comments are quite something. You now suggest that gays have turned around and acted the same way as Nazis. You again repeat the slur, but then go on to suggest they are engaged in a conspiracy to control society. You have yet to provide one shred of objective evidence to indicate just how gays are engaging in their conspiracy and I would suggest Sir the reason for that is because this simply has been fabricated by you, its you projecting subjective feelings outwords-your perception of gay conspiracy comes from within you and perhaps Sir it is time you ask why. "Israel is a perfect example of this, wouldn't you agree? " You now use holocaust inversion not just for gays but for Israelis and that Sir I again repeat is odious and nonsensical. Your attempt to turn victims into victimizers and equivalate Israelis to Nazis is as repulsive as your repeated exercise to do that with gays. " Or what about all of those Jews who went along with the Soviets?" So now we switch from homophobia to anti-semitism. Well you are consistent. The group you hate may change, but you engage in the exact same negative generalizations to assign moral culpability to all Jews for the actions presumably of the Soviet Communist Party and Joseph Stalin. So Jews are now not just Nazis but rotten commmies to. Again Keng your appreciation of history shows someone who engages in stereotypes. The vast majority of Communists were not Jewish. In fact what you are doing is suggesting if someone was of Jewish ancestry and was a member of the Soviet Communist party. then all Jews can be smeered and labelled as victimizers of non communists because of this. What absolute nonsense and absolute nonsense for two reasons; i-for a Jew to be a communist they would have to renounce being a Jew; ii-the Soviet communist system since its inception carried out numerous anti-semitic purges accusing Jews of being Zionists and rounding them up and sending them to concentration camps to be beaten. tortured and starved to death. Russian Jews left the Soviet Union precisely for that reason and no Sir they did not all go to Israel, many went to Canada, the U.S. and Western Europe as well. "Didn't the Soviets murder something like 30 million people? " And so using your reason because the Soviets did this, Jews are victimizers. Do you think before you write. 20 million Ukrainians starved because of Stalin's deliberate decision to starve Ukrainian peasants to death. In that same country the Ukrainians also sided with the Nazis in World War Two and Jews in the Ukraine were exterminated en masse. Its a difficult history for Ukrainian Jews who certainly do not identify with the anti-semite and mass murderer Joseph Stalin and what he did to the Ukrainians, but also have memories of what Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers did to them. Your lack of sensitivity and ignorance of the situation of course is of no surprise given how you talk of gays. "There's nothing hateful in anything that I've written--you're just twisting things because I don't see things your way." No sir I twist nothing. I stick the mirror right back in your face. There is no twisting going on, it is a direct repetition of your words and the consequences of the pain your ignorance creates.

Absolute and utter bullshit and I call you out on it.. Produce your documentation to prove the above. Its absolute fabrication.

