The Exposed Truth of Jean Chrétien

[eric]

Keep in mind freedom of speech must be exercised with responsibility.

 

[janeeng]

True eric, I had to bust on this guy though, he is a pain! I don't see anyone else crying about this issue anymore! even Bry, my buddy, a wise guy, but has stopped his bickering and has come up with some pretty good posts lately!

 

[eric]

Janeen, what I said was meant for the man of '51.

 

[janeeng]

I know, but I added my comments to it - I know he will have something negative to say about it!

 

[eric]

But of course he will !

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, I believe in free speech. Do you understand the concept?

Let's suppose you are enrolled in a major college university and are majoring in history. You have differing opinions than the professor, so you decide to get up in front of the class daily and yell "F*^& Y%$, professor"! Does freedom of speech give you that right, or will you likely be expelled from school within an hour? You DO have the right to picket outside school property, but freedom of speech is not absolute.

I agree, but thats not the situation here....i was giving you advice, or giving you a suggestion. At a university, if you go up to the professor and give him/her a suggestion to the way they teach or suggest that the history they teach differs from several other professors/intellectuals....i dont think you'd get expelled for that now would he? Or what if the professor makes a comment generalizing against an entire ppl such as:

Originally posted by jimnyc
Well, no matter, an opinion from a canadian is like an opinion from a rock.

Then if someone tells them not to say racist comments, if the professor says:

Originally posted by jimnyc
While others may read my comments and get agitated, they are there simply to piss off the person I am replying to.

I would suggest to this professor that whether it was their intent or not, commmenting on an entire ppl could be offending to many others who you apparently 'did not intend' to offend. I would then suggest to the professor that if they plan to offend a single person, they should try doing just that, and not offend an entire people while they are at it. Doing such would not lead to being expelled in any kind.

Secondly...try going back a little and read my post, i don't see in any way how your analogy is related. One, don't pride youself, as intelligent as you may be, you're not a professor , two, i dont remember me talking in any disrespectufl way, so using "F*^& Y%$, professor" as a comparision to what i said, would be far fetched, and lastly this isn't school property, but a public forum. I appreciate the fact that you haven't deleted or banned ppl from this forum, but thats simply a matter of appreciation relative to other forums, because being a public forum, there shouldn't be censorship.

I wasn't telling you how to write, i don't care, don't listen to my suggestion, I was simply telling you to do what you say...you say you try to offend single ppl...my suggestion was for you to do just that. There are reasons why you shouldn't attack entire ppl because it'll discredit you as being a reasonable person, and also it'll provoke anger, thus comments not helpful to the specific thread (like the comments made by jimnyc, Janeen, eric, and I aswell), also it'll create an environment where ppl won't want to come and participate in the forum, because they'll see that this is not a forum to develop opinions or give information, just a forum to give opinions and not learn (which it isn't, but someone reading some of the past replies, on this forum for the first time, will decide not to participate in such discussions).

Listen to my advice...or you could not, either way i can suggest you to do whatever, but you don't have to listen. Freedom of speech MUST BE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLY........NO doubt about it. I completely agree. But responsibility differs from person to person....to me someone saying opinions from a canadian is the same as an opinion from a rock......is not taking freedom of speech responsibly. BUT thats me..........

 

[vyxen]

Jimster, my parents were married when I was born, tyvm. Now, go cook me dinner you effeminate wanker.

 

[vyxen]

Originally posted by Jackass
Whats that supposed to mean?

A half-arsed attempt to bring some humour to the board.

 

[Creek]

...This world is so sad in many ways...just glad to see some of us get silly...and still try...and the world does rock too!!!..(smile)

Don't debate me...I've given up even on the news.......(smile)

Creek

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by vyxen
Jimster, my parents were married when I was born, tyvm. Now, go cook me dinner you effeminate wanker.

Stop with your repetitive bullshit. Why don't you try offering something to the board instead of your constant need for confrontation?

Continue in this fashion and you're gone.

 

[Creek]

...(smile)...Humour..and smiles..and love..are the best!!!...Without them..I'd be soooooooooooooo sad!!!....

