commanderkai

WEll, first time for everything. Hello everybody and what do you serve here?

The Doors - Light My Fire Blur - Song 2 Pink Floyd - Money Harvey Danger - Flagpole Sitta Junior Boys - In The Morning (Hot Chip Remix) Franz Ferdinand - Take Me Out The Scorpions - Wind of Change CocoRosie - Ohio (Damien Jurado Cover) Sugarcult - Memory Remy Zero - Save Me The Tragically Hip - Blow at High Dough

His fifteen minutes of fame have been up for about a month now.

Ah wonderful, the Soviet Union is back. Reagan and (forgive the spelling on this one) Yeltzin must be spinning in their graves. It's scary that Putin is using its economic might to get whatever it wants instead of shaking a few T-80s. Hell I'm not sure which one is worse, but I think this "new" Russia is worse since it has the might of crippling Europe with its massive energy reserves.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Obviously our semi-French friend hasn't the facts. If we didn't have the GG, we would still have to have a head of state because it is too much work for the beleaguered PM. The U.S. Federal system has a more top-heavy system that we do just keeping Bushie from falling over his own feet (and not very successfully, either). Rather cruel. I also don't think this little Pequiste has noticed the sun has set for this bourgeois sentiment. The ADQ is holding the balance of power in Quebec now, and will hold Mr. Charest's feet to the fire while playing the tune of the dance. The new tune has the lyric, "Independent inside the Canadian federation".quote> Of course we would have a Head of State, why not elect him or her? Why should the British Monarchy have any play in Canada anymore? The Governor General is undemocratic, just like the Canadian Senate. And as much as you might not like the American Federal System, it is a democratically elected figure. You wonder why Quebec wants to be independent. One of the major factors is that Canada still holding on to the long dead British Empire. If you really believe that it would be too top heavy without a Governor General, have that GG democratically elected, and make Canada more representive of Canada and not just the Queen. You said the sun has set for my statement, the sun also has set for the British Empire, and it won't ever rise for her again.

Yeah I heard about this. What a tragedy. My prayers are out for the family. Oh and this has nothing to do with gun control. You could ban guns completely and they will still be in the country illegally. Most criminals don't go to the gun store and buy guns, they usually get them illegally, which makes them impossible to track.

"Whoever controls the past controls the future; whoever controls the present, controls the past. "-George Orwell "Time will tell, sooner or later, time will tell."- Albert Einstein, Command and Conquer Red Alert

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Originally posted by: commanderkai I hate the Queen being Canada's "head of state" and paying for numerous properties for the Queen for no reason.quote> As far as I know, the only expense in Canada for the Crown is the Governor General. We would have that whether the title was Governor General, President or Grand Pooh Bah. {flame on} I think it was wise of you to move to the excited states because your attitude is surely not Canadian. {flame off} Photo: quote> Ah screw the Monarchy. Canada is multicultural, and having Britain's Queen being Canada's head of state is purely disgusting to me. Then again I'm half French and half Italian Canadian. Oh and there are more properties. There are residences for the Queen never used. I totally forgot about the Governor General. Great idea there, I don't think our Prime Minister should ask permission for an election. Plus, the Governor General wastes millions of dollars, which could be better spent on anything. It's doubling our expenses since we have the PM and the Governor General doing trips for this and that, two major residences, while one just being some figurehead for a long dead empire. I'm sure you remember the expenses of our former Governor General. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/09/18/clarkson030918.html Multiculturalism should be represented by the people of all the nationalities in Canada, and not just the British Canadians. It was probably more unCanadian saying that my view is un-Canadian because Canada shoudn't have just one view, it is many views, and thus why I don't like the Monarchy. That's one view out of many, and its a real poor representation.

I do like a Toronto type thing. Big huge downtown, but with suburbs with their own little CBDs right inside. So big interconnecting city.

Hi, I'm 17 years old, living currently in Detroit, Michigan, however I'm originally from Montreal Canada. I'm a student

My old school when I used to live in Whitby Ontario had a good number of students going. I wish I could have went. I moved to Detroit unfortunately, and because of that I wasn't able to go, that and that I hate the Queen being Canada's "head of state" and paying for numerous properties for the Queen for no reason.

