WestViking

Produce the quote.

What a load of utter nonsense. We had no troops to commit to anywhere in early 2002. We had the JTF2 deployed in Afghanistan and were stretched to do that. Chretien had to arrange with Bush for a lift from the USAF to get the JTF2 over to Afghanistan if you will recall. We had a NATO commitment to Afghanistan and did not have the resources to fill our commitment. A deployment to Iraq was out of the question.

More to the point, where do you find a reference to "these people"?

Does anyone realize that if Quebec were to separate today, Harper would be one member short of a majority government and that by the end of 2009 Harper could appoint a majority of CPC Senators?

LOL!! Why do you think Trudeau has the FLQ six flown to Cuba? His pal Fidel kept the scruffy lot away from the media. Had the FLQ six stood trial in Canada, or been given access to the Canadian media, Trudeau's political career was over. Those misfits could not have planned a decent drunk, and the whole 'crisis' would have been shown up as the farce that it was. The Liberals were on to a good thing and have milked it ever since.

Just one small problem - JBG was there in Montreal and met with many Canadian Conservatives, including yours truly, and I was a bona fide delegate at the CPC convention. Conventions include observers from many places and interests.

Then don't vote Liberal. The Liberals created the threat of separation as the paper tiger they along could vanquish, and have supported the PQ / BQ under the table for years. They nearly blew it through a false sense of their abilities, but have used the separation factor as a foil to fool people for a long time.

(1) The lands on which Israel was formed was owned and controlled by the British Government following WW-I (starting in 1918) and prior to that had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries. The British did not want to make good their promised to the Jews of Europe and turned the lands over to the United Nations. The UN created two nations; Israel and Palestine. Local Arabs refused to accept Palestine and vowed to destroy Israel. They are still trying 60 years later. (2) Nowhere near a million Palestinians left Israel. Those who did leave, did so at the urging of neighboring nations who set out to destroy Israel in 1948 and told their countrymen to flee the immanent slaughter. Turned out they were wrong, Israel survived and most of the adults who fled Israel 60 years ago are now dead.

Do you have a valid criticism of Israel or not? Whining about 'critics' who make insane and inane commentary on Israel and are subsequently shown up for fools is hardly a useful exercise. Let's see your stuff - show us that you have valid, supportable criticisms that can withstand rational scrutiny.

The accusations made against Bush are the verbal equivalent of a one-finger salute; the banal, mindless, repletion of mantras that have lost any meaning or substance. Those who resort to these mantras have nothing to contribute to public debate; no objective criticisms or viable alternatives. They cry out to hear the echo and fail to realize the reverberations are internal, unheard by surrounding crowds.

The Liberals have proven to be simple bullies. The idiots are coming back after the Easter break 'threatening' to turf the CPC. Again. They have no shred of credibility left.

I have no quarrel with Muslims. I have a problem with terrorists and I do not care what beliefs they claim to espouse.

We have no need for Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Tribunals. We can as easily provide a section of the regular courts, similar to a small claims court to assist those with a legitimate grievance under the CHRA. CHRA Section 13 has to go. It is very bad law, improperly written using undefined terms and allowing conjecture.

Useless slogans!

Who declared it was comedy hour?

This is your impeccable reference source? http://www.writers.net/writers/3881?PHPSES...abfb086bf2db4fc

IEDs are not necessarily 'cowardly'. They are the means of killing an enemy without exposing yourself - a tactic useful to a fighting force without the means to carry out conventional warfare and completely acceptable as a terrorist tactic. In the same vain, seeding terrorist trails with land mines is a legitimate counter-terrorist measure. The problem is that land mines also endanger the local population. So do IEDs. We don't use land mines. I have a problem with 'freedom fighters' who use a vehicle loaded with explosives to blow up men, women and children at the local market without discrimination. If they can murder local citizens without conscience, who are they fighting to 'free'?? They are as likely to be 'freedom fighters' as you are to be a banana.

If a convicted criminal threatens more crimes on release, the solution is simple - keep him in prison.

I do not confuse 'rehabilitation' with recycling. They are not the same thing. I wish people who casually toss off the term rehabilitation had a clue as to what the term means: If we incarcerate an amoral, barbaric, irresponsible and violent person and the best we can do is restore them to original status, that is, amoral, barbaric, irresponsible, violent and free, we have utterly failed society. We cannot restore criminals to a 'normal life' if they did not lead a normal life prior to incarceration. That means educating convicts in personal responsibility, cause and effect, and social civility and decorum for a start. They are in prison because they engaged in socially unacceptable acts or behaviours and reintegration into society requires learning alternative behaviours. Nothing less will suffice. The little darlings have a clear choice of learning civil behaviour or doing life in prison on an installment plan of about three payments. Third strike and they are in prison for good. Brutal but effective.

We have no International Court with any credibility. I want no part of an unelected world body without a history, credentials or reputation interfering in domestic policies. The United Nations is a bickering pit overrun with third world dictatorships and technocrats all of who preside over populations living in abject poverty and fear. Your wish to hold free democracies to account for the 'crimes' of providing the moist abundant foreign aid in history is repugnant.

No one has the right not to be offended. Certainly there is commentary that some people find offensive. There is behaviour that some people find offensive. However, trying to shild people from offensive behaviours or commentary is a fool's errant that winds up severely restricting our liberty, freedoms and rights. Libel and slander, that is the deliberate attempt to use untrue statements to damage another person's reputation, is a form of assault and actionable at law.

Thank you scriblett. but it is not unexpected. Consider the source.

You have responded more articulately than you know. You demand that you be given the right to set the rules of engagement whether you have any authority or right to do so. Your right to the freedom of speech is not stifled by anything other than your colossal ego.

Your argument is specious. You are whining about restrictions in venue which has nothing to do with your freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to announce your dissent and to disparage the President if you so wish. That does not entitle you to 10 minutes at the podium where the President speaks or to carry a sign and shout slogans wherever and whenever you wish. Thousands of people express their negative views of the President and his administration every day, in newspapers, on television, on the Internet, on Facebook and yes, even in demonstrations. However, maintaining that because you cannot speak or carry a sign at the location and time of your choice is a restriction on your freedom of speech is ludicrous. Your desires do not trump the ordinary rules of a civil and civilized American society.

http://bloggingtories.ca/forums/post33363.html#33363