Creek!

 

[Creek]

Ouch!!!...(smile)...

 

[janeeng]

hahahah! don't boot her Jim, I like her entertainment here!

 

[vyxen]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Stop with your repetitive bullshit. Why don't you try offering something to the board instead of your constant need for confrontation?

Continue in this fashion and you're gone.

No more repetitive than you calling me a fatty, eh partner?

Ban me, I don't give a shit.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by vyxen
No more repetitive than you calling me a fatty, eh partner?

Ban me, I don't give a shit.

And neither do I, adios!

 

[Creek]

How would anyone of us know if you're fat...?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Creek
How would anyone of us know if you're fat...?

I'm too lazy to go back and find the original threads, but I found pictures of her online. Between the email address she registered with and the name "vyxen" in Canada there was no doubt at all it was her. She tried to wiggle out of it, but notice how upset she got at the fat comments! And calling her fat was a compliment! No wonder she is so angry.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Hi NT,

I quite enjoyed my time in your country thank you very much. I did not bring home the gold, but my purpose there was to coach, rowing myself was just a perk. I'm not in my peak shape, but i certainly made some of your crews sweat to beat me. Minneapolis is quite stellar in the fall, especially along the banks of the Mississippi.

First off, great post and now I will comment on some of your points.

Originally posted by NightTrain
Issac :



Believe it or not, I really do think the Iraq war will benefit the USA and the world.

I think everyone can agree that the middle east has a very real and complex problem with extremism. I don't think it's due entirely to the financial situation of John Q. Public there, but I do think it's a part of it.

What's in common with all of the countries that have terrorists springing up? Fundamentalist Islamic governments. You've got a very small number of people controlling 99% of that country's wealth and resources. In order to maintain their cush positions, they have to divert attention away from the government (who is really responsible for the peasants' plight) to another scapegoat. These days, that would be America. Israel, it goes without saying, is always there to take the heat.

Religion should be separate from government to prevent religious leaders of a certain faith from oppressing & murdering people of differing faiths. It can do great good, but also great evil.

Interesting point and very true with respect to fundamentalist religious countries. I believe that Islamic Fundamentalist countries provide terrorists... no doubt about it. I also completely agree that Iraq 1% of the people had any real power with 99% being oppressed and I will, for the record, never state that Iraqis had freedom. However, to call Iraq a fundamentalist country I think is flat out wrong.

1. There are high level Baathists that are Christian (Tariq Aziz)
2. Shiara (Sp?) law was not in effect any where in Iraq (or at least enforced by Saddam's soldiers. (Not that I'm defending HIS own laws by any means)
3. Women are allowed in positions of authority were allowed to enroll in college.
4. Iraq had no national religion, nor a national church.

I honestly believe that Osama hates Saddam's form of government probably as much as the US's form of government. Of course it could also be argued that an enemy or your enemy is your friend... but I don't think either of us will get far proving that point either way.

With a democracy established in Iraq (and I really don't know how we're going to introduce the concept of separation of Church and State and that's going to be crucial), the people of Iraq will begin to enjoy the freedoms and liberty that all of us in North America and Europe take for granted. Then a person can go as far as his/her ambitions take them based on that person's abilities, rather than who they're related to or what faith they are.

When that happens, all of the neighboring countries are going to sit up and take notice - and wonder why they can't have what the Iraqis have.

It's the Domino theory, and I sure as hell hope it works - if there is a successful Democracy established in Iraq, I don't see how it can fail. It's been done in the past, and I'm optimistic about this attempt.

Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the others are all watching very closely this attempt of ours to give the Iraqis a modern government, and they know what's at stake - their positions and very possibly their lives. The last thing they want is a flourishing democracy next door - that's why there are so many foriegn fighters showing up and fighting our troops, and assassinating any new Iraqi official trying to move forward with reconstruction.

