White Doors

This is such a pile of nonsense that it's not worth responding to. Your posts are not worth responding to, you are correct on that.

I have to agree. Canadian libs love to censor anyone that doesn't agree with their opinions. Just like a thrid world country. I say, let anyone say what they want as long as they aren't directly breaking the law (wich no one here has probably ever done). He was a tool. plain and simple. And I am no liberal. haha

jezus. ban this clown already.

I don't think anyone here is callign for the end of public healthcare. Merely that we be abllowed the choice to private care if we want. The Quebec supreme court already agreed with this position. Why would you feel the need to put limits on choice in healthcare?

I honestly wonder what country you people are living in. Do any of you have first hand knowledge of the health care system? Can you honestly say it is bad? Do I have first hand knowledge?......pretty much as I have spent the past few years, pretty much since Sept 11, 2001 in hospitals , had a break in Dec 2003 and have been in and out of hospitals and clinics for the past six months. I see plenty of great things happening in our hospitals and with our doctors , and in conjunction with the rest of the medical community I see it works and works well. I wont dwell on the details but for a summary. My dad was diagnosed with an aneurysm. His operation was 9-11 (yes..that day) Double bypass, kidney failure , stroke , heart attacks...you name it he had, and he was 74 yrs old. When they diagnosed a need for a double bypass ...gee it was done in a matter of 4 days.Everyday for 2.5 years I was in a hospital seeing him and meeting Docs and nurses. As for myself, I am going thru Cancer treatment right now. I have been very pleased with the actions of all involved. I was diagnosed in August after feeling lousy all July. So, yes I can say with some "first hand knowledge" that our system is one to be damn proud of because it works and works well. To suggest , even remotely , that the US system is better is ludicrous and misguided. (40M uninsured, expected to rise to 100M in 10 years...hospitals closing in Cali due to strain from illegals) They do have amazing docs in the US, most of the best of the best are there. Good for them , wopuldn't want their E&O expenses, but hey, that is the US ' problem. Do we need to look at our system and make it better? Of course we do, everything can be improved and our system is no different. Name me a country with better health care......AND has the geographic expanse we have. We are unique in so many regards with respect to our health care. People want to live in small towns all over this great country and yet they want the best health care provided next door. It cannot work that way. Of the people that I know personally that whine about the health care system, most of them can be dismissed as pure and simple whiners. Thats right whiners. So people have to wait for an operation. Get used to it. It would seem obvious to me that the Doctors have consulted and realize that there "may" be others that are in dire need to have something done now, so those that have the luxury of their illness not being acute, must wait. Perhaps, and it pains me to write, we need to look at what we are doing with respect to our ever growing legions of elderly. I am of the opinion that my dad should NOT have had a double bypass at his age. I did not think he had much time left anyway,unfortunately I was right. Maybe the Docs should have made that call. So lets look at what we are spending money on and improve that . But for god sakes, the Health Care in this country is amazing. It could certainly be better, but I am damn proud of our docs and nurses. Especially the nurses. Nurse, what an amazing group of caring individuals. Not one complaint from me. Improve it , assist it , put a $20 co-pay......but do not denigrate it. Well in a two-tiered system you could feel free to keep on using the public system. No one is saying that you can't. We want choice and Health is too important to pander to unions.

Mmhmmm. And if they are from outside of the major centres where the private clinics set up shop? They still have to eat the cost of travel and accomodation, as well as treatment. Are there any successful models of public/private integration in health? Yeah, pretty much every country in Europe. The only reason to be against two-tier health care is ideaology and that's just sad.

Yes, shame on Harper for actually allowing Democracy to work.

Nice article. I liked this paragraph:

Kyoto is only concerned about so called GHG's not real pollution. The Clean air act will tackle both. You can't help but reduce GHG's if you are reducing pollution. At least we will not waste time on GHG's only.

