KrustyKidd

This is like having the answers before the exam. Scince this wasn't multiple choice I suppose it must be answered with a pont by point mini essay so here goes. A choice? They have had a choice as sucessive Liberal governments have been voted in time after time. Because Canadians don't care. They prove it by voting Liberal. Peace keeping? We havn't done that scince Cyprus. Yugo was survival, not peacekeeping. UNDOF, Iraq/Iran were Observer forces, not peacekeepers. We don't have the muscle to peacekeep. What we have in Afganistan is a Police Force. Peacekeeping is dead Riff, there isn't much to give up. 1st World military? Once again, no choice to be made. It would take ten years at least to get the equipment. Then another ten to get the power to project that equipment and manpower to an even close corner of the world. We are at the mercy of other western powers.. It's too late to even say that we should do something. Much too late. My best recommendationis to rent our troops out to the Americans or to join in some way. Meanwhile, train a larger JTF to at least be able to board an ocean liner taken over by terrorists and invest in the militia to be able to handle problems in our own country like civil disorder and natural disasters..

We have to be reasonable of course. I won't hold you to a year or expect you I. To the day anyhow. It is general intent. Already though, you should be aware that Bush is scaling back all sorts of stuff to prepare for this venture. Hubble, Shuttles and all are going by the wayside. Although it appears that he is trashing it, it is, according to his plan progress. With things like that going on it will be difficult to guage a winner between us using this as a finish line in a year.

With satillite available everywhere I find it astounding that any thinking person can find ONE REDEEMING QUALITY in the CBC except to throw away money. 'I'd rather throw $50 away than pay $500 for satillite' or somethng like that. Well, I would rather not pay $50 and thereby reward incompetence and mediocracy. I do know that "Vern, from Kamloops BC, just wanted to say hi. And we sure have a lot of snow." listens. So does "Hello, this is Gail, from Halifax. I just wanted to wish everybody a happy thanksgiving." So I do know that it is importent to some. Let them pay for the frickin' station because it is crap! It can't survive on it's own, over 90% of the people don't want it. At least team it up with that other failure in the south PBS to make a continent wide snooze station. BTW, I went to the same school as Link before his fur trapping days and considered him a type of mentor as his father Ted also taught there. He was too kind in his suggestions. Have to rethink my opinions of him. I had 'boil in oil' and making them actually compete for their supper with no government money allocatied in mind.

From what I understand it was minus 30 outside LOL. CLICK FOR IDIOTS

The election is about terrorism. With terror attacks there is no economy. With every ME government shit scared to harbor terrorists there soon will be no terrorists. YThe US is not acting unilaterally, they have the willing help of every government that is terrified of getting regime changed. That, is good for the economy. Soon, Iraq will be on it's own as an example of what the Arabs can have if they give up US hating.

Of course they are. They are entertainment. I do agree with you in that they are sensationalist. How else could they gain listeners? Boring topics might make them think they were listening to the CBC or something. I love them for the information direction though. When I hear something that is of interest I file it away in my head. I check it later on a printed or internet source then make my own conclusions. I do find Left radio is much more lacking than right radio for revelations and stories and high on well worked over rhetoric. Mind you today for example I had the only channel I could get and Buffoon Boy Rush was on. Same thing over and over, something about Clark being a flip flopper on Iraq. A caller called in and gave the entire context of the Sept 2002 statement by Clark and Rush wouldn't hear any of it. Instead he kept repeating the same thing over and over again about flip flopping. I know Clark does that but Rush doing it for an hour and a half then about to move into hour two of a three hour show. ..... I love the Gypsy Kings and have a few CDs of theirs. Sanity!

