B. Max

Excellent politically correct response eureka.

Thanks, that website is hilarious. Some insulated old fart saying "If we hear the slightest criticism of our right to bayonetting babies for oil (or lying and saying our 'enemy did it), you must be with the 'terrorists".Canada is a very 'centrist' country, and it is being destroyed by both the extreme left and right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nonsense.

Doug christy for one. However it doesn't matter. Those who don't, will soon find themselves in the minority. At that point their prominence won't matter and really doesn't matter now. What matters is that it is growing and reaching into every area of society. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/C...09/1123621.html

Now, are you saying that becoming like the US is a failure? Or that Canada is a failure on it's own for willingly becoming like the US? I should love to ask our gov't to stop importing anything from the US. We have the resources to be self-sufficient, and we trade valuable resources such as energy and water, and in return get the perverted values of television, glorifying crime and base morality (if any), and Idol worship. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually we are becoming like the US in the same way the left in america hates america. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=814 The left in this country starting with trudeau and even before, have been steadily destroying what was once a good country. and in return get the perverted values I can't remember, did we import SSM, did we export it, or was it a joint effort.

Adler on line? Please. He is the biggest egomaniac on the radio, and only allows opinions that agree with him on his show. Of course the poll shows what he wants it to - his listeners ("citizens of Adler nation") are convinced that they should stroke his ego rather than think for themselves. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The 43% is not adlers poll. It was done for the western standard. You are only shooting the messenger. Adlers poll which was i believe around 79% reflects the views of his listeners. Adler is not what i would call pro secessionist so i would suggest those who voted yes arrived at their decission all on their own.

Well said. The gun registry in a country such as ours really isn't going to stop anything. It is the importation of American culture and values (or lack of them) that is hurting Canada most of all. For people such as B. Max and the other US-worshippers, they should be happy with all the extra guns and killing. We are getting to be just like the US! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wrong, for people like yourself who worship at the alter of cultural marxism, should now sleep in the bed they have made. We are becoming a dysfuctional country, complete with, and with full credit given to the dysfuctional and incompatible cultures of crime liberals have imported into the country. They should now stand up and take responsibility and stop blaming america first for all their failures.

Possibly. But I also don't think there's enough real anger and alienation in the province. Most Albertans are doing quite well personally. Why would they roll the dice and risk their curent prosperity? The PCs embody the malaise that good times brings. The ALberta Alliance, too, is focused more on the PCs than on Ottawa: given the nature of party politics in this province, an Alliance win would just mean more of the same old same old. The only thing I could see spurring Albertans into such a dramatic action would be a dramatic economic upheaval (such as the collapse of the natural reesorce sector or a federal money grab). But then such an upheaval would leave Alberta ill-suited to life on its own. Here's really what it boils down to: for the people that matter (political and business leaders) the status quo is working great. Radical change is a great unknown and, unless it guaranteed a return for them in excess of what the current system offers, they won't do it. What are you basing this on? All the evidence indicates seccession is a non issue in Alberta. Rathe rthan being downplayed, I'd say separation is being overplayed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Around these parts it's called coppyright infringement. However i've seen the article on other forums and it's 43%. However we've been told, by i expect those who have been told, that it's only 7%. If you listen to much radio over the last two or three years the amount of converts stepping forward is amazing. Even rutherford for a long time now has been afraid to bring up the subject because when he does the whole show takes off in a secessionist direction. There are now converted secessionist in the PC party of the klien liberals.

This particular tack always cracks me up. Like a tyrrany-minded government, with its virtual monopoly on sophisticated weaponry, is going to worry about a bunch of crochety duck hunters with .303's. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This country is so defenseless that five thousand well trained and outfitting men, with an easily to formulate plan could take over this country. No matter, what really cracks me up are the references to collectors or people who just own a few guns because they like them, as arsenals. Of course this is another one of the gungrabbers scare tactics. With only a little though to see through this, anyone should be able to realize that you can only shoot one at a time.

In New York or Geneva? Doesn't matter really, it's funny either way - discussing a global ban on private gun ownership in the two first world countries least likely to comply with the ban. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Banning civilian guns planetwide sure sounds like a resonable start to resolving the problem. But it is in our homes where the real work needs to be done. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Banning the ownership of civilian firearms is on every policestaters wish list. It makes it a lot easier when kicking in the front door to get into those homes to do their dirty work. Show me a gun grabber and i'll show you a wanta be tyrant.

This doesn't sound like any war israel started. http://hometown.aol.com/RChera/6daywar.html If you launch an attack on someone and you lose, then you should lose that land. Otherwise what's the deterant not to. Anything else is like rewarding failure and saying have another try.

The left invented hate crime laws to supress free speech. Unless it is their own of course.

Actually i would like to see alberta legislation that would put the secession question on every alberta provincial election ballot.

