kimmy

I disagree that there's no upside in this. There's a few possible upsides. It could sow the seeds of another rift within the Liberal party. If it leaves Rae supporters (or, Dion opponents) doubting that the results of the vote were the real deal, it could lead to divisions and bickering. It could undermine Stephane Dion right from square one. While the perception that Conservatives tampered with the results would look bad for them, the perception that the Liberals got tricked into picking a lemon would be worse for the Liberals. Nobody wants a lemon to be the next Prime Minister. And, it might leave people asking "if they can get conned into picking the wrong guy to lead the party, are these people competent enough to run the country?" I'd look at this as a piece of bait. If the Liberals are smart, they ignore the bait, downplay any suggestion that the Conservatives influenced the results, and proclaim that they're very pleased with their process and their new leader. If the Liberals aren't smart, they'll make a big deal about this. Because basically, there's no way to turn this into a news story without undermining Stephane Dion. -k

I would agree. If someone was going to ram an agenda down peoples' throats, a militant Muslim agenda is the least appealing. -k

Kimmy, I see a big difference between, on one hand, carefully choosing a target of military value while trying to avoid collateral damage and on the other, going into a hotel lobby filled with wedding guests and blowing them and yourself up. So what do you actually take issue with: the act of hand-delivering a bomb to the target, or the act of an attack against innocent civilians? This is the distinction that Black Dog has been trying to make clear. I certainly agree that walking into a hotel lobby full of wedding guests and detonating a bomb would be utterly reprehensible. Obviously. Does that even have to be said? However, it would be equally reprehensible to target those wedding guests with a bomb dropped from a plane, a cruise missile fired from a ship, a squad with machine guns, a tank, a Blackhawk helicopter, or any other action that uniformed troops with an organized chain of command might do. It's the murder of the innocents that's a crime against humanity, not the choice of weapon. Are "Canadians Against Suicide Bombing", or are "Canadians Against the Slaughter of Innocent Civilians"? It's the latter. And that's why specifying "suicide bombing" strikes me as self-serving. Well, what about Afghanistan, say, where the suicide bombers are, in fact, targetting Canadian combat troops and installations? Those suicide bombings aren't random. Whether they'll achieve their goals is certainly questionable, but I can't help but suspect that the suicide bombers have had an influence on Chicken Little Layton's position on our engagement in Afghanistan. Layton, of course, is completely irrelevant. More worrying, though, is that each suicide attack and Canadian casualty in Afghanistan seems to deflate support for the mission a little bit more. What worries me is that the next Liberal leader, whoever he might be, will see a political opportunity in this... he might believe that calling for Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan might be a position that could win the next election. And he might be right. -k

No. I think hand-delivering a bomb takes a lot more courage than dropping it from a plane. You're probably right, but I don't think that's the sort of distinction that would make one act a "crime against humanity" while the other is considered business as usual. Stop saying that. You know that not every Canadian supports the "mission" in Afghanistan. You are working for a select number of Canadians. He's an official representative of this country, doing duties that have been assigned to him by consecutive parliaments. -k

This is one example, I am 100% sure there are many other incidents like this that never make the news. Polynewbie is correct. It has been written into law through the Patriot Act (and revisions) HR 6166 and several presidential executive orders. Yes, the US "anti-terror" laws have given the authorities powers that violate our fundamental principles on human rights and the due process. That's not what PolyNewbie is wrong about. What PolyNewbie is wrong about is that these new powers make the US, in his words, "one of the most oppressive and tyranical governments that has existed in 1000 years." The Patriot Act et al pose a threat to human rights that the majority of people on earth don't even *have* right now. -k

Or to build on that... isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?It seems somewhat fake for us to declare "our" kind of fighting to be "ok" while declaring "their" kind of fighting to be a "crime against humanity". perhaps you can explain that comment, do you think there is not enough restrictions, or to many ? I think he's pointing out that we declare actions good or bad all the time. -k

