PocketRocket

I don't know about MONTY'S point, but mine would be that in Canada, if someone breaks into your home, and even threatens you with physical violence, if you shoot them, you are in big trouble. In Canada, it seems, you should do the right thing and let the intruder kill you, so that IF he/she is caught, then he/she can be acquitted by a jury of his/her peers. Sorry. I'll take my chances with the law. If someone breaks into MY house and threatens me, at the very least they'll get a bullet in the leg. If they really frighten me, or rush me, it may be the worse for them as my aim is quite good, but if rushed I may miss the leg and hit something higher. Being armed with a semi-automatic rifle means I'll be able to squeeze off several rounds quickly if necessary. I'll choose to stand in court and defend MY actions, rather than hope (post-humously) that the intruder will have to stand and defend his.

The state SHOULD be keeping its nose out of the vast majority of its people's affairs. And??? Well, if I urgently need surgery, and the line is too long, and Medicare will pay for me to have this surgery done SOONER in a private clinic, then what's the downside??? No matter how often it is pointed out that responsible gun owners who register their firearms are NOT the ones doing the drive-by shootings, someone still seems to thinks that taking guns out of the hands of the responsible owners will cause all the illegal, black-market guns to mysteriously vanish into thin air. How many of the kids on Jane and Finch have their handguns registered??? Zero??? Oh. Gee. "Responsible" firearm owners, all. I'm sure a firearms ban would see ALL of them running to turn in their illegal weapons Well, living in Ontario, for every dollar I spend, I have to add another $0.15 in sales and GS taxes. If that comes down to $0.12, then that's another $30.00 remaining in my pocket for every $1,000.00 I spend. Seems like small beans, but it helps everyone who actually goes into a store. HITI, for someone who dislikes Harper, you sure make a good case for him. I also dislike Harper, but this post has backfired as it has swayed me more in Harper's direction.

Except when it comes to beating civilian Somali teenagers to death... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A despicable chapter in the Canadian military history, granted, for which the perpetrators paid the price. Unfortunately, the Airborne division was also disbanded as an indirect result of this, which was truly a shame. On the other hand, would you rather see more of our boys accidently bombed by American aircraft???

There an old joke about the difference between a successful criminal, and an unsuccessful one. The unsuccessful criminal is behind bars. The successful one is a lawyer. When you consider that a very large percentage of high-ranking politicians are laywers, this explains a lot. (With apologies to FTA LAWYER)

I first heard of this on a CBC radio program last night. They were interviewing the lady who translated his books into english. Apparently, most of the foforah stems from a comment he made during an interview, wherein he said something to the effect of "15 million Armenians and (forget who else????) died in Turkey, and I'm the only one who's writing/saying anything about it". Shortly after this he was charged with whatever the hell he was charged with. Something like "Demeaning the Turkish identity". Hmmm. I wonder. If I resumed calling the members of our favorite Quebec political party "Bloc-heads", could I be charged in Quebec???

If personal belief systems were genetic in origin, I would agree with this, but history is chock-full of people who rebelled against their families wishes, beliefs, etcetera. In this day and age, such rebellion is more common, to the point of being fashionable. Sorry, but I am not so optomistic, if that's the right word.

Is that the same "finely tuned analytical prowess" that stated on national television that Canada sent combat troops to VietNam??? The same prowess which when contradicted on this point, twice, left it with "I'll get back to you on that", and never did??? The same prowess that stated that Canada better hope the USA doesn't "Roll over and crush her"??? Just curious. I like to know exactly what YOU consider to be "Finely tuned".

It surely seems that way. RIP, indeed!!! Sounds like a fine young man, and one we should all be proud of. Can't speak for that point, but I don't agree with her "use" of her son's death. There's no accounting for those on the extreme end of the political spectrum; either end.

From someone who seems to love the Bush administration and all its policies (Orange Terror Alert!!!!) this is rather comical.

Some months ago I suggested that (if there is not already) there should be an oath taken when a person becomes an MP, something along the lines of "To serve and protect Canada and her constitution". Any MP refusing to take such an oath would not be allowed to sit in Parliament. And, as law, any MP who is found in breach of this oath could be charged with treason, or at the very least, expelled from Parliament. This would throw some cold water on the Bloc's damnfoolishness.

