Figleaf

I wanted to get a picture of how much or little damage you believed a six year old was capable of carrying out and how much damage justified a police take-down on a six-year old. No, I would have public insurance indemnify teachers for bona fide efforts to do their best in any given situation. And if schools can't afford the insurance? (All you need is one or 2 incidence to really drive up the cost of such insurance, and as I pointed out when talking about lawsuits, you don't necessarily have to do anything wrong to be hit with a lawsuit.) Schools are government bodies and can afford whatever insurance they need. Just raise taxes. Cheap. You suggested teachers just "give students a hug". I pointed out potential physical dangers to the teacher if that particular policy were carried out. You seem to dismiss the dangers. Therefore, you must have no qualms about teachers getting hurt in the ways I described. You overlook what I actually think ... that what you describe is nonsense. ??? Presumably they are putting on their hockey equipment. True, no six-year old would think of putting on hockey equipment to tackle another six year old, but teachers are much more fragile than six year olds. I doubt it.

Tory traitors.

Actually it's a 133 page Word document. When I clicked the GODDAM thing it launched an application that planted the file in a hidden directory on my computer. It's a fucking VIRUS. No, it shows a bunch of guys running around possibly PREPARING to demolish a building. It says nothing of significance as far as I can tell.

No, it wasn't. It's well known and blindingly clear that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord fiascos rejuvenated Quebec separatism.

Exactly. A "decent respect for the opinions of mankind" implies that the RCMP should tender SOME reasoning how they can say that this blatantly clear statement from Hart is not sufficient to prompt a criminal charge.

Structures, such as these tall buildings, are not built with a lot of redundancy. That means the failure of one support can trigger a near-simultaneous failure of another support which, in turn, triggers the failure of another. That's exactly contrary to what we were told abou these kinds of buildings before. The official line has been they are extremly difficult to knock down and WTC1 and 2 were anomalous BECAUSE of the jet fuel. So with WTC7, we have a symetrical collapse from assymetrical damage. It doesn't add up.

THIS GODDAM THING IS VIRUS!!!

That one is not particularly convincing. Some debris, even a large amount of it, from WTC1 would not be sufficient to cause the complete in-footprint collapse of a modern steel-frame building. Remember, the explanation for WTC1 and WTC2 was that the thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel melted the structure. There is no way even several tons of debris striking the face of WTC7 could create the kind of total structural compromise that was explained to be involved in 1 and 2. If there had been sufficient debris to compromise WTC7, it could not have created a complete perfectly symmetrical collapse. And this one ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boBq0jM6Mmo ... says nothing at all.

I punched the same data three times and got different responses each time ... this 'clock' seems pretty speculative.

So you were able to stay away from my posts for a whole two or three hours? You sir are a rock of consistency. Only on this thread. And not again.

Parts of the Ten Commandments can be justified on the grounds of reason, other parts not. Most notably, the First Commandment is ludicrous. More generally, the notion that a 'Supreme' being gave the laws to Moses is a kind of childish superstition.

This is a completely stupid idea. As long as there is a maximum of 5 years, letting the PM have the flexibility to choose a shorter time makes sense. Sometimes something important arises and it's appropriate to seek a new mandate. And what will this do to votes of no-confidence? Are we to be stuck with lame-duck governments now? Fixed election dates are not appropriate for Parliamentary government.

Since this thread is of high interest to me, I made and exception and read Bluth's last post. ...Lawyers and criminal investigators decided that it was not worthy of a criminal charge. Without legal training who are we to judge? In my opinion, even a non-expert should be capable of understanding an explanation of why or why not the police decide to lay charges or not. Like Shakeyhands, I would like to hear some explanation of how come a fax that quite specifically states that a resignation was "contingent upon" a benefit has not resulting in a charge under the applicable Criminal Code provisions. Of course I know the real explanation ... Stock controls the RCMP. But I'd like to hear the official whitewash explanation anyway.

What year was the Hudson bldg demolition and what kind of explosive were they using?

Before I can respond, I need you to please quote the allegedly anti-American portions of these alleged 'rants'. Go away. You don't want me to answer your question about Alexa after all? w/e, dude! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Meanwhile... Wow, is Al Gore ever fat! He must be full of crap on global warming -- no-one that fat can ever be correct!

Very interesting excerpt, thanks. In regard to your final comment, if religious principles have their root in the 'common standard' of natural law your excerpt discusses, it is probably more accurate to describe them as distortions of it arising from the 'special excuses' that offenders plead from the standard. If religion was not about seeking a variance from the natural law, then why would it bother to differentiate itself. We would have no separate word or concept of religion as distinct from the natural law/common standard.

Sure they are... !! Like the injunction in the Koran for men to have dominion over their wives, for example? What nonsense!

Good point. I think this goes to show that the alleged 'anti-Americanism' on the left was never about America, but rather about the particular ideology being exported at any given time. That is to say, the charges of anti-Americanism leveled at the left by the extreme right were often baseless. It was all about idealogy, not nationality. So, during the tenure of Clinton, Alexa's rants about "American style healthcare", developed by Lyndon Johnston, were all about Republicans? Before I can respond, I need you to please quote the allegedly anti-American portions of these alleged 'rants'.

Written by someone who is obviously ignorant of the biblical tradition, history and human nature, and imbued with the arrogance of youth. Such a waste of bandwidth. You're just so blindingly wrong on each and every point there, you should bugger off before you embarrass yourself. (More than you already have.) P.S. I can't help but notice your post contained absolutely no contribution to the discussion or the topic. You failed to specify any sensible complaint or challenge to the comment you so obviously detested, and you failed to add even your own perspective. In fact, it looks like your sole purpose for posting was to make a juvenile attack.

Good point. I think this goes to show that the alleged 'anti-Americanism' on the left was never about America, but rather about the particular ideology being exported at any given time. That is to say, the charges of anti-Americanism leveled at the left by the extreme right were often baseless. It was all about idealogy, not nationality.

Why did the chicken cross the road? Why do firemen wear red suspenders?

I'll bet whatever M.Bluth said above is totally irrelevant to the issue that Stockwell Day has been 'exonerated' by the police force that he is the minister for. That's a blatant, shocking conflict of interest piled on top of the already disturbing evidence of seat-buying.

You are missing a group. Those who know the history of the region, and know what international law says on the relevant issues, who conclude based on evidence what appears to be the rights and wrongs of the situation. When such a person concludes that Israel has been wrong on something, actually having the temerity to say so generally invites a round of character assassination from certain apologists, e.g. the National Post. (P.S. The remainder of your post seemed to be a nasty, highly subjective, rant against a construct of your imagination you call 'the left', so I'll just ignore all that.)

Sickening, scurrilous comment. Where is the conflict between following our international obligations and protecting the troops?

That provided a definiton of anti-Israel. So I guess you don't have any more questions for me. WTF? You don't know what a massacre means, obviously. You've demonstrated over the last several exchanges we have had that your level of knowledge is insufficient to support your approach to discussion. I find that tedious and a waste of my time. Be advised, you're now on my Ignore list.