August posted a similar article (maybe the same article?) months ago. Some good points and counterpoints were raised. I don't recall the title, but perhaps somebody who does remember where to find that thread could provide a link to that discussion so that people can read the comments already raised on the subject. -k

Your contempt for any mode of entertainment devised since Al Jolson was in his prime is once again apparent, fleabag. I will point out that Drew Carey was a standup comic long before he had his own TV program. He must have been pretty successful at standup comedy, because his first TV appearance was when he was invited to perform standup on the Johnny Carson show. As well, Michael Richards was in standup and live improv long before he appeared in TV and movies. -k

I'd say the same thing. I'd say the comments were off-color, pathetic, and bad attempts at humor. I'd say that I don't think they represent a real threat of violence. And if you attempted to compare the comments to spousal abuse or Columbine shooters, I'd say it was histrionics. I don't want to see anybody hurt either. I'm taking issue with you because you're trying to use these comments, which while pathetic, are idle chatter... and trying to compare them to spousal assault and Columbine shooters. That's retarded, but that's what you're doing. Why? I guess you're trying to try to show that Christians are persecuted. Hey, if that's what you believe, why don't you try and find some real information to support that theory instead of making a fool of youself by continuing to make ridiculous comparisons of harmless internet banter to real violence. It's pathetic that you have to resort to an insinuation like that. You're truly classless. I just love the way you sound like a voice of authority on psychopaths.How do you know? You were the one who brought the Columbine shooters into this thread by comparing the comments on the youtube page to stuff Eric Harris wrote before Columbine. And apparently, you did so without actually having a clue what you were talking about. A little research reveals that Harris's website and blog included: -instructions for making explosives -death threats that were serious enough to be investigated by police. -a hit-list of people at his school. -a running count of how many guns he owned, and how many pipe-bombs he had built. -frequent anti-social rantings and talk of killing people. Kimveer Gill, the Dawson College guy, posted dozens of photographs of himself posing with his commando rifle and wrote frequently of his admiration for the Columbine shooters. So, like, what's the rational basis for comparing comments about slapping a kid to these guys? It's ridiculous hyperbole. Pardon me, Kimmy...but it is YOU who's getting all worked up over MY opinion. So why is it that you've posted no less than 12 messages about the youtube comments in this thread, compared them to spousal abuse, compared them to the Columbine shooters, and now signed up at Youtube so that you can argue with people about the comments on that message board as well. You seem to be, as you yourself said, "outraged". So with all due respect, I would suggest that it is you who is worked up. Me, I'm just frustrated and disappointed at myself for wasting so much time trying to reason with somebody who'd compare internet chit-chat to spousal abuse and can't see any difference between selling religion and selling vacuum-cleaners. I haven't defended the comments. I described them as pathetic, way back in message #69. I've not said a single word to support the comments about hurting little Rachel. All I've said is that I think that they are not a sincere expression of violent intent, but rather exaggeration with the intent of humor or expressing annoyance. And I've said that your attempts to equate these comments with spousal battery or the rantings of murderers are sheer idiocy. Well, if you ask people here on the message board (or anybody with an IQ over about 40, for that matter...) I think you'll find that very few people agree with your effort to compare the youtube comments to the rantings of mass murderers. And just to make sure I'm clear on this, I don't defend the comments at all. I just think your efforts to inflate them into warning signs of a massacre are ridiculous. The comments, while in bad taste, are just internet chit-chat. Trying to inflate them into real threats of violence is ridiculous. You're making yourself a parody of the politically correct zealots who consider bad jokes to be hate-crimes. You probably can't even see the irony of the position you're fighting for. The fact that more people haven't jumped in to argue the point with you is probably because they were smart enough to recall the adage that if you argue with an idiot, bystanders might mistake you for one. Sadly, I wish I'd had the sense to heed that advice. Using the "ignore" button to deal with annoying people spouting idiocy? That's an excellent idea. I'll try it. Bye, betsy. -k {ps: Bwahahaha-ha-haha yourself, Einstein. }

