kimmy

What reaction were people expecting? "Gee, I didn't realize that there would be casualties. Gosh, I didn't realize that people would be sad when people die. Well golly, that changes everything!" And as for this... Yes, I can understand where many Canadians would be confused by a prime minister who takes a position and sticks with it, rather than responding to whichever minority is wailing the loudest at any particular moment. I'm sure that Paul Martin would have blathered on at length without actually saying anything. I imagine that words and phrases like "sensitive" and "challenging" and "work together" would have been repeated over and over. Harper's great mistake is in believing that Canadians are too smart to buy into that kind of verbiage. In fact, Canadians are by and large awfully dull and eat Paul Martin's brand of crapolla like it was ice-cream. -k

If land claims spiral out of control to the point where they're a significant irritant to the average Canadian voter, some government will find some way to cap compensation and limit future claims. -k

When I saw "Mantario", my first reaction was "great, another thread about gay marriage." -k

I don't think that's quite an accurate translation. "You, on the other hand, are equal to the Talaban or Al’Quada terrorists..." "liberals...deport them" Sounds like what he/she is trying to say to me. "You're either with us, or against us!" Does sound kind of familiar... I can't imagine what this nonsense has to do with Canadian Federal Politics, however. -k

Hitler's an extreme example, but Argus's point is still fair. Conservative MPs and candidates have been pilloried for attending rallies or events that were attended by Christian extremists and Alberta separatists and anti-abortion activists. Is the "guilt by association crap" that Black Dog bemoans really crap, or does that depend on who's doing the associating? Both of them? I jest. But Muslim voters outnumber Jewish voters in Canada by a considerable margin, and if this becomes a wedge issue in an upcoming election, it's not going to split things in a way that Conservatives like. -kimmy

This is the part of the article I found most intriguing. The Iroquois captured all of Ontario, and never surrendered any of it to Europeans... ...does this mean that some Iroquois could claim any piece of land, store, public building, or private home in Ontario? Stealing the wind? By that logic, I am apparently stealing some Native Person's sunshine right now. -kimmy

CBC: courtroom chaos. close... but not quite. I'm not sure that Mrs Shepherd is a community activist, and while she figures the police gave the case extra attention because the victim was white, I'm still expecting somebody to claim that the young suspects are being made scapegoats. The Kimmy-Points are still up for grabs, so stay sharp people! -k

Of course not. I'm not advocating the educational value of US TV shows. However, I still suspect that for many people, that's the basis of their knowledge (or lack thereof) of how things are supposed to work. When I drop by Babble or En Masse to see what the folks there are saying, I'm always amazed at how many of these people are apparently experts on subjects like entrapment, and jury selection, and evidentiary rules and arrest warrants and bail and publication bans and on and on. Where did these people learn all of this? Because frankly I have a hard time convincing myself that most of them finished high-school, let alone law-school. What's your interpretation of how so many Canadians apparently believe they have in-depth knowledge of the law, August? Youngsters like myself (and most people you'll bump into on the internet) are far too young to have any recollection of the FLQ trials. Th biker trial received little coverage in English Canada, I have no idea who Stephen Truscott is, and it was the lurid details of the Bernardo trial, not the legal procedings, that people took note of. I don't believe that any of this provided people with an actual basis for an informed opinion on arrest and pre-trial matters in regard to "the Toronto 17" as some are now calling them. -kimmy

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/12/dhs.fakeid/index.html Retired NY Policeman who lost his son on Sept 11, 2001, gets a forged Mexican ID (that cannot be used to enter government facilities) with a different birthdate walks RIGHT IN to DHS. Somehow I don't think the government is up to snuff par as well. Ok, is the relevant part that he lost a son in 9/11, or is the relevant part that that he successfully suckered DHS security? Would it have meant less if somebody who hadn't lost a relative in 9/11 had done the same? I'm not questioning that they have a right to express their concerns, I just don't understand why they'd feel that the death of a relative makes them more qualified to speak on this than somebody else. -k

