White Doors

Cable companies are eating away at telco's market share, you would have had lots of choice. MTS/Allstream itself will be bought out soon. Not as attractive though as they do not have coast to coast wireless branding. A very small time player. I think Telus decided Bell was a bit too big of a bite to chew. It was silly for them to entertain it anyways. Besides, if BCE is bought up by private equity, it won't stay that way - it wll be auctioned off piece by piece and Telus can bid on the one piece of ivory that they want at that time, instead of taking the whole elephant. No one is more used to that than Quebec, they would have gotten over it.

I get it now.. The 'instability' in the Middle East is caused by the Jooos. They keep this 'instability' ruse going so they can make money off of it. Ahh.. How 1930's of her! What a stunning revelation! Naomi Klein.. Why oh why does the far left hate Israel so?

Dude, if your jewish your jewish. It is a religion. Call it an ethnicity if you want but it is still an ethnicity based upon a person's religion. Sorry but there is no way around it. Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Jewish is an ethnicity and it is a religion. One does not require the other to be a member of either. The holocaust happened because of the ethnic part, not the religious part.

So if these people where not jewish would they have still been exterminated? I doubt it. They died because of their beliefs. They died because of their religion. Dude... are you thick in the frontal lobe area? I'm white. I can believe that I'm black and alla dat, yo - but I'm still a white homey - you dig? ie: Ethnicity is not a 'belief'. Your posts becoming increasingly moronic? A belief bordering on the factual.

Oh my... So if a religious person is killed by a fanatical secularist, it is the religions fault? Do you really believe this? Also, you do know that 'Jew' is an ethnicity do you not? The Jews at the holocaust were killed because they were ethnically Jews, not because they were practising the jewish religion. It mattered not to the the SS and SD if the Jews renounced their faith on their march to the gas chambers. Stalin is the biggest mass murderer in the century with the most mass murders. The 20th century was undoubtedly mans' bloodiest and it also marked the century with religion at it weakest point in world history. If you do not see this it is simply because you do not want to.

I appreciate your consistency.

The Western European 'Crusader Wars' of the 12th and 13th century were all about land. Europe was at that time suffering from a huge population boom (that ended with the Plague in 1350's) that was caused by a variety of improvements in agriculture (3 fields rotation and the deep-furrow plow and halter). A surfeit of aristocratic young males with no land to endow them with was a major source of political instability in Europe at that time. The Crusades were an attempt to annex Middle Eastern land to the European feudal system. Urban II preached at Clermont about conquering the 'land of milk and honey' - not about smiting Muslims. Count Behemond was one of the leaders of the 1st crusade - certainly the most illustrious and respected military leader of the 1st Crusade (that had no official leader). Antioch was one of the first cities of the Middle East conquered by the Crusaders. Behemond, whose troops were the ones that actually took Antioch, promptly proclaimed himself Count of Antioch and immediately started to make alliances with his new Muslim neighbours in defence of his new territory against the claims of other Christian Crusaders. This was the first official act of the Crusades. It established a pattern that was endlessly repeated for several centuries and a half-dozen Crusades. The minute any Crusader got his hands on some land, he immediately stopped crusading and set about establishing a feudal state under his own control - and was ready and willing to ally with Muslims against Christians to maintain it. It was the constant alliances of these people with the Muslims against their fellow Crusaders that shows the true nature of the game - it was a land-grab plain and simple, with a bit of religious rhetoric thrown on top. If it was all about religion (or even partly about religion) we wouldn't see dozens and dozens of alliances signed between Crusader Lords and Muslims against other Christian Crusaders. (I don't have access to my library right now so I can't list for you a bunch of these alliances in detail) Ok if that is how you want to look at it. The "holy land" had nothing to do with being "holy" it was just that it was land. Please explain how the following conflicts and atrocities are not religious based: Jihad ( pick one or twenty) Iraq sectarian Ireland The Holocaust The Inquisition Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia Witch Trials (#s in the 000's) 10th century Afghanistan (Muslim/ hindu) Kashmir pre-14th century(Muslim/ hindu) Pakistan 1947(Muslim/ hindu) Bangledesh 1971(Muslim/ hindu) Goa 16th century (portugese christians/ hindu) Tarain 1192( Muslim/Bhuddhist) This is just the tip of the iceberg. One 'conflict' that would count for many more deaths than all of those combined would be the cultural revolution in China. That's over 20 million people dead. More than the combined people that died in the conflicts in your list here. I don't think you would seriously argue that Mao's cultural revoultion has anything to do with religion would you? When are people going to realize that it is human pathos of fanaticism that kills? What they are fanatical about is really irrelevant. Be it communism, fascism, feudalism, ethnism, racism etc. The one constant is intolerance for others - and yet, here we are having atheists being openly intolerant of religious minded folks. It really makes one wonder about the state of our education system.

someone needs some midol.

haha Will the real Drea please stand up. Why do you come to an internet forum? I'm sure the arguments you have with your various personalities are entertaining enough, no?

Very well put.

Toronto Silly council wisely backed down today and passed a unanimous resolution to keep the stickers on the vehicles. Sanity prevails.

