kuzadd

How is it different? Easy...the Soviet Union didn't have Canada on its team to supply uranium ore and enrichment. well there ya go, It isn't different, except for Canada's supply role, for the US. building up arsenal, spreading fear, and their own ideology, ditto!

Oh, they used them plenty. As they built up their arsenal and aimed it everywhere, menacing the free world and using it as an unspoken threat as they spread communism to various satellite countries. "Oh, they used them plenty. As they built up their arsenal and aimed it everywhere, menacing the free world and using it as an unspoken threat " and how exactly is that any different then the US?? Who used it to spread their own ideology? Who BTW is the only country to have ever used them.

sharkman: in your zealousness, to disparage, you were incapable of clicking a link to find that out for yourself??

Betsy: i have no wish to do a SSM debate, as stated, there is no debate, it is common sense, to let ALL consenting adults, marry the person, they wish to, the person, they love. There is no common sense in denying that right because of, some peoples, religious beliefs. You claimed it was about the word "marriage". The word marriage, by persons like yourself is attached to some religious signifigance (from god, with god's blessing, etc.,) That is why you wish that gays did not use that word. As you do not see a SSM , as a 'marriage' in the eye's of God. I am quite confident, I am correct on this, but, feel free.... Definitions of marriage on the Web: * the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; * two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" * the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel," editted to add: or at the jp's office, or in the synagogue the mosque, in the park, in the mountains, on a plane * a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" marriage: defined is an intimate union of two. Is a marriage of ideas or music or words not a marriage, it most certainly is! There is no spiritual connotation, except the one organized religion gives it, to claim ownership of it, to negate SSM. PERIOD! That's why I said my stance on SSM, was pure common sense. There is no reason to deny the right, to some consenting adults, while extending it to others.

Did I mention gun control? You did. But to be honest, I was surprised to hear you don't approve of the gun registry. So yes, that part would've been "assumptions". Which you also do, assuming my "bias on SSM lies in my religious belief and indoctrination." But you see, I've always maintained in this board from other gay-related threads that it is not for me to judge about the sins of others. That is for God. My resentment towards SSM is not about the union of homosexuals, but the changing of the traditional definition of marriage. I've also pointed out that there was a group of homosexuals who had taken out an ad, opposing this change and had expressed support for upholding the true definition of marriage! I salute those folks! I guess they understood only too well the importance of this definition to a lot of people. There wouldn't be so much open resentment now if gays had only decided to coin their own word for such a union, acknowledging with grace and fairness that the word "marriage" is already taken. That is only common sense to me. Basically, marriage is a legal agreement, between two people. A contract. That is the traditional defintion. Between a man and a woman , for the purpose of procreation ,is a societal definition. IMO.

Gun control would be a key liberal issue, i do not advocate for gun control, therefore you assumption is false, and that is all it is ,assumptions, a pile of them based on your own pre-supposed idea's. My stance on SSM is pure common sense. Consenting adults, marrying the person they love. Your bias lies in your religious belief, which is not common sense, but indoctrination. was Clinton not a christian, does it even matter,?? IMO. NOPE!!! Like I said, your own assumptions , piled up.

NO. I am not advocating that. I don't find it is fostering division, nor encouraging segragation. I am the child of an immigrant. Believe me when I say this country, doesn't need more of what you are calling for.

1. you support the feminist movement. In fact we had a go at it in another thread (21st Century Male Role). So I know I'm not just imagining that. 2. you therefore support abortion. Am I wrong? I doubt it. 3. you are anti-war. Afghanistan and Iraq....am I wrong? I doubt it. 4. you are anti-Bush. 5. you most probably think the Jews had it coming. 6. you advocate SSM. Those are just the things I can think of at this moment. Well Kuzadd....you know, "if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck....blah-blah-blah!" What impression am I supposed to have about you??? Okay. If you're not a liberal, what are you then??? I support women's rights as equals, not necessarily the 'feminist movement', as you assume. I support a woman's right to choose, what goes on with her OWN body, not determined by men. I am pro-peace. If I could think of a necessary reason for war from an ethical standpoint, I might even be pro-war, but since wars are fought for control of other people's lands, resources , etc., inc. WW2. Bush is irrelevant to me, so I am NOT anti-bush,as you assume, but you'll assume nonetheless I am. he just happens to be the leader of the US at this time.Example, I did not support intervention in Kosovo, so that must make me anti-Clinton?? or did that make me conservative? I DO NOT think to quote your absolute nonsense "Jews had it coming". I think the Jews, along with the Gypsies, homsexuals, Jehovah's witnesses, mentally handicapped were used as scapegoats, to justify all sorts of nonsense. As we see Arab/ Muslims being used now. I accept SSM, because it is not my place to decide ,on what two consenting, loving adults, can do, to marry or not. As it is not my place to decide what two consenting heterosexual adults can do also. To marry or not. As consenting adults, they can decide, if they wish to marry or not. They are consenting and they are adults. I do not advocate for gun control, either. all YOUR assumptions aside! what I do is think about any scenario, and base my opinion , on the merits, or lack of merits any any given scenario

