ScottSA

It is as relevant as yeast breeds bread. Great analogy, for my position, thank you. Now perhaps you and others should read and learn truths as opposed to false myths. Elliott Leyton Ph.D. (born 1939 in Leader, Saskatchewan) is a Canadian social-anthropologist, educator and author who, according to the CTV television News network, is probably the world's most widely consulted expert on serial homicide. A research Fellow at Queen's University of Belfast in Ireland, Professor Leyton has held faculty positions there and at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel; and at Memorial University of Newfoundland where he is Professor Emeritus of anthropology. Professor Leyton has served as president of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association. Leyton earned B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of British Columbia then went on to obtain his Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Toronto in 1972. During his ensuing career, he dedicated himself to the analysis and research of social ills such as juvenile delinquency and the psychology behind perpetrators of serial killings. Leyton's achieved level of expertise has led to his giving lectures at the College of Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa. The author/editor of eleven books and numerous scholarly essays for academic journals, Professor Leyton 's 1986 landmark study Hunting Humans is an international bestseller in multiple languages that was reprinted in 1995 and again in 2005. It won the 1987 Arthur Ellis Award for best new crime book. Professor Leyton travelled to Rwanda in the fall of 1996 where he studied the Rwandan genocide that spawned his 1998 book, Touched By Fire: Doctors Without Borders in a Third World Crisis. In 2004, a National Film Board of Canada film about Professor Leyton's life's work titled The Man Who Studies Murder, was premiered at the Montreal Film Festival and aired on CBC Television’s The Nature of Things. Frequently consulted by the media, Professor Leyton was interviewed by CBC Newsworld on September 14th, 2006 about the Dawson College shooting in Montreal. He stated that because all three such murderous rampages in Quebec involved a killer who was either an immigrant or a child of immigrants, it warranted an examination of government and societal attitudes that can profoundly impact immigrant perceptions and hence their conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Leyton Leyton on Virgina shooting: cbc.ca/news It's not at all clear to me why you put this biography up here. To give credence to some old academic's "prediction"? He blames immigrants AND the war? What does Rwanda have to do with Virginia Tech? What does yeast breeding bread have to do with any of it? How silly.

It's the conflict between the "progressive" view that government ought to have the revenue so they can do things and the "rightwing" view that people are able to make their minds up by themselves what they ought to do. The tax system itself is still suffering from the feminist hangover of trying to force women into the workplace, and that's both why it's being rolled back and a source of conflict from the "progressives" still stuck in the 80s.

I used the singular because you used the singular. But tell me, how does the left's solution of staying home and blaming the right address the multiple problems? I mean aside from throwing out the usual mantras of "poverty-ignorance-racism-education-yada-yada"? You mentioned the tribal regions of Pakistan? What's your solution? Run away? Bomb them till they glow?

I agree 100%. Not long ago I read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, in which he lambasted every religion under the sun as a compilation of the most ridiculous inanities anyone could think of, and then out of the blue concluded that there is in fact a God, or a spirit universe of some kind, and listed all kinds of scientific experiments which point to it. Quite a startling thinker.

First, I don't believe there is any kind of "proven correlation" between criminals and a past of torturing animals. Even if one could show that 100% of criminals tortured animals, it would be impossible to show that 100% of animal torturers became criminals. Second, I'm not sure your hypothesis has merit simply because most people eat meat "harvested" or "slaughtered" from farm animals, and actions really speak louder than the words they use to describe the actions. And that leads to the unreasonable conclusion that vegetarians treat humans better than omnivores do. Unless you're suggesting that people who use brutal words to describe things are somehow more humanitarian than those who use euphemism, in which case I'm far more a humanitarian than most; a conclusion that may not be universally acclaimed hereabouts.

