ScottSA

The argument itself does not "prove" it, but reality does prove it. For starters, Phelps doesn't set up cells to plot to actively kill people. Second, even if he did, he isn't one of two hundred and forty some active self-identified "Christian" terrorist organizations across the globe conducting daily mayhem and murder. There are, as far as I know, zero (0) Christian terrorist organizations claiming as their sole motivation Christ's teachings. Not one. If you are going to set the bar at Phelp's level of activity, we'll have to widen the scope to include similar Islamic activity, which brings the numbers of "a few extremists" into the tens of millions instead of the tens of thousands. Every Wahabbist mosque, every Madrassa in America and Europe and throughout the Middle east preaches essentially the same prescriptions for fags that Phelps does, and all of their tens of millions of adherents presumably believe it too. This vast armada of mainstream Islamic hate is compared to Phelps and his 50 some followers? Throw Jim Jones and Waco and every allegedly Christian nutcase in the planet in the mix and it doesn't begin to compare to the activity level of beheadings and the sheer numbers of Islamist activity...no matter how much one squirmingly tries to dismiss the comparison.

Perhaps the introduction of gun laws in Afghanistan would help. If everyone, for instance, was required to register their weapons, why, we'd know exactly who shot who. The restriction of such weapons as RPGs, 50 cal machineguns and hand grenades is probably a good idea too, as well as restrictions on when hunting can take place. If it works in Canada, who is to say it won't work in Afghanistan too? Canadian forces can set an example by unilaterally disarming and parking their beastly armour out of sight of the masses. Out of sight out of mind, as the saying goes, and then the Canadian contingent can go back to doing what it ought to be doing...building stuff and handing out candy and things. I mean really, if Canadian forces were patrolling in the streets here with Coyotes and Leopards and large nasty looking guns, why, I might take potshots at them too. But if they were walking around unarmed, and if my guns were registered, then I probably wouldn't. Everyone wants peace, right?

I believe this part covers it. "with narrow exceptions for consensual activity between young persons less than two years apart in age. " (PRB99-3E)" I don't think that's what I'm getting at...where is the section you cited found? It's not in the charter, is it?

This is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate government procurement: So in effect, Powell is trying to make it politically unpalatable for the government to renew the CGI contract, which increases his own firm's chances of being awarded the contract. He should be charged with public mischief.

First, it's not a tax, it's a tax cut; and second, it is simply giving a family with one income the same tax status as a family with two incomes.

I'm not a lawyer, but in terms of a 14 year old and a 35 year old, doesn't the Charter stand in the way? I mean if the law says it's ok for an 18 yr old to boink a 14 yr old, is it not discrimination according to section 15 (1) to preclude a 35 year old from doing the same? Won't this immediately run into a charter challenge? 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome thread?

Can you please tell me the actual legal name of the Society you are referring to? If you are a member of it you should be able to name it. It will likely have the word 'Society' or 'association' in it. Go head, look in your wallet and find your membership card. Pull it out and tell me the name of your society. Thanks. PS: If you can't do that I claim you don't have a society at all and your entire argument is based upon a fallacy. I'm not talking about a legal definition, I'm talking about honour. Do freemen have honour, or do you claim the 'right' to be free from it too? If so, we have nothing more to talk about. If, on the other hand, you claim that your's is an honourable endeavor, then I ask you again: if you claim you have no obligation to civil society, would it not be honourable to withdraw entirely from civil society? Is it fair that you take from civil society but not give back? I must say, Diogenes did a better job of defending his tomfoolery than do you with Sophist wordplay.

Because a great number of people in Canada ignore the law, me included. I don't have contempt for the law, I simply treat that particular law as I would treat a fly...a minor annoyance, but largely irrelevant to me. I insist upon the right to bear arms, and I would no more register those arms than I would register my baseball bat or WW I German bayonet. That doesn't mean I disrespect all laws or in a larger sense the social contract, it's just that neither I nor a huge segment of the population is going to abide by this one. The crown simply can't put all of us in jail, so why should it try?

Seems to me that the latterday cynics hereabouts who lable themselves "freemen", ought not use the internet, since the flipside of acknowledging no overlord is not partaking in the overlord's benevolence. If you owe society nothing, isn't it incumbent upon you not to take anything from society? By doing so, are you not acknowledging a debt?

What gets me about this thread is everyone's absolute conviction that their notion is correct. I mean of course Polly will adopt the grand plot notion, but how in God's name does anyone else "know" about UFOs. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if aliens showed up tomorrow and said hi, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if we found basic bacterial life on Mars. It wouldn't particularly surprise me if tomorrow we awakened to incontrovertable evidence that we are alone in the universe. I simply don't know. If I had to pick a favorite possibility, I'd say to my mind it's probable that alien life exists, it's possible that advanced ET civilizations exist, and it's conceivable that we have been visited. But then again I believe in God, too. On the other hand, I have no time for bearded quacks who make a living of distorting evidence so they can keep sucking up speaker's fees for groups of treckie basement dwellers. The most dishonest thing I've yet seen is someone producing an official airforce document with the words "UFO" typed into the text, and claiming that this proves ET visited. They must know, if they're emersed in this subject, that "UFO" is a military term that simply denotes an 'unidentified flying object', and in no way connotes an ET. It's a latterday term for "bogey"...something that hasn't cleared airspace and identified itself. Crap like that is every bit as dishonest and screwed up as 911 conspiracy theory.

