Goat Boy©

This thread has been some journey, admittedly I've only gotten to page 24. Still, I'd like to offer a few comments: This is something of an absolute un-winnable situation I believe; -OK cannot win because his life will never, ever, be normal again. -Those seeking justice cannot win because it has already failed, and based on the circumstantial evidence, I don't believe it can ever be unequivocally proven that OK is guilty or innocent. I believe that Canada has zero moral or ethical obligation to defend this man. He is not a part of Canada beyond formal paperwork. That being said, I think that Canada has a legal obligation to do so. An interesting point raised earlier about how the SC should not be able to dictate foreign policy to the elected government. After some thought, I would offer; in a constitutional government, the elected government is answerable to the constitution, and it is the SCC's role to interpret said constitution. The PM may be the PM, but he is still a Canadian and as answerable to constitution as the rest of us. I am not happy with the way the constitution was patriated, but it is what it is, and it is there for a reason. Many of those who advocate for the death penalty and other such draconian punishment for OK, are also advocating for the equal treatment of all people regardless of nationality, skin color, religion, tax bracket etc. I personally see the political right as more tolerant domestically, with the left being more divisive in terms of special interest group, minority, etc. If you feel that a pedophile should be fed through a meat grinder after being convicted, does OK not deserve the same right to a trial as any other Canadian? We may not be happy with what the law says, but it is the law, and the onus is on us to manage and change it to suit our wishes. We as Canadians carry a burden of responsibility, to ensure that our government & laws are arranged in a responsible and acceptable manner. If our laws or constitution fail to account for all possible circumstances, then the onus is on us as citizens to correct it. Something I personally think Canadian's fail miserably at, but that is another thread altogether. The important thing is, the law stands above any elected government. This is why we deal with minimalist government corruption everywhere, but not rampant runaway government corruption. Should OK be released and go on to commit a terrorist act, I believe the responsibility is with us as Canadians to amend the law in such a fashion to prevent it from happening again in the future. Such action is what keeps Canada a successful state, and in failure to do so, I see little difference between that and NATO presence in Afghanistan, dropping bombs, as a result of their own inability to control their own citizens. This post deserves a thread of it's own. I absolutely agree, 100%. Modern terrorism is a result of socio-economical disparity. Certainly, their may well be fundamental extremist religious zealots, every religion has them. However, the troops do not fit in this category. These people come from a result of a failed existence, indoctrinated into nonsense without ever having had a chance to see an alternative. Were Afghanistan to be a successful nation like Canada, and these people had the opportunity to attend school, and not have to grow drugs to feed their families, do we really think they will turn to fundamental Islam? Even if the above is not true, basic needs being addressed, common sense and education beat out religion every time. One of the reasons for the gradual religious downfall in the west. You can remove Islam from the equation, but you're still going to see angry people who have to choose between heating their house or eating. People who cannot even have basic needs of survival, so called 'guaranteed rights' in Canada met, so that we in the west can continue to waste our entire disposable incomes, and then proceed into credit on things like HD televisions, Iphone's & a new car every two years. You can protest and try and correct the problems attached to Islam, you can protest and try to end war, but all it is, is trying to correct the result of the problem, not the problem itself. If you take every single resource on the block, and force your neighbors to work for you, in exchange for an almost but not quite human existence, one should not be surprised if a revolution shows up. Lengthy and rantish, but my $.02 ************* Army Guy: Respect. Several friends and family in the various services in both North American countries. Some didn't get to come home. Hope you fare well. Regardless of what you are doing out their, why, or who sent you, the fact that you sir, are willing to lay your life on the line for a cause beyond yourself, regardless of what end it may be. That puts you a cut above the rest of us in my books. It pains me to see some of the comments from our more radical activists about the doings of our armed forces.

As I specifically stated, I am not speaking of the way things are, "I won't attempt to speculate," but how things appear. You really aren't capable of making any sort of post on this forum without screaming at the other guy are you?

Yes, Paul Martin never tried to ban handguns...

