PocketRocket

NEWBIE: I Appreciate the reply, but still maintain that Japan was hardly "about to surrender". That they had lost the war is beyond doubt, but I believe Ike was wring in his assessment in this regard, and most war historians tend to agree. When you consider that their fighting became more and more vicious as the war drew nearer to Japan, not to mention installing the "kamikaze" tradition as a main weapon, it seems clear that their army had a "no retreat, no surrender" attitude, as did their people. That aside, and also setting aside the allegation that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were supposed to be "military bases", this still does not "justify" the carpet bombings of various cities both in Japan, and in Germany, which were carried out by US bombers. Many of these cities clearly NOT tactical or industrial targets. As I said, in WWII, EVERYONE bombed civilian targets. This is the result of a simple equation; Convince the population that their government cannot protect them, and they will stop supporting said government, and may even rise up in revolt against that government. "Breaking the will of the people", was what Hitler called it when he called for the blitz.

Well, in a nutshell...... (Would have tried for a one-liner, but KIMMY did it first, and probably better than I could have managed)

???? Hey, no problem. As long as I've made you happy.

Recently divorced, but when we were together, we learned pretty early not to discuss politics. I was generally a lot more right-leaning than my ex, surprising as that may sound. She was, alas, one of those who payed little attention to politics until the last minute, then took things at face value. I would not be at all surprised if she's been sucked in by the Lib's attack ads. I believe that she is the type of person the ads are targetted at; the uninformed voter.

Funniest thing I've seen here in weeks. What the hell is a Roboraptor????

No, but I WOULD pay to see Karla and Tonya Harding go at each other with crowbars.

The following is NOT to be taken as a justification, but...... I've been watching an 11 hour DVD set, "WWII, The Complete History". It's incredibly detailed, and concentrates on the history, and cause-and-effect more than spectacular battle scenes. All sides were guilty of bombing civilian centers in all theaters of operations. The Blitz over London. The razing of Stalingrad and Leningrad. Japanese attacks on civilian populations, mostly in China, but a lot elsewhere in the Asian theater. British and US planes carpet-bombing French and German cities. EVERYONE was bombing civilian populations in that war. Furthermore, the Japanese could not be said to have been "about to surrender". On the contrary, they were digging in, ready to fight over their homeland inch-by-inch, as they had already done on various islands. The USA was simply the first country to develop the A-bomb, and consequently, the first (and hopefully last) to use it. Let us all thank our lucky stars that none of the Axis powers developed it first.

CHUCKMAN wins the prize for the most insipid, cloying, crap-filled post in recent times. I'm VERY surprised it wasn't worded more like...... Steven Harper has been overheard saying "God bless Canada". God. Bless. Canada. In speeches. Here. In Canada. In our cities. Do you really want God on our side, when you we have Paul Martin instead??? Choose your Canada. That post has all the same credibility as the Lib's "Troops in our cities" ad. IOW none to speak of. Additionally, being that it's yet another "new member" with only one post, I believe it's a spam-troll.

Are you kidding??? Stress??? On the contrary. This campaign has been more amusing than anything else. You didn't dare to predict the winner earlier, before the CPC became a shoo-in , that's why you're not stressed today. "Didn't dare"??? You make it sound like a great heroic deed, to come out and say what party you "think" will win. And further, why would making an early prediction be cause for stress, unless you're a pundit with something to lose by making a prediction??? To someone on an internet board, such as we all are, there is nothing to lose by offering an opinion. Personally, I see no point in trying to predict who will win. We'll all know soon enough. I don't see why simply making a prediction on an anonymous internet site would be cause for stress, for reasons stated above. Why don't you write and ask them??? Just don't get stressed out waiting for an answer:)

Hmmm. It appears I have to take that back (From the link you provided)

The Alaska pipeline is composed of steel, averaging about 1/2 inch thickness. (.462-.562 inch). http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/Pipelinefacts/Pipe.html Some armored vehicles are not equipped with that thickness of steel. Bullets are NOT going to penetrate THAT. At least not bullets from any weapon that a single person can carry. Explosives are a different story.