Before we get into what I personally think is offensive let’s get off the subject of all or nothing. Currently we have what is legal, that is what I, at this time, at this point in this argument find permmissable. There is no way I will move from this position at this time and leave myself open to you by moving. You are arguing with me and using debate type skills rather than common sense to simply discuss this issue. For you to become reaonable with me, first get off your position of how all must be banned. As for you becomming PM, from your current position I would say that you would have more luck converting and moving to an Islamic country where your views are universal amongst the population in public. Having lived in two of them myself I can assure you however, that in private, Arabs are just, if not more degenerate than westerners. As for treating women any better ........ OK then. How about “Aid for arousal?” You are ignoring the truth to protect an open wound that I would take advantage of. If you see nothing pornographic about topless dancers, waitresses then you must also think that all children can watch sexy rock videos uncensored. Here in advance of my reply to your next point, I use your own words against you: So, if a person dresses in a way to cause arousal it is not porn. Then what is it? Politics? A stripper isn't running for office, either is a hooker. A teenage girl with a lift bra trying to attract attention by arousing a male is selling cupcakes or is she too promoting art? As well, you have said that pornographers say it is art. Tell me, do you also think that porn is art when it is in a museum? Or is it just porn? Maybe a pornographer can sell an “Art” magazine entitled “Hot Babes” or whatever, then it would be permshable to all the horny art appreciators out there? 12 good men? They already have and you don’t accept it. That’s the point. What are your plans, to go back to the same 12 men time after time until they rule your way? What is legal is what we have now, BTW, this point is my last stand, if I have to make one, but it is one of your first hurdles. And true, the nature of a government is to erode rights. Not intentionally, but by nature. A leader must always change, innovate. Make things better ( so they think) but never go back and resind old laws or bills. They move forward, gaining approval by pleasing groups like you without compromising with groups like me. They will take away rights without giving rights back. A continual erosion. I stand by that statement and always will. I am not against change, it must happen but I question the direction, reason and speed with which it happens. To end this post, I’ll tell you a bit about myself. I’m successful for the area I come form and the town I’m in. I work hard, play hard and enjoy a full family life. I’ve written a published book (somewhat minor affair mind you) and am working on another ( a much deeper one). I go skating with my daughter (Krazy K’tee), to the pool, movies, board games and normal stuff. I even bake cookies for crying out loud. When the lights go down, me and Kruella enjoy our togetherness. Sometimes snuggle, sometimes play and then other times downright wicked. Sometimes a wicked movie, sometimes Nicholas and Alexandra or Forrest Gump.. There’s really nothing abnormal about it. I consider us sane in an insane kind of way. I’m generous, my neighbors love me, matter of fact they seem quite fascinated by the things that I do and have done, same with the the kids in the neighborhood. Heck, I even go to church with the old couple across the street once in awhile to make my daughter happy. (They take her when I’m not in town), What I’m saying Hugo is that I’m not the devil. I don’t spend my life with porn yet once in a while I do enjoy it along with everything else. I know I am not the target of your ire yet am not ashamed to say that I use it. The target of your repression is the obvious losers of society. Those who are afraid to stand up and are ashamed to let others know they use it. Basicly, without people like me they would get walked over by people like you without ever even knowing what the heck happened. It's freedom. Some are intimidated and some are not. Now, you want to talk compromise, let's do it! You on the other hand are somebody that wants to remove a choice I have. You want me to let you then you had better have a damm good reason.

Hey Lonius, if it's the same site I came across awhile back it says something like freedom of the press, freedom of the individual and something else. It's not too meaningful when you are comparing democratic countries with most differences noted between 1 and 30 rather than 1 and 10. I mean, without looking tell me, who is more free, France or Britain? Luxembourg or Belgium? BTW, is it true that Iraq made 148th place? Tell me, who is 147th? Or 149th? Does it make much difference? Those lucky people that never wanted the US to invade and oust Saddam. LOL. Now, back to reality. You made a broad statement that should have conclusive and easily understood evidence. You have the US being ranked as 14th or something yet do not address the thousands of other things that it does which are good, far above the rest of the countries listed. Your point was not a casual one. You did not say that the US was not the best int the world. You said that the US was not free, that greed had replaced equality and justice. That would make one reading that statement to assume that it would rank somewhere about 100 at least. Instead it is 14 or something. Either give us something to make this statement stand on it's own without having to be supported piecemeal by one fact at a time or say that 'I personally think that in America ..."

