PocketRocket

I haven't heard that tag. But this works both ways. For many decades, varying European countries have looked down their noses at America (and, in some places, Canada) as being "provincial" or "uncultured", even "ignorant". Part of the cause of this is the existence of centuries-old art-based centers like museums, opera-houses, etcetera, which exist all over Europe, while nothing of the sort exists in North America. Places like the Paris Opera House, which has been in existence for over 400 years (???). Well, it's kind of hard to have a centuries-old establishment when your country itself is only a couple hundred years old. Many Europeans seem to naturally look down on any "new" culture as being, well, "uncultured". No, the "scorn" goes both ways, and probably always will, sad to say. While it has recently come to light that these sites exist, there is currently no credible evidence as to how the inmates are being treated. If the European countries involved are so concerned, they should be insisting on monitoring the situation inside these sites. I am NOT pro-American (at least in this case), or pro-war, but I will not tolerate accusations based on surmise against anyone. Show me some proof of underhanded activity in these locations and I'll cheerlead right along with you. Until then, it is nothing more than speculation. I'd like to see some evidence of this. Please cite a credible source. Now this is getting really far-fetched. I cannot believe, without some truly overwhelming proof, that America is covertly waging a war against Europe, which is, in essence, what you are suggesting here. I may not agree with American foreign policy (almost all of the time), but the EU is hardly a threat to American interests, and probably won't be for quite some time. I believe the far bigger concern (both economically and militarily) is the emergence of China as a player on the world economic stage. That has ramifications which will be unfolding for decades, and is going to change the world's socio-economic landscape like nothing we've seen in centuries. Now this I agree with whole-heartedly.

I strongly doubt that we'll see any major change here. There may be a few "cosmetic" changes to the laws as they currently stand, change the wording a bit, and they'll trumpet it as being a major step forward. Consider that assault rifles are basically banned, and people still have them in their collections, registered, and legal. Hand guns will be the same. Those who already have 'em will keep 'em. It may be a bit more difficult to acquite a registration for a new on, though. Kinda like the registry. It made a bunch of Lib-types happy, and didn't really change anything for legal gun owners as, technically, we have been required to register firearms for well over 20 years now.

As an Ontarian, I can only speak for my own feelings and perceptions. I do NOT want to vote Liberal, however, Harper does concern me. It seems that every time I hear him speak, he is lashing out in a petulant manner. Several times he has been given the opportunity to come off like the good-guy who is taking the high road. Remember, you can say almost anything to anyone, as long as you use the right wording. Before and during Gomery, when Harper could have been saying things like "It's unfortunate that Mr Martin and his party have found themselves in the midst of such a scandal, and it is my sincere wish that after this is all investigated, only those parties who are truly guilty are yadda yadda yadda.....". This still says that the Liberals (or at least many of them) screwed up, and by attaching Martin's name, it still implicates him, but it gives the perception of generosity of spirit, and of gentlemanly conduct. Instead, Harper keeps casting everything from aspersions to outright accusations bordering on slander. He is, however, careful to keep the more outrageous accusations within the House of Commons, thereby avoiding any sort of lawsuit. But this too plays against him. When Martin turns around and "dares" Harper to repeat something he said outside the house, and then Harper refuses, it just removes a bit more credibility from Harper's public facade. So, my personal perception has been of Harper as a man who is given to near-tantrums. Not the conduct of someone I would see as our nation's leader. One other small issue; yesterday, for the first time in this campaign, I saw a CPC election placard. The local candidate is a name I have never heard before. I am not comfortable voting for someone I have never heard of. So, it is entirely likely that in this election my vote will be cast not so much for a party, but for whatever local representative who I think is best suited to representing my area.

No moreso than those who decry Islam as a religon of hate. ANY religious text can be interpreted in almost any way the reader sees fit. Take a look at some of the atrocities which have occured as a result of Chritianity's interpretation of the Bible; The Spanish Inquisition, the Vatican dividing the "New World" between Portugal and Spain, the Witch Hunts, the Crusades, etc etc. Yes, these all occured quite some time ago, but still, all were a direct result of the existence of Christianity. ANY religion, in the hands of an extremist, becomes a dangerous thing.

