Alta4ever

I don't think you understand the term. Clearly Canada has a superior morality, since we are able to discuss such things in open conversation.

No you write arrogant condescending paragraphs.

See Keepitsimple, elitist arrogant and a few other adjectives that aren't so nice. He is able criticize everyone else but when it comes to to put his own thoughts out there, either Waldo isn't smart enough to be able to have his own thoughts on the subject or he is scared of the criticism. I am also of the opinion he is unable to condense his posts into a few concise sentences.

In his mind your not enlightened and intelligent enough to give a short explanation on his person position of global warming. He is one of those elites that thinks he is superior to all else, how dare you question him Keepitsimple. These are precisely the reasons why he gets so upset when I won't debate with him or tell him my position on global warming and call him a fanatic.

Care to explain this? I haven't seen any right of centre poster here celebrate the light sentence have you? It is canada's left that is at fault for not having passed the more strict legislation long ago. It has all been tied up in committee more then once. remember last summer, when the justice committee was on a cadmin witch hunt rather then working on legislation? You know what waldorf don't bother responding I already know what you slimy condescending arrogant response will be.

Morris has got you beat.

Thanks you beat me to it.

Your tin foil hat may be wrapped a little tight. When Afganistan is found guilty of Human rights violations in regards to the prisoners abuse then we need to look at our transfer arrangement. If the International community is satisfied that these abuses are not happing and not looking to investigate and lay charges, then how could we be guilty of facilitating something that isn't happening?

Really if we know there is the slightest chance they may be abused? Well then obviously we wouldn't be able to detain our own criminals, because there is a slight chance they will be abused. We wouldn't be able to apprehend criminals because there is a slight chance they maybe abused. That is asinine and you are not taking it the context that it is meant.

We don't have any evidence that those we have handed over are tortured what there is evidence supporting is exactly what army guy said we handed over one talibani agent he was beaten with a shoe, we took him back into our custody. This is not sufficient evidence to come to the conclusions you assert. If the afgani's are beating their prisoners then something should be done to stop it and reevaluating how we and when we transfer prisoners in committees does nothing to better the current afgani prisoners situation. For some reason logic this seems to escape you. You are much happier on a witch hunt that in the end will mean nothing to the afgan prisoners.

So you really don't care about the people just the optics aren't you so wonderful and caring. Pathetic

So you don't care if those in the afgani prisons get beat or tortured? Your concern is purely on who transferred them and when. What a great humanitarian you are.

It is about the afgani's abusing there prisoners isn't? So if they say this is going on why do they not take action with those that are detaining and allegedly abusing these people to improve their situation?

So if they are so concerned why are they not pursuing war crime investigations against the afgani authorities?

Funny nothing you said in your post was substantiated by the article you linked to hence garbage post. If you also noticed this thread is not about the Americans, but I am now going to assume you have america derangement syndrome..

The Times is hardly a tabloid. They are a hell of a lot more trustworthy then you. Heck if it came down to it I would trust the weekly world news over anything you post.

I can tell you the large cooling towers 5 miles from me have a large impact on the immediately local climate here. We get a lot more fog and hoar frost which doesn't exits a mile or two down the road from me.

I wonder what the consensus is on water vapour?

Its interesting how everyone has there own definition of what each term means and to close this threat it was the point of the thread

Go post your crap elsewhere.

We don't need to fight to separate, we have the clarity act. War is not the first answer child it is the last.

You do not fight for fighting sake, the cause has to be great and because Mr. canada says so isn't justification what you advocate is is fool harder you deserve to be ridiculed. There is a word for you it is imbecile. Take it, learn it, accept it and then come back to the world of rational thought.

I saw him as a bit of a clueless fool, but his post on us needing a civil war confirmed it. (I had him on ignore it made reading threads easier), but when I caught the quote of him from smallc it was time to join the club.

Your link says nothing of what you assert. Your post is garbage.

Who are you calling a red tory? Maybe you should see a doctor anyone who advocates a civil war has a screw loose.