Hey, looks like the website is back up. Some funny stuff there. It appears that Jesus was an astronaut

Are you kidding??? Stress??? On the contrary. This campaign has been more amusing than anything else.

That's the question that all the Who's in WhoVille are asking

Hargrove is, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "a loud-mouthed schnook". I don't doubt that Martin could well have put Buzz up to this, if he wasn't too frazzled at this point to think of it. Equally, I can see Buzz just doing this on his own. Either way, I don't think it'll have that much effect. People are sick of hearing Hargrove's rants all over the media. Many simply put their brains on "ignore" whenever Buzz speaks. Can't blame them. Ironically, this sort of behaviour is making Martin look like the "angry, scary guy" that he's been trying to make Harper out to be these past months. Harper, for his part, has been comporting himself remarkably well over the course of the campaign. I'm more than a bit impressed.

Hmmm. New member. 1 post only. It's a new thread. Provocative, partisan question asked. Made into a poll. No responses from the new member. Methinks we have a new troll. Not worth responding to the poll.

"Galactic Federation"??? "Earth Shan"??? Hmmm. Was the chief of police Flash Gordon??? (Edited to add) I went to the link provided, or tried to. It seems the site is down, but from the info cached by Google, it looks like an interesting site, at least if you're a regular reader of World Weekly News. Nothing there about "Bat Boy", but all the rest would fit quite comfortably in that same rag.

Are you kidding me??? Some kids start hitting almost as soon as they're able to swing their arm. Not all kids do this, but certainly there are many kids who simply lash out when annoyed or frustrated. And if your argument is simply that it's "learned behaviour", then who taught the first caveman to swing a club??? Violence is an inherent part of our nature that must be dealt with rather than denied. This extends to kids, else the problem of schoolyard scraps would not be anywhere near its current scope. Some kids can be spoken to with soft words, and will take those words to heart. Some kids need an attention-grabber, and a slap on the hand is usually more than enough for a small child. Either way, my argument, which was echoed a bit later in the thread, was that people need to be aware that actions have consequences. Plain and simple. If a kid is constantly allowed to get away with rotten behaviour, then his/her "learned behaviour" will simply be that he/she can get whatever he/she wants, through whatever means necessary, without any negative consequence whatsoever. An ex-neighbour of mine is a great example of this. Three male kids who could do no wrong. No matter whether it was another child or an adult who aproached the parents of these 3 hellions, the parents would always simply deny that the boys had done anything, and believe me, they did plenty. It was unbelievable. You could literally watch the kids throw a rock through a window, go immediately to their parents and tell them about it, and teh parents would just stand there and say "No, no, no. There's no way he did that". Of course, when asked, the kid would deny it with a sweet smile at mom and dad. I recall one incident stole a brand new bike from another neighbour's kid. The second kid's dad went to talk to the offender's parents' The little brat told his folks that "She gave it (the bike) to me". They stood there and refused to give back the bike because "There you go, your daughter gave her bike to my son, so you can't have it back". Things like this happened on a regular basis. I had both a snowmobile and a 10-speed bike wrecked by the eldest boy. Both times he told his folks that I said he could use the item in question. Both times the "usage", and breakage, happened while I was away for a couple days. Great way to teach your kids about values and consequences. One of the brats is now doing time for murder. Both the others had criminal records by the time they were 18. All three had at least 1 charge for some sort of violent offence. All three had been kicked out of school by age 16 for various incidents of mischief, fighting, or worse.

Agreed and agreed. Some kids listen, and some don't. Some kids need a swat just to get their attention. In any case, a child needs to learn that every act has it's consequences, whether the act and subsequent consequence is good or bad. Good behaviour should be reinforced. Bad behavious should be discouraged by whatever means is necessary to be effective. IOW, if a kid know he/she did something wrong, and is clearly upset about having done something wrong, then corporal punishment is not necessary as the knowledge of wrongdoing is often enough. But if the kid, upon being informed he/she has done wrong, either doesn't care, or blatantly repeats the same sort of behaviour, then a stronger message must be sent. Our jail system is full of ex-kids who were never taught that actions have consequences.