There seems to be this perception that "Terror" is an entity, like a person or a country, and so can be beaten into submission. It is no such thing. It is (by definition in this context) action taken to invoke fear in a large community. As long as there are people with a serious axe to grind, we will have terrorism. We have had it for millenia in various forms. It will carry on. It may slow down for a while, but eventually, some other disgruntled group of radical-whatevers will come forth and take more lives senselessly. Now granted, there have been fewer attacks against major western centers in the past few months, but that's simply a lull between storms. Don't forget, the London bombings were less than 6 months ago. Others have occured in poorer countries, and consequently have been less-well reported. The USA/Britain coalition may (stress on "may") be winning the war against this particular group of terror advocates and/or extremists, but to say they are winning a war on "terror" is a bit like saying we've won the war on the common cold simply because we didn't see anyone sneeze today.

On a more serious note, I think the whole thing is just more Amerithink. Some people on this message board complain about how often Canadians blame the States for any number of things. That works both ways. From softwood lumber to mad cow disease, the USA will, at the drop of a hat, point the finger of blame at Canada, if it is to the benefit, economic or otherwise, of the USA. Another great example of this is the power outage a couple years ago. Canada said it started in the USA. The USA media were all saying it was Canada's fault that the eastern half of the continent was out of electricity. And in the end???? It all started at a power station in Michigan, where the safety interlocks were faulty (or some such, it was, after all, a while ago). So, of course, when a terrorist gets into the USA and causes a problem, the first tactic is to point at either Canada or Mexico and say "He must have come in through one of those countries because OUR border security is tight". Well, here's a news flash, people; the only land borders the USA has are with Canada and Mexico. If the USA's borders are so tight, then what other borders could they be speaking of other than the two mentioned above??? After all, I don't think there are a terribly huge number of border guards out wandering up and down both coastlines of the USA. This is all just another way of one guy making money from a book by saying that the USA is wonderfully perfect in all things, and so these problems she is having must stem from another source. This is a guaranteed way of making money because there is a segment of the American population that just loves to shell out money to read another article about how great they are. The USA is indeed a great country, but no country, no people, and no individual person is perfect.

Yeah, but those stamps are pretty vicious-looking. I'd hate to walk around for the rest of my life with a big "CANADA CUSTOMS" logo tattoos across my forehead. Truly a fate worse than death

MONTY: After reading your last post, I went to have another look at the link to the news article cited, but it was no longer available. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the guy not arrested and brought into the station??? If he was jogging, and appropriately attired for such, then could he not have been asked a simple question; "What are you doing???", and responded equally simply; "Jogging". If so, then why would they need to drag him in to the station??? Or, if they felt the need to check him out further than a simple roadside question, then could they not have told him that they wished to bring him in for a few questions and check him out that way??? I don't know. I'm not casting judgement on either party, just trying to see this particular even from both sides.

I've waited quite a while before posting in this thread, trying to get a balanced viewpoint. While my sympathy is limited for most people who have run-ins with the police, my own (very few) experiences are mostly based on Sudbury's police force, who are generally pretty fair players. However, from the same article you cited..... ......and further..... I recall hearing of the Stonechild case in the past and thinking it was a pretty bad reflection on the Saskatoon police. When you consider the nature of the "moonlight tours", that they are directed against "suspected troublemakers", then it practically amounts to vigilantism, execpt that it's actually police officers doing it. But IF (and that's a big "if") it's still going on, it would be quite illegal, and I for one am not an ends-justify-the-means kind of guy. In light of these past instances, I can see how the "victim" of this latest error could credibly be very upset at his "ordeal". In my years in the entertainment industry, I've worked with actors, and they're generally a pretty emotional sort, so it's entirely possible that he is indeed VERY upset. Keep in mind also, this guy was a "guest" actor from another city, probably Toronto or Vancouver, and as such, he would not be used to the attitudes in Sk'toon. To him, being presumably a more "urbane" sort than the natives who comprise the gangs, this could easily have been quite a traumatic experience. But on the other side of the coin, being an actor, I can also see that his being "afraid to walk the streets" could very well be a well-played ruse, possibly directed towards political ends. Tough call in this particular case.

He mentioned the case of Ressam, who had been arrested in Canada three times before, and released. He made no mention, of course, of WHAT he had been arrested for. Jaywalking??? Running a red light??? If there was no indication of terror activities, then there would have been no reason, at that time, to hold him. I also noticed that when a woman in the audience posed the question that rather than holding Mexico and Canada resposible for US security, that "Shouldn't we (the USA) be responsible for our own borders??", she was basicly blown off with a "Well, there you are", and the host quite quickly took his microphone elsewhere. Apparently he doesn't like having to deal with dissenting opinions. As for the "intelligence expert" cited here, I notice that his income seems to be from publishing books, not from being a member of the intelligence community. Therefore, his "intelligence" work should be held suspect as his mandate is book sales, not security, and in the current political climate in the USA, anything published taking either a pro or anti-war stance is sure to bolster sales. Publishing a book, or going on the air, saying that "everything is alright vis-a-vis Canada and Mexico" would hardly be good for sales now, would it???