Admitting it wouldn't be a question if there was lets say, proof. Syria is not the centre of the world. Fine. Islam is a religion of peace, Memri doesn't have hundreds of clips of mainstream Muslims saying exactly the same thing, and this never happens in mainstream British mosques, in spite of it being documented on film. It's just a few "extremists". Now, have we had any success in finding a preacher of a mainstream Christian religion saying anything remotely like this without being fired? What about one who just draws a sword and does a Hitler-in-Nuremburg act? Nothing yet? Hint: Father Coughlin doesn't count. He never advocated killing anyone.

Well, it seems to me that the fact there are troops there in the first place is somewhat of an indication that the right thinks there's a problem, don't you think?

I know it does. You should read up on it so it doesn't escape you. Look up "lombards" as a beginning point, and move through the tomes that have accumulated since then. Macroeconomics and monetary history are far too large to be learned in one movie even if the movie wasn't so completely so-sided.

No, I cited General Giap, the highest ranking General in the NVA as the one who said it. Underlying problems have a habit of going away when they have their weapons taken away from them or when the cost of being an underlying problem is higher than the benefits of not being an underlying problem. This is something the left never seems to get. This and the perpetual misidentification of the problems...

Whatever woody.

But it doesn't. It's the reason we were able to succeed during the industrial revolution. It's the reason we will eventually be able to switch away from fossil fuels. It is the backbone of our technological advancement. It's not a plot. Just because you just discovered it with a backdrop of scary music and fearfully whispering tones doesn't mean the rest of polite society didn't know it long ago.

How would you know? Good retort. Very witty, very droll.

Tell me how guns have contributed to human kinds betterment? WAIT I know.... a more effective way of taking care of your enemies, mass slaughtering is easier. Society has to GRADUATE this train of thought and become better at the art of war WITH words and other actions rather than killing. Forgive me if I erase your "Yaaaaargh" at the end. It sunk an American presidential candidate and it doesn't help your case any either. In answer to your question, guns are not only good for slaughtering enemies, but they are fairly helpful on the flipside as well: keeping your enemies from slaughtering you. Now, humanity can graduate in any direction it wants, but while I'm waiting for you, a woman, to pack up a camel caravan and travel to Osamas hideout to explain to him that he ought to use his words instead of violence and stop treating women like cattle while he's at it, I'd feel a bit safer behind a 50 cal than behind a placard with a slogan on it. Because chances are better than even that after listening to all your very mature reasoning, he will stone you to death or put you in his harem depending on your physical attributes, and then continue coming after me. In any event, I'd rather have a gun than one of Ghandi's slogans while I'm being mugged. I'm sure it's socially immature of me, but that's the way it is.

No you didn't.

Not ever. Nor a tax change that would actually decrease taxes.

I don't think debates are a good venue for the GP yet. All that debates are good for is to create soundbytes and hammer them home, not to dissect a platform. I'm not even sure the dippers should be included, given their tendency to be single issue. I still cringe thinking back to Audrey McLaughlin bleating "American style healthcare" over and over and over in one pre-election debate, or Layton's "getem'whilethey'rehot" used car salesman's routine in pleading for the electorate to "lend us your vote" for no other reason than just because. Seems to me the Green Party has to explain their platform a bit more first. Especially their economic platform.

The last I looked ANYWHERE in Canada Drinking and driving is illegal, people are jailed for this as there are laws that combine the two because they are a DEADLY C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination), just as guns and people are a deadly C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination) So what? Does that mean we should outlaw cars? Guns and alcohol are a dangerous combination too, but if you're not going to outlaw cars for that reason, why would you outlaw guns for that reason?

I think all the talk about "backroom deals" is irrelevant. It's part of politics. The only time it becomes an affront to the voters is when something like Meech takes place, affecting everyone in Canada. There was a "backroom deal" between Belinda and Martin, Emerson and Harper, and now Dion and May. So what? The real issue is 1) whether or not it's a wise political move on Dion's part, and 2 ) if not, how does it reflect on Dion as a strategist? The answers appear to be 1 ) "no" and 2 ) "poorly" in that order. Not only has Dion lost points with the electorate, but he's almost certain to have lost points within his party, although that can't be proved...yet. Another, and perhaps ultimately more damaging result of his actions, is that he is painting himself into a corner on the environment. He is making himself appear to be a single issue candidate.