Let's rpely to Keng shall we? "What does the fact that almost every kid said "so what?" mean--it means that they've been brainwashed or intimidated into believing that homosexuality is normal. " Do you really think for one second someone is sitting down with children and showing them pictures of Elton John and repeating to them "gay is good or I will kill you gay is good or I will kill you" until they crack? "And that's how it works. Always go after the kids." Do tell us how you found this out. Do share with us your information. You like to make sweeping generalized statements but provide no basis for them, don't you. "it means....that's how..always go after..." And just where did you obtainyour insights. Do tell us the information you rely on to state so categorically and absolutely that; 1-being gay is "abornmal"; 2-people are brainwashing children as to gays" 3-gays are involved in a conspiracy to recruit children. "That's what the Nazis did to perfection, this is no different. " You equate Gays to Nazis? You dare suggest gays are going around rounding up hetero-sexuals and sending them to concentration camps to exterminate them simply because they are straight? What a bigoted, hateful and idiotic thing to say. Are you even aware the Nazis rounded up and exterminated gays? As we Jews were required to wear Stars of David they were forced to wear Pink Triangles. How dare you suggest people who were group murdered by Nazis are Nazis. More to the point how dare you compare a gay to a Nazi. Just what gives you the right to be so hateful against gays to dare suggest they go around mass exterminating people and preaching doctrines of hatred? Do you even know what a Nazi is and what they stood for? "If you were in Berlin in 1938 and you would have asked children what they thought of Hitler, they all would have said he was a great man. Why? Because they were brainwashed to believe this" Yes what a brilliant comparison. As we speak gays have taken over Canada. They have banned any opposition in Parliament and suspended the constitution. They have implemented a secret police force (gaystapo), as well as a special elite force(liSSp) devoted to their gay dictator (Stevie Harper)who runs the country. They go around rounding up hetero-sexuals in the night and ship them off to gas chambers or place them in work camps and starve them to death. They also invade countries and set up elaborate systems of collaboration with local gays to spy on and arrest and torture hetero-sexuals. Gay pride day parades-they are the Nurmberg rallies. The Ranbow flag-its as evil as the Nazi flag and swastika emblem. You figured it all out. Someone needs to say this to you-you are spiteful and hateful of a group of people. So the question must be asked of you. Since you feel it is acceptable to assign motive to all gays and make negative generalizations about all gays and display such sentiments openly-you establish the precedent that we can do the same about you, i.e., at least speculate on your motives. What do you think compels you to make such statements? So when reading such hatred I find myself asking, just what feelings inside you are so conflicted they need to project such feelings outwords in the guise of dialogue but which in fact is simply you making statements based on your subjective feelings of hatred? You want to display such feelings openly which target people for hatred then pay the price for that-and that is me and anyone else having to read your comments responding by stating in our subjective opinion just as you have yours, we think you express such feelings because you are nothing more then an angry sexually conflicted person so you project your confusion outwords and target gays because they trigger off something in you-that you are not comfortable with. You want to call gays Nazis and suggest what there motives are, then I will do the same with you. How does it feel? How does it feel when you are treated the same way you treat gays? How does it feel when I say I think you are abnormal and are trying to force your sexual feelings on others? How do you feel being told you are exactly what you accuse gays of? Think its helpful? psst, since no doubt you believe in God be careful now, I hear from good sources God is bisexual. Satan? From what I hear he sleeps with anything as well. Either way you may have a problem.

I am no sure how telling people you dislike yourself establishes any point you are otherwise trying to make.

I think Capricorn hit the nail on the head. Rice is limited in what she can say otherwise an admission of culpability exposes the US government to a whopper of a law suit. I would imagine some American Sharks are trying to track him down in BC as we speak. From what I hear he just wants to be left alone.

I respect his opinion very much. May not agree with it but I see what he is trying to say. I am not sure though if someone is actually keeping the list if you want to call it a list based on anything other then guessing what sounds like a Jewish name. I would find it hard to believe the PC or any political party is hacking into or buying religious profile information from the Canadian Jewish Congress or say Catholic Archdiosese of Toronto (sorry if I spelled that wrong). I would be concerned if a charity or non profit organizatoon ro cultural organization gave my name to a political party without my consent-but that would be a problem between me and that organization. In regards to the political party writing me, I would simply see it as an attempt to try solicit my vote or pander to me, which does nto frighten me at all or concern me because I can simply throw the thing away. I think in my personal opinion, there's a huge difference keeping information on people to harm them. If someone could show any of us sending a greeting card sets a precedent for facism I would like to know. I don't think any of us want a police state but for the life of me keeping lists of ethnic sounding names if that is what is in fact being done, is what we do in democracies is it not? Is it not an elected poltiician's job to be accountable to the people they serve? How can they be accountable if they dont' know who they are and some times try personalize that relationship? Look unless I change my last name to Smith from my very obvious Jewish name, I get unsolicited mail from certain charities which may be assuming I care about certain issues. I don't know. Then again I get lots of World Vision mail too. whatever happened to throwing things in the garbage (after shredding it of course-although I note in CSI Miami they easily glue back together shredded materials)? As for privacy, to me the laws on privacy are intended to protect information yes, but there has to be some common sense when such a law is invoked otherwise it becomes an exercise in absurdity. No I don't want you having information as to my medical illnesses but if you find out I am circumsized I think I can handle that if it gets out.

No but you clearly are someone who takes the time to try find out about our history and constitution. I commend you for that in your comments.