When I was a little kid I remember seeing this election debate on a community channel where this woman from Green or NDP was talking about environmental policies. She proudly pointed out that she doesn't wash her hair because shampoo is bad for the environment. Only bathes once a week to conserve water. Doesn't use makeup because it contains animal products. And... she looked exactly like you'd expect a woman who avoids makeup, doesn't wash her hair, and only bathes once a week to look. It wasn't actually the greatest advertising for her cause. I looked at her and immediately said to myself "I am totally not becoming an environmentalist." -kimmy

I think that Killjoy is onto something. Consider the amount of press covering every detail of this case, and the audience available to their lawyers. Consider that most Canadians' knowledge of legal procedings is based on watching episodes of American TV shows. Canadians are receiving a lot more information than they're used to receiving about the process, and I think that most Canadians don't have the understanding of the specifics of the system to discern what is normal and what isn't. I doubt whether most Canadians have spent a sufficient amount of time in holding cells to know whether the conditions described by the lawyer are normal. Likewise, the evidence that's been made available to the press... I've heard some people demanding to see what evidence the police have for these arrests, and I've seen others claim that the police have already said too much and have biased potential jurors against the suspects. I have seen suspicion and puzzlement cast on every bit of news that has come out following these arrests, and I think it is in large measure because people have not previously seen any arrests and proceedings receive this much coverage and therefore people don't have any frame of reference to compare it against. -k

As a blonde, I find this thread offensive! OFFENSIVE, I tell you! (just wanted to mention, "Burnsey" has been punted from the forum, so you might as well be talking to a rock. ) -kimmy {"I was saying BOOOURNS..." -Hans Moleman.}

Well, change "appease Bush" to "appease suburban white voters" or something along those lines, and that's pretty much what I was thinking of when I said "10 Kimmy-Points to the first person who finds news-story in which a Toronto Jamaican-community activist blames the arrests on police needing suspects because the victim was white." So if you find one, that'll win you the Kimmy-Points. And yes, Warwick, you are correct that I shouldn't have said "Jamaican." I am sure that some self-appointed guardian of black Torontonians will come out swinging on this, but I was wrong to narrow it down to Jamaican. -kimmy

Oh Rosa! Aside from where you can sit, what rights of yours are being trampled? Just sit at the damned back & be done with it. Of course it's not on the same scale as Dachau, but is it just a matter of scale? I mean ... the South Africans weren't actually burning the black folks ... so that makes it better than the Nazis? Comparing the act of smoking to the act of being black is a bit of a non-starter. You can choose to smoke your cig later, you can choose to quit smoking, you can choose to not start smoking in the first place. None of that can be said of skin color. While I can understand that people feel they have a right to pursue whatever leisure activities they wish, that right is not without limit, and when it becomes inconvenient or harmful to others, you've reached that limit. Your leisure activity might be smoking, for other people it might be model rocketry. The only difference I see is that I've never seen a model rocketry enthusiast bring his stuff to a restaurant and expect to launch it while people are trying to eat. -k

The Star: 8 charged in gunfight I am offering a prize of 10 Kimmy-Points to the first person who can link to an editorial citing these arrests as proof that dismantling the gun registry is a mistake. And I offer a further 10 Kimmy-Points to the first person who finds news-story in which a Toronto Jamaican-community activist blames the arrests on police needing suspects because the victim was white. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I've just got a hunch. Get to it, gang! Valuable Kimmy-Points are up for grabs! -kimmy

If I was arrested on such serious charges, I'm not sure I'd put my life in the hands of somebody named "Rocco". -k

Maybe *you* did The only thing that need be said of the Calgary Flames is that they have not played a game for a month and a half. -k