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209 YAY for stereotyping. Nice way to start an arguement.quote> Ok, true, that's stereotyping. But isn't praying guy with beard = blowing up plane also a stereotype?quote> They prayed in the terminal, not on the plane, so I have read. Also, a group, coming together, asking for seat extenders, yelling in Arabic, is lacking common sense. If it was Christians, or Jews, or Hindus, or any other religious group doing this, I would believe they wouldn't try to attract attention. And anybody yelling anything that flight attendants and passengers can't understand would probably arouse questions. Plus the airplane is private property. If somebody is lacking common sense by yelling inside my private property, be it whatever it is, I'd kick them out. I don't care what they were saying or what language they said it. They'd be gone. They can, hypothetically be used as weapons.quote> Yeah, and so can my shirt. I can strangle someone with it. quote> Yes, and if somebody was taking off their shirt, you don't think that would raise questions? I'm not sure what airline you use, but I don't see too many people taking off their shirt. I must ask you, why would they ask for seatbelt extenders if they did not need their seat belts extended? Oh, because what they were doing HAD NOTHING to do with it. Yelling in Arabic, asking for Seat extenders, cursing out the US, grouping together? Nah, it was because they were racist.quote> Wouldn't you go talk to your friends and curse the 9-11 attackers if you got seperated on a plane?quote>

Originally posted by: JanYpe Uhm, special relation, NATO, UN, international community do any of those ring a bell? Isolationism is dead. It's still a stupid quote though. quote> Eh sorry not exactly what I meant. Anyway, NATO won't really do much of anything, just look at the stances of the rest of Europe. A few letters were written to release the soldiers, I won't see French or Italian soldiers really coming to help in an invasion. The United Nations is the same thing. Any military operation would be vetoed by Russia and China. George W. Wush can't really use this as a direct cause to go to war with Iran. First off, the release of 15 British soldiers as a cause of going to war won't pass in Congress being Democrat controlled. Blair however can, however I don't see him going all out war, maybe a bombing operation and a SAS operation.

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209 Let's watch george bush use this as an excuse to go to war with Iran. This is no big deal if they can get this sorted out.quote> *Looks at soldiers' nationality* How does the US get really involved here?

Originally posted by: Goldfish4209 Link ]A few Muslims get thrown off of a plane because some guy reported they prayed, chanted in Arabic, talked about Saddam Hussein, cursed the US, moved around the plane "suspiciously", and didn't use their seatbelt extenders.quote> Asking for seatbelt extenders when they don't need it, sitting closer together and moving around when they shouldn't be while its ON THE GROUND. Speaking loudly in Arabic and cursing the US on a plane on US soil filled with American citizens. The seat belt extenders are just really stupid. Why do you ask for extenders when you don't need it? You ever see those things? They can, hypothetically be used as weapons. 1. Nothing wrong with that. I suspect the guy that reported them was christian and isn't tolerant of other religions.quote> YAY for stereotyping. Nice way to start an arguement. Nothing wrong with that either. What, foreign languages are red flags now? quote> No, unless you have a bunch of passengers who should be seated far away from one another congregating and yelling in Arabic and cursing the US. 3. Again, nothing wrong with that. Do you get thrown off when you talk about Slobodan Milosevic? 4. This one I hate the most. What happened to free speech? What's wrong with it? Sure, it offends the patriotic, but it's no excuse to throw them off the plane.quote> They weren't kicked off the plane for cursing out the US. It was a part of it that attracted attention that's for sure. 5. What? I run around the plane checking out the view and nobody thinks I'm gonna blow them up.quote> You're one person. You try anything and you'd be easy to take down. Get a group of people who are grouping together for things other than "checking out the view" and you might have a problem 6. Ok, this is kinda suspicious. But can't a guy decide to not use them?quote> WHY? Why would they need them? And these guys were a few religious officials, not regular Muslim guys with nothing to do. It's not like they had nothing better to do with their lives other than kill themselves.quote> They were some Imams from some Islamic conference. What does that matter though? A number of the 9-11 highjackers were from middle and upperclass families. I'm sure they could of done more then cause one of the biggest attacks on US soil. And then these guys were questioned for hours. I too have had it with racist airport officials questioning anyone that fits a racial stereotype.quote> Oh, because what they were doing HAD NOTHING to do with it. Yelling in Arabic, asking for Seat extenders, cursing out the US, grouping together? Nah, it was because they were racist. Another thing I find interesting: if you've supposedly saved a whole plane of people from "imminent doom," wouldn't you be proud to let people know who you were?quote> Hell no, look at your reaction to these passengers. I'm sure they would love this crap, oh and the lawsuit to beat.

As much as I would pick a Canadian city, I say something where it's been little developed. Sure Tokyo or New York...but put in where? In the water? On top of another skyscraper? Nah. Alright, if this is a Star Trek type thing. I would choose Africa somewhere. I'd say Narobi or even in South Africa. Plenty of land to toss around. You want somewhere that won't get shattered by an Earthquake, so bye bye Japan and western North America. You don't want it in Europe since it holds nearly every UN division in existance. No Tornadoes, so bye bye Central US. No Tsunamis, so bye bye coastal cities. Somewhere in Northern North America, like Southern Canada aka Toronto, or in Africa would be best and safest. The currency should be new too. The Federation credit or whatever

Honestly. It's a tie, I love the old European styles, especially churches, but I like the modern American look. Plus cities like Boston, Montreal and New York mix in some old buildings along with modern sleekness

Montreal or Quebec City. I hate Toronto with a passion for some reason.