HUGO To answer your point, first, I do not think of you or your comerades on your side as busy bodies. On the contrary, you are concerened citizens trying to do what is right for all. There is nothing evil or hateful about that. I simply think you are wrong. How wrong? I don't know yet becasue we havn't even gotten to that point where we can discuss anything yet. So far, I see all or nothing from you and me simply defending the freedom to engage in a legal act. To answer your question as to where I currently draw the line as to what is acceptable, as long as it is legal, is done out of choice, does not harm anybody physically or take away another’s freedom it is acceptable. Clear? I have one as well, almost the same but slightly different; Visual material. This includes scantily clad women, strippers, any sight that arouses a person. To some, porn is the sight of a lingerie catalogue, to others it is intercourse. You say your intent is to regulate it but forget that it is already regulated by all sorts of laws, censorship boards and government agencies. You merely want to change laws that have been thought out over years by people smarter than you or I to suit YOUR standard. To do that we then get into a cycle of constantly changing things to suit YOUR agenda or others that share your view. That is what laws are for, laws that have already taken the majority’s view into account. "Other material" pretty much includes all aides to arousal to include strippers and people dressed in such a way that another can use it to arouse themselves. I would imagine that audible aids and forms of touch like lap dances can be there as well. I know that your dictionary didn't specify that but "other" pretty much includes all forms of arousal. I'm sure that if I came into your home in front of your kids and whoever and played a half hour tape of orgasms you would recognise it as something related to pornography. Thanks for helping me prove my point using your dictionary, mine seems to be lacking. A stripper is not pornograpy? Is she not visual material? Is a woman dressed in order to sexually excite another not a form of pornograpy? Is a person who is dressed in such a way that it unknowingly excites another person pornograpy to that other person? As I said before, you do not realize how much porn there is around you. Is a grade shcool picture of a five year old used by a perv to masterbate not considered pornograpy to him? Is a room full of pictures of bikini clad children in the home of a perv considered pornograpy? Is a two thousand year old statue of a woman riding a phallic like thing considered pornograpy? OK, I’ll clarify. Read what I wrote. There is nothing confusing about it. Pay particular attention to the second last word. KK's quote Anyhow, I've been away for a day and I just wanted to give you the courtesy of an answer to your post. I'll review the others later and then rejoin the discussion. Cute, I take it you wish the discussion remain on an up front and civil level? I have noticed a change in your writing during this discussion from others that we have engaged in, I'm trying to figure out why. Cheers

Well said! My point exactly. All things in moderation, booze, entertainment, sex, all can be distorted. Go after the criminals instead of the product by which much of society derives enjoyment. Leave the law abiding people of society alone and devote your energies to rooting out evil doers. Wow, talk about not being able to differenciate between fantasy and real life. You don't give people much credit. And what other plans do you have for society so that we can be protected from ourselves. Help us figure out how much alcohol we can drink, tell us the limit for time that we can spend away from our children when we go out, help me decide how much fattening food I can eat, tell me how to raise my child. You know that we are all too dumb to figure out things on our own. HELP! No, you read something different into what I said. It is about moral control. You decide what and how much is morally acceptable. That should be clear about how I interpret your intent. Is it just intercourse or is it masterbation videos that you are against? If so, then is suggestive pictures ok? Don't you see, you have no hard rule, only that you don't like it. Some can view their personal limit as a girl in a dress, others an ankle showing. As I said before, porn is more than what you think it is. It is strip shows, a provocatively dressed man or woman. You are simply comming in with your own interpretation of what is and is not acceptable. Thank you but I find the present laws are quite capable of defining that. If you have trouble then you might find it more productive changing societies views on porn and relationships rather than taking away a freedom that thinking people either enjoy or do not wish to enjoy. With freedom comes responsibility, if some cannot handle that responsibility then they become an identifiable problem and should be taken care of by the legal system. You might find police and secret service people with a lot of guns pointed at you and have your ass regime changed rather quickly, but on the other hand, I would be at home enjoying a legal activity.

