noahbody

On the positive side, if Jesus was a carpenter, this has to be driving him nuts. Maybe he'll come down and fix it himself.

I'm willing to bet you didn't watch the lecture at all. You simply googled the lecturer's name so you could attack the person. Correct? As the lecturer points out, the first rule of gw religion is don't discuss the science. Attack the person. Repeat the mantra. Watch the lecture. Then we can debate if polar bears exist.

So to fill in the gaps in this story, after the Taliban refuses the pipeline and the States are visibly upset, the conversation goes something like: "You know what would piss them off even more, if we flew airplanes into those twin towers." "We should do that. Really." "Do you think they'll attack us?" "Of course. They'll likely kill us." "Oh my Allah, that would be funny!"

The data does tell us that before industrialization, the US was warmer. It also tells us that it is normal for regional temperatures to fluctuate. The arctic is no different. Don't forget, it wasn't long ago they were worried about another ice age.

She reminds me a lot of Shu-mani-tu-tonka Ob' Wa-chi.

More to the story: http://www.michaelkapoustin.com/index.php?...3&Itemid=38 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...f4-ed1df6ba8488

I think they're planning to drop them from a helicopter.

Who were they interviewing? There are two sides to cause of the lowering of Superior. One points to global warming with no evidence. The other points to river bed erosion and increased flow of water leading out fo the lakes.

So Kengs is the kettle and you're the pot.

I know he said that, but does anyone think that's accurate? That works out to 1.825 million times per year. Is there porn on the registry or what?

It's for up to a german judge to decide if the evidence is admissible or not. I'd argue our international reputation and relations could be harmed if we didn't allow deportation.

The restrictions put on Gomery only made Martin a good criminal. It was pretty hard to stomach Chretien's pal Corriveau answering he couldn't recall because his wife has Alzheimer's. Or the fund raiser who had a meeting in the PMO, but couldn't recall who she met with. No idea. If Mulroney perjured himself in court, have the RCMP charge him. Let's not waste millions on another dog and pony show.

What about uranus?

Is it considered cruel and unusual? I believe currently the answer is no.

I think it's common sense that if you insult the person or country with whom you're negotiating , they just might resent it. The change in government wiped this slate clean. In hindsight, with the rise of the dollar, it's a damn good thing it was settled when it was.

"Why shouldn't I have the opportunity -- just because I came down to the United States and killed somebody? What difference does it make? If anybody else deserves an opportunity, then I should as well -- I'm a Canadian citizen."[/b][/i] Now there's someone full of remorse. Let's let him out!

How about: Vote NDP. They're too stupid to be corrupt!

Faulder (1999) was the first Canadian to be executed in the US in 46 years. How many times since 76 has this policy/tradition been acted upon?

He was referring to it as a blanket policy because he was under the impression that they would not be reviewing "each case on its merits and, applying good judgment and common sense, (to) decide whether we want to protest the imposition of the death penalty." Ironically, the only blanket policy is the former one. The new policy will be protest based on merit, done on a case by case basis. Based on this, the Sun endorses the new policy, they're just not smart enough to realize it.

That's funny. He criticizes the policy for being a 'blanket policy' which it isn't. Then, he provides a recommendation which mirrors the new policy.

Go to mohawknatiionnews.com and read some of k. Horns news about Red X. Complete nutbar. Here's a teaser:

I think he's referring to this accusation against Canadians. The fire investigator comment, I assume, was sarcasm.

No, that doesn't change the fact that your statement of Canada not signing was 100% false. It means, in his personal opinion, Canada is no longer taking a leadership role because they aren't giving money along with their support. How you interpret that as "Canada is now less certain..." I have no idea. Are you denying your statement that Canada is not signing was false?

Mine is coming from the second sentence of the article you quoted. If you don't go past the first sentence, I can see why you are misinformed.

I would agree with you if they didn't sign the convention. Only problem is you're basing your opinion on false information. The government is signing he convention.