reffric

It's an easy target. You aren't going to get the hearts and minds of citizens over the injustices of Portugal.

The sentence was for 55 years. I don't know if that is considered a large penalty for rape, but I think that might have been the bulk of the controversey. As for the comments made by the reporter that we should look at society and ask the question, why are these things happening?, might actually be a good exercise. I mean if you have a problem of more homelessness or more ethnic gang crime, one should look at society as a whole and question why it is occuring. The answer may not always be that there are just more people or that a certain group of people are more likely to do something, although that could certainly be part of the answer. Actually investigating the situation, rather than just swinging from the fences may be a more constructive solution. This articles attempt is to try and silence those who think that the society as a whole may be able to help develop a constructive solution rather than the solution obviously stated here that it is all those people.

It is actually a common tactic used by many political administrations and even sports teams for that matter. Look at any political movement and you will see the attempt to try and focus on outside problems rather than internal. The US is but one target that is used to generate fear. How many times was Iraq, North Korea and Iran used as a way to trumpet fear in the United States, Canada, Britain and various other parts of the world and force citizens to focus on potential outside source rather than looking at themselves and worrying about their own domestic issues. Media outlets love this stuff because it gives them more fear to ram down the throat of citizens who are more than willing to stay up to date with potential hollywood-esque problems.

I try and I get back..... Haha - my prediction of a steady stream of ad-hominem comments by lefties has materialized Play the ball - not the man Hell of a defense.

The only reason these criminals and thugs get the time of day is because they spout anti-american rhetoric. The hilarious part is the same tactics work in places like Canada and France. The new fallback for any politician during an election is to "stand up" to the USA It is an easy tactic to use. Us versus them. Convince everyone in your country that the rest of the world is against you and that all your problems are a result of outside forces. This will keep the masses thinking of other things rather then the domestic problems that they might be causing themselves.

Nice article, but a few things were a little off..... After 9/11, a friend in London said to me she couldn't stand all the America-needs-to-ask-itself-what-it-did-to-provoke-this-anger stuff because she used to work at a rape crisis centre and she'd heard this blame-the-victim routine far too often: the Great Satan, like the dolly bird in the low-cut top and mini-skirt, was asking for it. I don't think you can compare the United States to a rape victim. That might be a bit of a stretch. One is an innocent girl maybe out with some friends or involved in a disfunctional family. The other is involved in military occupations of foreign countries. Slight difference. "His parents, Eddy and Samira, who have lived in Australia since 1972, said their five children would be allowed to go to the beach again only when the 'conflict is resolved and peace is restored' in the Sutherland shire region. 'If there's no more conflict, I will let him go,' Samira, 42, told the Australian in Arabic." In Arabic? Let's suppose that Cate Blanchett got her wish and a tidal wave of tolerance washed into all those "dark corners of Australian society" taking the chill off the chilling glimpse Squires got. How are even the most impeccably diverse multicultural types supposed to welcome into the bosom of their boundlessly tolerant family a woman who prefers to speak the language of the land she left at nine? When it comes to "racism by exclusion", who's excluding whom? Oh my god, they spoke a different language. Get out the pitchforks everybody. So what if she speaks a different language? What the fuck has that got to do with anything. I'll have to remember that when I'm walking through the mall in Burnaby and I hear Cantonese from a group of people. Should we beat these people until they learn the language we speak?

He better be real popular. Anyone who says he wants to rule for fifteen more years better be well liked.

I guess I am little confused. I think we might be arguing on two different lines of thought. Someone asked what rights do gay people gain by allowing gay marriage that straight people didn't already possess. I said straight people gained the right to have a same sex marriage which until same sex marriage was legalized they didn't have. I don't think that is wrong unless you are saying that straight people always had this right. If that were the case I think gay people would have figured out the loop hole and just claimed to be straight before the marriage certificate was given. I do not disagree with the other point that if same sex marriage was allowed that straight people would also be entitled to the same rights, allowing them to have same sex marriages. I don't think they want the right, but they do have it.

Straight people aren't allowed to marry people of the same gender. That is the right that would need to be added. Of course, straight people didn't want to marry people of the same gender, but you asked what extra right would need to be added. I am really torn on this issue because I can see both sides. I support my gay friends who want the right to be with someone that they care for and I hope that they have the right to show each other their commitment for one another, but on the other side I can see how we would need to redefine the word marriage. I say we give consenting adults the right to marry whoever they want and live in happiness or misery whatever that union may bring.

Prostitution is legal in Canada. Soliciting isn't. You are really winning this debate. Keep it up. Next you'll be talking about sugar cubes. It is a clever tactic to make it look like you are achieving something by taking a topic off the rails to make some sort of far sided point, but I still fail to see how proving a need for prostitution reflects the discussion on the banning of Wal-mart in Canadian cities and towns. But hey, keep it up. I'm sure you are bound to make a point eventually.

Many people thought that supermarkets should have been banned when they were introduced. Instead of going to a butcher, getting your milk delivered, going to the bakery and then the farmer's market to get your produce, you only needed to go to one source. Think about all those small independent companies that were being crushed by the buying power of supermarkets. The next generation will debate the next evolution in shopping and living. Lord knows what that will encompass.

And hitmen. But I wouldn't compare a retail outlet to an illegal activity. True Wal-mart has had its legal problems, but its overall theme is not that of an illegal activity.

Shouldn't the consumers be allowed to decide where they wish to purchase their goods? I personally avoid Wal-mart, for no other reason then I hate shopping there. I find the staff and customers to be on the most part beyond approach and I always feel the need to have two or three screaming children with me if I am shopping there. Besides, the store breaks a simple rule I have: Don't shop in a store that sells clothes and provides a cart. That being said, some people might like shopping there. I would rather see a ban to Denny's before a ban to Wal-mart.