reffric

Bait, what bait. There were 9 named storms this year in the Atlantic basin. True none of them hit the US. This isn't meant to be offensive towards you, but the United States is not the only determining factor in the global warming problem. There were 24 named storms in the Pacific, so it wasn't exactly a slow year. I completely agree with you that climate change is a hard thing to prove because it has happened in the past without human intervention. Completely agree. Even as this map shows..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TempAno...cmp_1951-80.gif .... while some areas have experieced increases over the last fifty years or so, there are some areas that haven't.

Truly amazing.

No. I called CanadianBlue an idiot for confusing this topic with the Never Ending Story. I think if you look at 911 carefully and still believe the official version then you must be a fool. Ahh, now it is a group of fools then. I may not believe everything about the official report because some things will inevitably be wrong. That being said, the overall 'Bin Laden's henchmen put planes into buildings and ground' theme still works well for me. Add me to your fool category. I have always appreciated people looking deeply into issues. Close examination is required. Blind hatred and discrediting people with opposing views with name calling is a clear sign of desperation. If you want to believe missles were fired into the pentagon or that fake phone calls were made, knock yourself out.

So we are now idiots for not following the "truth" movement. And they say the art of propoganda is dead. Demean your enemies and make yourself stand out as the only logical one.

If you want to get rid of the legislation, that is one thing. If that is your stance I respect your opinion. However, the idea that we need incentives to do things as simple as stay in school is ridiculous. Sure the concept of "the right thing" is a hard thing to define, but I would assume that it would be universally accepted that staying in school would be the better of the two options of staying in school or dropping out. Maybe there are circumstances that would force a person to drop out for a period of time, but completing a basic level of education would in my mind be defined as the right thing to do. To me it is like when people say there should be incentives to vote in elections to bring out voters. Shouldn't the incentive be that you get to participate in the election. Much like this issue, shouldn't the incentive be that you get to have a formal level of education.

Doing the right thing is what you are suppose to do. Should we really give out government handouts for people who obey society's norms? You stayed off the crack pipe. Fifty bucks.

What are you on? It broke a record yesterday for the warmest December 11th on record. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/a...VR.htm?CABC0308 Today it is above seasonal. So we had a bad week, that is bound to happen. You didn't think global warming meant everyday was going to be hot and sunny did you?

That was all part of the government plan and the New World Order. Look really stupid in the world forum to gain support.

If you drive, don't drop out. Ontario teens under the age of 18 will lose their driver's licence if they drop out of high school under a new law passed Tuesday. Premier Dalton McGuinty said the new law tells kids it's no longer acceptable for them to drop out of high school and hang around at the shopping mall. The law forces teens to stay in school until 18, but gives them different ways to earn their diploma through apprenticeships and co-op placements. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Arabic al-qā‘ida, the base : al-, the + qā‘ida, foundation, base, feminine participle of qa‘ada, to sit.] http://www.answers.com/topic/al-qaeda Making up propoganda and crashing planes into buildings are slightly different. Lying about WMDs is easy enough to do because the average American citizen doesn't go to Iraq and doesn't investigate the claims. You are right about the repeating things over and over again does not consititute proof. Your argument is living proof of that.

What are you talking about?

I think this is "here say" rather than proof. If 911 was an inside job then the CIA could have easily made this up. This is a perfect example of why debating this issue is pointless. If your argument can also encompass all actions as a possible set up for this event, then what can't you prove? Al Qaeda had made previous statements saying they were going to do this. Bush and the administration were mocked for their refusal to beleive a memo titled "Al-qaeda plans to crash planes into buildings" or something of that nature. But if you can claim that even this was part of the set up then you can prove anything. Was the US governemnt also responsible for the USS cole incident? I guess they could be, it could have been support for al-qaeda's existence, but then again that organization is also a possible CIA manifested fantasy.

Call it what you want. You don't follow the rules, you don't play the game the way you are told, you don't pass. Long term happiness can be achieved without the need of rules.

I couldn't imagine spending my life thinking it was a test to see if I pass or not.

Actually the bank of canada and the government fiscal policy can add value to the Canadian currency in a number of ways. Drawdowns, sale of government bonds, Sale and Repurchase agreements, adjustments of the bank rate and debt management to name a few.