I knew I'd find you on this thread. Hiya!

Total speculation. Be serious. That is like saying if I puill the poin of a hand grenade and put it in my pocket, blowing my nuts off is merely pure speculation. The only thing stopping iraq from becoming an asian rwanda are coalition troops. Even so, as of today, over 680 Iraqis have been murdered this month be other iraqis....over 5000 this year Kind of like how people bought the "mushroom cloud" B.S. There is absolutely no certainty that havoc will ensue. They want the Americans out, period. Well, if "they" refers to the terrorists, you're right without a doubt. I'm sure the SS armoured divisions wanted the allies "out" too during WW II. Come to think of it, ALL of the Germans wanted the allies out, but for some reason the fascists Churchill and Roosevelt didn't go. Instead, they killed more Germans and then installed an illegitimate government in contravention of all the rules of sovereignty. There were no WMD! We owe Germany reparations!

MacArthur escaped from the dugout in a flying saucer? I thought it was a PT Barnum boat.

Nonsense. The police are imperial troopers, and when no one is looking they put on those mr clean suits with helmets and downtrod innocent victims.

Thanks to careful Native husbandry based on oneness with the great spirit. Thank God no one gave them chainsaws a couple thousand years ago in Canada...but anyway, back to reality...Easter Island is an...ummmm...island. Once you log the trees, they are gone. Once you log parts of a rainforest, they grow back. There are more trees in North america today than there were 50 years ago, did you know that?

Let's list the ways in which this is relevant to the war aim: - - - ????? Can't think of too many. The intent of the war was to depose Saddam. That was fullfilled. The US did not go there to make the Iraqi people feel better. The only reason US troops are still there is because if they leave, havoc will ensue. Is that what you want?

I think it's secret weather balloons that cause it. Prove me wrong with credible evidence. The disrespect to the bodies is because the empire is just going to make soylent green from them and they wanted to hide the conspiracy by disrupting the crime scene.

It would be lovely not to have a hall monitor hereabouts.

That does sound at least like an interesting position to take. I do appreciate interesting dichotomies. I might just read that book. I highly doubt that any of those experiments you mention are in any way conclusive. But it sounds fascinating nonetheless. Of course they're not conclusive. They are interesting in the fact that they at least apply scientific principles, or at least the principles of rationality, to spiritualism. I'm not sure it's a match made in heaven, but it's an attempt. In fairness, Harris leans more toward eastern philosophy in his attempt to make the case for the existence of the spirit as opposed to pure mechanism. The most compelling hypothesis I've heard is the idea that the brain is a tool, while the spirit is a traveller who utilizes the tool while here. I'm personally convinced that the totality of human existence is not contained within a few year's lifespan, but it's real hard to make that case from within a framework of rationality.

Very cool. A couple months ago the Chinese succeeded in shooting down one of their own satelites; a feat perfected by the US sometime in the early 80s.

Actually, you're taking this and running with it. He's "one of many"? But you just made that up. You also dforgot to mention this: "Seven members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment have faced charges relating to the alleged mistreatment of Iraqis in Basra in 2003." Do you not see the difference between prosecuting people for this and chopping people's heads off and celebrating it all over the web?

At the risk of returning to the original subject, this site has an excellent running commentary and updates on the attack. Click over there----> <---------------------------------------> <-----Just joking, click back there

So you believe the following statement: You believe that Zargawi and all the snuff videos and all the car bombings, all claimed by this or that Islamist group publically, all the websites everywhere around the world....all of this is a psy-ops plot by the allies? And on top of this you believe that all Iraqis know it too? How old are you?

I've studied economics and I have read a fair amount on it in my spare time. I ahve also read a fair amount on banking. You are saying that giving private bankers billions every year benefits us. Thats like saying 2+2 = 5. If you think this is a benefit then it must benefit you to send me money in return for nothing. Perhaps you will become richer. You seem to have read a lot. Perhaps your reading should be a bit more varied then. I am saying that what bankers do in return for us giving them billions benefits us. Someone else tried to explain to you the benefits of living in a house one has not yet paid for, as opposed to never living in a house because all the money one could have saved up for it would be spent in rent while trying to save up for it. I tried to point out how credit is essential for leveraging technology and everything else on the macro end of things. You just don't want to hear it, so you keep asking the same rhetorical question and then ignoring the answer. Pretty soon you'll do what you did after repeated hammerings in the WTC thread, and start claiming things are "proven" when they're clearly not.