Time will tell if your domino theory is correct. It seems logical what you say, but the biggest variable that I think you've missed in your theory is Iraqi's unwillingness to become like the US, to become a "westernized" country. If anything, the US invasion has pushed Iraq towards fundamentalism, Shiities who were formerly oppressed are to be blunt, pissed. Original calculations had thought that they would embrace the US invasion as a liberation force, but as so often in history we have learned that that is rarely the case. I would very much hope, like you that this domino effect will happen as there is no doubt in my mind that it will make the region a much more secure place, but to be honest i have yet to see any evidence that it is going that way of course it has only been a few months, it will be years until that argument will be settled.

I disagree. We haven't had any more attacks on American soil since the gloves came off. The terrorists wanted a fight, and we're giving it to them in spades.

Well that is true and I hope will all my heart, that you will not have another attack.

And here's an off topic message to everyone else on this board. Despite what many of you seem to think, and hopefully not all of you, Canada was not like rah, rah when September 11th happened. It was not like when you were a preteen and you saw a fender bender and giggled with glee. You are our neighbours. You are our big brother. I was glued to the TV as much as you were and sickened as much as you were. Heck, I even went out the very next day to give blood for what seemed like a disaster that would never end. In fact, did you know that Canada completely topped their supplies of blood and the US Red Cross had to turn back Canadian donation, because there was so much blood. Did you know that Canadians let standed Americans from grounded planes into their homes for a meal and a sleep. I truly am disgusted sometimes at the point that Canadians are somehow rooting for the terrorists.

The point that we are neighbours and friends. Friends disagree. That's a reality of life and if you are wondering where some of our greatests feelings of apathy are coming from, it is the fact that your government seems to have this "You're either with us or you're against us" attitude. This is simply wrong. Canadians despise terrorism in all its forms, but we just disagree in that invading Iraq would stop terrorism or the proliferation of WMD. Does that mean that we're your enemy? Of course not.

I'm sorry if that came off as a little bit of a rant and I know I'm drifting considerably off topic (my apologies NT, it was not directed at you), but i've seen this attititude to often and it sickens me. It sickens me because we are friends. But I also know that that is not the prevailing wisdom in the US. I have visited americans just this weekend, talked to them, share a pint (Canadian beer of course ) and they say: "Sure we're different, but that's okay. That's cool Canada. "

Certainly it can go both ways, but there are way to many voices on the extreme and not enough voice of moderation. If anything the world needs moderation so cooler heads prevail.

Well that's enough for now! I look forward to your comments, as always.

 

[NightTrain]

Minneapolis is quite stellar in the fall, especially along the banks of the Mississippi.

Yes, it truly is. I was born in St. Paul... haven't been around there much lately, though, except passing through when I fly from AK to Minneapolis, and drive to Northern Wisconsin to see my family.

However, to call Iraq a fundamentalist country I think is flat out wrong.

You're absolutely correct, I didn't mean to lump Iraq in with the rest of the region. I was speaking about the surrounding countries in the region. Iraq was secular, no question about that. My apologies, Issac, I should have been more clear on that.

That brings up an interesting point, though. I can't think of one Iraqi terrorist. While Saddam was enough of a madman without introducing fundamentalism, I think it's interesting that no terrorists were springing forth from secular Iraq, when every neighboring country has produced more than its' fair share.

Coincidence?

I honestly believe that Osama hates Saddam's form of government probably as much as the US's form of government. Of course it could also be argued that an enemy or your enemy is your friend... but I don't think either of us will get far proving that point either way.

I read several articles saying there was no love lost between Saddam and OBL. However, I think you hit it on the head there, Issac, with the old 'The enemy of my enemy is therefore my friend'. There were many times during the Cold War that we were forced to buddy up to unsavory characters to achieve an end. Right or wrong, it was done all the time.

There were links between the two, however. And they both shared an intense hatred of the USA.

They each brought something to the table that the other needed, logistically. OBL needed a powerful dictator to provide safe haven & certain weapons that are hard to come by. Saddam needed a way to be able to strike out and have plausible deniability.

I can't prove that last paragraph, it's a guess on my part based on everything I've read & documentaries I've watched (I'm addicted to the History Channel). Just so you don't call me out on it.

