Figleaf

In that case, your question is problematic. I don't believe it's accurate to try to name a single leader of all the Arabs of the Levant at the time you've refered to.

Which Arabs?

No amount of your weaselling is going to help you. In post #84 you wrote: "The following comes from www,palestinefacts.com a Hamas internet site"[Emphases supplied.] So we're talking about the SITE, not the information. It's not a Hamas website. Why did you say that it is? Maybe. What's your definition of a Zionist?

WTF are they putting in your water?

Reported.

They don't need higher crime rates, they just need to build enough prisions to hold all the pedophiles and violent offenders that walk on their first... second... and third offenses. You're missing the point.

I'm afraid I don't see the sense in that comment. Unless you mean voting, you never were part of a process of granting rights. If you do mean voting, you can still do that. So is your whole beef with the Charter simply that there was no referendum used to bring it in? The Charter isn't responsible for that. Multiculturalism policy predates the Charter. Why? What harm has happened to you from that? Well, actually there is no such 'right'. If you mean there SHOULD be that right, then you need to say 'should'.

I hate when our money and lives of our soldiers are expended doing it with no prospect of lasting success.

Jeez, I hope you're not a teacher. Maybe you're an academic... if so you can do another of those wonderfully insightful studies -- call this one: "Hugs vs. Handcuffs: a survey of relative merits of pedogological techniques". Don't you think maybe the police have better things to do than protect teachers from six-year olds? I don't thnk they'd have to change their rules. Teachers are considered in loco parentis, I believe, respecting kids in their charge. Yes, I can ... about the same, or less, as might result from a police takedown.

Your opinion on this is not very interesting to me. If my reporting seems tedious, imagine how tedious it is to keep seeing insults cluttering the forum! As a regular visitor here, the continuation of forum discussions in accordance with the rules is of interest to me. It IS my business, along with everyone else's. I already explained that. Why are you asking me to repeat myself? Actually, Greg has told posters frequently that he can't read the whole forum and we should report violations to him. You should inform yourself mor thoroughly before spewing your errant opinions. Once again, I'll point out that your opinion on this matter is of no real concern to me. What is more disruptive is your reacting like a spoiled child every time I do what the Admin here has specified as the proper course of action. Grow up and stop wasting everyone's time. About what? Because I don't care. Yes. You and your little friend Dancer. Whoopee.

the most truthful thing the lad has ever offered --- and he doesn't even know it

Privatizing prisons should be opposed by everyone. Creating an industry with a vested interest in higher crime rates is something no responsible government should do. I guess we can count on Steve's gang though.

The title is to get attention. The true state of affairs is made clear immediately in the post.

1. Your complaints about my reporting practices have become repetitive and tedious. 2. Liking a comment or not is not the measure. The measure is the rules (q.v.) 3. If I didn't tell someone when I report them, they might never learn what actions to avoid. And I might be accused of secrecy. 4. Your whinging responses each time I note a report are lengthier and therefore much more disruptive of the thread than is the initial note of a report. 5. Please explain why you think the forum rules should be ignored, and then explain why I should care.

If a U.S. political party is a traitor, it is the Republican party. Their legacy of presidents who hated and defied the constitution is undeniable. Nixon's election corruption. The Reagan/Bush Iran/Contra scam. And now GWB's wiretaps and religious campaigns.

No, I mean what I said, "the beginning of the power of the King" or Queen. Then you're seriously uniformed about history. The kings' authority pre-existed the Magna Carta which was promulgated to LIMIT the scope of the royal power, not to create or grant it. Either you don't understand my question or you are evading it. HOW is the Charter undemocratic? and HOW is it undermining your rights? You may be talking about that, but you have not explained what negative real impacts you allege arise from them. Federal governments are elected by a PARTIALLY democratic system (FPTP),... Your liking or disliking of FPTP is beside the point. You complain of an illegitimacy in the creation of the Charter, but there is no illegitimacy. The people who enacted the charter had the legitimate authority to do so.

The Criminal Code doesn't have any exemptions for how the money is characterized. Depends on what you think of MP pay levels.

Seems to me that calling a war lost while it's still being fought is traitorous. And hyperbolic. Calling someone a traitor for simply discussing an important public policy issue seems hyperbolic ... and defamatory.

... maybe he hasn't really, but he SHOULD ... "Former MP refuses to confirm or deny he got rich payout to vacate seat for Day Canadian Press Published: Saturday, March 24, 2007" http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...7653b90&k=37328

Reported. You've got to be kidding me. You are acting like a little baby. No, Rue is acting like a baby, bringing down the tone of the forum by insulting and provoking people with peurile taunts.

You mean 'the beginning of the end of the power of the King...', I think. You've recited this same charge in the past, but when asked to be specific about what you are refering to you have not replied. IS there any content behind this complaint, or are you simply braying? How so? Again, how so? Trudeau was the legitimately elected PM, and the handful of politicians were the legitimately elected premiers of the provinces. Ergo, they did in fact represent the collective will of Canadian citizens.

So it's not eating pork that is 'racist', it's DELIBERATELY FLINGING IT AT SOMEONE WHO YOU KNOW FINDS IT OBJECTIONABLE that is 'racist'. Interesting how Scott overlooked such a minor technicality.

What is it that you are hoping they ('the left') would say?

How about put on some hockey gear and HUG the child?

Reported.