You are right. Thanks. I meant no disrespect to women at all. I use the same Freudian comments to men. I forget its taken as sexually offensive. I hate all humans equally. That said, I should have simply stated she has too much time on her hands. But getting back to the other part of your issue which I am being serious on does it really trivilaize the privacy issue? That is what I am questioning you on now. I am not sure if it does. In fact maybe it does precisely because she has made an issue of such a trivial issue and it focuses away from more serious issues as to privacy. Again I keep repeating what Leafless says (he must be having a good laugh at that) but do you really think this was anything more then someone looking for Jewish sounding names from an electroral list? You really believe the PC party keeps lists of people based on ethnicity? First of all how would they do that? Get it from B'nai B'Rith or Canadian Jewish Congress? Such organizations would never do such a thing. Seriously. So I am serious now, you really believe someone's privacy was deliberately violated? I just don't see it. To me its a basic issue of ethnic pandering that all politicians do and with due respect I think is what they should do. I don't see that as a bad thing at all its not meant to be anything but acknowledge who people are. Its just being polite or sensitive or what-ever other sweet word we want to use. Is it manipulative? Why? Are you manipulative if you wish me Rosh Hashanah? Am I manipulative because I say Merry Christmas? I mean where do we draw the line with common courtesy. Can I also tell you something else-I don't think for a second we Jewish people are so stupid that we will only vote for Harper because he sends us A Rosh Hashanah card and I do not think for a second he does either. I mean he may have a fat head but come on. When we Jews vote its not simply because someone is pro-Israel or sends us a card. We have many reasons but please don't ask me to think the Tories were being anti-semitic or manipulative simply because they showed some sensitivity and ethnic pandering. That is their job to pander to people. Pandering can be insincere and maybe syrupy and smarmy but that is what politicians do. I criticize Harper on some issues as Old and Bold knows I think he's a crass manipulator when it comes to law and order and senate reform. On the other hand, I find his foreign policy and handling of Afghanistan freshreshingly blunt and direct and a hell of a lot more honest then the LIberals. He could have but chooses not to couch his words with certain unpopular issues. So I mean to me he has good and bad things. I don't like his Trudeau like arrogance. I don't like his insincerity over certain issues but on others I find him blunt and candid. I will criticize the man and his party but on the merit of their issues not on something like this. Its a cheap shot. The way I was brough up if for what-ever reason someone is polite to you, you don't snap at them and accuse them of being a pervert because they smiled at you. Not everyone who smiles is a pervert. Some of them may simply have gas or are trying to be polite or their dentures don't fit.

Hey Old bet you would never see me defending the Conservatives huh? admit it. But fair is fair. Lol.

I have removed the offending comments. I am the first to admit my humour may not be appreciated. I often find myself annoying. Now Mr. Bluth I am reminded that just as some of us Hebrews do get nervous when we hear gentiles innunciate the word "juice" or "jewellery" too slowly there are non Hebrews who might get nervous during the summer season when one's backyard becomes innundated with yellow jackets and the cries of "f..cking wasps!" can be heard. We do need to be sensitive to one another.

I have been ordered to censor it and have. What is or is not inappropriate I leave for others to decide. In this case your concern has led to the censorship of my original comment. The reason why this focuses on this woman is because she wanted it to. If she didn't she would have simply thrown the card in the garbage and expressed any of her alleged concerns without engaging in the tactics she did and I resent them because it embarasses me as a Jew and this woman does not speak for me and I think it is the utmost in trivilization and pettiness and deserves nothing but contempt from moi. I suppose next we need a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into this, and a victim's support group for receivers of such cards to be funded of course by the federal government. Then the federal government can fund an anti-religious card association which can then lobby the government to pass legislation to prevent this from happening again and assuring no religious cards are sent to anyone for any reason by any politician. Of course we shall send privacy auditors to enter Mr. Harper's offices and look for lists of any name that sounds ethnic and burn them and fine the PC party. Sounds appropriate. Peace and love to anyone feeling victimized by religious cards.

Hmmm I think they do it by hair cut style. The old bangs to one side will do it or a shaved head but mind you that head better be pink.

Why did you selectively ignore all the anti Muslim references and the agenda to rid Europe of Muslims? See if you want to target a people, demonize them, and expel them, have the balls to stop hiding behind couched words to something else, and admit what it is you are agreeing with.

Please trace it back. Its anything but Liberal! Lol. And by the way don't label me a Liberal. You have no idea what my cultural believes are. In fact in this case they would be classic conservative not liberal. If you want to throw Burke and Bentham around, find out what they mean before you assume which one's theory I would be more inclined follow with the above scenario. No you can't label me Liberal because I challenge any exercise that makes negative generalizations about an identifiable group of people and demonizes them. It has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism.