How can one vote anything but Harper? - Harper is the creepy alien looking one, doesn't look like a normal person. No idea what intents are. Ignatieff is the untrustworthy one, go from your best friend to your worst enemy overnight, to advance his own position. He will call you out in your face however. Layton is the sneaky one. Continues to act like your friend while setting up your downfall in the backroom. Duceppe is the brute. Will roll over anyone to get what he wants, will stand up and pound his chest, nothing to hide. - Not trying to project political values, just my perspective. Based on the adjective 'creepy,' I don't see how the vote can go to anybody but Harper.

Yeah, we saw that in BC too. BC NDP based their election campaign on Liberal budget forecast, and when it was exposed to be lies, they shouted "Criminal!"

Canada's gun laws are fine' the registry is a monumental waste of money, the Liberals are nuts trying to ban guns...kind of like 'the war on drugs.' I personally think banning should be banned, and things regulated. Signed, Owner of multiple firearms

Pipe dream.

:lol: "Well Mr. MP, what do you do for a living." "I try to get fired."

Actually I've been a Liberal supporter my entire life until Martin. I'm just not from the Trudeau camp. IMHO, it's safe to say that the wheels fell off the train. I believe that the governments role is to govern, and provide essential services that the private sector cannot be trusted to provide, but can appease with the fact that their are many here in Canada not comfortable with that idea and it will more than likely never be realized.

Aviation is still contracting across the board. AC is the new GM, and WS lost money for the first time ever. It gets worse when you get into the smaller companies.

I haven't read the bill, but news-media would tell you that he gave them nothing. Zero concessions.

:lol: Brilliant!

Since when is having your bill voted on by X party called 'aligning with?'

Ok, que is espanol for 'What?'

Brilliant writing!

I thought they were coming across very well on that idea, almost catching old Stevie.

My late Uncle used to work in a government cartography office. Very comfortable salary, alternated between 5 and 4 day work weeks, and enough work to last just one person the whole week, or the five people working there, one day. My sister in law works for a provincial government ministry, doing self-admittedly, next to nothing. A government job is the next best thing to winning the lottery. Come on, there is a lot of fat that needs trimming.

Where do these ideas that the government is responsible or capable creating jobs, or that social engineering polices can control a system with an infinite number of interactions come from? This is exactly what I don't want them to try and do.

Yes, because this plan never came from Jean Chretien's Liberal party correct?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Dkenny, any predictions for what happens to the USD? It can't stay up forever, it just can't, they've printed so much money with nothing to show for it. My thought is that, when it comes down, oil spikes again, and things go to hell again.

Yeah.....and family court lawyer would be the new get rich quick scheme, beyond what it already is. Can you imagine the bureaucracy necessary to manage all those child support payments?

I shouldn't think that will offer much difference when it comes to seat selection. We've been down that road before. Guess it depends on the distribution of the population polled, Ontario is what really matters correct? The Bloc was up in Quebec, Liberals down & Conservative relatively the same in Quebec were they not?

Que?

You want to talk about cost, try having a friend come home in a body bag. Afghanistan being the UN/NATO mandate that it is, I do believe that Iraq rules do not apply. I also think don't really think that the US really gives a hoot about Oil production/Haliburton/Etc, and far more important are the lucrative petrodollar based engineering contracts, and the abundance of fresh water in the Tigris & Euphrates in a region that is seriously lacking it, and will be lacking it more so in the future. But that's another story altogether, let's not thread jack.

I would say until the Liberal platform diverges noticeably from the Conservative one, the Liberals will remain in something of quagmire. I would also say that it is being handled rather poorly, I mean regardless of motivation which I won't attempt to speculate on, doing things like voting against the home renovation just plain looks bad. I see no difference Harper's personal election, and Ignatieff's attempt at one. Only real thing is the proximity to the previous election, which really isn't all that different. Why not give Iggy his chance? I don't have a problem with that. I also think that the comment of Tory supporters is something of a prejudiced blanket statement. Based on polls, I would offer that their is a large contingent of supporters flip-flopping back and forth between the two parties, not altogether too many die-hard's in either party. Be interesting to see come election time if this holds true. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls-2008-9-mov-avg.jpg