I don't know, that's why I'm asking geoffrey, he's an Albertan and I'm not. In terms of policies, I have no idea what would please Albertans and Torontonians at the same time. I would, however, as a start, take Howard Dean's advice and not concede any province or riding. The Liberals should certainly campaign hard in Alberta and ask Albertans for their vote. They may or may not get it, but I agree that it's a sign of respect to ask. If they don't even bother to put forth an effort to campaign in Alberta, it's no wonder they aren't going to vote Liberal. I imagine that doing otherwise would only make Albertans feel forgotten, like their vote doesn't matter....am I right? Of course you are right. But IMO there is nothing the Liberals can do to change the way Albertans feel. The Liberals have put a lot of effort to reach out to the west. That's why landslide Annie was the # 2 person in Martin's cabinet and a top cabinet minister in all of Chretien's cabinets. That's why when the oil industry asked Martin to get the federal government out of the oil business, he sold our stake in PetroCanada. Alberta asked that Kyoto gets put on the backburner - that's what the liberals did. That's why Martin gave billions to the beef industry in Alberta and why he and every other federal and provincial politician were eating mad cow beef in front of the cameras. Did Albertans show any sign of appreciation for any of these things? Not to my knowledge, quite the contrary - they want to separate more than ever and nothing would make them happier than to see the "eastern basterds freezing in the dark". No matter how much effort the liberals (or the NDP) put into campaigning in Alberta they will never get any recognition for it - they never have, they never will. IMO, the Liberals couldn't have gotten any seats in Alberta even if they had elected Ralph Klein to lead them. The auto industry in Ontario produces more GHG's than the oil patch. Yet who get's the government subsidies? A head scratcher ain't it?

Not unless he also happened to be an MD, specializing in surgery. But your description doesn't really fit Suzuki. It doesn't really matter if he has a PhD, or what it's in. He has also been involved in environmental issues for a long time, and that makes him more qualified than just about any politician I have seen. Are there people with more experitse on the environment than Suzuki? Perhaps. Does Suzuki have more expertise than a typical politician? You bet. Agreed. But he's an arrogant radical. When I hear a practical solution from him, I'll listen. I miss the days when he was about science and not activism, when his show the nature of things was a fantastic watch. hear hear. me too.

Who cares whether a suicide bomber has committed a crime against humanity? The person's dead.We might be able to classify a group as "terrorists" if theu organize suicide bombings. We could say that members of the group have committed a "crime against humanity". We could strip such people of Canadian citizenship (if they have it) or deny them entry to Canada. IOW, I want to see the practical effect of this law. You can see the 'practical effect' of this 'law' or 'thinking' at Saturdays Liberal leadership convention. It will be on full display for all who want to see. Everyone can decide how we convince ourselves that we 'reep what we sow' and should 'take it like a man' (imam??). We are the people who have to decide. If we want mob rule and no laws - we can do it. There are laws of conflict and war just like there are domestic laws of murder and torture. Perhaps we should just say screw it. Who cares? death is terrible. Wether caused through smoking, spousal abuse, drinking and driving or walking in front of a bus - who cares? Let's ban smoking, marriage, drinking, driving and busses. That will solve it all and we will all live 'warm and fuzzy' ever after.

You are misunderstanding. Murder is not war. Death is not suicide. There are judgements to be had. There are decision to be made. Does war cause death? Is suicide murder of oneself? Is death tragic? Moot. Legality and morality is the topic this thread has taken and you are on the wrong side thus far.

It is if you have to disguise yourself as a civilian in order to do it. Suicide bombing itself is not illegal, you said yourself soldiers are allowed to do it; being disguised as a civilian would appear to be the illegal part. Yes and I opposed that opinion how? of course. It took you 3 pages to see what I was saying? You can't see the tactical and moral difference between the two? is this shocking to you?

War is not a civilized activity, it is a last resort. It is a last resort - but by all international law - it most certainly IS a civilized activity. Or at least we fight it that way. You are confusing MURDER with WAR. You should take some law courses. What do you mean we? Surely you mean he. By your own example you admit that as far as the opposition is concerned this is a "total war" yet you seem to think that a half assed gentlemanly response is an adequate way of dealing with it when the opposition recognizes no such limitations. 'We' as in the people that hope the western world wins? is that wrong? I hope we do win. Am I not able to have an opinion in the war because I'm not on the front lines fighting it? if so - what about you? I happen to maintain that we can win this war without having to resort to murderous intentional tactics. Perhaps you should vote for the party that allows our armed forces to do this in the next election if you are truly looking out for their welfare as opposed to making them morally equivelent to murderous terrorists. If I have misrepresented you - feel free to post your own thoughts on what our soldires should be doing there.

It is if you have to disguise yourself as a civilian in order to do it. Don't blame me - blame the rules of law as defined by the Geneva conventions. I did not make this up. What you are saying is more akin to "Is it rape if I hear that she didn't say no' when I forced myself on her. Canada is the 'her'. Alot of people here need to read up on their history and re-evaulate their morality. ARMY GUY is NOT the bad guy. If he is who he says he is, he is the knight in shining armour. This converation is shameful because it has even gone this far without others agreeing that our soldiers are fighting the good fight. They are and if they lose - we all lose.

really? You should do some more reading. Try 'brainwashing and it's effects on the human mind' maybe "Former PLO terrorist' It does and is motivating them. Testosterone is what does it. You just have to properly motivate it. Thankfully we have a free society. When you look at Iran now - this is what you see when you study history in regards to the Holy Roman Empire of the 1200's, for but one example. I like pussy more than killing myself just to kill mine enemy and for no other reason - but you can call me crazy if you wish.