That is funny. Bossman. Sounds like a Jewish name. I think I am gona put you on my list and send you a Rosh Hashanah card.

As a Jew I do not have a problem with this at all. As a poster I think your points and your posts are great and bring up some very good points about privacy. But sorry, on this one I think the person who turned this into a tempest had an agenda. I may have stated it crudely but I question her agenda. I think she has one. In this country I have the absolute right to throw such cards in the garbage. I appreciate your point if information is kept on me illegally. But I really do think in this case there are no sinister lists being kept on Jews. I think all politicians pander. Its what they do. There is nothing sinister about it. I do appreciate the privacy issues you raise. To me those are a different issue and I take them seriously but for heaven's sake, if someone wants to acknowledge my religion in a positive way I will not get my kosher colon in a twist over it.

Andy Kofman back from the dead.

Hey quote me too! I like to think of myself as the Dudley Laws of the Jewish community only I have no beard or beret and my comment is; "For fuck's sake, throw the card out if you don't like it."

this post has been deleted at request of C. Anthony

We have no file on you.

JB Globe you were harsh but it had to be said and I am glad you said it and not me. Look can we not discuss this issue without smeering Muslims or anyone else as people!? Here is what it comes down to. The West Bank is by law no one's at this point legally. It is in a state of suspended animation. From a practical perspective the West Bank will probably end up a second Palestinian state. What the final borders are must come about by people remaining calm and refraining from ethnic pandering and smeering. I can assure you there are dedicated people in the Jordanian and Israeli governments as well as in one wing of Fatah that are trying their hardest. Many things are said in negotiations. They do not necessarily mean their literal comments. There is always context to what is said and underlying reasons that also must be considered. Palestinians and Israelis need to be able to live in peace. Surely they can find a way if we just refrain from the name calling and stay calm and focused and above demonization of the people on either side of the equation.

Man oh Manashevitz. This really sparked a debate with you gentiles. Listen every one be calm. Politicians do what they do. They try get votes. So if they pander is anyone surprised? Oh come on. They all do it. Pandering to potential voters is part of the game. Always has been. always will be. You want pandering, come to Mississauga where we have this idiot former member of Parliament who never missed an opportunity to pander to here Palestinian-Canadian constituents with specific buzz words and now continues the same as an alderman trying to get into position to replace the Mayor when she dies. Ethnic pandering. What never heard of it before? They all do it. All of them. Equally. Now this Jew says calm down. If you don't like the card throw it in the garbage. Of course politicians want your vote. Puhleeze. Me I see nothing wrong about it. Yes it is potentially a privacy issue, but I think Leafless is right. I think all that happened is someone went down a list of electoral voter names and thought if it sounded Jewish, send them a card. What is the big friggin deal? Its no different then kissing babies or when you see all of these idiots go for photo ops and put on yamachas or turbans or other religious attire. Its a multi-cutlural state and they try acknowledge people's religions. It may be ethnic pandering but its also being polite and thoughtful. Its both. Take your pick. I agree with you gentiles. What next we get offended when a politician sends a Christmas card? Oy gevalt enough. Its just ethnic pandering. You no like, throw in garbage lady. I actually think you gentiles did a great job debating this and presenting both sides of the arguement.