Therefore you agree with me that regardless of origin or color, Canada should only be comprised of one people: CANADIANS! Right? Canada is comprimised of Canadians, that's what makes it Canada. All people who live here, and are born here- or become Canadians, are Canadians. This is a simple fact. I do not know what point you are attemting to make, with quoted statement?? "Therefore you agree with me that regardless of origin or color, Canada should only be comprised of one people: CANADIANS!"

cybercoma! Brilliant!!! that is so worthy of a repeat, because that is exactly what Betsy is doing!( and she is not alone) Because you clearly don't understand what people think and believe, you just want to label them and paint them with your preconceived ideas of those labels. You don't actually want to understand people's thoughts and opinions, you want them to fit to what you understand of those labels you've chosen. that is why she thought she had you all figured out, your an 'atheist' therefore, .......... figleaf, and myself, she is unsure, so she needs to 'fit us in' somewhere, to something, so she can label, and then likely dismiss, as she see's fit.

What do you mean by "compartmentalize?" Do you mean identities by groups? by culture? by gender? by sexual orientation? Isn't that what Canada is all about? I'm just trying to be a "true" present-day Canadian....reaching out to you liberal folks who had advocated and encouraged these....divisions. Clarify what you mean! I do not advocate any "divisions". I also don't associate myself with 'liberals' ,you associate me with 'liberals' Since I do NOT associate myself with 'liberals' and have never said I do, why do you label me as such?? I don't think Canada is about the things you have mentioned. Why do you? I have an issue, with racism, since my own personal belief, is there is but one race, the human race, therfore, I do not belive, one group of my human being supercedes any other group of human beings based on skin colour ,geography, religious beliefs, or any other trumped up , imaginary excuse to justify abusing members of our human race.

Looked like an attack on sex crimes, but since it has to do with Christianity you're giving it the carte blanche I guess. So much for the idea that morality is derived from religion. yes, it is an attack on sex crimes, perpetuated in this case, by pedophiles who hid and were hidden by a corrupt institution, in this case the catholic church. But sex crimes, and pedophiles, aren't always perpetuated and covered up in an institutional way. Morality is NOT derived from religion, as this type of beheviour perpetuated and covered up by allegedly 'pious' persons and institutions, makes quote clear. May I say, you make an excellent point with that line. "So much for the idea that morality is derived from religion"

Neither me nor anyone else is going to watch a 38+ minute video to respond to a post. From the intro, I gather, this is another attack on a religion which, like all, has some deviants.What's your opinion on Shi'ite v. Sunni suicide attacks? Lacking in attention span, are you?? One would have to wonder, why did you bother to respond at all? Someone may want to watch it. You freely chose not to , that is ok with me!

Why yes, she has gotten far in life. Plays a mean piano too. But you still got nuthin'! Have some Pollyanna pie! oh, did you misunderstand my facetiousness? I don't need any pollyanna pie, thanks, perhaps for yourself? Actually espousing an 'innocent' Condoleeza, come on BC, you of all people , should know better then that.

I have to try very hard not to get angry when I read posts like this. Yes I'm an atheist, but let me ask you, do you believe in the ancient Greek Gods? Do you think they are real? If not, then I don't believe in your Judeo-Christian God for the same reason. I'm not going to say it's impossible to exist, I just live my life as though it's not true because I've come to the conclusion that it's extremely improbable that there is a God. Now we can get into splitting hairs about how the universe is God or how nature is God, but that is not theism in the sense that there is a supreme being that created us all and takes an active role in our lives listening to, answering and acting on prayers. These are the Gods I have yet to find enough evidence in to conclude that their existence is probable. while I understand your reason to feel angry, IMO, it's not worth it. You are a human being, a living entity, equal to, any thusly labelled follower of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, , and any other religion. Adherents of any/all religious teachings, always believe they are superior to others , who are non-adherents to their/any brand of religion.