We live in a two tier world anyhow. You pay extra for better service in almost all things. Business class vs first class, what is the problem with paying in order to circumvent a line? Why should health care be different? A major assault on providing better service to all, a major assault on getting what you pay for.

Sorry, I took it to mean that you thought that it contributed in a substansive way Surely to goodness you believe that, otherwise why are we even discussing a percieved non problem? As for the point itself, yes I agreed with that, like anything else pleasurable, porn is addictive. Thank you for the compliment Hugo, I have not digressed into frivolity yet. Really though, there is no difference in anti porn and Islamic society, they differ only by the amount of control with which they wish to apply. Most porn is legal. There are laws in place at this moment that say what is and is not permissable. What anti porn people want to do is to make much of it illegal. I used Islamic society to show what a world without porn is, and it's still evil, and still has problems that do not address the underlying issues such as treating women like objects. I feel that they attack the symtom and not the cause. I also feel that in the hands of most of normal society porn is a choice of pleasure. Much like alcohol, good food, active discussion and music. All can be made to be evil in the wrong hands but all are a personal choice. Why would I wish to allow another to tell me what is a good or bad activity for myself in private (or on the bus LOL)? If these people don't like the fact that pervs have a house full of porn then stop letting them out of jail, get better policing but leave us law abiding people make our own decisions.

Only ten more months to re election

It's not odd, it's absolutely no surprise. Probably found alcohol and lots of empty fast food wrappers too. Might even find a bible and enormous amounts of drugs, who knows? Ever notice that when police stop sombody for speeding or a traffic infraction they look for other stuff? All things are connected and when something is found you can be sure that there is other illegal items as well. These people are not indicative of the rest of society and are the exception rather than the rule. I wonder how many normal, well ajusted people use porn vs sexual predators. That would provide a true stat for your linkage of porn to assault. To these people, a talking dog is the devil, a master to be obeyed. Porn is in many forms; written, photos, advertisements, National Geographic Magazines, a teen in tight jeans or a middle aged lady bending over in a tight skirt at the bank. You can't ban all that so what you would have is a form of controlling it. You know, this but not that, here but not there. It's funny that you would see porn as an evil. There is another society that has the same view and even goes to extraordinary lengths to eliminate it in all the forms I spoke of by placing drop cloths over women. I see no improvement for the lot of a woman there. Matter of fact, these guys view woman as lower than cattle. It also does not eliminate rape either. My contention is that evil will do evil reguardless of other factors. A would be rapist will not become saintly because he is not exposed to porn, just the same as a person who is not raist material will suddenly convert to become a rapist. I further contend that this is another form of placing blame on any other thing or person rather than the actual perpetrator.

OK, Day is a Conservative Chomsky. He just comes off like an idiot. Kidding. The guy was OK. He was bashed by inexperience Liberal Media and bad advisors. Clark would have turned it around if he had been there. BTW, I'm no fan of Clark and when I said I would vote Liberal I was ranting, sorry. Back to Stronach, I have no idea who she is and where she wants to go or her beliefs and political track record for guys like us. Why not throw in a few hundred other unknowns to muddle the Conservative choices up so we really don't know who is who. That really focuses on the Liberal 'problem' doesn't it? Her entry into the ring is simply a game for her. For us, it's life and death. Serious, I'm ready to bolt from this country for the sake of my daughter growing up into a country that is almost socialist. That's serious stuff to me. First she says no, then she says yes. What is wrong with her being satisfied with being known for unselfishly uniting the right? Guess it doesn't satisfy her career plans for fame. The black body suit photos and being called a babe by the papers reminds me of that last PC loser - Cambell. I need a politician that can kick Liberal butt and has a record, not a stripper. See what she brings to the party? Sorry, I'm a member but watched my MP vote her own pay raise in line with the Liberals as one of her first official acts in government. If you think that I have a lot of time for BS like her or unknowns I don't. There had better be something a lot more honest, recognizable, substancial and rewarding at the end of this conservative rainbow than todays pretty face. One other thing. You don't come on here very often but I do place much weight on your posts. Especially the What is a Canadian one, it was inspiring.

