Alex Moore

ooooh... I love people who quotes the simpsons and pop rock "artists" and talks about the 'new world order' in the same sentence. They are how shall i say... oh i can't violation of forum rules. basically as a response anyone who actually believes they understands the world enough to assumes that they have the know how to fix it and to suggest that others are blind to this. Are (forum violation). Nobody has a monopoly on truth and no single ideology has the single solution to it. Don't call me blind because I don't agree with you. The venus project, hippies please grow up.

As much as i believe the Iranians can (will if allowed to) do it. Pakistan isn't going to help them.

so then you call an imposed dictatorship a great alliance? I'm a little confused by this. as for the miniskirts I've not been alive long enough to comment on their history. but given the sexually repressive nature of Islam I have trouble believe that they where common during the 60-70s. especially since the shah's attempts to westernize Iran was a factor in the Islamic revolution

sorry saw this and have to laugh read history 1941 was the year Britain invaded Iran to prevent them from siding with nazi Germany. If there has been been any alliance between Iran and the west it was forced. Remember the shah? Great allies. yeah that was the dictatorship left behind following the 1941 invasion. which (forgive me if i'm wrong) wasn't terribly popular in Iran. and oh was the driving cause behind the 1978-1980 islamic revolution in Iran who are: the douches in power right now developing nuclear weapons. miniskirts in Iran between 1941-1978? ummm... I don't even think they were invented yet.. I'm going to need photographic evidence of this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/iran-says-it-will-further-enrich-uranium/article1385575/ Is anyone actually surprised?

Your right this will be perceived as an awful thing to say, entirely because it is an awful thing to say. NO no and no. You really need to take a look at homeless people before even considering your argument. Homeless people are the people who fall through the cracks in our society. Not that i'm denying them responsibility of they're action(surprise a conservative defending the homeless). but as an observation they typically suffer from a mental illness or a drug addiction. The streets are the refuge of those who have nowhere else to go. you can't say the schizophrenic understands his situation when he scared of aliens sending him messages. You can't say the addict will improve without treatment. these people are the ones who are dependent on others. the schizophrenic needs his medication and the addict needs help to move past his addiction. Animals on the other hand are perfectly capable of surviving outside of human control. I may surprise you to know that most of the animals in the shelter are either feral or abandoned. Regardless of their history the animals in the shelter will have most likely been surviving outside of human control for months. Why does fido stick around in an abusive home? I don't know but you can't say either. As two why I care more about the homeless guy more than the beat up dog? I care more for him because we are member of the same moral community. That is we are judged by the same principle an act in accordance with them. If a homeless guy stabs me or if I stab him we are both capable of understanding that are actions were wrong and that there are consequences to them(and that we we'll be punished). Fido does not. not matter how cute and lovable pets are still motivated by survival needs. Honestly starve your dog (don't actually this is just a point) and see how cute they are then. a dog that kills a man will not understand what he has done as wrong in any moral sense. We shoot that dog not because he is a criminal but because he is a danger to society.

Is there a question or topic in there or just an outlet for misplaced aggression?

I'm still confused as to why bleeding hearts are still screaming this. What good will be accomplished by a premature withdrawl?Nothing for the Afghans. They'll still be under siege by forces that kill women for the crime of getting an education. Us not being there won't change that only liken the possibility of another taliban government. Maybe less Canadian soldiers will die and we'll spend less on our military budget. BUT this is a responsibility we accepted when we entered afghanistan. Though its to easy to forget this we fucked up the country and we have to unfuck it regardless of the cost. Withdraw now and that won't accomplish anything but placing the burden of our responsibility on our allies and pissing them off.

I seconded it. Honestly making issue out of personel expenses is just stupid because they are such a small part of DND budget axing them wouldnt have any effect. Whats going to get axed is equipment purchases for an army that is already stretched to its limit. Or something else to get axed that hippies wont enjoy: humitarian efforts in Afghanistan.

wow you liberals are getting really desperate for punches to have gone that low. You clearly don't know anything about Sikhism/India to have made that comment. 1 there aren't that many of them, not enough to be worried about to specifically make a photo opp for (something like 20 million globally mostly in India. I don't know the number in Canada but doubt it's significant) 2 there's a difference between Sikhism and Indian: most Indians are Hindus. If he was legitimately trying to appeal to the Indian population he would have not made that photo because Sikhs and Hindus hate each other. 3 Its called respect. the fabric he wore over his is a sign of respect to the culture of sikhism. Why does this HAVE to be a political move. WHY ARE YOU MAKING IT A POLITICAL MOVE? can he just travel to india visit the golden temple, eat some indian food play the piano and go home?

Pay and training aside. (30k starting salary for someone with a high school education is actually pretty good) The government really needs to expand the military and actually create a force able to act for a sovereign nation. We must admit that our forces as competent as the men and women fighting in are, Is in abysmal state. We could not act in our own defense or if necessary invade another country. We do not have the capacity of a full modern army lacking things like an airborne division, marines(NOT the US kind) or attack helicopters etc. Where un-developed nations like mexico do. instead we rely upon Other nations like the US for military assistance basically if we need helicopters they send in theirs to back ours up. the best thing for our troops would be to build a force capable of acting fully and independently as a modern army. I would argue this is also best for our nation as well.

wow Argus you've said incompetent and idiot so many times in this debate that I don't know if its an insult or a common adjective anymore. You fail to appreciate what this situation is. Anytime criminal case goes to court without 100% certainty. There is almost always a subsequent civil suit on behalf of the defendants against the prosecuting lawyers for malicious conduct (Scientology is famous for this see Hill v Church of Scientology). It would be great If prosecutors always went to court with absolute certainty. But the very fact that they are in court usually means there isn't absolute certainty in the case (especially for sexual abuse cases). so by your standard that lawyers shouldn't go to trial unless they have absolute empirically tested evidence that create 100%certainty of a conviction. It would mean that lawyers couldn't do their job. In order to do their jobs lawyers need to be protected against these lawsuits except of course in cases where its clear that lawyers where going beyond the scope of their job and either using there position to personally attack the defendant or to advance their career. which is unless I read wrong the standard that the supreme court set.

