AngusThermopyle

I disagree with you, we should never just declare martial law, never. We should never just send the military in to enforce court orders. Those are functions of the police force, not the military. I do agree that action must be taken now, not later, but I do not think that an aggressive militaristic aproach is the appropriate one to take within ones own country and amongst ones own countrymen. A far more preferable approach would be that the law were applied equally, free of bias or influence. Unfortunatelly I think we are all aware of the fact that this is just not the reality or the truth, however armed intervention and martial law are not an answer or truism of any lasting kind or value either. Personally I would prefer to see a public review of the conduct of the senior members of the OPP and the decisions that they have made regarding this and other situations that have arisen under their watch. Obviously such a review would inevitabily encompass the Premiere and his most senior staff so equally as obvious is the fact that none of us is ever likely to see any such thing happen in the view of the public. Ever. I hate to be pessimistic but I believe that Caledonia is a lost cause as far as understanding and compromise tempered by the rule of law are concerned. As long as the principle players in this Fiasco are allowed to continue playing the current game no resolution will be acheived. That is why I do agree with the above petition, I just don't think it encompasses enough.

Probably as being predictable and boring. Why? How would you describe it?

Actually I do know what inclination means, how about you? It's almost Christmas and I, unlike you apparently, do not have a lot of time to waste on the Forums right now. Lots of visitors and parties, they take a higher priority than answering some foolish post. Therefore I'm far more inclined to spend time socially with people rather than waste it here. Do you need a further explanation? If you do then don't hold your breath waiting because I'm too busy for your juvenile baiting and posturing right now.

Before saying such things you should actually know what you're talking about. Our Leopard MKII's are fitted with the new anti mine packages and have not only survived IED hits but remained functional afterwards. Air mobile capability is a very neccessary component of the modern battlefield, as are attack type helo's. Unfortunatelly in Canada we decided that a bunch of politicians were more capable of deciding what the military needs than actual military proffesionals. So we appointed a bunch of civilians to the highest levels of the military and cut the guys who actually know what they're doing out of the loop, great idea. Theres a ton of good stuff we could use but will never get while we let civilians call the shots as far as procurement goes. Not being military they generally don't have two clues to rub together when it comes to this stuff. A good example would be the "do everything" supply ships they proposed to build. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject could tell you that this was an extremely flawed idea but until Harper did the right thing and cancelled them we were going to go ahead and build these white elephants, thus sadeling the Navy with ships that would not have done anything particularly well.

This is so false as to be laughable. I don't know about you but I can assure you that if I wanted to I could go out now and be back in a few hours with a sawn off 12 gauge or 9 mil that are illegal. These weapons are pretty easy to obtain if you know where to go and have the money, most of the time they're cheaper than buying them legally. As for the rest of your post I just don't have the time or inclination right now to address so many fallacies and misconceptions, lets just say that you're way out in left field and leave it at that.

Is that the Maori version? How about sacharine sweet, insipid and boring? Oops, sorry, thats more than one word.

Oh what a good idea! Now lets see if I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that the story should have been told from the Vietnamese POV? If so then all I can say is what a bonehead idea. This story was about a bunch of Americans who were friends and shared mutually traumatic experiences and a loss of innocence, not about some Vietnamese friends who had fun torturing some Americans. Is that all that difficult to understand? If the story were to be told from all POV's then it would'nt be the same story at all, not to mention the fact that it would probably run about 30+ hours in length. Do not make blanket judgements about all the movies made either. For example, just watch Clint Eastwoods fantastic movie "Letters From Iwo Jima" and you'll see an example of the opposite POV being shown. If that isn't what you were trying to express then I apologize for the assumption and have to tell you that I'm not really sure what you are trying to say.

Oleg, wake up! That post was adrressed to Griz, not you. Wake up Oleg!

Yet another incredibly intelligent totally unsuported semi literate rant from the usual suspect. Nice to see you're consistant. Merry Christmas and a blah blah blah New Year to you.

Smartass.

Oh great, another big fat waste of money for the Pussy Willows of our society to ooh and aah over. It might be better to direct the money towards something that actually has some intrinsic value.

Do you think a knife would be effective in preventing one of those home invasion defecations?

Sure do, they were my "gateway drug" when I was a kid, countless hours of fun winding up the rubber band for a short flight. From there I went to Balsa and tissue models then on to the tethered planes that had little Cox glow plug engines and flew in circles around you. Finally I moved on to remote control planes, my last one was a Stuka with a 60" wing span, I gave it to a friend for his little boy.

You just don't get it do you, or you don't want to. Okay, show me the last time any western Christian cleric exhorted his congregation to go forth and commit murder in the name of god. Give me an example more recent than the fifteenth century AD. You can't, but please try, there may actually be one oddball out there doing so. Ah, the final effort of the defensless, pick up on a typo and trumpet it as some sort of victory. Nice try, not. Unlike you I have read both, not just some "fast food" web excerpts. Yet despite admitting you don't know what the book says you still argue with those who have actually taken the time to read it, you do know how that makes you look don't you? Nice try but once again a non starter. The question is specifically about Islam,the results of causation are merely a manifestation of the root principles of this particular religion. As for your rather innefectual comparison to a discussion of statistics...well I would at least take the time to learn something about the subject before attempting to discuss it with those who do know something about it. Obviously that is where we differ as illustrated by your posts in this thread.

