PocketRocket

Please, not Hillary.

Unreal. In this day and age, with all the REAL problems out there, all the violent crime, they're going to spend money chasing after porn. What's next??? Full-length, roaring-twenties-style bathing suits???

Below quote from PIPA report... MONTY: you don't seem to have responded to BLACKDOG's question regarding when PIPA blew up in people's faces. Although you DID find time to make a smartass remark implying that Canada was not important enough for Ann Coulter to actually get educated about before using false comments about some fictional Canadian military history to try prop up her position. Sidestepping perhaps???? BTW, 'DOG, thanks for the link to PIPA.

Good morning, FLEABAG: Interesting quesiton you pose, but I think it comes down to legal semantics. He's not abetting a criminal until there is "legally" a criminal to have abetted. IOW, a person is s "suspect" until convicted, at which point he becomes a "criminal". When you consider that there is not even a suspect, then I don't think the legal definition of "abetting" can come into play. This may all be a pile of pooh for a couple reasons; First, I'm not a lawyer. Second, I just got up and I'm still wiping the sleep from my eyes, but it sounds nonsensicle enough to be a legality. Besides, why should he give a name??? There are no charges being pressed against him for either possession or use, so there is no legal pressure to release a name. Furthermore, he may need to engage the services of said dealer again in the future. Difficult to do if the dealer is behind bars.

When you're apearing on tv in an interview, and you "insist", that Canada sent troops to Viet-Nam, even when told, by a Canadian, that it wasn't so, and then CONTINUE insisting, well, it kind of makes you look an ass, don't you think??? Ann Coulture is simply another example of the right's version of Michael Moore. Yes, you have 'em too.

OMG, I found something MONTY and I agree on. I have to agree with this statement fully. It has been said time and time again that those who use guns lawlessly, simply don't and won't care about what the law says about owning a gun. I own a few. I no longer hunt. I don't need them to subsist. But I like the fact that they are there, and I still occasionally enjoy target shooting. My firearms are stored safely. If someone were to break into my house, they would have a far more difficult time getting at my firearms than they would have getting into the house in the first place. Ammunition is hidden in a totally different place. If criminals were worried about firearm laws, we would not be seeing any crimes carried out with handguns or semi-auto or automatic weapons. But alas, we still do. I don't quite see Canada, of all places, walking down that path, and that is not my worry. Nonetheless, I am against a firearms ban.

Every day we hear of something like this going on in some country or other. Kind of makes all our little troubles here seem rather small. And yet we also hear nearly every day about some group or other who wants to split up Canada. I would encourage all who advocate such a thing to spend a year living in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq or Kenya or China or North Korea or Zimbabwe or .........

Most sensible thing I've read in these forums in a while.

When you consider that China has about 1/3 of the world's population, virtually all of whom are willing to work for a fraction of what we would consider to be acceptable pay, and that they are finally opening their borders to 2-way trade on a large scale, it's only natural that they're going to become THE major player in world economics over the next few decades. What's happening right now is small potatoes compared to what's coming. Any sensible nation will be trying to anticipate what China is going to need to import over the coming decades, and start gearing up in that direction. Whoever does so first will get ludicrously wealthy from trade with China.

And if the 15 or 20 of them had given you a drubbing, I just KNOW you wouldn't have sued them all (see post above re Assault and Battery), no, you would have taken it like a man. Uh-huh. Internet. The courage of anonymity. You can paint yourself to be whatever you want. The Left's favorite tactic. Again, uh-huh. There's what, like 3 people in North America who do the pie thing??? You make it sound like every Liberal on the continent throws pies. But you're right. Assassination would be much better as a tool of protest. Let's all go shoot some abortion doctors. Perhaps they didn't have anything to clean their hands with afterward. BTW, thanks for the link. I noticed how "biased" the paper is. Even posting a story about how journalists around the world are taking a day off to protest the CBC's actions in the lockout. Even spanking PMPM. And damn and double-damn the CBC for praising Terry Fox yet again. Perhaps you prefer CTV??? At least the CBC acknowledges the fact that there's a labor dispute. Not once did CTV ever mention the 4-month BELL workers strike this summer. But CTV is owned by BELL. That wouldn't be media bias now, would it???

Yeah. I understand the CBC rigs election results. You must be proud. Such a productive feat. Such a display of courage. Maybe you'll get the Governor General's Award or something. Well there's this law called "assault and battery", which they may be informed enough to be aware of. Then again, they might be those pesky sort of people who prefer to work out their differences in a non-violent fashion. Damn them !!!

I for one don't think that's the case. In the past he has banned people from both ends of the spectrum. In all cases past I could find a definite offending post made by the person he botted. I'm just sort of scratching my head on this one Mirror was, at times, annoying, but that seems to be about as far as it went.

The second link indicates that may indeed be the case. Good for PM. It seems he's developing some stones. I heard yesterday that he blasted the UN as well. Nice to see somebody at least TRYING to change the UN from the inside out, rather than simply blathering about its "insignifigance".

Let me guess; you participate in another online forum, where you use the nickname "THE PUBLIC"????

I saw what was posted in teh "German" thread, and just about everything else MIRROR posted in the past 3 or 4 days. Didn't see anything that I would have taken him out for. But then it's not my forum. I did, however, see people directly addressed as morons, asses and several other direct insults. To my mind, it kind of muddies the waters a bit. Oh well. Life goes on.

