tango

I notice you and kimmy both try to scare yourselves by talking about him being instantly released on the street. That isn't very likely. He will come back in custody as his charges are not finished being dealt with. They only got far enough to thoroughly embarrass the US with the evidence revealed by their own soldiers. He can go to court here, be assessed for treatment, hopefully near his own community.

"Political mileage" ... Only among Harper's core, and that's all there is, and that's why he can't back down. He'll appeal it to stall for time.

yuuuuuu betcha! And I'm just teasing ... not serious ... Truly, it was rather poignant. Bush seemed pleased to visit Calgary, in fact pleased to get any invitation, and Canada's always a good 'reference', in reputation anyway. Man, at the end there he really took a shitekickin' ! And he did seem aware. Hell, he's some kinda human too, yet to be clarified in the light of history and I don't want to speculate. There are personality types that are drawn to profits and politics, there is no question, but that's another thread.

That was Texas' business partner Alberta.

lictor, you make absolutely no sense at all. You'd better go back to the grand poobah for more lessons, better vocabulary, AND memorize the propaganda LINES because you are no good at reasoning and you are a disgrace to 'your kind'! While you're there, give him the old 'WHITE FLOUR' salute for me eh? btw ... once a white supremacist has chosen that route, he'd damn well better be able to remember the lines and keep in the circle of his 'like minded friends', because the rest of society sure as hell does not have a place for you anymore. Just a friendly word of warning.

Oh ethnic bias. How sophisticated!

Where in your dictionary does it say that "equal" means "precisely the same"? It means of equal value, like all human beings.

We'll send you instead, but I think you'd better go via Gitmo, then Syria. Who wants to contribute to alta's travel fund?

Lots of questions ... few answers ... yet. Obviously an independent investigation is necessary.

No, not the same, not identical, but equal in value. Not "the same", no, but of equal value as human beings. So the only people who would be 'equal' in your world would be clones from the same person? Tell me ... who do you consider to be your 'equal'?

No it isn't based on lowest 20%. That was proposed but was never accepted by the feds. In fact, in typical head-in-the-sand fashion, the feds have refused to endorse any method of calculating 'poverty' because then they could be held accountable for it - eg by Canadians and by the UN. StatsCan went ahead and established the LICO's based on size of family and the estimated cost of food, shelter, clothing, etc. in various sized communities for reporting purposes. The but the feds still won't acknowledge it, for purely political reasons: Families are considered to be in "straitened circumstances" if they spend 54.3% or more of their income on these three items. Other interesting information: The income of the richest 10% grew while the income of the poorest and second poorest 10% fell. [...] The Report Card says governments should increase minimum wage to almost $11 an hour, end the $6 an hour training wage, raise welfare to about $1300 a month for a single person, [double the current rate] restore welfare earnings exemptions and stop clawing back child support payments, among other things. The UN report says that the CEDAW committee is concerned that there is no federal accountability to ensure that there are minimum standards for social assistance funding. It calls on the Canadian government to establish those standards.[...] http://intraspec.ca/povertyCanada.php Conclusions: As a result of cuts to benefits, welfare incomes are grossly inadequate and now stand at their lowest level since the mid-1980s. None of the provinces have welfare incomes that come anywhere close to Canada’s to the Statistic Canada’s Low Income Cut-offs (LICOs). * Measured as a percentage of Statistics Canada’s LICOs, in 2005, more than one-half of all households receiving welfare had incomes that were 50% of the poverty line or less. * In 2006, welfare incomes of single women averaged 40% of the poverty line, 61% for single women with a disability. * In 2006, welfare incomes of families with children averaged 70% of the poverty line. In Manitoba, the welfare income of a lone mother with one child was 67% of the poverty line. In BC, the welfare income of a couple with two children is 58% of the poverty line. * International comparison of the post tax, post transfer poverty rate for lone mothers with young children places Canada (49.8%) behind both the US (42%) and the UK (40%). Peak year...........2005.......% Change NL 1999 $16 894 $16 181 -4.2% PEI 1992 $16 064 $13 707 -14.7% NS 1991 $15 458 $12 917 -16.4% NB 1999 $14 191 $13 656 -3.8% QC 1994 $16 345 $15 395 -5.8% ON 1992 $21 039 $14 451 -31.3% MB 1992 $15 630 $13 282 -15.0% SK 1986 $15 980 $13 235 -17.2% AB 1986 $16 071 $12 326 -23.3% BC 1994 $17 050 $13 948 -18.2% YK 2001 $21 562 $19 830 -8.0% NWT 1993 $26 127 $22 648 -13.3% NV 1999 $32 421 $22 154 -31.7% From these data, it is clear that the underpayment of welfare benefits has become quite severe in some provinces the last decade, reflecting the right-wing backlash following the recession of the early '90's, epitomized by Mike Harris' immediate 20% reduction in 1995-96 in Ontario. It never ceases to amaze me how even in Canada, relatively wealthy people with political pull like to take out their competitive angst and vent their ill will on the children of the poor.

