GostHacked

Yeah but it is the old retired Canadians that end up moving to the US. Warmer/dry climates are just better for old retired people. Do retired people contribute to the society? Economicaly? Geography and climate are the reasons. I don't think economics come into play much. If that was the case I'd have moved to the US long time ago. Many do move south too, like recent landed immigrants, who got Canadian citizenship or a work visa, then moved south.

It is not Muslims who are changing things. They are having an influence yes, but it is the parliment of the countries (or for the most part Brussels) to counteract this kind of thing. It is the governments and the political leaders who are changing things. Sure I guess some of them are Muslim, but the majority is not, and the problem lies in those weak neck poloticians to stand up and say... NO... FINAL NO. I can influence all I can with the government, but it is those elected officials who are changing the rules. So blame the people that make the rules in the country, and not the muslims / Islam themselves. M. Dancer Syria http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm ( I will een use the US's info here) Syria is a rebublic !!! Don't forget Regime is another word for Administration. Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey indicates it is a parlimentary rebublic. Egypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt semi-presidential republic Lybia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lybia is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamahiriya which seems to be a democracy directed by the masses )or population of the country) Morocco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco Constitutional Monarchy. Malaysia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia Federal constitutional monarchy Vatican http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City Theocratic Absolute elective monarchy The only country place that is governed DIRECTLY by a religion is The Vatican. M. Dancer intrigued me with this question. I am glad I took some time to find out. I don't see Islam ruling anything directly here. Sure you can argue that Islam indirectly directs the government of some countries. Just like Israel is indirectly run by the Judism. But it is a Parlimentary Democray. The United States is a Republic, with strong Christian (and I'd say Catholic) influcences. So no country is absent of religious influence and direction. None. But again, let's blame the Muslims for all our problems. Screw it, religion is the problem period.

Why??? I say f**k them, keep the good stuff for us. They can keep their poisons. ScottSA You forgot about lead paint in baby toys. Should we stop sending them lead, or paint?

I've been smoking pot for 10 years. My mind is in the best shape ever.

:P

I have determined that Cheney is an enemy combatant. Not much he can do about it. I have different rules. I don't care what the rest of the world wants or thinks.

Islam those sneaky F*&KERS. Not winning here Scotty boy.

No, you did not mention me. In fact you never mentioned any specific person. But in your statement of It is not hard to see how it is directed. And it won't stop me from repsonding to your posts in the future.

The problem here is that the nukes were still armed when they flew over the US. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/05/loose.nukes/index.html They had warheads on them, but they were not armed. The switch was disabled, so there was no chance of them accidentaly going off. Nukes have so many precautions and saftey measures that it seems soo improbable that one would just go off for no reason. Yeah I would be mroe worried about all those missle frigates and subs in the Persian Gulf. They are just closer. ALTHOUGH....... if these nukes had slipped past undetected and just dissapeared, THEN I would worry about where they are going.

Dog on Porch Don't throw words into our mouths. I had stated that the reason the US is getting more attention for deaths in Iraq is because they are the largest foreign military that took part in the occupation. We all know damn well the war is not going according to plan. So when some of us point out the reasons why, it gets twisted to mean something else. That is how it is here. I guess the reason is that we can get TV face time with Bush and Co on the main stream media. The terrorist leaders do not do this. So they are not in your face as much, out of site out of mind in a way. So the US gets more attention this way, because they are the largest foreign force occupying Iraq right now. And with the US making most of the decisions in how Iraq was invaded and (hahahah) reconstructed, that garners them more attention as well when they screw up. The US wants to divide up Iraq into 3 seperate autonomous regions? If this does not go over well, who will be blamed? Exactly the US, because it was their plan to begin with. If the Iraqi's don't want it, how are the Iraqis to blame? The US had a plan, the plan changed many many times since the war started. And it affects a country on the other side of the world, most of these people making the decisions for Iraq have never even been there. So again, this garners them more attention when things get messed up.

Hey buddy, thanks for being helpful and contributing a great reply in this thread. Let me clear up my post by saying the US garners more attention because they are the largest foreign group inside Iraq. And so my quote is not exact. Hell Bush changes what he says all the time anyways. Maybe I am getting Bushisms Derrangement Syndrome. The US wanted to be all high and mighty with the invasion of Iraq, this was all forseen before the war. The results are exactly what planned. Divide and conquer. As they step up, we will step down.

You are either with us, or against us. Lets' roll. Mission Accompished The surge is working. Give it till Sept. THe US is be biggest contingency in Iraq, They have the most troops in the country. They do more operations in Iraq. The US has more private 'Blackwater" types than any other country. It is not hard to understand that most of the civilian deaths are from the US simply because they are doing most of the fighting in Iraq. Britian has under 5000 soldiers in the country. And they are the largest army in Iraq besides the US. IT is simple math and numbers that make the US responsible for death in Iraq. I won't go as far as to say the world. But it would be close. BUUUUUUT someone will point me out that I am wrong. The will to act is there. The will to act without just cause is not there for me. The reason I would not have acted, is for all the failed intelligence before the war. Regardless of where it came from it was bad intelligence. All of which did not make a good case for invading Iraq. I knew that before the war started. The case made to invade Afghanistan was more just because most of the intelligence was correct, and justified the invasion, which Canada jumped on board. But Canada did not jump on the Iraq-wagon. Why is that? Are we idiots? Stupid simpletons? Or felt that there was just not enough proof to invade Iraq. It was not an imminent direct OMG WE INVADE AT DAWN threat to the US. Was not even a threat to the US pal Israel in the Middle East. OH the will is there, but you better give me a damn good reason before I pull the trigger. Also, if I pull the trigger and the intel you gave me was wrong, are you going to hold yourself responsible for it? Or blame someone else? Actions have consequences. What better tactic to avoid those consequences by never going through with certain actions.