In further response to bold&cold': "Well as you asked if I am willing to build more jails etc., the answer is yes, without a doubt." Yes I know that. who is paying for it is the question. "Actually most people in society are more then willing to build more jails for drug deallers and repeat violent offenders." The problem is if you read Stevie's huff and puff all it will do is arrest more junkies not repeat violent offenders or drug dealers. " So you are way out of step with that." I never suggested in my responses we should not jail drug pushers or repeat violent offeders so your assumption I do not want to is out of step with that. "You make conclusions that are just not true." Lol. Which ones I am full of many! Hah. In all seriousness, my conclusions are boring and unoriginal they come directly from Juristat. "We will gladly build onto existing jails and even build new ones if need be." Will "we" be willing to pay for them is the question. " We " will need to pay more taxes. "Drug addiction is not an illness, that is only lawyer crap from stupid lawyers who do not have the ability to fight for their clients." Say now that's new level in dialogue. By the way, it has nothing to do with stupid lawyers. Its a medical concept which the medical and legal communities understand. "They need to go back and learn the law and then maybe they will be able to folow it to defend people." Sit down. This may upset you. The law recognizes drug addiction as an illness and law and medical schools teach their students this. "If they can not do this in the law, it is then because they broke the law." The issue of whether a drug addict commits a crime or not does not define whether their addiction is an illness or not. They are two seperate issues. Of course drug addicts commit crimes. They commit crimes because they have an illness that needs to be treated. Treat the illness and oopsy you might just find, the drug addict does not rob someone to feed his addiction. Its called cause and effect. "Lock up any and all those who are caught dealling and 5-7 year minimum sentences for all crime that have guns used, even toy guns." I share your sentiments in regards to the above. My concern is for druf addicts and helping them break their cycle of addiction so they don't commit crimes to feed their habit. Here's the problem. Drug pushers come at many levels. Low level drug pushers being arrested won't stop the problem. In fact focusing attention on them often wastes valuable resources that would be otherwise spent on higher level drug pushers. If you speak with a Narcotics officer they would explain that to you. They have to be veru subjective somedays in not arresting low level drug pushers so they can get to higher level ones. If you were to simply arrest all the low level ones you would have no way to infiltrate to higher levels of arrest. So what I am saying its a bit more complicated than you think and simply thinking all drug pushers are the same is a misnomer. "Incase you have not looked that is what the people want, and we do not care anything for what lawyers have to say about this." No until they get arrested right? "That is why lawyers are hated so much." I thought it was our bad breath. " Also it is not the local police that go after the syndicates but the RCMP and Provincial police to some degree." The RCMP and OPP do not have exclusive jurisdictions on investigating organized drug trade. Don't be silly. Every major city police force has officers dedicated to this task and sometimes they work with the OPP and RCMP, sometimes they do not. "There are huge numbers working on these cases 24/7. " No there are not. due to budget restraints and limited manpower the above is absolutely not true. "If we need more jails then we will have them built. We should not use the lack of space as an excuse to let people out in the public, who should not be there. It is really that simple. " Uh no its not. If you have no where to place your prisoners, you can't. It is that simple. So you need to build the prisons before you talk about jailing them, otherwise they do walk, precisely because there is no where to keep them. You seem to be blissfully unaware that the reason people are walking is not because the laws are not strict enough, its because they are being released because there is no place for them. The reason a conicted felon gets an automatic day reduced from his sentence for everyday he serves isn't because the law isn't strict, its because they created this scheme because they need to find room for other prisoners. So no its not that simple. "Why would we take your view and just let them back on the streets, to cause more trouble." Actually its you who are putting them right back out on the street if you flood the prison system with prisoners but have nowhere to put them. That is precisely why they are ending up back on the street. What I am saying to you, is that the revolving door is arising, because we have no room. You are confusing that with me saying I think convicted felons shoulld be released. All I am saying is they will continue to be released if there are no prisons to house them and all your flapping does is to exasberate the problem and if we did it your way we would in fact flood the streets with convicted felons. "The voters would rather the jails be built, but yes most will not want it near them, so build them away from people and build them big." Lol. I live down the road from one in Mississauga, Ontario. As I told you before super-prisons are no longer a concept being embraced because they become impossible to control. In fact its easier to have more prisons then few in terms of management. If you do build super ones, they end up in fact quite segmented because you can't put too many prisoners on the floor at any one time. Now as for your comments that you will build these prisons up North away from people and have Polar Bears eat the prisoners, let me try explain this. Yes Russia has expertise in building gulags in Siberia and I am sure you would use that model. Here's the reality. The reality is you need prison guards to manage this