scribblet

Well, Charlie took his message of tolerance to the middle east this week. He went to an Islamic university which follows Saudi Arabia's strict Wahhabi school of faith. But guess what...he never even mentioned the lack of religious freedom in that country. He and his wife had to attend separate functions, heck Camilla couldn't even step foot on the university campus, its men only - no women need apply. Guess Charlie doesn't have the guts to ask for tolerance where it it most needed.

This extremism is like a virus, its spreading, now in Bangladesh. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home GAZIPUR, BANGLADESH — Nobody noticed the suicide bomber. He seemed to be an ordinary tea hawker: the poorest of the poor, dressed in dirty clothes and carrying a pair of tea flasks -- a common sight in the streets of Bangladesh. As he tried to enter the local government headquarters, two policemen stopped him. His behaviour suddenly changed. "I will teach you a lesson," he shouted. He put down his tea flasks and yanked a wire device from one of them. There was a deafening explosion, and a crowd of people fell to the ground, covered in blood. Mohammed Nurul Amin, a prominent lawyer, was just a few feet away. He was walking to a rally to protest a suicide bombing that had killed and injured dozens of lawyers just two days earlier in the same town. But as he tried to protest against one suicide bombing, he was caught in the devastation of another. "I couldn't imagine that he was carrying a bomb, even when I saw him pulling the wire from the tea flask," Mr. Amin said. "Until recently, Bangladesh was always considered a moderate Islamic country. But these bombings have shown that extremism is emerging here, and it is a threat to our society. It's an attack on our sovereignty and our rights."

No, it has not. But regardless of whether it was 100,000, or the 30-40,000 number more accepted by the Bush admin it's still beyond acceptable. Do a search and find out, the report was flawed and in error. Your right the numbers whatever they are are too high, but what would be more interesting is how many Iraqis have been killed by fellow Iraqis. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm The US and UK governments have both said the chaotic situation in Iraq makes it impossible to gather such information accurately.

After months away from Mapleleafweb, it's reassuring to find Archie Bunker-style intelligence, absurd generalizations and comic relief masquerading as political comment. It almost makes me want to return to this site more frequently. If you don't like it here why come back and throw insults and ad hominems, your comments are out of line in this forum, and against the rules. IMO anyway,

Exactly, mein gotte - why do these protesters think that they should have an unfettered right to stay and work in a country they came to illegally? Every country has a right to determine who or what it thinks is best for that country, not what is best for people who want to break the law. Its about time they took a firmer stand against those on both sides who break the law.

hmmmm. thinking....thinking.......ummm - YES! you're right! George W. Bush, former owner of the Texas Rangers baseball franchise, and Dick Cheney, fomer president & CEO of Halliburton, and their friends hatched a brilliant scheme to blow up the two most recognized american buildings and kill thousands of innocent americans. Meanwhile the nutjob militant islamists who continue to self-detonate on an almost nightly basis even today are actually the PAWNS in the American scheme to kill innocent jews and americans. Sounds plausible to me You forgot to mention the Evil Dark Lord (Karl Rove) and the Halliburtonistas--who are controlled by those Evil Zionist Jews! If you're going to have a conspiracy theory (something Nocrap enjoys), then you might as well go all the way! Yup, I guess the people who buy into this stuff also think that Bush and co. blew up the levees in order to kill black people.... oh yea....tin foil hat time.