I liked the good old days when idiots knew what clan they belonged to. Now with all these snakes interbreeding it's too hard to identify the real smelly ones from the ones that just suck on manure. Not that fatso is a snake, just that she looks like a ship deserting a sinking rat.

Perfect indeed. Married twice, born into wealth. Yes, evernman, every woman. And most perfect of all, I never heard of her until she 'United the Right.' I did a double take because in McLeans they always have mutts for chicks whenever there is a picture (unless it's an athelete) and she caught my eye. I read the article, United the Right. Has no designs on Party Leadership. LOL. If she runs, I'm voting Liberal. Hows that for winning anything? BTW, Harper and all I never heard of before this. Manning was the man, Harris turned out to be a scumbag and Day an idiot. God, why couldn't you have made me a moron Liberal so voting would be easy?

I read voraciously. I think as well. I listen to news, and especially like talk shows. Believe it or not I like left radio as well. Sean Hanitty and Mike Savage are my favs for info but I always check their facts. The left radio never has any new facts like the right stuff. They spin the same facts in different ways. A fact is a fact. When you follow the whole picture the way we have then you see the pattern and no spin will change the overall picture unless you live in a cave. What I have noticed abuot the Left is that the object of their hatred is not the actions of the US but rather, Bush himself. I like to think that any President would have done the same thing. Kennedy, Truman, Rosevelt I am certain would have. What say you? Now back to Europe and the press. WMD were in Iraq. Iraq threatened the ME and hence the stability of the world's oil supply, not simply the US. Saddam had ample opportunity to rejoin the Nations of Earth and instead allowed sanctions to continue to make a point. HELLO! He allowed his people to starve to villify the UN and America? Who is the villan here? All he needed to do was to give a hungry Blix and his merry men a few documents and burn some crap in front of them. Maybe some interviews with the people who destroyed the WMD but no, he did not. I see the US as the only entity on Earth that actually did what it was supposed to do. Sure, they did it for differing reasons but none are as nefarious as some portray it. I mean, arre there squadrons of covered wagons from Iowa waiting to move in to the deserts of Iraq to rip the Iraqis off? All oil exports have been more to Europe than America. I find that the European press is forgetful of one fact; the US has had Atomic weapons for over 50 years and we are still alive with prosperous trade and far better off than we were 50 years ago. Under the rule of a variety of terrorist organisations from the ME, supported by Saddams and whoever else, what we have is Atomic weapons, warlords elevated to cult status with Atomic weapons. Middle ages meets 20th century with an Atomic suicide belt. No thanks, I'd rather nip it in the bud with some democracy. BIASED BOOK

Diner for four on the line here Lonius. What is the prediction and when?

What's wrong with the Left? Damm I would make a good one. Here you are, more help from KK; It appears that Bush, failing to find WMD is going to the moon to continue the search. OR MAYBE LOOKING FOR BIN LADEN Do I have to write all your garbage for you? Or possibly establishing a Neo Con empire. Is there oil in space? Must be, that's all he is interested in.