If it's so "secret", then how come any old reporter can dig it up??? And, if the reporter is also a writer, then selling books is his trade. Can't blame a fish for swimming. How did this "classified" information get out??? Instead of blaming a reporter for doing what reporters do, he should be looking at finding out who leaked the information. Yeah. Uh-huh. Blame the writer because the "security" of "classified" information is full of holes. If this guy got his hands on all this information, then you can bet your a$$ that a lot of other people were also aware of it, and it would have come out one way or another.

Perhaps because you see only what you choose to see??? Do you seriously believe that GWB's actions are responsible for the fact that there have been no attacks in 4 years??? How often have attacks on US soil occured, and with what frequency??? This is hardly the first time that there has been a 4 year stretch with no terror attacks on US soil. But of course, Bush WILL take credit for it, no matter what the reason. But another attack could come at any time, despite all the White House rhetoric about how much safer they've made the country. Yes, I am SURE that all FLEABAG thinks about is how happy he'll be to see more Americans killed There's room here for a joke about all the "butts" being in the White House, but I'll leave that aside. This is interesting from the guy who has mocked the left at least a dozen times with his "No blood for Oiiilllllll !!!!" jeers. Well, if it's "no blood for oil", that would point to the left being NOT "bloodthirsty", and wanting to prevent any bloodshed. Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

Oh boy, I just responded to a similar comment in another thread, so I can just copy-paste part of that post. Efficiency, gotta love it You CAN love a country, and still not like that same country's government. Much the way you feel about Canada, it seems. You mean friends like this......(PMPM following Hurricane Katrina) In fact, the USA was so upset by this unfriendly comment, and the actions which followed, that their ambassador Wilkins responded in a most outraged fashion, saying..... Someone that comes to your aid, when you're in need, "eagerly and early". Sounds like the best kind of friend to me.

Why is "criticism" always equated with "attack". First of all, what you call "attacks" are not "dumb", they are in fact quite intelligent, both from a political standpoint, and from the view of getting the USA to live up to their NAFTA agreements. Politically, they help Martin, and, if they bear fruit, will help Canada's economy. Kyoto is something Canada has been behind since day one, so there is no contradiction in trying to "persuade" the USA to join in. Softwood lumber, etc, is a real concern to Canada, and the American government SHOULD be criticized for its behaviour vis-a-vis softwood-NAFTA. But all this "attacking the USA" rhetoric that we keep hearing about is what is really dumb. Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, Martin said this...... .......and boy oh boy, them's fightin' words, ain't they??? In fact, the USA was so upset by this "attack" that their ambassador Wilkins responded in a most outraged fashion, saying..... .....so I can see how deeply and intensly Canada wants to "hurt" the USA with her "attacks". Early and eagerly, to the aid of America. Yeah, we really hate the USA Maybe it's not anti-Americanism so much as anti-Bushism. You CAN love a country, and still not like that same country's government. Much the way you feel about Canada, it seems.

That's one thing, and perhaps the ONLY thing, I don't like about you, PocketRocket. You always wait and wait and wait .... and wait before you commit. Aww, c'mon now, you can find more that THAT to dislike about me, I am sure. Seriously, I don't see that I'm "commiting" to anything in this thread. It was a strange issue which, in my opinion, required some thought before I commented on it. Admittedly, my first impulse was to go with MONTY's first opinion about the guy, but after thinking about it further, the whole "overly-emotional-actor" thing occured to me. Then, upon further rumination, other factors crept in. And believe me, actors can be VERY emotional. As for the "wait and wait and wait", I've been the first responder in many threads, and I have no fear of expressing myself, once I have formed an opinion on any given topic. Actually, I don't try to attempt predictions of this sort, and haven't in well over 20 years. Any "prediction" I may make will not change the result, so I don't see the point. And as for being a man, what if I were to tell you I am a woman??? Internet anonymity can be a beautiful thing. That the BQ will NOT win is mine Not particularly.

Yes No

Thanks for the link, I looked at the video there. Now I'm no fan of Harper, as many here are aware, but he did seem to be involved in some heated discussion during the handshakes, and being that I like to give the benefit of the doubt, this may well have been a simple oversight. It is, after all, difficult to shake hands when you're using both of yours in some frantic gesticulations whilst trying to make some sort of point.

So if they screw around on their wives BEFORE they become president, that makes it all okay???