Didn't Dinning give a speech about wanting to make Alberta the #1 value-adding jurisdiction on earth or something like that? While I realize that this sort of talk tends to be mostly hot air, I'd assume that talk of resource-processing would have to be a large component of any hot air about value-adding in Alberta. (I'm sure there's a better phrase than "value adding", but darned if I can think of it right now.) -k

Betsy, if you sincerely believe that little Rachel is in real danger of violence from the people who made these comments, or if you really believe that the people who wrote those comments are comparable to the Columbine killers, then it's your civic and moral duty to contact the authorities before it's too late. Contact the FBI and tell them know about the comments that have you so worried, and let us know what they tell you. Of course, if you don't actually believe that these are real threats of violence or that the authors are Columbine killers in the making, then please spare us the histrionics. Oooh, ooh, wait, didn't the Columbine killers and the Dawson College guy write about hurting people? uh, yeah... about that. Harris, Kliebold, Kimveer Gill... these guys didn't write about slapping people. They wrote about shooting, stabbing, dismembering. They wrote about guns, knives, and bombs. Real psychopaths don't write about slapping people or praying for them to trip on a rock. Why aren't the rest of us getting all worked up over the comments? Is it because Rachel is a Christian and nobody except you cares if somebody hurts a Christian? No. It's because nobody except you thinks the comments are real. Sorry, but I'm completely unconvinced by what you're saying. If the same comments had been directed at lawyers or politicians or telemarketers, I doubt that you'd have batted an eye or taken them seriously at all... and I suspect that that the only reason you're making a big deal about these particular comments is that it suits your purposes, not because you think they're sincere. But, as I said, if you're sincerely convinced otherwise, you should be talking to the authorities, not to me. And I don't believe that there's any particular amount of anti-Christian violence in North America. I mean, in the first century Christians were thrown to the lions... if some trash-talk on the internet is the worst they have to worry about nowadays, I'd say things have improved quite dramatically. I've never heard of a Christian getting beaten up for spreading the word. Some people who knock on doors-- repo men, bill collectors, social services agents, for instance-- get the crap kicked out of them pretty frequently. I don't think being a Christian is nearly as dangerous as it was back in the days of Nero, but perhaps I'm just not aware of all the anti-Christian violence in our society. If you can provide some evidence about Christians getting hurt or killed for their beliefs here in present-day North America, I'd be very interested to hear about it. So, we've seen these videos that show a camp where they're training kids to be fanatics, and a little girl whose dad has trained her to proselytize and hand out tracts, and woman who says she wants Christian kids to be as fanatical about Jesus as the suicide bombers are about Islam. And the message that I got from this is (as I posted near the start of this thread) that it's a good reminder that not all fanatics wear pyjamas and beards and funny hats. -k

CTV I'm sure that I'm not the only one whose first reaction to this news event was "Who resigned from what, again?" -k

Yeah? What's he saying? That the "Patriot Act" allows surveillance without judicial authorization or suspending the right of habeas corpus? It's a big leap from that to claiming that they're one of the most tyrannical regimes of the past 1000 years, worse than Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot, or any of the other retarded hyperbole that you've been spewing. -k