The story that read was that this guy went crazy out of fear because he was being sent to Iraq.

To say that the science is settled is an outright lie. Scientist don't like to admit to the fact that they don't understand everything. But that is the case especially for large complex systems like the earth. The science behind global warming is confusing and much of it too recent and unempirically tested. Far too much is correlational to actually make inferences from or to attribute causation. There still is no cohesive understanding amongst scientists as to what climate change will look like or if its even preventable, or even how to stop it. Climate change though alarming is still a science in its infancy.

It was a freak incident. The odds are so low of animal attacks that she pretty much won the lottery.

One can only hope. But I hesitate to support vigilantes. While Mr. Chen was lucky that he caught the right criminal. you have wonder if he caught the wrong suspect the charges against him would be perfectly reasonable. the law doesn't distinguish between the two and so Mr. Chen got caught in the void. Although he should have called cops first.

Hillier did exactly what generals are not supposed to do and that is to use the military for political purposes. I know your thinking that yes the military is political our men and women act out the political will of our country. Which is both questioned and appraised in our political sphere. But that job is for scum bag politicians, not for esteemed generals. the military has no role in influencing our countries national policy. The are not elected officials. they must not be. They are publics servants and as such are required to preform their job aptly and with out hesitation regardless of policy. Or else our military would decay into mutiny. While Hillier struck a chord that resonated with us - the failings of our military/NATO. It needed to heard. but by stepping outside of the military and into politics he betrayed his position he betrayed our soldiers. Hillier is not a great general or a man with esteemed balls. he is a coward. He is someone who was not getting his way, so he betrayed the position he was given.

although it is my deepest hope that obama will earn this honor. to have bestowed in advance and without merit ruins the reputation of the award lessening the accomplishments of those who have earned it.

your plan might have a chance of succeeding if the world was static. but imposing restriction as you are suggesting would have disastrous consequences in any state of emergency.

While i definitely agree that libs are not communicating. I would think Ignatieff's biggest problem is that after 6 years (I believe) in canadian politics and becoming head of historically canada's most successful political party he still remains an obscure figure. I keep saying this but what exactly does ignatieff intend to do if elected?

As someone not born in the 60s I've never actually heard this before. In my public school we sang O'Canada in both french and english followed by morning announcements. It funny though if someone tried to bring back your pledges there would be an uproar from mindless masses over "it's indoctrination" and such

You can't really argue that. The US. has a system that bends over backwards for the rights of individuals. that means when their system has to choose between the rights potential criminal and the needs of society. the criminal always wins. (we mimic this but not to the extent that the US goes) on the social level that means there are lots of known criminals who go free without where they should have been locked up. allowing for gangs to persists. That being said Mr. Canada argued for all criminals to be locked up. that'd be great if we could facilitate them. But if you take a gang related crime like cocaine. If you lock up all the known dealers. Demand still persists and buyers turn else where, and you just have new dealers. The issue has to be with what debt is owed in relation to the damage caused. In the case of the article Its disturbing to see a wanna bee terrorist free.

Death to America isn't enough for you? That's in the prayers of Ali Khamenei We've gone so far of track here we're not even arguing anything with substance. While I'm not even sure what your arguing for but rather just trying to paint me as the asshole as I am. So if you wouldn't mind I'm going back to the roots of our argument. You have argued for What I believe is Absolute sovereignty and respect for it (or at least I'm concluding this from what your arguing against). I believe this to be an Idealistic philosophy but fundamentally naive. In the modern world Nations have become interwoven through economic and political ties, the importance of sovereignty has been reduced considerably. Of course nations still pose threats to each while unable to act unilaterally on their behalf the must be able to defend themselves. The solution has been condemnation through the international community aka the UN. So when a nation Like Iran starts building nuclear weapons the impose embargoes to slow their progress as significantly as possible while negotiating a settlement. Or when a election is questionable we have a body of people who question it. Boycotting speeches is method of doing so. just out of curiosity would you have actually wanted our representatives to have sat their and listened to the rhetoric he spewed?

i'm biased on this issue I like to smoke. Not a pack a day. At the most maybe a pack a week. But every time I light one its a choice. I respect the well being of others by only smoking outside and around other smokers. I am also fully aware that this most likely will kill me when when i'm 65ish. That said I make the decision to smoke. Why are the companies being sued for my decision I can't really understand. They have in the past done some dirty tricks to maintain the illusion that cigarettes don't kill you. But todays public is aware of the harmful nature of cigarettes. I make my decision aware of the consequence I read it on every pack I buy. The part that I hate is that Ontario more than any other province has gone out of its way to do everything but ban cigarettes. Why don't they outright ban them: because they profit from them. I see this lawsuit as a another blow to tobacco companies without actually having the courage to outright ban them. ps. section 15 can't be applied. it equal rights before the law. as our law sees it everyone has the right to smoke and drink. you also forget section 7 which insures the right to liberty such as the freedom to with our bodies as we please without interference.