1) Not illegal. 2) Illegal. 3) It SHOULD be illegal that the TML are allowed to be in the NHL.

Please name this country.

Illegal. Not that black and white - but generally illegal. The conventions of POW's does not apply to them. The acts of civilians does - in that context. Basically if you are not a uniformed combatent you are at the mercy of the laws of the land.

Jezus dude. Just what you say here makes the act ILLEGAL. Please tell me what I am missing,. Last I checked passion does not equate justice. There are people from the army.ca forums that would be very interested in what you have to say on this subject. Shall I invite them over to browse on your comments?

Bulls eye....Rules of warfare are written on the battlefield, both sides agree to give equal treatment to all combatants, IE start loping off heads of the wounded odds are the other side will return the favour...and don't let that "we are from the west we are better than that" fool you, history is full of examples of brutallity in war conducted by the west including Canadians, Example after the D-day landings and those Canadian soldiers were found exicuted by the SS orders were given out there would be no SS POW's were to be taken taken....that is clearly agian'st the conventions... My piont is it is fine for some suit to write how warfare should be conducted in the safety of his office, it is another whole different ball game to get soldiers to abide. But we are not in a 'total war' army guy. We are in a tactical war with the strategic intent of empowering the masses over the fanatical tyranny of the few. When they belive that there is 72 virgins waiting for their oppressed sexual urges if they TRY to kill you - that is a formiddable enemy. It is an enemy that is more formiddable strategically - than tactically. That much has been proved by your 500 - 1 KIA ratio. That is not what will grant you victory. It is time that we see what will bring us defeat. And that is BD's white guilt NDP world outlook that will defeat us. Think about it. The law is on your side - of which there is not little doubt - there is ZERO doubt. Your achilles heal is the moral equivellency that is being expressed here - of which you were earlier taking a part in. I now that is not your intent but I ask that you re-evaluate your opinion expressed here.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated. Care to keep going or would you like to continue to make an ass of yourself? The USA never complained to the League of nations about Kamikaze pilots. They just killed them. Both perfectly legal. I hate to weigh in on this, but it looks to me as if Black Dog is the one with the correct argument. A suicide bomber is someone who detonates a bomb with no hope of surviving the explosion. Nowhere is this stated as illegal in the Conventions. If the bomber has not distinguished him or herself from the civilian population then that makes them an illegal combatant, but, as Black Dog pointed out, this does not make suicide bombing as a method illegal. Even you have acknowledged that point above, so I am a little unclear as to why you are so intent on bashing Black Dog. The intended target is also relevant to whether or not the action is legal or illegal, but again, the method - suicide bombing - is not specifically stated as illegal. Ok, you tell me where an islamic suicide bomber has distinguished him or herself from the citizen population - then you have an argument. Clearly under the Geneva conventions what they are doing is simply murder in the most cowardly of ways. Against military or civilians is irrelevent. This is not me saying this - this is the geneva conventions and the domestic laws of all of these countries. Ironmic it is that a bunch of self loathing Canucks can vainly try to legitimize these attacks from our cozy homes is it now when Arab Israeli's are equally against this illegal method as most adjusted Canadians are. For shame.

Winning is far more important than fighting. Winning is the only reason to fight. Asking people to fight if there isn't every intention of winning by whatever means necessary is more criminal than anything the combatants may do. In a black and white world - perhaps. Unfortunately we live in a world much different than that. We have to think about the future of the civilized world - not the end of it.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated. Indeed? Was that when you (rather unequivocally) stated that: Which would suggest that suicide bombing under any circumstances is a proscribed activity under the G.C. (which it is not). Or was it when you point blank referred to suicide bombing as an "illegal tactic"? For those just joining us, I'll save you the trouble of reading through and summarize things to this point: (I know, I've taken some creative liberties here, but I found the original character of "White Doors" to be trite and unbelievable.) haha You keep spinning your wheels there BD. Not having enough attantion in the 'off-line' world is plain to see. Suicide bombers ala hapenneing in today's world are blindingly illegal in the geneve convention sense. You keep going on about how they are morally equivelant with what Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan if you wish - but I will not dignify your tripe with a discussion on this subject going forward. I could only wish that you knew of what you speak and were aware that freedom is not 'free' as it is in your small, tiny - simplistic little world. My pities for living in a society that you so obviously despise. Merry Christmas to you and yours.