Talk about making mountains from molehills. I read the article cited, and my first impression by the line quoted was that is is, like Black Dog said, a joke. Hardly offensive, except perhaps to some born-again Christian who has no sense of humor. Perhaps MONTY would have been happier if it substituted "Liberal" for "Born-again Christian". I guess THAT would have been okay.

So you're saying every government employee will be re-educated???

I find it funny that someone comes here, starts a thread on a controversial topic, and as proof, cites himself and his own essays as a source. 'Twould be like myself saying "I'm right, because I said I'm right". Come to think of it, it's kind of like the Bush administration's modus operandi.

I believe the point being made was that the USA could not overrun China. IOW, the USA could not mount a successful invasion on Chinese soil. Yeah, the US has superior air and sea power. No question. But to respond to your quote, you can overfly a country with all the planes you like, but to HOLD that country, you need troops on the ground. That is where ANY country, in trying to hold China, would fail miserably.

G'Day. T-BAG (I hope you don't mind my abbreviation of your nickname) Wow. YODELER got booted too??? I totally missed that. As for National Post Forum, it must have been before my time. I only got into the whole forum thing about 2 years ago, and generally tend to stick to one site. But thanks for the info.

What can I say???? I'm a generous soul. I don't recall any religious ranting of this magnitude from any other members here, past or present. Probably some other poor illiterate soul. Naaah. Different wierdo. Although it's possible that they're sharing a deck of cards, because neither of them is playing with a full one. Well, in today's point-and-click world, a semi-trained chimpanzee can operate a PC, at least well enough to "debate" (ahem) on a forum. Although not, evidently, well enough to use the "quote" function properly. Now let's get back to important business. Election coming up. What's the Kimmy Party's platform???

Howdy, CRAIG: I checked out your website, where I found this wonderful little snippet in the biography..... Personally, I care a great deal about the pubic, and find it gratifying that you desire to enlighten the pubic through art. I, too believe in helping to educate the pubic, and I hold regular book-readings in my home, which are open to the pubic. These can sometimes get a bit hairy, but in a feel-good way, so I encourage the pubic in my area to join in these readings. Any and all members of the pubic are welcome to come. Sorry. I really couldn't resist. And I was so much more gentle than many others here would be.

Here's a good touchstone from LogicTmes..... Yeah. If I wanted to appear to be an "impartial" site whose mandate was to sort out the truth of matters using "logic", then that's certainly the kind of quote I'd be posting to show the world how impartial I am, and how I am only interested in the truth, no matter where the chips may fall

The link provided had a link to a related topic, that of Harper speaking "positively" about what he had in store...... Hmmm. Well, gee. How positive can you get??? The first half is STILL just name-calling. The second half says, well, nothing at all. I will bide my time and wait to see what they all have to say, then choose accordingly. You never know, Harper might actually come up with something that sounds like common sense, in which case, I may give him a shot.

The NPWHeyWhat???? Can't say as I have, or I'd probably know what or who it/they is/are.

And now JONAH has bit the dust. Swallowed by a whale??? This time, GREG, I don't need to ask why. While he was inoffensive, JONAH was certainly not even trying to stay on topic. Good job.

I'M NOT A PLAGERIST!! Did I imply that you are??? No. Yes, I remember the song, and thought your rendition pretty funny. Hence my comment "missed your calling". Shoulda been a comedian. What the hell are you talking about here????

If you tell someone "Hey, man, don't try climb down from that 15th-floor balcony on a string of bedsheets because you'll probably fall and get killed", and then they try it, and fall, and get killed, then my sympathy is limited. If we've been telling Canadians, "Hey, man, don't go to Iraq because you may get kidnapped and have your head chopped off", and then they go over just the same, well, my sympathy is, once again, limited. Yeah, we should try to get them back, but through diplomatic channels only.

Strangely, once again I have to agree with you. This is becoming a disturbing trend While I can sympathize with a mother who's lost a child, I do not agree with sensationalizing it. I wonder how much profit she expects to see from this book???

But none of what you have suggested "combats" those in the White House BTW, the comments made to John Glenn were out of line, and his retort was brilliant. I agree that Metzenbaum should be ashamed of himself for his remarks to Mr Glenn.