Meanwhile a tangent awoke.... Yeah...they tried that in Yugoslavia and in the end it only forces the germans to commit more and more divisions as occupation troops. Churchill was amazed and baffled that they the allies could do so little to help the Yugoslavs while they the partisans held more than 20 divisions in check .....almost as many as what faced the allies in the invasion of Italy. Using Yugoslavia as an example, given recent history, is not wise for your case. Let's look instead to Italy, Poland and France, where it worked very well. Besides, Yugoslavia was all over the map politically, and it certainly didn't wrest itself from the Germans without the help of the allies.

Not to be insulting or anything, but it sure is fun watching figleaf getting thrashed.

History is obviously on MacArthur's side. They don't make movies about American Caesars so they can immortalize him as a loser. He was obviously a great general, a great showman, and an inspiration to the Phillipines, whether you want to haul up an ancient slag from the retreat or not. "I will return" has often been the single most cited cause of the ongoing resistence against the Japanese during its occupation. You can compile a couple mistakes and try to make your case look like it has a modicum of legitimacy, but history is written by the victors, not the north koreans, and MacArthur will long be remembered as an American Caesar whether you like it or not.

Errr, pardon me, but the glorification of war has been around since, oh, 5000 BC or so, and in fact it is only since the war to end all wars that it has fallen out of favor in the western psyche. This is a rant straight out of one of Lenin's polemics matched with the entire bumper sticker litany of the "progressive" left. It's erroneous in its facts and amounts to hysterical mudflinging. It is not a rant, it is quite the truth, and you have supported it with your commentary actually. It did fall out of favour since WWI and NOW it has recommenced and NOW we are seeing the results of its resurrgence. intolerance breeds intolerance. It has absolutely nothing to do with Lenin anything, and that is a great example of a rant actually too good job scotta, you made 2 points against yourself in 2 paragraphs. In fact, it has more to do with the increasing amounts of UR (eternal) Fascism in the USA and now incoming into Canada with the advent of the radical right war/violence mongering and intolerance. I don't know where to begin. I'm sorry you're not aware of the leninist overtones to your rant, but they are rather starkly present. You probably won't know it, come to think of it, given that it long ago seeped into the bumpersticker culture of the left and has become part of the underlying background noise after 40 or so years, along with black lights, lava lamps and Che posters. Some of the early 70s radical "philosophers" paraphrased Lenin without attributing it or, presumably, recognizing it too. I don't know why you think war is coming into favor these days, and I certainly don't see why you would attribute it to "eternal fascism" instead of the eternal Islamists who started it, but whatever... Exactly why did you throw in the bumper sticker slogan "intolerance breeds intolerance"? It's about as relevant as "yeast breeds bread". What is "radical right war/violence mongering and intolerance."? Just for the record.

People are not educated to the realities of banking and monetary reform. Its hidden in plain sight. No, it's just in plain sight. It's not a plot. It's not a conspiracy. It's one of the most written about topics in history. Anyone with the inclination and time to look into the specifics of capital and interest merely has to open one of a million books or webpages explaining in depth how the banking system works. Some like it and others don't. The Jews took a lot of heat for it in the middle ages, which, incidently, is the source of all of this plot fabricating, if you look a little deeper into the historical epistemology and ontology of financial plot construction. It's not a plot. It's not a conspiracy.

ScottSA, you are dumber than a post and have the arrogance of a king. When are you going to stop polluting this forum with your nonsense and ignorance ? Perhaps you should host a poll as to which one of us is "polluting this forum with [] nonsense and ignorance".

The first sentence. I just couldn't bring myself to go any further: It's long been known to the denisens of neverneverland, protected by tinfoil hats, that the terrorism in Iraq is Jews, Brits and Americans, but for everyone else, it's utter nonsense. Do you actually believe this stuff? I mean really, in your heart of hearts?