Canada had a military commitment to enforcing the sham of an embargo in Iraq until after the coalition reoccupation of Iraq. We had military personnel in harm's way during the invasion, despite our government refusing to admit it. Our commitment to Afghanistan is a response to the new threat of international terrorism that is not sponsored by any particular nation. Unlike previous wars which have pitted nations against nations, terrorists operate covertly without any official sanction. There is no precedent for combating this threat to our security and democracy. Afghanistan was a major terrorist base. The terrorist training bases had to be taken out. We have to allow Afghanistan to form a democratic government to prevent return of the terrorists and rebuilding of their bases. The terrorists could not afford to lose Iraq, and threw in resources from all over the world to defeat the collation. Not only have they failed, but terrorist, and in particular foreign terrorists are no longer able to threaten the Iraqi, who grow more defiant as time passes. They are tired of having gunmen murder them at random. The Iraq war has taken a toll of terrorist organization and power. Many of the leaders have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and the London and Madrid bombings were carried out by some of the remaining leaders at the time. They are the hunted rather than the hunters at present. We need to keep it that way. Governments in Afghanistan and Iraq will face continued terrorist threats. We need to provide policing and military assistance while these governments develop the trained people and equipment to deal with the terrorists themselves. In my mind, it is a clear case of teaching people how to fish. Once they acquire the skills along with some basic infrastructure, they will no longer be a dependent and can become strong allies of the west. We cannot escape the ugly fact that the brutality employed by terrorists to coerce and subjugate local populations is exactly the brutality that they wish to employ on western societies. There is no argument, debate or negotiation with radical terrorists. We kill them or are subject to their tyranny. We allow our military to fight them where they find them or we fight for our lives at home.

That study by the lancet journal has been discredited, or at least widely known that their study was not accurate. I don't have time to look up all the links, but their methodology etc. was flawed and there was no attempt (and no way, probably) to verify how accurate the reports of the causes of death were. It also seems to me that the majority of Iraqi deaths are from the 'insurgents'.

NAME ONE !!! Shouldice Surgery in the Toronto area, ask any guy who's been there, including Jack Layton. Or ask any woman who's had an abortion in a private clinic, paid for by the taxpayers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the bill is also about, It would make it a felony to be illegally in the United States, impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal immigrants and erect fences along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border.

Nocrap, if a cure or better treatment for your grandson's condition was available, but not covered by the public healthcare system, would you pay to cure or treat him? That is a question I would like to see answered by those who oppose it. I am assuming that they would prefer to let their loved ones or theselves suffer or die rather than pay for it in a private facility. We would scrape what we could together and send our kids to the States if necessary

Topic should be Massive Immigration Demonstrations Since when is the U.S. obligated to allow unchecked immigration and what right do illegal immigrants have to make demands of the U.S. It will take some guts by congress to pass the bill. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189110,00.html Thousands Across America Rally for Immigrants' Rights Sunday, March 26, 2006 LOS ANGELES — Immigration rights advocates more than 500,000 strong marched in downtown Los Angeles, demanding that Congress abandon attempts to make helping illegal immigrants a crime and to build more walls along the border. The massive demonstration, one of half dozen around the nation in recent days, came as President Bush prodded Republican congressional leaders to give some illegal immigrants a chance to work legally in the U.S. under certain conditions. and...Everyone deserves a better life

I agree that it is wrong to pursue impeachment on this issue because the issue is really political - not criminal. I feel the same way about Clinton's purgury - he may have lied but it was about his private life and it had nothing to do with his duties in office. How many Republicans are willingto stand up and say it was wrong to persecute Clinton? Thats my take on it too, it is strictly political, from what I've read there is no legal basis for impeachment. Whats left of his term, 3 years, and the last year is all campaigning - so whats the point in tearing the country aside simply to gain political points. It would be a waste of time and money to gain political points, and, would leave Cheny as President...

With Harper having two meetings already with Jack about the throne speech,and Layton saying nothing about the meetings,but being critical of the Liberals.I wonder if these two maybe have some plan that will bump the Libs down further in popularity and in turn boosting the NDP popularity up. Maybe Jack's hopes are of replacing the "Left" away from the Liberals. Graham doesn't seem to be able to sway anybody with his "another election" threats over the Liberal child care program that never existed. As for the CAW, former senator in waiting, and now has been NDPer, Hargrove, will, I believe, lose further support from the rank and file workers with his "federal politics agenda" as the auto industry wavers with uncertainty about the car sales. Maybe Buzz should buzz off. The only reason for Layton to make deals is that he's in damage control mode. He sees the Liberals are rebuilding and if they do make gains he knows they will likely come from his supporters. I don't like him personally because he'll make a deal with whatever devil (CPC & Libs are devils to NDPers) will further his cause. Now that makes sense.