I'm not arguing. There's no doubt in my mind that the gun registry(s) will eventually be used to confiscate firearms, which will have zero impact on gun crime but will make liberal ninnies feel like they're doing something positive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm told that there is meeting being planned at the cesspool of corruption (the UN), with goal to ban civilian ownership of firearms.

Western secessionists have no problem with him staying on either. That makes three of them in ottawa working for us. Harper, Mr. dithers and Layton.

Culture of restictive gun laws. Restrictive gun laws threaten our real culture. The johny come lately liberal curltural marxism is not our culture. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hand gun ownership has been restricted in Canada since 1934, or to put it into perspective, about half as long as Canada has been Canada. That's hardly johnny come lately. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup and has proven over and over agian to be useless for the most part, as has the even more useless and waste of money c68, war again duck hunters and collectors.

Culture of restictive gun laws. Restrictive gun laws threaten our real culture. The johny come lately liberal curltural marxism is not our culture.

Didn't the american consumer pay the tariffs which added around 2500.00 dollars to the price of a new house. One should think the moneies should be returned to them that payed.

David Wilkins, diplomat that he is, said after the meeting that keeping American guns out of Canada is a "shared responsibility". The ambassador added that according to his information is that most American guns that make their way to Canada are brought into the country by Canadians. Hmm. It is doubtful that either McGuinty or Miller ever even thought of who is actually bringing these guns into the country. Or that in the vast majority of the cases, those that are using the guns are those that the blame crowd let into the country in the first place against the wishes of most rational sane thinking people. To now turn around and try to cover their butts by blaming the americans shows just what a despicable bunch they are. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/weinreb081205.htm

Quebec is very serious and has come close twice (most notably in 1995). So I'd put thm at about a 8. In Alberta, though separation has never gained much traction. The only success the western separation movement has had was winning a single seat in the provincial legislature in the 1980's at the height of the NEP backlash. So I'll be generous and give Alberta a 2. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually alberta secession has grown by leeps and bounds, even though the federal boot licks have done everything to play it down. As they do on this board. Alberta secession is real and will happen. It is now pervading into the highest institutions of the province and waits like a sleeping giant for the right leader to step forward.

New poll from the adler on line show. If you are a person living in Western Canada, can you see yourself voting for separating your province from Canada? I would vote for separation of my province from Canada. 70.93 % I would only vote for that if it included at least two western provinces. 6.90 % I would vote for it if it included all of Western Canada. 15.72 % I would never vote to separate from Canada. 6.45 % I wonder how much longer ottawa's song and dance man in alberta will be be able to deny reality.

If you want a share get out and earn it. Living off someone elses sweat and taking the food off their table is nothing but legal plunder when when done by the government. Not to mention the destruction it would cause to the economy. They had a saying in russia that came as a direct result of your type of thinking. They pretented to pay us, and we pretended to work.