How soon can you get off your ass and get a job?

hahahaha.. You just went through taxpayer subsidized university, presumably, and you are still using the tax credits on the portion that you payed and YOU don't feel like you are getting a good deal? Well I partly supplied the funds for your university educaiton Geoffrey and it's time you started paying back in. Look at it this way, you have been a net drain on society this far. It will take years for you to pay that back. I'm all for lower and fairer taxes but you are hardly in a position to complain here my friend. Then you claim you are looking at the bigger picture? You are quite self centred in your thoughts it appears to me. You say YOU want to pay lower taxes. I do too, but I have paid my dues over 15 years since I left University. How about fighting for lower taxes for All Canadians to improve productivity? I have not seen that enter your thoughts. You clearly don't give a road apple about your fellow citizen so tell me why I should care if you think you are paying too much tax especially when you are still using your university tax credits that was subsidized to begin with??

Thanks for being honest.

Explain to me how you can increase the troops morale in afghanistan, who are risking their lives for us btw, by saying that mission they are on is 'not worth it'. You explain to me how you can not support this mission and increase the troops morale? If you don;t support this mission which is UN mandated, what mission could you support? Why don't you support this mission? The troop morale can be increased by knowing people know they are doing what they are being told to do by their political masters and they are doing a damn good job of a damn hard mission. It can be separated and those who don't see that it can be don't want to. It's as simple as that. Those that support the troops but don't want them in the combat role they find themselves in now can do so for many reasons; they want no Canadians dying for a historically impossible mission; that they see the government getting more and more corrupt and see human rights abuses continuing as per Sharia (and other) laws. There are many reasons they don't want to have our soldiers dying for. The least a person could do is make an honest effort to understand the other's viewpoint on this issue. To continually bash those who don't agree with you and parrot the bullshit that Harper and his minions spew is too much when our soldiers are dying there. As far as my personal agreement or disagreement goes, I do happen to agree with this mission AND I do support our troops. I support both NOT BECAUSE of political partisanship unlike others here. I think it is the right thing to do although I am doubtful of the ultimate success there; not because I don't think our soldiers can't make a difference but because, historically, it has never been successful. The culture is so different and you have to ask yourself, do the people really want to change. Islam is not like other religions inasmuch as it is lived at every aspect of their daily lives. How many generations would it take to change that even if they actually do want to change that. So, if I, who supports our troops doing what they are doing, can see other's viewpoint I'm sure even those hard nosed opponents of everything non-Harper could. Thanks for your input. I never brought up Harper. Only the people who are opposed to the mission did. Ironic, no?

The government that changed the mission was the liberal one. NOT the 'government of the day' in this case.

"The mission changed" http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0410?hub=Canada haha from your own link: in case you didn't notice or can't remember, the liberals were in power in July of 2005. Anything else?

Who's trying to kid who here? The mission certainly has changed. The original mission was for Canadian troops to provide security and help build infrastructure, not to be chasing the taliban around. cite?

How can you and in the same breath say that the mission is doomed to fail and they troops should be withdrawn poste haste?See, simple minds simple answers. Unfortunately(?), the real world is much more complicated than the workings of your frontal lobe.

Explain to me how you can increase the troops morale in afghanistan, who are risking their lives for us btw, by saying that mission they are on is 'not worth it'. You explain to me how you can not support this mission and increase the troops morale? If you don;t support this mission which is UN mandated, what mission could you support? Why don't you support this mission?

So if Harper mismanages the mission, people still have to support it because to do otherwise shows lack of support for the troops? Look, Bush has tried this for years in Iraq. At first it worked but now it is unconvincing. People in Canada support the troops, believe in them. They just don't necessarily believe that the mission in Afghanistan is managed well or that the objectives that Harper has set out are achievable in any short, medium and possibly long term timeframes. Go ahead if you like and see if the tact of painting everyone who doesn't support the mission as not supporting the troops. That is the majority, the vast majority of Canadians. Get their back up and see what happens Speaking of partisanship... Again, the mission and goals have not changed since the day the liberals agreed to help Nato with this mission. What does this have to do with Harper? I see, you want to equate Bush with harper. Sorry, I got it now. Carry on.

Do you support your daughter's decision to join the military, if yes then show her, and the hell what everyone else thinks, if anyone asks tell them exactly how you think. I do support her and all our troops. But I do not want that confused with support for the present governments 'mission'. What an odd statement. I know that you are aware that the present government's mission is the exact same one they inherited by the previous governments. I know you know that. So in effect, what you are saying is because you don't like the CPC you don't, or are now unsure, of the mission to Afghanistan. How odd that you let yourself become so partisan. How odd again that your partisanship appears to be a stronger bond than that which you have with your own daughter.

This is the point I make, I don't necessarily support what the mission has become, and your statment bears out what I was saying to a T. And for what reason exactly would you not support it?

No scriblett is spot on. The far left doesn't support the troops because they don't like western society. ergo, whatever the troops are fighting for - they don't believe in. If you don't support the mission then you do not support the troops. No matter for what cause they were deployed no matter where it was, if it involved any of this 'war' business, the left would find it controversial. Always has and always will. Too bad Toronto seems to be infested with these parasites. Unbelieveable that this could ever be considered a controversial issue. Only in Toronto.

Please note the present tense. LOL Dumb post of the day award. congratulations kuzzkuzz