As far as the Canadian Bashing... I can only speak for myself, of course, but I bear no ill will toward Canadians. I've driven through Canada many times driving to and from Alaska to the Lower 48. Your Mounties were always polite & very helpful when completely lost Americans flagged them down in downtown Edmonton. (MAN that's a huge city!) We were taken advantage of at certain gas stations with regard to the exchange rate - but we have more than our fair share of unscrupulous types in the States, too.

There have been silly things said from your politians that pissed a great many Americans off, but that's what politians the world over seem do best. But, when you keep hearing things like that, you begin to wonder.

Take that Italian nut case.. I've been laughing my ass off for 6 months now with the way he keeps pissing off France and Germany. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he 'disappears'.

I didn't know that, Issac, about the blood drive. That's great to hear.

Yet another superb post on your part, it's been a pleasure.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by NightTrain
Yes, it truly is. I was born in St. Paul... haven't been around there much lately, though, except passing through when I fly from AK to Minneapolis, and drive to Northern Wisconsin to see my family.



You're absolutely correct, I didn't mean to lump Iraq in with the rest of the region. I was speaking about the surrounding countries in the region. Iraq was secular, no question about that. My apologies, Issac, I should have been more clear on that.

That brings up an interesting point, though. I can't think of one Iraqi terrorist. While Saddam was enough of a madman without introducing fundamentalism, I think it's interesting that no terrorists were springing forth from secular Iraq, when every neighboring country has produced more than its' fair share.

Coincidence?

Not to worry, I misinterpretted that you included Iraq in your list of fundamentalist countries. I agree, i do think that that coincidence of terrorism being limited to countries with fundamentalist governments deserves more inspection on the Iraq debate.

I read several articles saying there was no love lost between Saddam and OBL. However, I think you hit it on the head there, Issac, with the old 'The enemy of my enemy is therefore my friend'. There were many times during the Cold War that we were forced to buddy up to unsavory characters to achieve an end. Right or wrong, it was done all the time.

There were links between the two, however. And they both shared an intense hatred of the USA.

They each brought something to the table that the other needed, logistically. OBL needed a powerful dictator to provide safe haven & certain weapons that are hard to come by. Saddam needed a way to be able to strike out and have plausible deniability.

Talking of the US angle of befriending it's enemy's enemy, i think history has been to harsh on the US on the matter. The Cold War was like a giant chess game and unfortunately the world was their pieces. Sometimes you had to play the game. I guess what bugs me about when the US (or any major power) does it, is that they generally don't fess up to their choice. The government never said something along the lines of "Hey, we installed or funded Pinnochet, Saddam, Tito etc, we did it because we had to stop the world from Fundamentalism or Communism, but we realize that that game cost many of innocent lives and now we're willing to right it." If you guys said that before the Iraq war, I'd be much more lenient towards your president and government... but i digress. I really didn't want to bring that issue up because it a way it's an entirely different argument that to be honest, i'm not well enough versed to properly debate.

I can't prove that last paragraph, it's a guess on my part based on everything I've read & documentaries I've watched (I'm addicted to the History Channel). Just so you don't call me out on it.

As far as the Canadian Bashing... I can only speak for myself, of course, but I bear no ill will toward Canadians. I've driven through Canada many times driving to and from Alaska to the Lower 48. Your Mounties were always polite & very helpful when completely lost Americans flagged them down in downtown Edmonton. (MAN that's a huge city!) We were taken advantage of at certain gas stations with regard to the exchange rate - but we have more than our fair share of unscrupulous types in the States, too.

There have been silly things said from your politians that pissed a great many Americans off, but that's what politians the world over seem do best. But, when you keep hearing things like that, you begin to wonder.

Take that Italian nut case.. I've been laughing my ass off for 6 months now with the way he keeps pissing off France and Germany. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he 'disappears'.

I didn't know that, Issac, about the blood drive. That's great to hear.

Yet another superb post on your part, it's been a pleasure.

NT, you sir are a gentleman and scholar as always. I fear though that looking at our orginal subject we have veered far off course, but that's okay. I think most of the things that could be said about the topic, have been. Time for something new!