Paul Martin has said that Steven Harper would be very pro-American. But Paul Martin is running scared. So he's making wild accusations using every boogie-man he can conjure. Bush happens to be largely unpopular in Canada. So Martin has chosen him as yet another boogie-man. Right here. On television. In Canada. We're not making this up. Choose your Canada.

This is an interesting idea. There are a lot of military jobs which do not involve shooting people or blowing things up. Mechanic. Engineer. Electrician. Cook. Latrine cleaner. To name just a few. It would alow the offender to pick up a trade, learn some self-discipline and self respect. It would also, as previously observed, be a hell of a lot cheaper than keeping the person incarcerated. Regarding the question of someone going AWOL, well, that's a serious offense with serious repercussions. And military justice is a bit more, shall we say, expedient, than our civilian justice system. Military penalties are also considerably more harsh. Overall, I think this is a good idea.

The bestiality thing cause me to recall a joke.... Two women sitting in a veterinarian's office. One has a German Shepher, the other a Miniature Poodle. The poodle owner explains that she's there to get the poodle fixed because he has taken to humping peoples' legs. The shepherd owner tell a tale about how her large dog has taken to jumping on her from behind when she gets out of the shower. As her story goes, he has actually managed to achieve penetration. "So" says the poodle lady, "You're here to get your dog neutered too then???". "No", replies the shepherd lady, "I'm here to get his claws cut".

*Chuckle* I'm not sure how this moved into the realm of bestiality, but the question around THAT issue seems to be one of the animals "consenting". What if the animal is a male, and it's a woman taking advantage of, for example, the male "attributes" of, say, a German Shepherd??? Kind of hard for him not to be consenting. Any male of any species has to be "consenting" to some degree simply to get it up. That's my spin on THAT issue, and as far as I will venture into that area, at least for now. Regarding incest, aside from societal taboos, the main argument seems to be genetic. Siblings (or parent/offspring) with a clean genetic slate will produce genetically clean progeny. Simple as that. Siblings (or parent/offspring) with a recessive bad gene have an increased chance of that recessive being reinforced, and so have a higher chance of a defective baby. But then again, two unrelated people can also have the same recessive bad gene, and can also lead to reincforcement of the recessive. But recessives tend to get weeded out of the gene pool over time unless inbreeding is habitual within that branch of the gene pool. Even then, recessives still tend to be weeded out through the natural culling process. But the process is not pretty. A defective baby who dies is good for the gene pool, as the event has eliminated at least one potential source of a bad gene. But such an even is never a happy one. As for the moral implications of incest, most, if not all, "morality" stems from survival aspects. Even the tradition among some religions against eating pork stems from the tendency of pork products to go bad much more quickly than beef or many other meats. Amongst many of the same religions, you wipe your ass with the left hand only. This is because most people eat with their right hands. This "moral" tradition stems from pre-toilet-paper times, and well before the existence of germicidal soap. With incest, in times past it was probably noticed that incestuous relationships led to "bad" babies, and this likely was the casue of the incest taboo. In modern times, with modern contraception techniques, if two consenting adults who are closely related decide they want to have some fun between the sheets, and if doing so brings no harm to anyone, then hey, as far as I'm concerned, go to it. Like the man who was offered a free circumcision said, "Why not, it's no skin off my nose".

I was under the impression that the whole idea is to create a "Liberal" ad that is so ridiculous that it absolutely could NOT POSSIBLY be believed, even by a hard-core, die-hard Lib, rather than creating a Conservative ad based on the same style. Hence my approach. But I still wanna see Harper in women's underwear In fact, I think at all the leaders' debates, they should be made to dress in drag PMPM in fishnet stockings. Har!!!

Scratch that last post. It seems that in the few moments it took to type that out, the forums over there were opened. Either that, or the prob was at my end. Apologies.