Really ? How ? Well for one thing PolyNewebie, I looked at video footage of the fall time. I was told by many that the time it would take to fall would be around 10 to 11 seconds at freefall. I looked at some footage from multiple sources and estimated that the collapse took roughly 21 to 24 seconds to complete for either of the World Trade Center twin buildings. The other with the bomb theory was simple enough to disprove. The puffs of smoke that occured a great number of floors below where the building was collpasing could have been caused by wind pressure as the building collapsed. Also the bombs occured a great deal of time before the building collapsed and I don't know about you but from every other controlled explosion I have ever seen, there hasn't been a great deal of time between bomb blowing up and building falling down.

Is the suggestion made that an administration who can not keep the fact that George W Bush choked on a pretzel or any memo with their fingerprints on it from landing in the New York Times orchestrated this attack? The amount of people required to pull this thing off is immense. There are a few of the points I would love to attack, and I agree with the earlier post that we should copy and paste our responses from a receptical to save time. First, the plane in the pentagon thing. Okay, if it wasn't a plane, what happened to the plane? Did the government make up the lives of nearly 100 people and then make them vanish? I dare you to go to the family members left behind from the incident and tell them that it really wasn't the plane carrying their loved ones that crashed into the pentagon. Second, the towers falling. The only thing out of that whole thing that I have seen that is hard to prove is WTC 7. I've tried believing the free falling building theory and the bombs in the building and both have been disproved. Third, one item I never see mentioned anymore is the put options placed on the airlines. Of course, not many people mention it now after it was discovered it was for a person who was covering a position where they had purchase tens of thousands of shares in the company. Fourth, the cellphone thing. This seems like such an easy thing to prove. Get somebody flying over the east coast of the US to try and make a phone call. In addition, I know there is evil in this world, but do you really think out of a group of people in a call center making tens of calls at the same time as trying to reenact the sounds of a plane being taken over by terrorists that not one of them would break and tell people. The person who came forward would be a hero beyond anything. Finally, the whole police state thing is laughable at best. The dixie chicks are still alive (despite my cries). And if you call me a neo con for thinking this way you can shove it up your ass. I know by writing this you won't change your mind. You will probably just accuse me of being shortsighted or a government apologist, as you did in your title.

There's a difference between being a school board trustee and the Opposition Leader or Prime Minister, No? Sure there is, in terms of job description, but not who you should be loyal to.

To start with, there is no point in arguing the 9/11 truth movement because the mind has already been made up. Much like the patriot act, you can't argue against something called the "truth movement". It's the truth. How can you argue the truth? By arguing the truth you are immediately wrong. I have tried before to go issue by issue through the 9/11 truth movement and to be completely honest the only one out of the whole thing that I can not explain is the WTC 7 collapse. That one still gets me. But as much as I have tried, as much proof as I have laid out, nothing ever changes. They want something to be there. There was no concern when they blew up the WTC under Clinton's watch, because nobody questioned events that occured during that time.

There are currently 700,000 people living in Canada who have dual citizenship. That is one for alomst every 45 people. Roughly 2% of the population. If having dual citizenship does not make you loyal to your country, then I suggest you have a whole lot of people who need a phone call. Should we just state right now that none of these people are eligible to hold a public office?

I can see your point, and to me it is up to the consumer to determine if they want the service or not. Consumers include voters and if they don't want something to occur they can always voice their opinion on the topic. Much like prostitution, voters or consumers can determine whether or not they want the service through their actions. Prostitution has a few more issues such as health concerns and safety, so that's why I find it to be a horrible comparison. I think my big problem is that some people have the right to tell other people how they are going to shop.

The only report I have read so far is from an article from the Calgary Sun. Nothing yet that shows any proof.

Citizens do have the right to try and make their neighbourhoods and towns a safe place to live. That being said, they are also responsible for their actions. If they commit a crime in an attempt to eliminate a problem they see in the area, then they are responsible for their actions and get their day in court just like any other person who brakes the law. I'm hoping that the people tried a few things like phoning the police, addressing town council or maybe even addressing the person in question before burning down the house.

WSJ I didn't know that people were wrong about overpopulation, famine or natural resource exhaustion.

Isn't this about trying to ban legal activities? Prostitution is a legal activity. So is selling sugar cubes. What is your point? Are you trying to equate prostitution to selling low priced dvd players?