PocketRocket

If the observations made in the linked article by security and other passengers (patterned change of seats, seat-belt extenders requested then kept on the floor, etc) are true, then I for one would call the actions justified. The change in seating alone would be more than enough to arouse my suspicions if I were acting as security on the flight.

After reading the joke, I find it says nothing negative about Natives, but PLENTY negative about politicians. After all, it's the politicians who are identified as the ones who "Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, and disappear for rest of day." Personally, I'd vote for that particular native based on his honesty, if nothing else.

Hilarious. And quite relevant. BTW, kudos to anyone who takes their own personal time to go out and maintain any sort of landmark, no matter the size or *ahem* relevance.

Take a trip to Holland and find out for yourself. You'll be very happy you wore the Maple Leaf.

I don't recall seeing anyone on this board saying that this type of behaviour is acceptable or excusable. It is simply there. But if you want the reverse side of the same coin, look at all the France-bashing that went on in the USA when France refused to join in the Iraqi affair. Was that "acceptable" or "excusable"??? I don't believe it was, but it happened. I don't think individuals, or indeed nations, should be made into scapegoats because of the actions of their goverments. But it happens. It's part of the human condition, unfortunately, and just as prevalent within the USA as it is elsewhere.

I don't think this is a valid analogy. For whatever reason a Canadian may choose to wear the Maple Leaf symbol, whether it is simple pride, or to avoid being labelled American, neither reason could be considered an act such as you described above. Neither reason for wearing Canadian icons is causing anyone else damage, either actively or through neglect. Unless, of course, you are saying that America is "down and out" and getting "kicked around" by other nations, and further saying that by wearing the Maple Leaf I would be contributing to that "kicking around". My tendency would be to say that the reverse holds more truth. If travelling overseas, I would definitely wear the Maple Leaf. Canadians are welcome and well-treated in most countries, and that is reason enough. But then again, several years ago while doing a tour of the Eastern United States, I proudly wore the Maple Leaf all the time. Believe it or not, on two separate occasions I was accosted, by Americans, for wearing my "Canadian-ness" on my sleeve. Nothing major, just some insulting talk and behaviour, the kind that makes me want to dissociate myself from their type.

I believe that like anything else, what you get out of religion is exactly what you put into it. Those who use religion as an outlet for anger or oppression can do terrible things in the name of their God. Those who believe, and use that belief as a source of comfort and solace get exactly that. Those whose religious beliefs are based on GIVING comfort and solace will tend to spread goodwill amongst those they meet and/or help.

The future has always looked ugly, except to those for whom it has looked bright. As for living there, we already do. Each new second IS the future, until it becomes the past. And for the doomsayers, well, read "1984". It seems we've delayed that sad vision this far. No reason to believe we won't continue doing so.

From what I can see, the writer of the article spent half his time telling us something everyone knows; The wind does not blow all the time. So this invalidates the whole idea of wind farms??? He also mentioned that Denmark currently has 20% of their power supplied by wind farms. No mention of them having any problem over there, and from the tone of the article, I'm sure if there were any nits to pick, he would have found them. This article is simply another example of a political hacks making mountains out of molehills.

I really should have this stock reply saved somewhere so I could just copy/paste it every time this topic is resurrected. While I DO believe that Bush and company knew that something big was going to happen on 9/11, I simply do NOT believe they had the brains to mastermind something of this scope, and keep it quiet. I mean, come on, we're talking about the guy who says "I decide, I am the decider." We're talking about the guy that when first informed about WTC, sat with a silly, stunned look on his face in front of a classroom full of schoolkids. No, Bush and company simply don't have the collective brains to pull off something of this magnitude without the beans being spilled prematurely.

Scotland searching for a national anthem??? And no one has suggested "99 Bottles Of Beer on the Wall"??? Mystifying!!!