Betsy: kuzadd : Betsey it's quite clear, you have labelled everyone, Jbg or possibly q, not sure, is Jewish, apparently so is MDancer according to you,Cybercoma is this and newbie is that, labelled and compartmentalized. Figleaf and myself, you just can't compartmentalize, so easily, so you are unsure, apparently what we are. I will give you a clue, not speaking for Figleaf at all, as I will not be so presumptious. I am a human being, as all those others are, I don't need to label or compartmentalize them, they are human beings also. if as you say you are a chrisitan, and our bible teaches us that God created us in his own image, hence we , the entire human race are equal in god's eye's ,created as images of him , I am not going to get into what exactly image means, why do you feel the need to compartmentalize god's creations, and to play favourites amongst them??

Hey BC, US oil companies, were right in there also, along with many others, why deny it? Or do you prefer the self-righteous indignation to the facts? Just asking? wrt: Condi: she never knows anything,(lol) not about oil for food, not about 9/11, it's amazing she got so far in life, or not!

worth a watch, it is in English with Italian sub-titles. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-66...mes+and+Vatican

"obviously your rabid anti-religion (specifically anti-Christianity) is quite intriguing. yet, I am not anti-religion! And was raised Roman Catholic, inc 9 yrs of Catholic school indctrination. ."..and on numerous times, quite baffling" it is your assumption that I am anti-religion, that is baffling you. "Are you Agnostics or Atheists? Or are you Muslims?'" all and none at the same time! Is that clearer? Question for you , why do you have to label and compartmentalize everyone, does it make it easier for you? editted to add: Question for you? if you are christian, why then do you not believe God, created all of humanity in his image? I believe that.( ONE human family) It seems you do not. You seem to believe that only certain persons are God's creations. clarify?

IF his men believe in Satan and IF his men believe that Satan is a man who lives in Fallujah, then maybe he was motivating them to fight for their beliefs. If not, he was clouding their minds and sapping their motivations by inflicting his personal views. thank goodness for a reasonable response, take a bow! hearty applause!

"You may want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise, but the fact is the war on terror is actually a religious war!" NO, it is not! The" war on terror", is a sales pitch a slogan to sell the war to the western audience. It's like the "war on drugs" useless sloganeering. There os NO such thing as a religious war, never has been, never will be. Religion is used to rally the people, particularily extremists. War is/has always been fought for geo/strategic /political/ resources as the reasons. Be it a useful river or canal, gold, diamonds, land, and oil, yes, OIL ! etc., But not religion, only an extremist would buy into that.

so then you are equating the american armed forces to fanatical terrorists? priceless!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/08/bus...s/08chevron.php Chevron seen settling case on Iraq oil and at the time who was a board member??? According to the Volcker report, surcharges on Iraqi oil exports were introduced in August 2000 by the Iraqi state oil company, the State Oil Marketing Organization. yet laughingly Condoleeza said this....... In January 2005, during Senate confirmation hearings to be the nation’s next Secretary of State, Ms. Rice expressed her outrage at revelations that Saddam had used some of the billions he skimmed from the Oil-for-Food program to purchase dual use equipment that could have been used to produce WMD. she thinks 'it's a scandal' yah , sure.( wink, wink) soooo, wondering, will she be held accountable. not likely. further quoting from another article available here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17734.htm lies, and more lies. oh what a tangled web we weave. so many questions, so many machinations, manipulations, no longer does any of this surprise me. editted to fix up quotations.

And this is a problem because? The UK, US and Canada also teamed up with Joe Stalin if memory serves me right. Pipelines are arteries for God's blessing! Is this a problem, that AlQuaeda has served the US and British interests so well?? Not for the UK and the US, and American/British oil interests, not a problem at all. "Pipelines are arteries for God's blessing!" and 'God bless's America' often enough, to help them build and control pipelines, for geo-strategic/political reasons.

ok, anyone hear about the ,very bad language filled , statement Wolfowitz made wrt the possible release of details of the pay package his girlfriend received?? http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richar...uds_gather.html "The extent of Wolfowitz's desire to keep the deal secret came out in the testimony of Xavier Coll, the human resources head, made to the internal investigation last week. After a journalist made enquiries about Riza's pay rise in March last year, Wolfowitz angrily demanded to know who could have leaked it. According to Coll's testimony, he was called to a private meeting with the president: "Mr Wolfowitz produced a piece of paper with a question regarding the proposed increase [in the salary] of Shaha Riza, stating that it had come from a journalist writing a piece about the Bank. (I assumed it was from Ed Pound of US News and World Report.) Mr Wolfowitz note that only three people knew about the details of the increase, and asked how the journalist could have obtained the information. He asked me to whom I had provided the information about (Shaha's external service) agreement." Wow! Not exactly the picture of a professional exchange at the World Bank. leave me wondering, what exactly does he have, on whom??