Well, Betsy, if you really don't see any difference between selling religion and selling vacuum cleaners or happy meals, we really ought to talk about revoking the church's tax-exempt status. Because if there's no difference between religion and vacuum cleaners or happy-meals, then there's no reason why McDonald's and Vacuum Village should pay taxes while the church doesn't. Anyway, I'm not buying what you're saying. I don't believe a word of it. I've seen you fly off the handle in just about every thread about Muslims and Islam on this board. I've seen your writing enough to know that you'd react a lot differently if your kid came home and told you he bought a Happy Meal than if he came home and told you he was through with Jesus and was turning Muslim. Remind me again... did Harris and Kliebold go around Columbine Highschool slapping people, shoving pamphlets in their mouths, and praying for them to fall on their faces? To be blunt, you're making yourself look foolish by trying to equate the off-color comments about Rachel with the kind of detailed graphic violence that Kimveer Gill or the Columbine killers wrote. You're disturbed because I don't think it's anything more than harmless prattle? People often joke about smacking politicians, lawyers, celebrities, TV commercial pitch-men, and yes, even door-to-door evangelists. It's not "extreme", it's not an impending warning of a hate-fueled massacre in the making... it's just people expressing their annoyance or frustration or disgust. I've personally written on many occassions that I would punch Jean Chretien right in the testicles. The RCMP never paid a visit to my house or confiscated my computer. The former PM has not, to my knowledge, started wearing a cup to protect his gonads. You know, maybe normal people just don't get all that worked up about chit-chat on message boards as you do. Of course. There's loonies and extremists in everybody's midst. -k

How many high school killers had been on the web bragging about their intent? Harris from Columbine was said to have bragged to want to "rip the arms off racists...etc..," I haven't read the web-postings of people like Kimveer Gill or Harris and Kliebold, so I can't really comment on them first-hand. However, I have heard that they contained graphic, detailed fantasies about violence against targets that they knew in real life. I don't think a few off-color comments about slapping a stranger, or choking her with her evangelical tracts is remotely similar. I'm downplaying the comments because I strongly doubt they're anything more than idle chit-chat. I doubt that the guy who is praying for god to help her trip and smack her face on a rock actually has much pull with god at all. Do you really think he's praying for her to trip and smack her face on a rock? Do you really think god will listen to his prayer? I don't think he's serious. I don't think the guy who says he would shove the pamphlets down her throat is serious either. I think it's a figure of speech. Wait, little Rachel is female, isn't she? Why haven't those angry feminists already swooped down?? Tell you what, betsy, if you're really convinced that the people who wrote those things on that message board really mean harm to little Rachel, or if you think that they're actually another Dylan Kliebold or Kimveer Gill just waiting to explode, maybe you should notify the authorities. No, because I don't think the authors are serious. I think they intended to express annoyance and contempt, not a sincere threat of physical violence. Wait a minute... remind me again how these salesmen got into your private residence? Because people find proselytes annoying, and because the video was of a proselyte, not a vacuum-cleaner salesman. Both might be annoying, but one wants to tell you how to clean your carpet, and one wants to tell you how to live your life. Nobody is going to tell you that you'll go to hell if your carpet isn't clean. But evangelical fuckheads have told me that I'm going to hell if I don't listen to their advice on how to save my soul. I find it profoundly insulting and offensive. -k

Albertans Over the span of however many years this province has been practically giving away its resources by charging a fraction of the royalty rates that other jurisdiction charge. -k

I think there's something of a difference between being "religious enough to talk about their faith" and being intrusive enough to attempt to interfere with other peoples' children. I don't know that dad uttered any threats, although it's quite possible that being confronted by someone as physically imposing as dad is, in itself, threatening. I really don't agree. I think dad was right to tell them to stop what they were doing. If it were your kids, and if instead of Christians, it were (say) Muslims or Scientologists luring them to their back yard to teach your kids about their faith, I doubt you'd be as forgiving. -k {do you have a moment to speak of enlightenment? here, have a flower. }

