Peter F

Personally, I'm with Benz. My kids are Quebecers and I'm sick to death of far too many Canadians treating them like they're dumbass trash. Quebec has far more going for it than the rest of this country. Separation may cause their pocketbooks to be a little thinner for a while, but they'd be far better off as an independant nation.

Yes but he doesn't know why so he makes shit up because he disapproves of where they made thier tick.

what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? --Mark in the bible somewhere Saruman: We must join with Him, Gandalf. We must join with Sauron. It would be wise, my friend. -- inspired by a madmax post

(my italics) Well said! I'd like to also point out that starting up a private school or enrolling ones child in one is really not a problem. The problem RNG see's, and as you point out, the Ontario PC's are playing too, is that Private Schools should be cheap and on the public dime! (edit: pointless insult removed)

Sounds like bullshit to me. Candidates are determined by nominations from within the riding association and then the membership votes to determine the winning candidate. Qualifications are nice and usefull but can very well be ignored by the membership during a vote for any number of reasons - the primary one being 'that guys an idiot!' It isnt a 'job' to be applied for.

So vote for the other disgusting party? Dream on.

My Guess: CPC 144 LPC 75 BQ 45 NDP 42 Ind 2

Not clear to me either. Pretty much the same pap but lacking the noise and smoke. Good for her!

Mahler 'Titan'

Yah cause they would no longer have any vacuuming and ironing to do - hoo boy!

Empathy in the Internet Age? Why thats just wrong.

Are Lawful combatants lawful targets? If so are there any unlawful targets who are combatants? This whole string of who's lawful and who's not is a red herring. ALL combatants are "lawful" targets. In fact the lawfulness/unlawfulness of a combatant only determines one and only one thing: Do the Geneva Conventions apply? Thus the combatant Status Review panels to determine if those held are combatants or not. If the subject of the panel is determined to be a combatant then the state can continue to hold them as a prisoner of war. If the subject is determined to not be a combatant then they do not hold prisoner of war status. This whole scam about lawful combatants and unlawful combatants was a smokescreen. An imaginary concoction to justify to the American public the necessity of Military Tribunals rather than civil courts to try criminal acts. All combatants are lawful targets. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of the combatant is meaningless bullshit. If the person is partaking in combat they are combatants and are lawful targets. Army Guy can shoot any combatant he wants with no regard to lawfullness or unlawfullness of that particular combatant. For the very simple reason that such a distinction does not in fact exist. Nor is it necessary. Shooting non-combatants (lawful? nonlawful?) is a no-no. The distinction was cooked up to justify Military Tribunals. Because without the distinction then Military Tribunals could not have been used.

I understand. A persond is a true jew if they agree with Bob. If not then they aren't true jews. If they are not True Jews they are Goyim and the Goyim can be discounted.

Well Yah. I guess anyone doing these things has a reason - silly or not - for doing so. People who drown their children in bathtubs are also wierd and undesireable immigrants or maybe not immigrants but actual citizens but undesireable nevertheless. Lots of people behave differently, not just muslims. Lots of people murder and kill for silly reasons - not just muslim immigrants. We got a lot of homegrown shit and it aint just muslims

So its us against the stagnant and unprosperous! Their stagnation and unprosperity is a threat! God save us from the Amazonian Tribes!

Back to phantom communist invasion fleets are we?

I agree completely with what Eyeball has said. You may pump out the propaganda that Peter F longs for the opportunity to have more coalition wounded and that I gleefully dance in the streets etc etc and blah and blah

The Laws of War will not support Officers or NCO's or the troops executing the wounded. Even if they are severly wounded. They get to bleed out and die in pain like everybody else...even you.

I think its true. Up until recently it has been taboo to suggest "compromise" - by us non-afghan folks anyways. The Canadian government and ISAF and NATO have only declared that they are involved in Afghanistan to provide security to the democratically elected government until such time as that government can go it alone. However the propoganda machine has certainly been clunking along full time about never negotiating anything. Its all been Victory or Death! until recent months and now all that rhetoric is being toned down a bit. We remember all the references to "Taliban Jack" "Appeasement" "Rolling over" etc etc. But now that 2011 is drawing near the public must be prepped for the withdrawl.

I wonder what actions he has taken that qualify him as a "filthy murdering terrorist".

Considering the above, wee Omar's service to the Taliban was completely volountary?

That is not how EI works. No one need take a job for which they are not qualified. Or for which they have to move somewhere else. Or for which the pay is considerably less than what the person has been making. Or for a job the person finds morally reprehensible. etc etc. No one is required to take a job at the slaughter-house simply because there's jobs available at the slaughter-house. No one is required to become a priest simply because there's a shortage of priests Course, once the EI runs out...

Sure. But I care not for total agreement. I enjoy your disagreeable posts. Makes me feel smrt.

I imagine that point would have been brought to light during a competitive process. Who knows, perhaps the competitor has come up with a solution?

I Love it!