I was serious as well my Sparring Partner. It was well said and is observed by myself as being an incomplete work. One that seems to be covieniently out of the spotlight. As for Jennings, it's hillarious. Here is is, Craig posted it. ost Preview QUOTE (Craig Read @ Dec 30 2003, 07:37 PM) Clown is a good word for the Liberals on Iraq and Foreign policy. Maybe they add some value on domestic issues, when you can cry about love, equality and making sure grandma has enough money to buy dentures. On foreign policy these guys are so out of touch it is shocking. Good report here on Canadian Peter Jenning's and his AntiAmerican Blowhard Corp's [ABC], pre Iraq war utterances. Utterly vapid. JENNINGS LINK Peter’s Peace Platoon An MRC study of 234 stories on ABC’s World News Tonight from January 1 to March 7 found that ABC News harshly criticized the Bush administration and its policies, but failed to extend that same tough critical standard to congressional Democrats, UN bureaucrats, skeptical allies like France and even to the dictatorship in Iraq. (MRC Special Report, March 18) Jennings Refuses to Cover NYC Pro-Troops Rally No anti-war protest has been too small for Jennings and ABC to cover but a pro-troops rally that drew 15,000 in New York City didn’t get a mention. NBC and CBS, as well as the three cable networks, did short pieces on the event. (CyberAlert, April 11) Jennings Repeats Himself ABC anchor Peter Jennings used an al-Jazeera report about an American bombing that killed 18 civilians on two successive nights. (CyberAlert, April 5) Jennings and Stahl Raise Vietnam Quagmire Jennings claimed “one Marine” told an ABC reporter that Iraq “sometimes feels like Vietnam.” Over on CBS, Lesley Stahl asked former Navy Secretary James Webb if he was getting a feeling of “déjà vu.” (CyberAlert, March 27) Celebrating Iraqis A Ruse? Iraqis tore down Saddam Hussein's picture and celebrated when coalition forces came through the town of Safwan but ABC News was skeptical. Peter Jennings suggested the actions were done "for the cameras." Correspondent John Donvan went there unescorted and said he "didn't see anything like that." (CyberAlert, March 23) Jennings: U.S. Will Be Welcomed, But We Kept Saddam in Power Jennings interviewed an anti-American former assistant UN Secretary General and made a pro-American point. Sort of. Iraqis will welcome Americans, Jennings said, because they want “to get out from under the yoke of Saddam Hussein, in part because the U.S. supported him staying in power for a long time and kept sanctions.” (CyberAlert, March 21) OK ABC time to fire Jennings the clown - or maybe Fox can buy him and put him on the Simpsons.

Let's see one made out of choice rather than desparation. You notice of course the Clerics demanding the US hold elections now? Reason being is they know they would be victorious because nobody is prepared at this moment. Once educated and polls set up it will be a different story. It should be interesting to see and you and I will not be the only ones watching. More intent observers will be the Rulers of the ME.

I have a fine looking woman. Smart too (K'sensual Kruella is her handle) and she loves to show off for me. That's pornography in a sense. I treat her with respect and she treats me the same. She whips my butt intellectually and helps taking out the garbage and even has a semi license to go on long trips for the heck of it. I like to look at other women too but her the most. Other guys have mutts for wives and girl friends. Too bad, maybe they like to look at porn more, or less than I. Point being, I like porn and so does she. I like to feel like an object sometimes and so does KK. If another can't put that into perspective because they are hung up on what a woman is or should be, or a guy for that matter that is a problem they would be better off adressing to a shrink rather than the legal system. Maybe, those opposed to porn should let go with their partners a bit more to feel as sexy as the ACTORS seem to be. This issue to me, is more about being hung up than free. Like love, sex is free and exciting. Porn is a product of desire, it has been with us much longer than the Middle Ages. In ancient Egypt there were ponographic statues as well as ones that I have seen in Herculanium. Get rid of porn? Try being open and less of an anal freak and enjoy life for a change. Talk about trying to buck a tradition!

Glad to hear it. Had me fooled for a minute. OK, Saddam was not a problem to be dealt with. Is that what you are trying to say? Rather Bush is the problem? Let's see, Bush can be unelected next year and Saddam would simply step down if he was asked nicely. Or was it the Rogue Regime thing that alerted me to your intent. Dishonest - prove it Mischevious - prove it Defective or unpredictable - prove it Should be easy, I can prove that those who are 'Leftnandicapped' are full of it in the Oil argument, WMD argument, and Bush empire building for himself or the US argument so I am curious, what is your argument?

when it is more than likely that it is not at all the case. Duh, it gets rid of a lot of the people attacking Iraqis and Americans but not all. It is a positive step forward. Therre are die hards for sure but they will fall eventually. Like them the left will begin to accept that things are working out. A quick question to those who are inlined to the left; what do you figure when most of your predictions about this action have been proved wrong? Do you find excuses or simply overlook them? What I am talking about is all the Peter Jennings quotes about this being a Viet Nam and America being bogged down and such.