We will be 10 years down the road asking the same questions. You are just as much of a critic as us, but you seem to support the War on Terror and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. You got a solution? I am open to hear them.

You had it right at the start, it makes individuals rich. With the nation debt of the US being the highest it has ever been, I fail to see how this makes everyone in the US richer. But feel free to point out where I am wrong.

Several schools here in Ottawa have been shut down in the past month due to reports of gunmen in the area. All the schools went into a lockdown duriung the search. Home schooling is going to be an option for my future children

Just like you are psyops for the Bushies?? You spend more time pointing out someone is wrong without actally arguing anyting (yeah the one time with me was an exception) Bkackwater is the Haliburton of the day. Someone else bad will come along and make them look good by being worse,

This makes sense how? Since under Taleban rule, the poppy crops were practicaly eliminated. So they have done a 180 on the opium issue then. It would be strange to get rid of them one second, then want to support it later on. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1146640.stm And actually, plenty of the opium hit the European markets. Scotty I would love to see the poppy crops eliminated.... again. But the US cannot create a safe environment in the country for farmers to grow real needed crops. The Afghanistan government cannot create the safe environment. Under one ruler, the Taleban did one thing, now they have another leader, and want to grow opium again. The Taleban is now the bad guy growing the opium, or farmers want to join the Taleban so they can grow opium. Does not make sense. There are hypocrytes on both sides of this fight. edited for spelling

Wow that is pretty cool stuff Greg. I hope this turns out to be a great experience for us all. Hopefully this will bring other government members to MLW for such discussions. ---- Mr. Layton. How can you make government more transparent and open to the public? Remember it is the People's government. How can you assure the Canadian populous that you and your party are doing exactly what your platform states? Can we reduce the complexity and redundancy of our government? Can we make it more efficient? Also, during Question Period, how can anyone get their point across when you have other members of parliment start a shouting match to drown out the person who is speaking. I have always found this disrespectful of the person who is speaking. How can we make government more respectful? Also I have voted NDP in the past, and have only voted NDP. I have not voted in the last two elections for no one party or representative share my views on how things should be. I did not want to throw away my vote to another party to spite another party. I choose to just not get involved. I have admired you in the past Mr. Layton, but now I just cannot make a good case to vote for any party, party leader and platform. How can you convince the undecided to vote for you? What proof can you show that would convince us to vote for you? And can you do it without completely lowering yourself to trash talking the other opponents? I guess my big question is, how can you bring respect and productivity back to the government in Canada? And how can that translate to every department in our government?

Let me be more clearer here. When alcohol was illegal, there were social drawbacks. Even when it is legal, there are still drawbacks. Compare the illegality of weed to the time of prohobition. Legalizing alcohol got rid of some social problems. Or maybe social stigmatas. Legalizing pot will do just the same. It will solve some social problems. But not all. Legalizing booze did not solve all of the social problems that came with it. It just now allows a venue to actually help the people with the problem without a social stigmata attached to the person. But alcoholics are viewed in the same way a drug addict is. If you think I am wrong with this statement, then now it is up to you to show us the differences. it would be a hard case to make. If it is good for the US, then it is good for us. And that can carry over to the leagalization and regulation of pot. Driving drunk or high is 100% unacceptable.

Under the Prohobition of alcohol in the early part of the 1900's, there were many people doing illegal things, and knowingly break the law. We can actually compare weed to this prohobition of alcohol. But, alcohol was eventually legalized and now it is a huge social problem just like any other illegal drug. We can also see how it is glamourized in a Simpson's eppisode about Homer being the Beer Baron. People who drink alcohol legaly can get charged with some of the side effects that one can get with alcohol. Like drinking and driving is illegal. But people do it. So charge them for it. Let those criminal records show and tell as well. Drinking in public, giving alcohol to minors, ect ect ect.... Booze is just as dangerous as any other drug. Moderation and self control is the key.

Well, the Taleban did something right in regards to the opium trade. They had practically killed it. Opium was not grown much if at all near the end of the Taleban government. Now it is nothing but opium. Solve one problem, others are created.

Your arrogance suits you. I knew you would not be able to just say 'thanks'. But carry on with your demeanor.

Ah well, as I reread it. You did make sense. I will admit that now. I guess it was how you worded it that threw me off, and without a little more explanation next time, we might avoid this whole mess. But again, I did not read that correctly.

ScottSA said.. Point A Then he quoted the Wikipedia article Point B So is it A, or B??

OMG !!! You are 100% correct. Just wonder why others cannot see it as the same in the basic components.