noahbody

From what I've read, I believe it was from an interview with his mother, Omar was initially staying with her out of harm's way. It was said that Omar missed his father and brothers and requested that he join them.

The only solution is to divide Afghanistan and create Talibania. Build a wall and when they come over it to try to get women, shoot them.

Of course it does.

How in bloody hell could you not know the meaning of the word "lying"? My boy is a little confused too, but he's five.

And the gun registry is effective if criminals register their guns. The problem with the above statement is that it looks like import marks, in the States anyways, can be removed. So when the government says it's going to take some time to look at options, that might be the common sense thing to do. http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1165896

Possibly, waiting until after the Olympics would've been a good idea.

Nowhere does he even suggest the government are liars.

Actually, the title of the thread makes you the liar.

You need to run the serial # regardless, don't you? (hint: yes) Maybe on an emotional level. But the reality is it does nothing.

Guns made in North America already have serial numbers, so marking them a second way accomplishes nothing. We know where they're from.

So you're saying it should be vacant for as long as the Bloc is popular and taxpayers should pick up the expense of another residence? Why not make all the leaders move in? It can be the Canadian version of Big Brother.

There's very little difference, if any. Chetien and Ignatieff are very different people, but Ignatieff is led by the party. Don't forget he was appointed and how Dion was forced out.

Someone mentioned it earlier. Chretien prorogued parliament four times between 93 and 2003. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/parliament_prorogued_091231/20091231?hub=TopStoriesV2

He voted for one that was going to cost $2 million. Saying he changed his mind on the gun registry is a huge stretch. Implying he changed his mind in this case is silly. The positions he took after he left politics are pretty clear evidence that he wasn't planning to become PM.

So why did this skilled political manager with aspirations for the power of the PM's office, help write the Firewall letter?

There wouldn't be a thread on Harper's honesty if it wasn't for Chretien. That's not difficult to achieve. It's because since the Chretien years there is now distrust in government and everything is under the microscope. That's what you'd like to believe anyway. That's an emotional read. Harper's personality type is best suited for a back room policy writer. I'd suggest, to him, power is an opportunity to make policy happen.

Name ten and show five you don't think are useful. That's Canada. We have resources others need, so they're marketable. Other countries have high populations and low labour costs so they can market low-cost manufacturing. .Because we can't produce goods at a competitive price. When I say nothing is made in Canada it's like saying you have no brains. You don't consider royalties an extraction tax? Sure it can make it so expensive that world supply is decreased. And everyone will get imaginary green jobs and be happy. Not for you or me. Don't be naive. Companies compete for shareholders. If a company can no longer give a return on investment to its shareholders, what do you think will happen to it and its employees? LOL! Good idea, Canada could be a nation of teachers. Three teachers per child. What do you think that would do to the dollar? Come on.

How about sending your paycheck to South Africa to a boy who doesn't have a rake? Will the rake still be there tomorrow? What if there are 50 rakes and all you can pick up is one? Would it make sense to give away your paycheck knowing you really weren't going anywhere?

Aside from that being a ridiculous statement, why couldn't the handful of countries that could make an impact just have had a teleconference?

Again, he said that about kyoto. Kyoto might of well have been a socialist plot to steal our money, because with the major emitters it would have accomplished the same thing.

It's a funny comment. But it couldn't miss the nail by more more. It's common sense, not bullshit. The cost of bringing everyone who is of little consequence to the conference could have fed a lot of people in Kenya.

The IPCC states it is only 90% certain AGW is driving climate change. What does this mean to you? Does it mean the science is settled or unsettled?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm I posted the last part when you first asked if you recall.