I see he/she got banned. I tried a search of MIRROR's posts over the past week. While a lot of them were, well, peculiar, I didn't see anything particularly offensive or anything. I'm sort of curious as to why MIRROR got the axe. Can anybody point me to the post which became the straw that broke the camel's back???

But to compare Katrina and Monica is tough, except to say they both blew. REALLY REALLY HARD. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And Katrina took the house when she left.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nicely put, which reminds me of a joke I heard recently (I know, I'm getting off topic, but sometimes we need to lighten things up a bit) Joke: In a recent survey, it was found that 10% of men kiss their wife goodbye when they leave their house. But 90% of men kiss their house goodbye when they leave their wife.

Wow. This thread certainly took off. I may need a bit of education on this, and anyone feel free to do so, or to correct me if I'm wrong in any of my assumptions, but the way I see it, this ruling doesn't change much. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't someone have to agree to the rulings of a religious tribunal under current law??? IOW, if I am Catholic (I am non practising), and I agree to be judged by a Catholic tribunal for some peccadillo or other, then the decision to bow to that tribunal is made by me and me alone. But, if the rulings of said tribunal fall outside of conventional, secular Canadian law, am I not also free to have my case heard in a conventional court of law, and possibly have the Catholic decision overturned??? If this is indeed the case, then this bill (or whatever it is) banning religious law would change nothing. If someone wants their case or complaint arbitrated by a Catholic (or Jewish or Muslim) tribunal, rather than taking it to court, then that is still the decision of the two (or more) parties involved in the dispute. If this is done, and afterwards one of the parties involved disagrees with the outcome and decides to try have it overturned by taking it to court, then it simply lowers his credibility within his/her own religious community. If someone is of such a religious bent that they want to have their case arbitrated by a religious tribunal rather than conventional law, then it is unlikely that such a person would want to overturn any ruling and risk their standing within their church. Ergo, any religious establishment could likely still set up some sort of arbitration/mediation process wherein a case is brought before them, and they pass down "recommendations" rather than "rulings". To a devout believer in the faith involved, such a recommendation would likely be looked upon as "law" anyway, so little would really change. Of course, all of the above is based on the assumption that a ruling passed down by a Catholic or Jewish tribunal is not actually "law" in the conventional legal sense, but rather a ruling that the participants must willingly choose to follow. As a side note, the Catholic church "ruled" that I could not marry my protestant wife, and refused to perform the marriage ceremony, unless, of course, she would agree to classes and training in how to become a good Catholic. We got married in a different church. Interestingly enough, the Catholic church, who did not want to recognize our right to marry, also frowned upon our divorce. Can't win with some folks. EDITED TO ADD: I admit to being ignorant on the current status of religious "law", and how it is recognized within the Canadian legal system, and so the above thoughts may be way off base if the assumptions they are based on are incorrect. As stated above, I welcome any corrections or education in regards to this matter.

A legitimate complaint perhaps, but I must agree with those who see it as a simple oversight.

MontyBurns: while cruising through another thread, I happened upon this link..... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/10/...ain694345.shtml ....which is a shining example of some of the "morality" at play in the USA during this time of war. The threat used by the recruiter is only part of the wonderful "morality", the rest is the fact that the military promised that he would be "disciplined", but instead gave him a transfer and a promotion. Hmmm. Morality. Recruitment by coercion??? Rewarding coercion??? Strong examples of morality. I guess it's safe to say that the "morality" of many on BOTH sides of the political fence can be brought into question, even some of those who are enlisted in the military.

Probably I recall seeing a lot of pictures of protestors. Lots of them saying "Out of Iraq", etc. But none that I recall advocated Saddam's shining example as a ruler. Don't recall seeing any signs advocating cheques to suicide bombers, either. The legality of the war has been debated ad nauseum. I'm sure we'll never come to a conclusion here. As for it's "morality", well, considering that Bush used UN resolutions as an excuse to invade Iraq, AGAINST the UN's rulings on the matter, well, that kind of makes it hypocritical, don't you think??? Last I heard, hypocrisy is not one of the cornerstones of "morality". Again, never saw any signs advocating any of this. In a previous post you mentioned a freudian term of reference. What is the freudian term for what you're doing here in reading all of this into the actions of the protestors??? Again, to say people who protested against the war were actively advocating rape, murder and other abuse of the Iraqi people is, to use your word, a "crock". Just like those who have said that all the protestors were "enemies of America". You've been reading too much Ira Levin.

Well, they've instituted a GREAT colour scheme; "Orange Alert", "Yellow Alert" etc. This allows the powers-that-be to throw a good scare into the American public whenever it suits their needs.

But to compare Katrina and Monica is tough, except to say they both blew. REALLY REALLY HARD.

'Mornin', Thelonious That may be the case, but I guess we'll never know now. But one thing is certain, we never saw any of that "succeed or die trying" attitude. Kind of like sitting in a rowboat in case of a flood, but not patching that obvious hole in the hull. True, which is why I chose to spread the blame around. These levees should have been improved YEARS ago, and everyone who chose not to address the issue is partly to blame. That adds up to a lot of people. Why does everyone blame it on Saint Andreas??? It ain't REALLY his fault But in all seriousness, you're absolutely right.

No heart, no brain......all we need is "no courage", and we can all go see the Wizard. Hmm, maybe that's what the "W" in "GWB" stands for