User Profile: Canada_Goose


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [-1] December 19, 2014 at 9:42am

    If batteries are so hard to find, why is the old man using 5 to 6 cameras to film himself just sitting and talking?

  • December 17, 2014 at 4:59pm

    Because there’s a trade embargo or haven’t you heard?

    Why does the US have normalized trade relations with Saudi Arabia (oppressive tyrannical regime)? or China (communist dictatorship)?. Other than the fact that we need their oil and someone has to manufacture those jeans and iphones.

  • [1] December 17, 2014 at 4:45pm

    “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
    — George W. Bush Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] December 17, 2014 at 3:01pm

    Dude you’re the biggest buzz kill since Buzz Killington.

    The great unwashed hordes love taking selfies. So what? You seriously think the world would be a better place with no selfies? Or are you just trolling for ridicule?

    If anything it creates opportunities for entrepreneurs to make it easier to instantly click, edit upload, share, posterize etc..

    And perhaps 10 years from now when you’re telling your kids about that deer by the pond you’d wish you’d had a pic.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-1] December 17, 2014 at 12:57pm

    That’s a pretty ignorant comment.
    Been to Cuba many times, it’s essentially a police state as far as the locals are concerned so there is very little choice, but to obey the regime.
    If you actually think the people don’t yearn for freedom and a better life you are sadly mistaken. Cuban people are the truly amazing. They are incredibly talented, creative and industrious. Any diplomatic effort to unleash their potential should be welcomed and applauded.

  • [-1] December 17, 2014 at 12:28pm

    Stupid question!
    It’s not about Raul Castro, is about the Cuban people.

    Responses (5) +
  • [12] December 16, 2014 at 2:43pm

    This is pretty basic stuff.

    What’s the theme of the story? How is it expressed through the characters? Give examples.

    Elizabeth’s parents must be very proud

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] December 16, 2014 at 1:33pm

    For the legal question, there are a number of exiting treaties and international conventional ratified by the US which are clear on the legality of the techniques used by the CIA.

    As far the efficacy of torture as a technique, it’s actually simple logic or deduction.

    John Brennan was clear that it’s “unknowable” whether information obtained through torture was useful or actionable and that waterboarding KSM did not produce intelligence used in the UBL operation.

    And as per the Senate report itself, torture resulted in fabricated information and did not lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence. Mr. Brennan did not challenge this either.

    But most importantly we know that interrogators did obtain a lot of useful and actionable intelligence because the CIA and DOD conducted numerous operations to target Al Qaida leaders and foiled a number of plots. So how did they get this information? Obviously it was obtained by more traditional, tried, effective (and legal) interrogation techniques.

  • [-8] December 16, 2014 at 11:16am

    Nobody cares if you’re “sorry” or how you personally feel about torture. What people care about is if it was legal and more importantly if it was effective.

    Sadly the answer to both questions is a resounding “no”.

    Responses (2) +
  • December 15, 2014 at 4:28pm

    Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s house, his wife, his manservant or maidservant, or his a$$.

  • [2] December 15, 2014 at 3:28pm

    Celibate yes, but are they “Masters of Their Domain,” “Lords of Their Manor,” and “Queens of their Castle” ?

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] December 15, 2014 at 3:18pm

    One good turn deserves another.

    Here’s my recommendation for Mr. Beck…********-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

    Responses (1) +
  • December 12, 2014 at 9:49pm

    Facts, logic and reason will not get you anywhere here.

    One more thing I would add, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Gowdy also sit on the Benghazi House committee which is costing the taxpayers $3.0M. And that committee is so useless at this point that even FNC refuses to cover their hearings.

  • [1] December 12, 2014 at 11:29am

    Again, I am confused as to the meaning of the newfangled “Gruber” term. Does it mean to lie or to tell an uncomfortable truth?

    And does not the vote count imply that this spending bill satisfied the Hastert Rule and therefore had to brought up for a vote?

  • December 11, 2014 at 4:35pm

    As Don King would say “Only In America!”

  • [4] December 11, 2014 at 3:24pm

    I think you’re missing the point I was trying to make. I get the fact that the award is titled “Person Of the Year” despite the fact that in the past it was awarded to large groups of individuals – American soldiers, Good Samaritans etc….

    Mr. Beck is being narrow-minded because he can’t get past the title of the award itself which is actually much less relevant than who the recipient or recipients maybe. Why should Time limit itself to a single person?

    My larger point is that Mr. Beck is simply ridiculing this irrelevant detail because he disagrees with the choice Time made. Since I don’t recall him making the same comments back in 2003.

    Btw I am still struggling to understand your argument with respect to my screen name.

  • [4] December 11, 2014 at 3:05pm

    What an inane discussion.

    Mr. Beck constructs armies of America hating straw men who claim that his country is the “most racist in the world” and proceeds to talk about how he likes “legal immigrants” more than “native born Americans”. With one of his bookends chiming in on how they’re such hard workers. OMG!

    Responses (2) +
  • [5] December 11, 2014 at 2:33pm

    Beck ridiculed Time’s decision to name “Ebola fighters” the Person of the Year, saying “fighters” are not a person.

    I guess in Mr. Beck’s narrow mind American Soldiers are not a person either (2003), neither are Good Samaritans (2005), or individual content creators on the internet (2006).

    Responses (2) +
  • [-1] December 11, 2014 at 11:47am

    And a happy Molotov to you all.

  • December 11, 2014 at 11:19am

    So does this imply people choose to be gay?

    And if so does that mean people also choose to be straight?

    And taking this one step further do some choose to be completely asexual?

    Btw the now infamous Bailey and Pillard (1991) study showed that 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual which is an incredibly high proportion. So there has to be some genetic component, but since there is not 100% correlation genes may not directly influence sexuality, but something else correlated with it.

    Responses (4) +
123 To page: Go