Being someone who owned/operated a small business for many years, and so tended to patronize locally-owned businesses, I tend to avoid Wal-Mart like the plague. A couple years ago, there was a strike by the Steelworkers here in Sudbury. They were out on their picket lines in force, and the local papers were filled with letters about how we should all be supporting their strike efforts. I wrote a letter to two of the papers suggesting that any of these strikers who shop regularly at WalMart instead of locally-owned, or at least Canadian-owned, businesses had no right to ask for support, since they do njot suport the local economy as well as they could. Got a barrage of criticism from the strikers for this, but also got a flood of responding letters from local businesses applauding my stance. But, alas, many of these overpaid, undereducated, glorified laborers still go to WallyWorld in droves, and the local small businesses still suffer.

I actually found the article funny in an ironic sort of way. The Homeowners' Association Board members started a "War on peace", which they lost miserably. Their capitulation was total and unconditional.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20738757-401,00.html Jeez......and now they're even "thanking" Bush. Nothing like a war to stir up radicals beyond their normal state of insanity.

You critisizin' my Grammar??? If she was still alive, she'd kick yer butt!!!

It's awkward in that you have to keep going back to it repeatedly. The same goes for "new posts". Besides, I can do ten posts in half an hour. So open multiple browser windows. This way you can stay there with one browser, and bounce around the forums with the others.

I'm quite surprised that we haven't seen this in a thread yet, so..... http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-1...htm?POE=LIFISVA Interesting how all the networks are accused of being left-wing, and yet a few won't air an ad for a movie like this.

From the article.... Now they're holding up school-bus drivers as role models??? Laughable. It would be one occupation that most would avoid more vehemently than they would a position as toilet-cleaner.

Cameron had a moderator position at another website I used to frequent. There too he was a declared Conservative. This did not prevent him from moderating fairly. He quite often took lumps at the hands of myself and others, and when he was shot down, he responded cheerfully and logically. In fact, I only recall him ever using his MOD powers once, and did so by simply editing a couple profanities from someone's post, and giving them fair warning not to use such language again. If GREG considers adding MODS, I think Cameron would be an excellent choice. As for your declaration about adding a "sentient" MOD, and your volunteering for the position, I would suggest someone who is a bit less inflammatory. After all, it would be nice to have MODS who actually observe the rules. You clearly do not.

Can you provide a link to the story so we all know what you're talking about please???

The facts of this case seem to indicate that the consent was conditional on him stopping when she asked him to. That makes it a rape when he did not listen. The mistake here was the attempt to make a general rule. It is rediculous to say that a woman can never withdraw concent. It is also rediculous to say that man is always guilty of rape if a woman withdraws concent and he does not stop immediately. This is another example where the law and common sense are at odds. Evidently you did not read through the court manuscript provided in the link. Quote taken from manuscript.... Is five to ten seconds to long a time to stop??? It barely gives time to ask the question "Are you sure?". She said "stop", and within NO MORE than ten seconds, the defendant had done so. The "five to ten seconds" was given as a timeframe by the girl. The defendant said he stopped without any delay. Either way, the kid stopped, without acheiving orgasm. and did so in a VERY short peiod of time.

I just find it strangely satisfying that after all this time one of the leading right-wing pundits has FINALLY come out and admitted that the reasons for going to war were false. Will it lead to the next logical step, that Bush kept changing the "name" of the war, and therefore it's premise, simply to cover his tracks and save face??? "War on terror"??? "Operation Iraqi Freedom"??? O'Reilly has basically come out and said (in different words) that it should have been called "Operation Guaranteed Oil Supply"

Without fear, courage cannot exist. Likewise, without temptation, virtue means nothing. So what the opening post is basically saying is that Muslims fear temptation. Is this because they doubt their own virtue? I would say unto them "You are the gatekeeper of your own soul." Hell, did none of them ever read about Job? It's Old Testament, so it is somewhere in the Quran.

Mandatory IQ tests before someone is allowed to run for public office, perhaps???

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2566269671806009973