Dear Mr. President

Nark · Post by **Nark** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:12 pm

LH I don't think the Medal of Honor is that significant to the average Canadian. I don't think military awards, or heroes (military) are part of the "Canadian Culture."

I have nothing better to doday than to throw my opinion around in whatever debate this thread has come to.
All media is biased. Even my beloved Fox News caters to my right wing thinking.

In my opinion the CBC only has one good program, and thats on Saturday night. I'll sure miss it here.

LH · Post by LH » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:26 pm

nark ---- I doubt very much that that is true because all of my acquaintances realize the signifigance of it and what is needed to get that award. ANY country's highest award for bravery is not something "to be sneezed at" and I believe most know that. Canadians have won the Medal of Honor 55 times over the years and there's more than one Victoria Cross went south over the same time span also. I've seen my share of combat and I'm well aware of what it takes to win that medal or the Navy Cross or the Silver Star.

You are correct......ALL news media is biased in some direction. The American news media has been "having fun" with the U.S military for years. I'd rather see tham not report anything at all, than see them produce complete B.S. articles like they did during my stay in Vietnam.

Two minutes is enough of O'Reilly for me. He needs to get out and visit other countries and learn something about them because his ignorance appalls me for a news media person..........Left or Right.

. . · Post by **. .** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:28 pm

hazatude wrote:I hope the Islamics don't slice off your noggin...

You're really pushing the envelope of stupid with that one man.

swede · Post by **swede** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:44 pm

http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

Guido · Post by **Guido** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:22 am

swede wrote:http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/georgie.htm

That's oddly satisfying... nothing like bashing ol' Georgie's head on a bubble to make you feel better...

Ender · Post by **Ender** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:50 am

Bill O'Reilly uses shock language to get ratings, much like Howard Stern. The problem is that where people generally accept Stern as a source of humour and entertainment, dim-witted rednecks (aka Southern Republicans) generally take O'Reilly as a credible source of information. Fox does much to encourage this farce.

He is an evil man, who has done much to twist America's perception of reality.

Nark! Long time no hear! Aren't you dead yet? How many "Hodgees" have you put down? Go get'em tiger! USA! USA! USA!

hz2p · Post by **hz2p** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:35 am

Bill O'Reilly ... is an evil man

Compared to the damage that looney Pierre Trudeau inflicted upon Canada, Bill O'Reilly is the media's answer to Mother Theresa.

Nark · Post by **Nark** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:28 pm

LH:
What I meant by the Medal of Honor statement is you can ask the average Canadian on the street what it is, and the might have an idea what it is awarded for, however you ask the same thing about the Victoria Cross, and they'll have no clue, nor who has ever been awarded one.

Ender:
I havn't been to Iraq yet, however I'm in the area. My job isn't generally a combat one, however I can be called upon to be a convoy commander and perhaps "get some" along the way. I might take a few pictures just for you.

Cheers

Semper Fi,
do or Die,
hang 'em high,
at eigth and I.

LH · Post by LH » Fri Sep 16, 2005 10:24 pm

nark -----you might well be correct, but I'll "qualify" that statement of yours. It would depend on the age of the person being asked. For my generation, that wouldn't be true because there were too many kids missing fathers and brothers who had been killed overseas and they can "rattle-off" a whole bunch of Medals and what they were awarded for. For the post-Korean War generation that would only be true perhaps for this last generation because to many, the last person wearing a uniform in their family was their grandad.

It's different in Canada also because we never had the required National Service like the Brits or the required Draft service in peacetime like the Americans had until the 70's and other many counties still do.

Stay safe.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:22 am

Compared to the damage that looney Pierre Trudeau inflicted upon Canada, Bill O'Reilly is the media's answer to Mother Theresa.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 10:20 am

Actually I caught Bill O'Reilly's program last night. They we're discussing child protection laws in the U.S about children under 12. Gotta say I agreed with everything he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166977,00.html

Also this editorial on Europe and Eastern Canada's anti americanism

Click on the Talking Points Link (Celebrating America's Tragedy)

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:28 am

Actually I caught Bill O'Reilly's program last night. They we're discussing child protection laws in the U.S about children under 12. Gotta say I agreed with everything he said.

Want to know what's really hard? Passing laws that punish child abusers, pedophiles, kiddie porn fans and general scum that target children without making the laws so intrusive and inflexible that they innocent people get caught up in it.

Want to know what's really easy? Tugging on people's heartstrings to push the ultra-conservative agenda. Namely the end of prisoner reform and the re-introduction of good ol' western justice that asked no questions. Some are willing to kill a few innocent people as long as you get a few bad guys.