I'm leery about responding to Betsy's messages. Last time I addressed Betsy, she posted 5 responses. If I reply to those, she's bound to post 25 responses. If I reply to those, I'd have 125 responses to deal with. Obviously this can't continue for long without crashing the message board. So I'll attempt to control the exponential growth by simply giving an abridged response. You're comparing internet trash-talk to spousal battery? Get real, Betsy. If you don't understand that there's a big difference between what people feel free to say on an internet message board compared to what they'd do in a real life situation, then I'm not sure you're qualified to be on the internet. Yeah, or maybe you should impart your religious beliefs to your kids at home and leave school for (as Sharkman put it) "the 3 R's." Or hey, you could even send your kids to a Catholic school. I don't know where you're located, but here in Awesometon, Alberta, there's oodles of Catholic schools, which I'm sure are being paid for by more than just Catholic tax-payers. Kimmy, this was all she said: "Hi. um, God's just telling me that you're on his mind, and he just wants to take you and love on you and he has special plans for you and your life. He just wants you to follow him with your whole heart." So where's the litany of thou shalt not? She just gave a 30-second spiel. I've heard enough about "God's special plans for me" to know that it's chock full of "thou shalt." Rachel's god won't "take you and love on you" with no strings attached. Rachel's little leaflets no doubt have the details. Contact the Holeee Jeeeezus Church of Strikes and Spares for information about God's special plans for your life, so that you can follow him with your whole heart and make him take you and love on you a lot! If you can't see a difference between religion and vacuum cleaners, I'm at a loss. -k

This is one of the stupidest and most ignorant statements I've ever read on MapleLeafWeb. The laws that the USA has in place now are significantly more tyranical than anything these guys have ever comitted to paper. You have just shown your ignorance. You should investigate some legal commentary on the recent laws mean. And this is another of the stupidest and most ignorant statements I've ever read on MapleLeafWeb. Whatever your views of the current US regime, any comparison between them and the worst butchers of history is utterly ludicrous, and claiming the US is one of the most tyrannical governments of the past 1000 years is a statement that casts doubt on not only your education, but also your intelligence. -k

I don't think Christians are evil. As I said before, I don't hate Christians at all. I hate fanatics, of all stripes, whether they wear pyjamas and stupid hats or dress like the rest of us. Did you watch the clip of Becky Fisher, who speaks in admiring terms of the religious fervor that causes Muslim jihadis to blow themselves up for Allah, and wants to raise Christian kids to be "as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, because, excuse me, but we have the Truth." That's what I hate. I don't hate Christians, I hate mindless stupidity. Did I have a bad experience as a child? Not a bad experience, exactly. I will share this story from my childhood. One summer, me and some of my friends were playing, running around and pelting each other with under-ripe crab-apples that we pulled off neighbors trees without even asking. This was back in the old days when kids played outdoors... the early 1990s, it was. A friend arrived and invited us to go to a house in the neighborhood where they give out candy. She was promised extra candy if she could bring more kids. Candy? Kids love candy. We went, a whole group of us. When we arrived, there was a friendly couple, and as promised, there was candy. We sat in lawn-chairs in the back yard and munched on the offered candy while the friendly couple talked to us about Jeeeezus. They gave us little brochures and told us that if we came back tomorrow there'd be more candy and we would talk more about Jeeeezus. When I got home dad asked where I'd been, and I told him about the candy and the Jeeeezus and showed him the brochures. He didn't say a word, he just took me by the hand, put me in the car, and told me to tell him how to get to the house. When we got there, dad took the brochures, told me to wait in the car, and went and pounded on the front door of the house and the man answered. I don't know what was said, but I could tell that dad was aggitated, as he pointed his finger and waved the brochure in the man's face. Dad came back and we drove home. And that was the end of it. I didn't even have to ask to know that I wasn't supposed to go back to that house. As it turns out, none of my friends went back to that house either-- Jeeezus Summer Camp had been cancelled, permanently it seemed. It was never spoke of again. Perhaps the friendly couple tried to reach out to a different group of kids some other time, or perhaps a confrontation with an angry father the size and shape of an offensive lineman caused them to rethink the whole idea. I don't know what became of the friendly couple. Me and my friends went back to running around pelting each other with crab-apples, and that was the end of my first brush with evangelism. Sex should be taught by the parents. Unfortunately, kids are being taught by tv, movies, the internet, and their classmates... kids hear all kinds of things about sex before they have that "birds and bees" chat with mom or dad (and in many cases, parents aren't able to provide them with any useful information anyway. In many cases the mother-daughter sex chat goes something along the lines of "don't do it." Well, that's great, but it doesn't tell her anything about pregnancy or disease...) If parents want to tell their kids "don't do it", they're certainly welcome to, but at least talk about pregnancy and disease. Because the pressures on kids to have sex are a lot stronger than parents realize, and knowing about the consequences that come from having sex is more persuasive than "daddy will be angry" or "Baby Jesus will cry." When the alternative is being ostracized or bullied by their peers, lots of kids find it easy to conclude that daddy isn't going to find out and Baby Jesus will just have to deal with it. I'm sorry if that sounds sacrilicious, but it's an unfortunate truth. The parents who proudly tell their friends that "My little Suzie would never..." often have no idea what pressures little Suzie faces in the course of a typical school day, and having judgmental parents ensures that they're about the last people she'll talk to about it. I don't recall school ever teaching about "the wonders of homosexuality", but I do recall them explaining that feeling attraction towards somebody of the same sex is no reason to kill yourself... is that such a bad thing? Parents should certainly talk about sex with their kids, but at least let them have the information they need. And as for homosexuality, if parents want to tell their kids "I know they told you at school that it's ok to feel attracted to somebody of the same sex, but it really isn't. Jeeezus will love you less if you do," they're certainly still free to do so. -k

