supercanuk

I laughed so hard when i saw that haha, Bill did not look impressed at all !

I certainly agree that it is a problem of how far one will go for their own ideals. But when put next to each other they aren't really comparable. Medieval Catholicism has decimated the indigenous religions of North America, South America, Europe, parts of the Middle East, parts of Africa, Australia, Indonesia, it goes on and on. Missionaries continue to go to other countries with the intent to subvert the local religion and attempt to sway the local residents to Christianity, of course without use of violence NOW, but no less subversive. Certainly Stalinism was horrific and millions died and probably millions more brutally repressed. I am also not denying that other religions have attempted this, but not even comparably on the scale of Christianity. Certainly fighting for various causes are subjective and obviously interpreted in different ways in countless locales, but this isn't exactly what we're talking about is it? Of course ideals in general can stifle local social movements, brutal tyrannies come and go based on insane philosophies and we all suffer there consequences. What I am getting at is that Christianity has two faces, the one that says love they neighbor and is the "modern" and "moderate" face that claims to be fundamentalist light. The other face that works hand and hand with the politics of death and destruction. Just taking the Bushites as an example, there are several churches that out and out support Bush and his wars and social policy. I literally can

Side-note, a book that looks hella interesting which i have not read yet is called "Misquoting Jesus" it has a lot to do with the scribes who over the years changed the bible MULTIPLE times not just to fit the dogma of the day but in sheer language incompatibility. Certain words dont have their exact double in other languages, aramaic does not easily translate into Greek, German, Latin, English, etc.

btw, i really like the changes, Colin has just introduced me to the Aqua Teen Hunger Force which has definetely had its hilarious moments. Can you make a group called "Cybernetic ghost of christmas past" and put me in it anton? haha if so, that would be kick ass.

Stopped yet again... A passenger barred from a Qantas airlines flight for wearing a T-shirt depicting US President George Bush as a terrorist has threatened legal action. Allen Jasson said he was sticking up for the principle of free speech by challenging the decision by the Australian flag carrier. Mr Jasson was stopped as he was about to board the flight from Melbourne to London last Friday. Qantas said the T-shirt had potential to offend other passengers. The T-shift features an image of President George W Bush, along with the slogan "World's Number One Terrorist". 'Principle' The 55-year-old computer specialist, who lives in London, had encountered difficulties with the same T-shirt on an earlier Qantas flight in December. After clearing the international security checks at Melbourne Airport, he reportedly approached the gate manager to congratulate him on the company's new-found open-mindedness. At that point, Mr Jasson was ordered to remove the T-shirt after being told it was a security threat and an item which might cause offence to other passengers. He was offered the chance to board the flight wearing different clothing, but refused. "I am not prepared to go without the t-shirt. I might forfeit the fare, but I have made up my mind that I would rather stand up for the principle of free speech," he told Australian media. A Qantas spokesman defended the airline's decision, saying: "Whether made verbally or on a T-shirt, comments with the potential to offend other customers or threaten the security of a Qantas group aircraft will not be tolerated". I am wondering if the same or similiar action would be taken if someone had a t-shirt with Osama's face on it stating #1 terrorist? Probably similiar results, but its a quite interesting case, freedom of speech and offensive statements often are balanced on a fine line. Any thoughts?

Most likely to take a big dump on Parliament Hill and then get arrested by the RCMP.

Realizes that NIN is amazing.

Well said, i concur. I don

Id definetely support an incentive, but even there, you take the risk of people just wanting the incentive and not knowing the issues and the candidates. I realize also that already a lot of people dont know the candidates and what they stand for, but still, its a really slippery slope.

I always vote, but i could never condone forcing people to vote, it would end up in some sort of tyranny thats for sure.