Along with (or in spite of, you choose) my previous post, I have to agree with ARGUS to some extent. Wilkins played into PMPM's hands perfectly by uttering his retort to PMPM's statements. By countering Wilkins' little tirade, PMPM has given the impression that he's willing to stand and fight it out toe to toe with the great big bad USA. This gives him the "David vs Goliath" image that has always played well to the public. As an aside, I was momentarily impressed when Harper said that Wilkins was "out of line" with his statements, but quickly un-impressed when Harper immediately followed that comment with yet another cheap shot at PMPM, when he could easily have said THE SAME THING using better-chosen words, and come out smelling like roses.

This line killed me...... ....especially in light of Cellucci earlier saying...... .....I mean let's talk hypocrisy. They get upset whenever a high-ranking Canadian offical criticizes any of their policies, even when those policies are in flagrant violation of their own agreements, and yet have the gall to say that WE'RE not playing nice because we have harsh words for their behaviour. But I guess they have that right seeing as how we've "given up our sovereignty" by declining participation in the BMD program. IMHO, we are offering the USA all the respect they've earned from us, and a hell of a lot more respect than they afford Canada.

Sorry Am1, no offense, but I'm having fun with this. Perhaps this was the source of your mistaken impression of the event... http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/...shpoutine000302 But Mercer specifically said prime minister "of Canada". I would think that Bush, who had earlier trumpeted that he would not be caught out making mistakes on foreign leaders' names would at least know the leader of America's "best friend to the north of us". (Sorry, but I can't find the link to the timeline on these statements) Good thing he specified that. If he had said "second best friend to the north of us", he would have REALLY been poutine his foot in it.

More for AMERICA1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_to_Americans And here I had forgotten about "King Bonhomme".

Really??? Was Putin even in power at that time??? Did you actually see the episode where Mercer asked Bush about "Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine"??? Sorry, Am1, but I actually WATCHED the episode in question (more than once), and Bush responded to Mercer's comment about "PM Poutine" in a favorable way. Much was made of this in a few American papers for a couple days, from what I understand (Although I did not personally see any of these, I will readily admit, but did see a couple American news broadcasts refer to the incident, and the papers, laughingly) I will see if I can find out whether any of these episodes are available online, and let you know where you can check them out if they are. BTW, did you used to moderate/run a site called "AmericanForums"??? If so, whatever happened to it??? It was a great site. Edited to add: I haven't had any luck finding a video clip yet, but in Google, I punched in "canada prime minister jean poutine", and got about a zillion results, all of which back my story. Try it, and if you decide to lighten up a bit, you might get a good laugh out of it. The Democrats sure did

And with the amount of attention MOST Americans pay to Canada and her affairs, I'm sure he hurt the feelings of a guy in Podunk, and some lady's cocker spaniel

I am happy to say I do not shop at any of these outlets, nor buy any of these products. Unfortunately, I cannot say it because of any humanitarian principles. The simple reason is that Wally-world, while offering great prices, carries (largely) inferior quality goods. Many of my friends do WalMart, and have houses filled with crappy, particle-board furniture that starts to disintegrate every time you try to move it. I will often buy used items at places like "Value Village" or at any number of second-hand outlets. The reason is simple, I can often find really GOOD quality furniture for a pittance. Occasionally it needs a bit of touching-up, or re-upolstering, but I'm fairly proficient in both, so that's no issue. A good example is my solid Oak dining-room set. It was old, weatherbeaten, and, in places, cracked. The tabletop looked terrible. Cleaned it up, lightly sanded it, gave it a really big drink of linseed oil and turpentine, and the wood came back to life. The cracks all closed up as the wood swelled back to it's original form. The richness and luster all came back. It looks fantastic, and with an investment of about 4 hours of time, and $15 in materials. People are amazed when I tell them I got the set for $20. Clothing is much the same. I mean let's face it, when a really decent, warm, stylish winter coat has a price tag of $150.00 (at least) and up, I can and have found the same coat for $25.00 at a 2nd hand store. Another $20 to get it dry-cleaned, and voila, new coat. If I sound like a tightwad, that's not necessarily the case. But I hate throwing away good money on shabby merchandise, which seems to be Wal-Mart's primary stock in trade. When I AM buying something new, I always try to buy from either a locally-owned business, or at least a canadian-owned retailer. AAMOF, I just got home from a visit to Canadian Tire.