bud

who said i'm not worried about my own war dingle berries? america's business effects the world, so what they do is as much my business as yours. capiche?

still not finding it strange that there is no evidence, not even a photo, that he was killed? still not finding it strange that he was immediately dumped into the sea where no one will ever find the mysterious osama? anyone scratch their head when the supposed was released by the cia?do all of these to you people or do you people see the obvious difference?

useless for the u.s. and harmlfull to the world. even if you don't care, it matters to me that someone's action can hurt people outside of my borders.

americans should give full trust to what their government is telling them. because cia has confirmed that it was osama through a dna test and obama has confirmed that it was osama because he watched it happen and he's seen the photos. no point in re-hashing the fact that cia and the american president at the time, bushcheney, lied about and forged evidence that led the united states into a useless war.

i thought only 39% of those who voted, voted for harper. correct me if i'm wrong.

your comments and hate would make a little more sense if you didn't spend the other 50% of your energy defending assholes on the other side of the isle who are pretty much the same as the ones you attack.

have you gone back to being a 'radical leftist lawyer'? ps - you deserve a ROTFLMAO

A senior nuclear adviser to Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has resigned, criticizing the government for ignoring his advice on radiation limits and not doing enough to deal with the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Toshiso Kosako, a professor at the University of Tokyo, was only recently named an aide to Kan on March 16, five days after a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and tsunami hit Japan In a teary news conference on Friday night, Kosako said he could not stay on while the government set, what he deemed, inappropriate radiation limits for elementary schools near the plant. "I cannot allow this as a scholar," he said, adding that he also opposed the government raising the limit for radiation exposure for workers at the plant. The government has set 20-millisievert limit for radiation exposure as safe, but according to Kosako, that is 20 times too high, especially for children, who are considered more vulnerable to radiation than adults. cricket

an amazing life. this is another interesting bit about him: Despite his navy years, Choules made clear his dislike for war and the people who sent young men into battle, saying World War I for him was a "tough" life of privation and tedium, marked by occasional moments of extreme danger. "He always said that the old men make the decisions that send the young men into war," son Adrian told the Herald.

the NDP isn't the only party with elected inexperienced first timer MP's.

harper's sound fiscal management is a myth. i'm for a smaller federal government and efficient spending, which harper hasn't been about since coming to power. in fact, harper has substantially increased federal government expenditures in every year of the last five years that he has been in office. in addition, he has added thousands of people to the federal public service. this despite his commitment to reduce government spending made while in opposition. many of those who believe harper is fiscally conservative have failed to look at the real picture. taking money out of social programs and reducing corporate tax does not change the fact that harper has irresponsibly spent billions of our tax money. now, with a majority, he will spend billions more on toys that don't seem to have a limit on costs. for a fiscally conservative prime minister, why has he given a no bid contract for jets that are not even finalized? jets that are going to end up costing billions more than what was told to us. why not spend 1/4 of that money on one of many other jets that are available and capable? we have the bank bailouts which ended up being $75 billion dollars. there is also the billions of dollars given to auto makers. how do those who support conservative economic values justify these outrageous spendings? lets look at our national debt? the 2 highest national debts have both been under conservative governments. $562.8 billion under mulroney and 562.9 billion under harper. program spending has increased under harper, despite cuts in social programs. they increased by 25% during harper's time in power. however, the spending has not gone towards healthcare, education and other programs that most would consider important, but they've gone towards the RCMP and defense. looking at the real picture, can someone tell me how harper is fiscally conservative and responsible?

some very good points in your post. i'd have to disagree in regards to pressure from the international community. a momentum has been building in favour of a palestinian state by both the international community and those living inside israel. jews who live abroad and support israel have become vocal in regards to their support for a palestinian state. something will need to give. perhaps israel will have to end up paying for the resources they're taking from palestinian land.

why can't they do the right thing and recognize and support a palestinian state?

jbg is not here to debate or reply to criticism of his comments and approach to debating. he is only here to propagate an agenda.

heh. yes blackdog and anyone else who shows any criticism of israel's actions and system; 'you are openly opposed to jewish statehood.' you're a real piece of work, bob.

larry, moe and curly have spoken but they are still unable to justify israel's killing of civilians in response to terrorist attacks.

they cost around £40 million each year. this cost excludes costs for police and army security and ceremonial services.

i'm not being evasive. the question was whether israel discriminates and you challenged blackdog to show you how israel discriminates. i gave you one of the discriminatory laws that israel has. when i replied to your challenge and showed you how israel discriminates, you decided to show your anti-semite card again. you fail.

you've gone into babbling mode again bob. the question is whether or not israel practices discriminatory laws. it's not about 'my opposition' to it. the law of return is a discriminatory law because it discriminates against other groups. by the way, i love this bit from blackdog: Fanatics are usually the most unwavering in their beliefs and steadfast in their cause. How did you come to internalize the attitudes of those groups who used to oppress you?

because you want to clumsily deny that it is discriminatory. the law of return, in every sense is discriminatory. just in case you've forgotten the meaning of discrimination, here it is: discrimination n. unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation. if you want to announce israel to be a non-discriminatory state, then yes, it should be abolished. if you're okay with israel having a law that discriminates against another group, then the status quo should continue. are you ready for the next discriminatory law in israel or do you want to continue denying what the meaning of discrimination is?

okay, now we're getting somewhere. so you admit that you were wrong and israel does have discriminatory laws and you're going to take back what you said earlier: so that's 1 discriminatory law that you cannot deny that exists. next, land laws. can you tell me how the land laws are not discriminatory?

law of return is a discriminatory law. immigration laws in regards to spousal sponsorships are also discriminatory. there is more, but i'll let you clumsily deny those two first.

really? here is some reality for you. how much does a FA 18 superhornet cost? $55 million. how much for the F35's that are not even certified to work properly? estimated to be $190+ million each. i would suggest that you make some kind of an effort and try to come up with facts to debate with someone, instead of what you do.

please quit it with the emotional rhetoric. your comment is as embarrassing as peter mackay announcing that cancelling the deal would "endanger the lives of Canadian pilots" and "endanger the sovereignty of this country". most people here are too smart for that. why not purchase jets that are proven to work and have all the necessary features that we need. all these 'extra' billions that are going to be used on planes which are not even completed and have not been approved for use, not to mention that they don't seem to have a cap in costs could be going into other defense programs that are needed. the question of usefulness of this aircraft aside, i'm not sure why you are not questioning the matter in which harper has gone about these jets. i'm not sure why it doesn't bother you that harper decided to give a blank check, without any competition for the contracts to purchase jets that do not seem to have a ceiling in costs. jets that are not even certified and proven to work. the military industrial complex has a lot of power. they spend a lot of money in lobbying the government and on public relations in order to get these billion dollar contracts. with all due respect, why are you doing all this free work for them? even if you support a particular party, there is nothing wrong with questioning an obviously wrong action.

so what? do we really need all the accessories that come with the F35? is there a reason to pay so much to get a ferrari when a bmw, which is at most 1/4 of the price would be more than sufficient?