prisons. Where you going to get them if you place a prison in the middle of nowhere? Now see if you expect prison guards to work in the middle of nowhere, you going to pay them isolation pay? You going to pay to fly them in and out like they do guys working on oil rigs? Its gonna cost you Mr. Gulag. This aint Russia where we simply conscript everyone and order them. "We have a surplus when it comes to government money and if part of that surplus has to go to building jails that is fine." So when you calling Mr. Flaherty and advising him of the above? Let me know how it goes. From what I hear he's quite the tight wad. "That being the case, it need not raise taxes, now does it." O.k. come back down to earth would yah? See in the real world. if you want to spend the surplus you line up with hundreds of other competing interest groups also wanting to spend the surplus. Then we get into an arguement of how much of this surplus is going to be dished out and keep in mind your buddy Jimmy Flaherty has already said he won't spend the surplus because he needs it to pay down the debt. Good luck. "As I said earlier, the local police do not investigate organised crime, so they will never be assigned to do it, other then in a support arrestting role." You are absolutely dead wrong. I will make sure to tell some of my buddies in intelligence what you have said. I am sure they will be glad to know they aren't doing what they are doing. Lol. "Are you sure you are a lawyer? The only person here getting whipped up it seems is you." Lol. "You do not have to say every little thing when he explains his position." O.k. "It will be far cheaper to run a jail of 30,000 then a smaller one." Not necessarily. Your financial management assumption is inaccurate. "I would even say 50,000 would be a nice round number." I would say you are simply making up the number unaware of the financial and management implications involved with such a number. "It would be cheaper to run then the present system," No you are simply making this assumption without any basis. " With the new technology we have today, it would be easier to control this place then most other jails." With the new technology we have today we no longer actually have to imprison people. But then you knew that right? "Survielence equipment can and should be used" O.k. let's try this slowly, surveillance equipment is easily avoided or manipulated in prison. But then you knew that. " and even internal implants if necessary can keep the population controlled" Yes indeed. "I have been to prisons and yes I do know something about them and how they are secured." Lol. As a visitor or prisoner. Either way with due respect I have problems conceiving how you make some of the comments you do if you have been inside. "Right now overcrowding is an issue, but why do we think that each cell should be one man per cell or in provincial two man per cell." Oh its a silly notion called space. Crowd people and they tend to rape and kill each other and turn on their guards. " Hell this is jail man and the cells are really only for sleeping and resting. " Please tell me again how you have been to prison and are an expert. No they are not just used for sleeping and resting. "Big deal of there is only one toilet per cell," Its a big deal if the shit overflows and you have 3 guys about 6 inches from you as you crap. It causes a lot of tension. "eveer live in a house with one bathroom and four women, now that is harsh." Lol. Did it with 3 and 2 cats who had a litter there. Yer right. "The people do not want to have this like a nice place to go holiday." Do not confuse what I am saying. My concern is that you do not exceed the design specifications because that endangers prison guards and leads to violence and murder. That is a seperate issue from determining what should be the acceptable conditions. I am inclined to lean your way in thinking that in some minimum security prisons they are too nice. Then again I have also been in Dorchester and Archambeault (spelled wrong sorry) and believe me you don't want to end up there. "It is suposed to he harsh," Determining what the standards are is a more complicated then your subjective impression of what harsh should be. "As I said Harper can hold a referendum on elected senate and once he gets his mandate from that he has the right and duty to proceed with it." And as I said he can't and has no intention of doing something unconstitutional. "Most provinces will agree readily to this." Quebec and Ontario have already said no. In case you can't add that is more then 50% of Canada's population and 2 provinces both that are needed to make any amendment. Look forward to your next whipping.

I am inclined to believe the underlying issue to all this is testosterone. Now I ask people, is it easier to write someone off as an enemy rather than see them as a potential ally? Probably, but only if you do not have the confidence in yourself to be able to reach out to what you think is the enemy and charm them instead of shoot them. Me I can be a charming son of a bitch. Never met a woman I could not charm including Muslim women. Now men on the other hand, well all I can say is there is a reason for the one space rule (for you woman who do not know, that is the universal rule where when men go into a public bathroom, we are to leave at least one urinal between us and the next pisser whenever possible and we keep our eyes down and do not smile or carry on conversations). All we men when it comes down to it are savages with one another. All this alpha male stuff. We men are like baboons. The ones with the biggest most inflamed red butt tend to be the leaders. Its how we show our prowess. What can I say. I did not make the rules of Baboonery. Now excuse me I must go sneer at a hyena.

Trace back the article to the organization that published it. Woopsy. Not only is it not based on facts but gosh golly, its from an organization that shall we say has problems with anyone that it doesn't approve of. See the problem with these things is, they usually lead back to the same old skinheads feeling threatened by change.