You keep repeating this (Zogby poll, right?) when it's already been pointed out to you that the poll doesn't say what you people think it says. Why is that, exactly? -k

I worry about the motive of those who are already here! The fanatics from the other side of the fence! Boy, when they start quoting these lines (which I got from comments on Brad's link)... "They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics, abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse." [Richard Dawkins]." "To succeed the theologan invades the cradle. In the minds of innocents they plant the seeds of superstition. Save children from the pollution of this horror."- Col. Robert G. Ingersoll [1833-1899]" It can't be far behind that some holy lobby group will push for all children to be raised and doctrined by the state. And I ain't talking about universal daycare! Although it's a giant step in that direction! The right of parents to raise their children in the religious tradition of their choice is guaranteed by our constitution. That's not going to change. Religious people who gripe about things like prayer being kicked out of schools are, ironically, complaining about the constitutional principle that guarantees them the freedom to raise their kids in the religious tradition of their choice. The principle that means little Sally's teacher can't have the class say the Lord's Prayer before class is the same principle that means that little Sally's teacher can't teach kids about the wonders of the Quran before class... and it's surprising that some Christian activists are apparently too dumb to recognize that. Don't worry, Betsy, you'll always have the freedom to teach your kids all about Jeeeezus. And Mrs Cruise will always have the freedom to teach her kids that our bodies are inhabited by the ghosts of space aliens. And Mrs Khadr will always have the freedom to teach her kids that an eternity in paradise awaits if they die while fighting for the prophet. Woo-hoo. Good grief. I don't think a few comments about slapping her qualify as "vicious savagery". If little Rachel's parents read those comments, perhaps they'll think twice about having her roll up on complete strangers with advice about how to live. -k

Canada.com isn't a National Post channel. Vice versa, rather: canada.com is the web portal for all CanWest entities, including the NP. Anyway, that's semantics. It is, indeed, a National Post article. Anyway, I gather that your basis for questioning the article's veracity is that it comes from the NP? If I found a left-friendly media outlet to vouch for the claim that Tom Axworthy has been charged with leading the party's renewal process, would that make it all better? Toronto Star, Nov 11, 2006 -k {or, from the horse's mouth...}

Either. Does it make a difference? If I go buy something and the salesperson is wearing traditional Muslim garb, would you say I've chosen to interact with them? -k

If you wake up with a politician, will 3 Advil make it go away? Complete agreement on all of this. I'm considering going and spending $5 just to vote for somebody other than Morton. -k