Your opinion is ridiculous as long as you fail to understand that this is Terri's wishes being given effect. Nonsense. What you fail to understand, is that this is not a case of right to die, but right to murder, and death by government, without due process. Article five of the bill of rights states nor be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due Process of Law; Simply put, there is no constitutional avenue for judges to even order the death of this woman without meeting the following requirements. No Person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous Crime, 147 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147 A capital crime is one punishable by death and an infamous crime is one punishable by death or imprisonment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- unless on a Presentment or Indictment of a Grand Jury, 148 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148 The grand jury consists of not more than twenty-three men called in by the sheriff of the county (or by the United States marshal of the District) to hear witnesses respecting any subject that may properly be brought before them. If they believe that a person accused should be brought to trial, they return into court a "true bill" or indictment, which is a formal charge in writing that acts were done amounting to a crime; otherwise they write "no bill." The person indicted is later brought to trial before a petit jury of twelve, which after hearing the evidence on both sides, returns a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The grand jury originated when men were executed or imprisoned upon the order of the King or on the charge of his subordinates. It was designed to prevent unjust punishment, for the grand jurors (who sat secretly and, therefore, could not be called to account for opposing the government) presumably would protect the accused from wrong. But it is out of time now and many States have abolished it. In those States an "information" is filed by the prosecuting attorney against the person whom he wishes to bring to trial. The Information sets out the charges as the indictment of the grand jury does. The grand jury cannot be dispensed with as a National institution until this Amendment has been changed. c56 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- except in Cases arising in the Land or Naval forces or in the Militia, when in actual Service in Time of War or public Danger; Nor shall any Person be subject for the same Offence to be Twice put in jeopardy of Life or Limb; 149 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 149 here an Englishman had been indicted and put on trial and the evidence did not appear sufficient the court discharged the jury but ordered the prisoner to be held until more proof might come in. Hallam says that he was accordingly indicted again. When he pleaded that he had already been tried, the judges had the effrontery to deny that he had ever been put in jeopardy. A person is considered to have been brought before a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment or information in sufficient form and a jury has been impaneled and sworn to try him. Of course he has not been put in jeopardy where a jury fails to agree and the jury has been discharged for that reason, or where a conviction has been reversed by an appellate court. Nor can his trial be stopped after the jury has been sworn to try him should it then appear that the evidence against him is insufficient. The trial must proceed to verdict. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a Witness against himself; 150 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 150 He cannot be required to testify either directly or indirectly. His papers and books cannot be made to speak against him. In this particular the Fourth and Fifth Amendments unite for one purpose. "This provision." says the Supreme Court, "had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons which had been obtained in the Continental system and . . . was not uncommon even in England." It has been remarked as singular that this provision should not have been in the body of the Constitution, as it was already in the constitutions of several States at the time of the Convention. c47 Officers of the army placed a man in the establishment of one suspected of disloyalty, and he purloined papers which were used in evidence against the owner of them. Pointing out once more that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments cooperated to protect a man from being made a witness against himself, either orally or by his papers, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed (1921) the trial court for permitting the papers to be used, and said: "It has been repeatedly decided that these Amendments should receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy encroachments or 'gradual depreciation' of the rights secured by them, by imperceptible practice of courts, or by well-intentioned but mistakenly over-zealous executive officers." In 1893 Congress enacted that no person should be excused from producing books and papers in response to a subpoena duces tecum (a formal writ demanding the production of specified records) of the Interstate Commerce Commission; but it kept the statue within the purpose of this clause by adding that no prosecution should follow any disclosure made. The prosecution being made impossible, the basis of the constitutional right to refuse to answer the Interstate Commerce Commission no longer exists. This special legislation was considered necessary to aid the Commission in its investigations of railroad operation and management. Of course a person may waive the privilege. And if the statute of limitation bars prosecution for the crime, he will be compelled to answer. So he cannot claim privilege if he has already been pardoned, for that prevents prosecution. Compulsory self-incrimination existed for four hundred years after the Magna Charta, and it gained some recognition among the early colonists, for the record of the trial of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson in 1673 shows that Governor Winthrop, who presided, was not aware of any privilege against self-incrimination. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nor be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property, without due Process of Law; 151 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 151 This prohibition as to National power is repeated 173 in the Fourteenth Amendment respecting the conduct of the States. Due process of law means substantially the same as "the law of the land" as used in the English Petition of Right in 1628. Indeed, both expressions were linked in that celebrated Petition, which said that no man should be "in any manner destroyed but by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land"; and that no man should be "put out of his land or tenements, nor taken nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer by the due process of the law."

Yes correct, political in the sense that we've seen this before but on a larger scale. People starved to death because someone else thought they shouldn't exist. The kill terri crowd, mostly leftist athiests have exposed themselves as the same type who committed the genocides of the past. From 1932-1933, five million Ukrainian peasants died in forced starvation. The Soviet government stationed troops to actively prevent anyone from escaping the famine. Doctors and relief supplies were kept out by force. The famine was a long, deliberate plan to make people dead by creating and maintaining conditions in which they could not obtain food. http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_soviet.html

Capitalism has created more wealth and put it in the hands of more people than any other system ever created. If it is incompatible with democracy, then perhaps we should get rid of democracy, or at least those versions that are.

You know, these baseless accusations make me ill. Do you not think Max (really a question in itself) that through all of the court cases that something about this might have been brought up at some point, and disproven or tossed because of its baselessness? There is about as much proof that Terris father caused the bone breaks as there is that Michael may have had anythingto do with it. And all this talk about money is utterly ridiculous, Michael should be congratulated for his moral fiber, not denegrated. There other thing that is about killing me is the reference to "Terri's heart stopping briefly" it stopped, and she was resucitated, had they let her go then, well....... Bottom line, if there was sometyhing to save it would be saved. If it were my child, God forbid, I would have difficult time too, but I would hope that someone would help me through the reality, not a fantasy that things can get better. Thank you for that diagnosis Dr. shakeyhands. However your opinion from a distance seems less credible than those that have actually seen her. Not the least of which would also include this judge greer. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?...RTICLE_ID=43470 Yes, if they had not restarted her heart she would have been gone back when, but they did, and now they are going to stop her heart not by removing something that is directly keeping it going, but by withholding food. In any other situation that would be considered murder even torture. Is this now the standard for deciding to eliminate people. Because if it is there are lots yet to go. We now have demicide, inficide and now possibly a new category, eldercide. Something the deathwish crowd have been tossing around for some years now. As the articles i posted above state, people have not been heard and at least some treatments have been withheld. Question : is there any difference in withholding a feeding tube as opposed to a pill, either of which, if the patient didn't have, they would die.