I came out as a moderate conservative on the short test and the long test.

My daughter has infant twins. She is panting after her $200/mo she expects Harper to give her. She doesn't need the money. I'd rather the money go to someone who actually does need it. If she's panting after the $200, obviously she needs it. Even if it is for a different reason. I don't begrudge folks who get a bit back from the government. After all, these folks have been contributing to the pot to help those who rely on social programs. No harm done to put a little smile on these folks faces. A little incentive helps lighten the load we carry. In other words, its a method of reducing taxes for all of us. I'm guessing Harper will come up with a modified program to molify the opposition, I sure hope its not more of the nanny state, socialism.

It is not only animosity towards making a profit, it is the animosity towards people who might have a better standard of living than themselves. IMHO that it part of the reason some people don't want others to have a choice in health care, its sour grapes because some else might have a better pension than they do, or a few more bucks in the bank. Heaven help they should be able to buy better care for their loved one - better they should let the die waiting in line. What a self centred way of looking at things, all I hear is the need for some to be able to put others down, its called poor self esteem If careing about my family and getting them health care when they need it, is self centred, so be it. Bitching and whining about others and what they have is low self esteem, denying others the right to spend their hard earned dollars for their families is self centred. As far as I'm concerned, those being self centred and having poor self esteem are those who constantly carp about others having a bit more then them, those who continually whine about wanting continual gov't 'freebies' - freebies which are courtesy of other taxpayers. Again, no one wants to take away the public health care or deny you your 'freebies', we just want a choice alongside public healthcare and the right to spend our hard earned dollars as we see fit.

It is not only animosity towards making a profit, it is the animosity towards people who might have a better standard of living than themselves. IMHO that it part of the reason some people don't want others to have a choice in health care, its sour grapes because some else might have a better pension than they do, or a few more bucks in the bank. Heaven help they should be able to buy better care for their loved one - better they should let the die waiting in line.

I would not support mandatory abortions, even though I'm pro choice. Forced sterilization - tough call, generally speaking I wouldn't support it, but I think there could be exceptions. e.g. a woman who abused her child, has it taken away then has another one to abuse. (it has happened). I generally support the right to assisted suicide, but its a slipper slope when the right to die becomes a duty to die.

Corporations do NOT provide the food and clothing you wear, labour does. You and me. True, but without corporations or individuals in small business, neither you nor I would have a job.

A national child care program isn't fair either, as well to do stay at home moms can leave their kid and go to the spa. National is national, no means test, everyone can use it.

Took me forever to scroll by, any more of those and my scroll button will wear out.

No they do not want to take it away from you, when are you going to understand that all most of want is a choice, alongside the public health care. NO ONE including Harper is going to take away, he has said so, and no amount of misinformation or fear mongering is going to alter that.

Actually I think its fun seeing the media get its knickers in a knot over it, although I think Harper should be careful about alienating them even more. As I said before, I don't blame him for not wanting to give the press the opportunity to spin and misconstrue everything he says.

Interesting to note that Harper is up in this poll. I guess now people are having a chance to get a look at him and not just from the left wing media point of view they are pleasantly surprised. Or is it that they aren't buying into the 'secret agenda' conspiracy any more, and the old tired horse of him doing away with health care. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...ec-c576a99eb49d OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's popularity in B.C. has soared a whopping 21 points -- to 66 per cent -- according to the latest Ipsos Reid poll, indicating the controversy over his appointment of former Liberal David Emerson to his Conservative cabinet is dying. "Harper's approval rating is way up," said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid Public Affairs. "These are Chretien-type numbers by reaching the 60s. Paul Martin didn't know what the 60s looked like," Bricker said. "It's a bounce back from the Emerson situation. That was Harper's low water mark." The prime minister's national approval rating has also increased -- eight percentage points to 62 per cent -- following his surprise trip to Afghanistan March 12 and 13 to visit Canadian troops.