So do you want to take the easy wrong way or the difficult correct path?

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:33 am

The questions get asked in court. Once these scum bags are found guilty what else is there to know?

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:46 am

The questions get asked in court. Once these scum bags are found guilty what else is there to know?

Yah. I guess you're right.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/p ... 6574.shtml

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:07 pm

CID wrote:
The questions get asked in court. Once these scum bags are found guilty what else is there to know?
Yah. I guess you're right.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/p ... 6574.shtml

Actually CID I think your right

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/ ... 2268.shtml

This girl was raped and then killed. Your guy was just put in jail for just over 10 years. Don't get me wrong someone down the line screwed up and they should also be held accountable for wrongfully convicting the man. But unless you can prove your innocent then these rapists should never see the light of day. Just lock em up.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:33 pm

But unless you can prove your innocent then these rapists should never see the light of day. Just lock em up.

Um...you got that "bass-ackwards". You're supposed to proven guilty. Not the other way around. Of course thats how some would like to see things done.

The KKK comes to mind.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:08 pm

CID wrote:
But unless you can prove your innocent then these rapists should never see the light of day. Just lock em up.
Um...you got that "bass-ackwards". You're supposed to proven guilty. Not the other way around. Of course thats how some would like to see things done.

The KKK comes to mind.

What I ment to say is once your locked up and have been found guilty in a court of any violent crime you should stay there untill you can prove yourself innocent after the fact or come to the end of your life.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:35 pm

What I ment to say is once your locked up and have been found guilty in a court of any violent crime you should stay there untill you can prove yourself innocent after the fact or come to the end of your life.

I know exactly what you're saying Dust Devil. You and your buddy Bill O'Reilly want to scare the public so bad that they will rather lock someone up on suspicion of crime rather than uphold the civil liberties that American (and Canadian) citizens have worked and fought so hard for.

You sort of remind me of Bill from the King of the Hill. He figures jury duty means you say "guilty" all the time. After all, the guy is on trial. He MUST be guilty right?

Dubya' thinks alot like that too. His homeland defense plan steam rolls civil liberties and gets away with it be scaring the bejeezus out the American public.

LH · Post by LH » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:27 pm

1) Canada's security laws make Bush's look like "a walk in the park, INCLUDING tha Patriot Act. It's high time that Canadians quit looking at what they consider wrong with the American laws on that subject and take a hard look at their own. Once they do that, they'll shut-up their mouthes about what they think is wrong with those south of the border.

2) I guess then, that I'm an "ultra conservative" then, if that's the defintion of one that I see here. How about a man with 11 speeding tickets? He kills a person in an accident and is sentenced to serve it in the community....not jail. While serving that time in the community, he has another high speed accident and kills a lady in her car passing through an intersection. His sentence this time?........to serve both the first and the new sentence "doing community service". Where did all this happen?.....in Winnipeg this past week.

Like that one?....then here's another one for you. Man beats another unarmed man to death in an unprovoked attack in a pool hall with a pool ball in a sock. He's arrested and put in jail awaiting trial for 6 months. He comes to trial and and is sentenced to "time served".

MY sentences on these two, if given the authority: 1) 25 years and never allowed to have a driving license for anything for the rest of his natural life. Re-offends again, taking another life in the future......."Life" imprisonment until he gets carried out of prison in a body bag and 2) MINIMUM of 25 years and no consideration for parole UNTIL 15 years has been served.

How's that for "ultra conservative" then? I believe that "taking a life" of somebody who did not provke you is worth more than "community service" or "time served.....6 months in jail.

Now I'll go back to pickin' my banjo, 'redneck' that I am.

hazatude · Post by **hazatude** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:50 pm

Justice system in this country is a fucking joke. We need LIFE here and not this out on parole in 10 years shit.

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 6:33 pm

How's that for "ultra conservative" then? I believe that "taking a life" of somebody who did not provke you is worth more than "community service" or "time served.....6 months in jail.

Apples and Oranges. If you take a life you deserve to rot. But it must be proven that you took that life and that it was not truly accidental. Perhaps if you reread my post LH, you'll see that's what I was saying.

It's high time that Canadians quit looking at what they consider wrong with the American laws on that subject and take a hard look at their own. Once they do that, they'll shut-up their mouthes about what they think is wrong with those south of the border.