I think that if there's been a shift to the right, it's the result of some of the prominent lefty-types either leaving or getting banned. I miss reading The Terrible Sweal's messages. I didn't often agree with him, but he was a bright and articulate contributor to the board. Maplesyrup/mirror/bigdude/etc was all over the map. Sometimes it seemed like he was making a real effort to see different aspects of an issue, other times he was almost a stereotype of a left-wing knee-jerk. Sometimes, he literally seemed like a mentally ill person in need of medical help, and I don't say that to make fun of him, I say it as somebody who honestly at times worried about the welfare of the person behind the keyboard. Whatever else, though, he did start a lot of discussions, some of them worthwhile. I don't believe eureka has been here since the election. He claimed that he had plans and strategies that would prevent Stephen Harper from becoming Prime Minister; I can only imagine that he committed ritual suicide when it became apparent that he had failed in that endeavour. Either that, or died of old age. Whichever. Sometimes he had some worthwhile things to add to a conversation, other times he had little to offer except insults... old people often become cranky and impatient. He did have a good sense of humour, and caused me to laugh out loud many times, like when he confessed to causing the Indonesian tsunami using a snorkel and a chisel. Other "lefties" have come and gone, but those are the three that to me were the most memorable of the departed lefties. Others, like ScottBrison and his ilk, were memorable not for actually contributing anything worthwhile, but for trolling and dragging the board into partisan bickering (which of course a number of past and present right-wing members have done as well.) I am glad that Black Dog is still here to present opposing viewpoints. I know that it can't be easy on this board sometimes. -kimmy

First, go to "My Controls" Then, along the left side, look for the link that says "Edit Profile Information" Click that, and the first line you can edit is called "Custom Member Title" and that is where you can write your own witty slogan! However, if you don't see the "Custom Member Title" option available, it might mean you aren't allowed to enter a custom member title until you've attained the rank of "Swollen Member." -kimmy {I figured there must still be a few dick-jokes left in this thread, right?}

I am aware that he made a very unpleasant remark about Jews, but I haven't seen his full speech and so I don't really have the full context of his remarks. I am not in favor of people making racist remarks. However, does making a racist remark necessarily equate to "Incitement of Hatred," or whatever the specific wording of the criminal code is? (I sense I will soon be getting a lecture from FTA Lawyer. ) While I agree that what Ahenakew said does make him an asshole, I'm not sure that it makes him a criminal. -k

What do you mean. That only people who agree with you are saying what they really think? Only people who agree with you have guts? What I really think: Stephen Harper is a very intelligent man who knows that he needs the support of mainstream Canadians, and he knows that adopting hard-line social conservative policies will lose him the election. -kimmy

I guess it's people like me that upset you. All I can say is, tough luck for you. The Conservative Party needs people like me. Without us, they're back to a 60 seat opposition party. I also have a great deal of respect for Stephen Harper. One of the main reasons I respect him is that he's too smart to throw his party back into the trash-can by adopting policies that Canadians will never support. -kimmy

Out of curiousity, what other qualifiers? Based on reading "lefty" message boards, I've gathered that there are only 3 kinds of people who support Canada's Conservatives: the "neocons," the "religious right," and the "religious right neocons." It's the same sort of nuance found among right-wingers who differentiate between "pinko commies," "tree-huggers," "pinko-commie tree-huggers," and "bleeding hearts." On this board, perhaps. There aren't any prominent "lefties" who still post here, however, aside from yourself, and you really ARE a nuanced writer. -k

That's not a scared kitty. (for reference: a scared kitty.) If anything, he looks alert, attentive, and ready to pounce at photographers or journalists. It looks like Prime Minister Harper has got a chip off the old block there. I doubt that photographer got out of the room without getting scratched. -kimmy {"Hubert!" "Talk to me when there's meat."}

Ok, now Argus's user status line boasts of his multitude of extra eyes. How did that happen? (the user status line, not the extra eyes. well, come to think of it, the extra eyes too.) -k edit: nevermind. found it.