Absolutely. Decent people do not even think about offering to "buy" the "cute" children of the poor, so yes it does beg the question about pedophilia. One just never knows who one is dealing with in an anonymous forum, and I am knowledgeable enough to know that there are predatory pedophiles among us all the time. At the very least, the comment displays an unattractive and heartless contempt for children, for humanity, and thus for oneself as well.

Obviously you did not follow the US court case before it was shut down, so you don't know the facts. Omar did not kill anyone. The grenade that killed the US soldier was a US grenade - 'friendly fire'.

How would 5 years instead of 3 make a difference?

This is wonderful news! A child should never have been detained and tortured like this.

That's a very immature and faulty understanding that partially explains why you have such a rigid and inappropriate understanding of humanity. Of course you can be equal and diverse. Equity does not mean 'same'. Some white people have clear skin, and some have speckled skin. Some people are men and some are women. Some are Baptists and some are Catholics, etc. Some people are brown, but they may be different religions. However, no one in their right mind would suggest that all of these are not 'equal'. Of course they are equal ... but different. Just like a fat glass and a skinny glass can contain an equal amount of water without looking the same.

Hamas will be part of the negotiations. Nothing is gained by denying their role as the duly elected government.

As a member of 'western civilization', I am interested in our history, warts and all, to understand our present by knowing where we came from and how and why. You, however, are a white supremacist who identifies by race and demands that people not investigate western history because you are choose not to accept any suggestion of flaws in your 'race'. The more fruitful approach for humanity is to learn from the truth, and use it to create new directions for our society, as Canada has done by rejecting its racist past and learning to respect all cultures.

Yes, I think an independent invesitgation should do that. Also, clearly there are people who stand to lose from that investigation who would, no doubt, try to discourage others from demanding a re-investigation, so I discount such objections.

It's impossible, and unnecessary, for us to do so. We can't know all the truths. However, it is quite possible to generate an alternative explanation that creates sufficient and reasonable doubt about the 'official' story to warrant further, independent investigation. The independent evidence of explosions, possible explosives in the dust, and access to the service floors, among other things, creates that reasonable doubt, imo, unless one has a personal/professional/political stake and chooses to avoid any further investigation. If the official story is true, then there is nothing to be lost by further investigation which can only prove that right.

lictor who appointed you the 'defender of the white race'. Certainly not me. I don't wish for that kind of 'help', thanks. We're just looking into our own history here. Nothing to get nasty and bent outta shape about.

Fantino wrote reference for accused McHale attacker Native protester Clyde Powless was charged April 22, 2009 Barbara Brown The Hamilton Spectator OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino stood his ground when a political activist charged with inciting civil disobedience in Caledonia accused the province’s top cop of unfairly targeting him for arrest. Read copy of the letter Fantino was recalled to the witness box in a Hamilton courtroom today by Gary McHale, who is representing himself on a charge of counselling mischief not committed. McHale was with protesters who gathered by a native smoke shop near the former Douglas Creek Estates subdivision on Dec. 1, 2007. They were protesting what they described as an illegal native-run smoke shop on Argyle Street South and Highway 6. A confrontation took place between protesters from the town and a group of natives. Both sides took turns blocking the road with vehicles and debris, including part of a hydro tower that was dragged onto Argyle Street. The prosecution contends McHale encouraged the organizer to have more vehicles parked across the road. more ... What an entertaining confrontation! All the kafuffle in Caledonia comes down to this: An outside agitator encouraging local Caledonia people to be disruptive and confrontational with police.

