noahbody

Can you model how long a person will live if he smokes 7 cigarettes per day? Of course not. Because there are many unknown variables. You can smoke all your life and not get lung cancer. You could also die of something else. That's how it's similar to AGW. Incomplete models make bad science. The only thing that should be settled, is that argument whether man, at this time, can model Earth's climate. The answer is no.

So one week it's one or two decades; the next it's 40 years?

You must have missed this: http://www.calgaryhe...0571/story.html

No, I'm still waiting. Eight minutes before I first asked you to back up your accusation, you replied to another poster with: "Next target for you... the handgun registry? Another waste of money?" That would indicate that you know very well the government is talking about long guns. Quit being a troll.

Here's what you said: Prove it.

Nice try. I asked for a quote showing an MP is lobbying against controls of handguns. Got one? No? They've clearly said handgun controls will remain in place. So I'm supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt that "MPs meetings" doesn't mean "MPs meetings," but at the same time, if the Torys say "registry" they are talking about handguns?

Well if many have been lobbying I'm sure you can find a citation or two. Also, is travelling around to attend Conservative MPs meetings with constituents a hobby of yours or did you just admit you're a liberal party spy?

Harper did support the long gun registry that was going to cost $2 million. Citation?

I thought the main point of your post was that you've fried your brain. Honestly, how many times does it have to be pointed out that there are no mandatory minimums for smoking pot or even growing 200 plants for personal use? Please write this on your hand. Like pot, intent is key. The main benefit of mandatory minimums related to crime IMO is that it is a solution to getting and keeping gang members off the street. It elevates the risks of that lifestyle.

That's not true. The sharp drop in domestic gun related homicides occurred in the early 90s before the gun registry became law (1995). Since then, there has been no significant change. http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cac...fQlDfvafdyIchPw

Actually that was a concern voiced by a police officer in Saskatchewan who said: http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/policequotes.htm Did that change your view or should we dismiss this concern as "right wing"?

I couldn't find a previous post on this. Please provide a citation. As far as domestic murders go, if someone shoots their spouse with a rifle they aren't really that concerned about getting away with it. Do you think the registry really has an effect on this? Same with suicides. I doubt someone is going to stop because the thought "Oh no, this gun is registered, they'll know I did it" occurs to them. The note might give that away. Found this for you: http://www2.canada.com/burnabynow/news/opi...2c-cf449ffbe9df

LOL! Yeah, don't try breaking the silence in the lunchroom with that one.

I think you have aspirin confused with ass pirates.

Yeah, Oleg speaks for the majority of Canadians. I'm sorry, but if you think that's how the majority of Canadians feel, the problem is with you. In 2009, Canadians hug terrorists.

The poll question that should be asked is "Do you trust the information given by the gun registry?" If 100% of the respondents say "no" then it's useless. If anyone says "yes" then it has been endangering the lives of officers. This has nothing to do with right wing, centre or left wing. Common sense isn't exclusive to the right wing. Why? Because you could figure out that since criminals hadn't registered their handguns in 70 years that it would be unlikely they'd register their long guns? It's like spending $25 million a year studying whether or not pigs could fly if they had wings. Criminals don't register their guns. Pigs don't have wings. Done. There are police associations and officers that have gone on record condemning the registry. That should speak volumes. Ask the chiefs' association if they train their officers to trust the registry? It's accessed automatically. If you want to keep the registry, figure out a plan to maintain it based upon its annual revenues. Really all you have to do is go to those involved and say "if you can't do it for this much, we will be ending the registry." I'm sure those involved in the milking will find a way.

You could educate on the diversity of human beliefs. Canada is a multicultural society and education is the key to acceptance. As for critical thinking, have the students answer this question: If there was a god, what would the probability be that group would be worshipping the wrong one?

Do you think beliefs such as martyrdom should be considered a form of delusional behavior? Would it be wrong to institutionalize those who profess beliefs that pose a threat to others? Should Freedom of Religion have no limits?

There are some cases where you can argue is the cost worth it. For example spending $14 million to try to recover $2 million in the Mulroney/Scribner case didn't make any sense (didn't Jack support that?). As far as Khadr(s) go, the stubborn streak belongs to Canada in not changing our laws and immigration policies to ensure Canada doesn't become a home to terrorists, who not only present a risk to the safety of the public but cost the taxpayer millions due to surveillance. I would like to know how much Canada has spent to date on this family and other suspected terrorist to date over the years. It has to be staggering. Does anyone know how government lawyers are paid?

This really isn't about tougher sentencing, it's about giving out "get out of jail free cards." A better question might be: does a weak justice system provide an incentive for white collar crime? How does someone working their tail off to make an honest living look at Chuck Guite getting day parole after only 7 months of his sentence? At what point does the message become "crime does pay"?

Or a results-oriented, rehabilitation system. If we do a better job of rehabilitating criminals and give those who show no sign of rehabilitation further time to do so, why do you think we'd have more criminals? If society cares if criminals are rehabilitated, it is meaner? It's hard to believe that those who have taken the position that our justice system should be about rehabilitation are now taking the position that rehabilitation is vengeance.

Citation please. If polls show the majority of Canadian want our soldiers to come home, why Harper isn't pulling out all the troops? Isn't a majority the key to unleashing his hidden agenda? How is he going to do the things that will ensure his political party doesn't form government for 20 years, if he doesn't govern by polls? Imagine that. If they were delivering flowers in Afghanistan there's a chance they might have to enter into combat. I wouldn't call that a combat role though. Afghanistan isn't at the point where it can secure itself. You're far closer to becoming the extreme right than I am. If Ignatieff goes there tomorrow, you'll be there. I'm more in the centre than anything. I usually criticize individual journalists but there are some outlets that are very political like FOX news and the Toronto Star. I wouldn't use the term conspiracy though. They've tailored their products to appeal to their audiences. Both media and politics are big business. That's why the whole hidden agenda propaganda doesn't fly. You'd like to think the Tories are going to have a fire sale if they get a majority. I'd suggest they'd govern with the intention of getting re-elected. That doesn't even make sense. I would like to know the government's intentions so I can have an opinion on them. As long as Afghanis are willing to sign up and fight for their freedom, I think we should be there to help if we can. I would be surprised if our soldiers wouldn't want to volunteer for a training role even if it is dangerous. They're far braver than our politicians.

Again, if you're suggesting an majority election result is the event that will change the direction of the military, that's an easy question for the government to answer. The answer is obvious. Why aren't they asked this do you think? Angling eh? Yes, if they're building hospitals like the NDP has always wanted, they're going to be shot at even if they're wearing peacekeeping uniforms. Is the Liberal position that Canada will no longer play any role in Afghanistan or any other situation where casualties could be involved? Who is the extreme right wing? Are you suggesting the Conservative government is extreme right wing? What is this hidden agenda? To be thrown out of office? You remind me of Les Nessman and his relentless communist conspiracy theories. So you're interested in learning about Harper's positions so you can dismiss them. lol

Do they speak for the government? No. Does their opinion on what "could" happen matter at all? No. Why not ask him if the Liberals could once again steal taxpayer money if given a majority? A better answer would have been "why are you asking me?" It's the reporter who should be lumped in the the Liberal party, if anyone, or at least the shitty journalist party.

Is this reporter a moron? It's called a joke.