My favourite is "Baby It's Cold Outside". Just about everyone has done it but I like the versions with Harry Connick Jr. doing the male vocalizations.

Yeah, I have to agree. Reading that was actually painfull it was so poorly written.

I find your answer very interesting in that I anticipated it correctly before you even answered. Hence my comment about other religions calling for violence and moral reletavism being used to defend the indefensible. So I don't have to ask again if you have read the Khoran, your refusal to answer and the actual answer that you gave clearly indicate that you have not. How does Islam glorify acts of violence? Well for starters it repeatedly states that those who commit violence in gods name will be the chosen of god, they will be revered by their fellow man and placed at a higher level than all others. Thats just to start, if you took the time to actually read what you so stridently defend you may just be shocked, I know I was. Show me some examples of other religions that justify violence based upon a fairy tale and do so en mass. Bet you can't. Don't fall back on the old saw of Christianity because you will not find any official doctrine that promotes genocide, slavery and forced conversion as part of their accepted operating methods. Really, before you decide to argue something you should at least go to the trouble of learning about what you are defending. I find it ludicrous that one who has not even bothered to learn about the religion he is defending should expect to be taken seriously or with anything more than a grain of salt. In effect all you are doing is offering opinion based upon nothing more than your own idealised form of wishfull thinking.

Very true, we should ban drivers licenses as well.

Actually you are wrong. Islam is not like any other religion as you claim. Have you read the Khoran? Perhaps you should before you make such sweeping and false generalizations. Deny it all you want but it repeatedly calls for the forced conversion or outright enslavement or destruction of "infidels" Now you might attempt a little moral relevatism in this case by claiming other religions do the same. In so doing what you would be conveniently forgetting is the fact that other religions do not publicly glorify such acts and openly encourage them. Other religions are also quick to condemn such actions and attempt to distance themselves from the people perpetrating them. Just take a straight non radical interpretation of the Khoran and you'll see that its still very extreme in what it purports to be gods will and the way followers should live. Restrictive is a very mild way of stating the principles that are the core of this ideology.

And you know this because? Yet another post based entirely on opinion and wishfull thinking without a single shred of proof to back it up. Perhaps in a world consisting of nothing more than fantasy such a statement could be perceived as accurate but unfortunately the real world tends to function as an entity seperate from wishfull thinking. As I said earlier, its a basic principle. You try to f*ck with a cop, they'll f*ck you up. What is so difficult to comprehend about this concept?

Let me take a wild guess here. Probably the same thing you appear to be drinking every time you make yet another worthless post.

Spoken like someone who truly has no understanding of conflict and war. There are no little boys once they've been taught to use an AK in a hostile manner. There are only killers and targets, no sweet little kids wondering if they can trade some of their hockey cards. This little boy who is no different...blah blah blah. What a crock of sacharinne sweet bull. He is very very different from other "little boys". The little boys I know don't tote assault rifles around trying to kill citizens of their own supposed country, they don't join terrorist organizations bent on causing mayhem and death. They don't despise and hate their own country as he does. No different? On what planet would that be? Put the bottle down, have a cold shower and come back to reality Oleg, it really is better than that place you appear to be wandering around in currently.

Hands down beyond any shadow of doubt the worlds greatest aircraft ever, now or in the future. Will Never Be Exceeded

Once again you are wrong and wrong again. It appears that you have problems retaining that which you have read, I suggest you go back and read the opening post. You have tried to hi jack the thread and I find it interesting that you started to do so only after I pointed out what a stupid comment you had made. Must I repost the opening posts for you in order to prove this fact? Or will you now decide to be an adult and stop all this childish squirming on your part? From your performance so far it appears that you are yet another who cannot admit they are wrong, even when faced with supporting evidence you still deny, I have a four year old nephew who does the same. So, will you now make some more shit up to bolster your fallacious position?

Actually now you've gone from being feeble to disingenuous. You commented in such a way as to imply that only men commit fraud, my comment was made in order to illustrate just how ridiculous your assertion was. Rather than admit you just blurted out something false and stupid you now attempt to shift focus onto the unlikely possibility of senior women hi jacking planes. Anyone with a functioning IQ could tell you that your original assertion was pure unfiltered bullshit, so your response is to go way off tangent and attempt to divert attention from your originalk assertion. Not only feeble but also dishonest in a very childish sort of way. Man you are something else! Do you work really hard at being way out in left field? The above quoted is about as wrong as you could make it when applied to myself. As any regular member of this board could tell you I am hardly what one would consider PC, I have stated many times the neccessity to be wary of those who may fit a particular demographic that can be seen as a threat, yet in one fell swoop you managed to contradict the truth and present nothing more than false speculation. So, in order to justify your stupid statement you have veered off course into hi jackings and home invasions. You then compound this ridiculous tack by inventing a persona for another that is based on nothing more than your desire to avoid admitting that you said something really stupid. And you have the gall to mention the scientific method (which has nothing at all to do with the topic under discussion) when all you've done is post a mess of rationalizations and red herrings. Just admit you said something stupid and quit making yourself look even more foolish. By the way, as you appear to be unaware of this fact I will point it out to you. The topic under discussion is fraud, not home invasions or hi jackings by 78 year old women. Hopefully you can comprehend this.