YAH! Its high time we have secret arrests, unrestricted detainment without charges laid and give cops the authority to tap all our phone lines! Americans are losing the very freedom they have fought for under the patriot act. Fear is causing them to say things like "better to sacrifice a little freedom than be overrun by terrorists".

Well I'm here to tell you, it's the beginning of the end of "freedom" as they know it.

How about a man with 11 speeding tickets? He kills a person in an accident and is sentenced to serve it in the community....not jail.

There are always horror shows but it works both ways. Take Martha Stewart for example. What value was there in locking her up? What possible threat was she to society? They should have hit her in the pocket book and used the money to lock up real criminals. What a waste.

MY sentences on these two, if given the authority: 1) 25 years and never allowed to have a driving license for anything for the rest of his natural life. Re-offends again, taking another life in the future......."Life" imprisonment until he gets carried out of prison in a body bag and 2) MINIMUM of 25 years and no consideration for parole UNTIL 15 years has been served.

Thats a bit contradictory with your previous statements. If you let the guy out, he can re-offend can't he? So what if he doesn't have a "driver's license". That never stopped any criminal from driving.

It's not much different than the example of the guy with the speeding tickets. Should speeders do hard time?

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:08 pm

CID wrote:
What I ment to say is once your locked up and have been found guilty in a court of any violent crime you should stay there untill you can prove yourself innocent after the fact or come to the end of your life.
I know exactly what you're saying Dust Devil. You and your buddy Bill O'Reilly want to scare the public so bad that they will rather lock someone up on suspicion of crime rather than uphold the civil liberties that American (and Canadian) citizens have worked and fought so hard for.

You sort of remind me of Bill from the King of the Hill. He figures jury duty means you say "guilty" all the time. After all, the guy is on trial. He MUST be guilty right?

Dubya' thinks alot like that too. His homeland defense plan steam rolls civil liberties and gets away with it be scaring the bejeezus out the American public.

Ummm......Point out where I said people should be locked up on suspision. I said once your found guilty of a violent crime you should be locked away and left to rot. So if you can point that little tid bit of info out to me it would be greatly appreciated.

I don't understand how you can have the impression that I think we should shoot'em all and let god sort them out. I never once said anything like that. If I did please point out where I did. You likely won't because "I DIDN"T SAY ANYTHING LIKE THAT!!!!!"

CID · Post by **CID** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:30 pm

Ummm......Point out where I said people should be locked up on suspision.

Dust Devil, you stated:

Actually I caught Bill O'Reilly's program last night. They we're discussing child protection laws in the U.S about children under 12. Gotta say I agreed with everything he said.

Your buddy Bill didn't like a statement in the Washington post that said:

"Society has a legitimate interest in protecting children and others from sexual abuse. Civil liberties cannot take a back seat. There is a need for sound legislation that distinguishes between offenders who can be rehabilitated and those who cannot."

Billy went on to say:

Call me crazy, but I'm not interested in rehabbing a child rapist. That person has forfeited his or her right to freedom. Period.

In other words, Mr. O'Reilly WOULD like civil liberties to take a back seat and doesn't want to consider rehabilitating prisoners.

"Sound" legislation is just what is required. Rehab should always be considered. Time should not be wasted on legislation that has holes in it.

Billy doesn't like anyone critcizing "Jessica's Law". Of course not. It's easy to make opponents look like child rapists themselves. After all, if you are opposed even a little, to a law that would put child rapists away, you MUST be evil. Civil liberties or other issues be damned! And what about the first time Jessica's Law goes up against a constitutional challenge? Will it survive or will it possibly fail resulting in several child molestors going free?

So, no. You didn't say you wanted to shoot first and ask questions later. You just stated you agreed with someone who did say it.

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:20 pm

Ok fine answer this. Where did my "buddy" Bill say someone should be locked up on suspision of a crime?

Seems to me he said he has no interest in rehabbing child rapists.

MCA · Post by **MCA** » Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:50 pm

about america, you all know nothing. i hope we see all the truth when we die, so YOU will discover how manipulated you've been.

"Google" all the guys in the White House, you'll be surprised.

and when you're really bored, rent the movie "Lumumba". at some point there's an american who's attending a meeting where the president decides to kill the PM (Lumumba). they call this american by his name, "Carlucci", but never say his first name. that guy is Frank Carlucci. Google this name. i am serious. find out who is that guy, and what he's been doing in the past, lets say, 25 years. if this doesn't ring bells in your poor little head, go eat pasture.

and if you don't know who is Lumumba, then go milk your cows and feed your pigs, you're clearly not intelligent enough to discuss about all of this!