I'd like to know how you think he is misinformed, and who said being against religion is fashionable? A lot of people are persecuted rather then celebrated for being critical of religion so i don

Fantastic post, simply put, I agree with probably 99% of what you just posted. The one thing I

Cheese Whiz and Ritz cracker's taste's delicious.

hehe its cool man! I just wanted to make sure it wasn't taken the wrong way lol the last thing id do is ever justify Bush or Blair, or Harper or Martin or pretty much most politicians lol

Yah but something as goood as Sam Jackson, and thats going to be hard. He kicks a lot of ass, soooooo im ganna be the first to suggest half naked women. You know its the only thing better then Samuel L Jackson.

I'd say im more of the geek persuasion, i have esoteric interests and i often enjoy academic pursuits, but i also have a social life, as my friends constantly remind me "i know everyone" apparently. Although if you ask me its all lies.

actually, the main reason was not so "free Iraki people", it is even more shameful: the ONLY reason to invade Irak was due to economic reasons, to just control the petrol from that country, to be able to use it with total freedom... Indeed, which is why i said one of the multiple reasons given. Bush and co gave a lot of justifcations, none of which were economic. I didnt say it didnt have anything to do with economics, in fact my posts talking about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate that it partly was. But what i was saying was that Bush gave several reasons, first weapons of mass destruction, then we were freeing the Iraqi people and he often justified his position by saying " this is the guy who gassed his own people" and " this is the guy that tried to kill my dad" the latter reason was the most rediculous and literally made my fal over laughing when he said it. Edit: just to make sure everyone knows, im not saying that these reasons were true, or legitimate, just saying that this is what Bush said, i think we all know it's lies.

Indeed. In fact, i just want to clarify, the invasion ( the multiple reasons given) one of which was because he gassed his own people. I believe what his trial was based on was the excecution of 160 people or something in a town? I don't remember the specifics but i believe that was one of the main charges. Anyway, this whole debacle keeps getting worse and i believe next week Bush is planning on a 20,000 U.S. troop surge in Iraq so welcome to hell ladies and gentlemen.

I have certainly been enjoying playing call of duty 3, if anyone on the bored here has a PS3 and plays that game you can add me to a friends list, i am known online as supercanuk everywhere lol soo that's how you can find me. But yah, post christmas PS3 buy was pure luck.

His death actually means a lot to the Shia and Kurdish population, and the way he died with Al-Sadr's men taunting him has flamed the embers once more in the horrifying civil war in Iraq. I'm not saying that it wasn't terrible, in fact i dont believe in the death penalty so to me, even a tyrant such as he, should be locked up forever in my opinion. If we're going to kill him for gassing his own people we should be killing the first Bush administration for giving him the weapons to commit such an act. If you give a criminal a gun and then he uses it to kill somebody else, you are still liable, if only partly, for the death of the victim. Somehow political leaders get to side-step this if they are the lone superpower, theres a lot of things they get to side-step, apparently the rule of law in almost every instance. This entire invasion, occupation, and now execution of Saddam has been a farce and has been rife with propaganda from all sides, but of course mostly from the aggressive occupier, i.e. the United States. That's my two cents.

Hehe, i was thinking the other day, im ganna make you a key to my house so you can just walk in and use it haha.

My Christmas gift to myself was the new PS3 that i bought last night. I rate this as a 100/100, possibly even bonus marks because i bought myself call of duty 3. hehe.

Hmm.. yes, the death of a brutal tyrant is always good news. I won't get too harpy but it annoy's me that people who supported this jackass and gave him the chem weapons to use on his own people, and then continued to support this guy after the atrocities dont get any flack. It's of course because they are the victors, and Saddam was an "enemy of freedom", and when too many enemies of freedom get together, including most U.S. presidents, somebody has to die, this week it was Saddam, maybe in a month from now they'll find Bin Laden. Pfft. Not bloody likely, if he isn't already dead. But I digress, another one bites the dust it seems, or is it sand? lol

My resolution is to do more action then talk, write more then read (which will be difficult because I read constantly) and to lighten up a bit. Also.. teach Owen to spell.

Yah i dont think anybody really liked the third, but two good godfather's are still better then any of the number of star wars that came out lol