'Tax havens' to lobby Obama at Americas summit PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad - Leaders of so-called Caribbean tax haven countries said Friday they would ask President Barack Obama to oppose a planned crackdown on offshore tax evasion that they consider a threat to their financial services industries. In many small countries that have struggled to diversify their economies, financial services have become an important growth engine, said Belize Prime Minister Dean Barrow, chairman of the 15-member Caribbean Community. But a proposed U.S. law that would make it harder for Americans to keep money in such places, and similar efforts in Europe, have "exerted tremendous pressure" on offshore banks' and corporate registries' legal activities, Barrow said. Well good for Obama, I say, for going after taxes on offshore money. We have the same problem in Canada. Wealth distribution estimates are a joke. But the offshore financiers are hurting. I'll be interested to see how this works out.

I found that a bit biased. But I don't doubt it. Palestine wants to get rid of Israel. Israel wants to get rid of Palestine. This is the way it is and has been. And then there's also the present reality: Of course, talking to Hamas is unappealing for several obvious reasons. As Cohen notes, the Hamas charter contains a number of truly "vile" elements, including some odious anti-Semitic declarations. For Hamas to invoke a discredited forgery like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is both offensive and ignorant, and it weakens their claim to be taken seriously as a political movement. And then there's the moral hazard problem: If we start talking to Hamas, do we encourage other extremist groups to think they can get recognition too if they hold out long enough? So it's not surprising that U.S. policymakers have been reluctant to talk to Hamas, even indirectly. But look at it this way: When you make mistakes, you usually end up in a worse position and you have to do things you would have preferred to avoid. (Case in point: Iraq. We screwed up there, and we are therefore facing circumstances and having to do things we would otherwise have chosen not to do). In other words, actions have consequences. The same principle applies here. Back in 1993, when the Oslo peace process began, only about 15 percent of the Palestinian population backed Hamas. Then Israel, the United States, and the PLO squandered the historic opportunity that Oslo afforded. Israel continued to expand its settlements, the United States put no pressure on it to stop and mismanaged the negotiations (especially at Camp David in 2000), and the Palestinian Authority remained deeply corrupt and made its own share of blunders, too. George W. Bush made the problem worse on his watch, refusing to engage in the peace process and letting Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert do pretty much whatever they wanted. The result?: Hamas grew more and more popular, and eventually won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006. According to Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, the recent assault on Gaza seems to have increased their popularity even more. Bottom line: If we didn't want to have to deal with Hamas, we should have been following a different policy for the past 15 years. Hence Cohen's clear-eyed conclusion: Hamas is now an enduring element of the political landscape and the only realistic thing to do is recognize that fact and start dealing with them, provided that they are willing to renounce violence. There's no love lost between Fatah and Hamas, for example, but Fatah's declining fortunes have forced them to begin new talks for a unity government. I'm pretty sure that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas or Prime Minister Salam Fayyad didn't really want to do this, it was simply the best option available to them at this point. The other reason to talk to Hamas -- even if we limit ourselves to indirect contacts at first -- is to try to change their long-term thinking. Back in the 1980s, contacts between the PLO and pro-peace members of the American Jewish community eventually led Yasser Arafat to accept the UN resolutions 242 and 338 (the key resolutions governing the peace process) in December 1988, thereby taking a key step towards acceptance of Israel's existence. This incident merely illustrates the obvious notion that talking with your adversaries can be even more important than talking with your friends. I am aware of those things, some are dated. And I would hope there will be independent investigations of the actions of both parties. But I have seen nothing that makes me want to take one side or another. Seems to me ever since the removal of the Palestinians (1948?), it's been a "he said/he said" kind of interaction. I just want people to talk about resolutions. Obviously neither Israel nor Palestine nor Hamas is disappearing any time soon.