Which Of These Questions Would You Like Answered

[Walter]

DISCLAIMER: timmie and jovin are exempt....answering questions is not their forte and Mike Harris is not one of the people listed for answers. :hys: :hys: :hys:


In light of yesterday's second round of terrorist bombings on the London subway system -- which thankfully failed to produce the intended mayhem -- we have a list of questions for those charged with keeping us safe in Canada.

To Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

In light of your statement yesterday that, "I believe -- I know -- that there are those in this country who, either alone or with others, might at some point choose to do (us) harm":

Why has it taken your government almost four years since 9/11 to even begin to admit this obvious reality?

Why did former prime minister Jean Chretien continue to insist long after Canada's security agencies revealed the existence of at least 50 terrorist groups in Canada, that there were no terrorist cells in Canada?

How much did his apparently complacent attitude work its way down into the government bureaucracy charged with keeping Canadians safe and how far are we behind in our efforts to combat terrorism and ensure our own security today as a result?

What is your response to the letter sent to you yesterday by Ron Moran, head of the Canadian Excise Union, stating that "on a daily basis, since the first bombings in London ... customs officers from across Canada have called my office to inform me that their work site is not in a state of heightened vigilance?"

To Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.

In light of your statement yesterday that, "I'd love to be able to give that assurance to Ontarians, that it's the kind of thing that would never, ever happen here ... but we're not":

Given that we no longer have enough power to adequately supply our province during a simple heat wave, what are your contingency plans to deal with a terrorist attack -- even a failed attack -- that forces the closure of a major power generating station in Ontario? (Yesterday's attacks in London largely failed, but still forced the closure of parts of the transit system for security reasons.)

To Mayor David Miller and Toronto city council.

Given TTC Chairman Howard Moscoe's statements during the last terrorist attacks in London that terrorists would probably have trouble finding Toronto since we do not have soldiers in Iraq:

Is this the view of the mayor and of city council?

Are you concerned that the chairman's statements and the attitude they suggest may detrimentally effect -- consciously or unconsciously -- the seriousness with which TTC officials charged with ensuring public safety approach their jobs?

Is he the appropriate person to chair the TTC at this time?

To CBC News Editor-in-Chief Tony Burman.

Is it your intention to continue the CBC's policy of not referring to incidents such as the London transit bombings as terrorist attacks, in the event a similar attack occurs in Canada?

How will you justify this to Canadians who pay for the CBC?

[jovin]

Why would anybody bother to even read this trash when you can't even be bothered giving the source of your quote?

[Tim]

there is a whole forum up there with 'dead end' threads that ended when we asked you for facts or to clarify your claims. The usual result is you calling Jovin a baboon, or dragging my personal life to avoid actually having a debate.

Why should anyone answer your questions or take you seriously if you don't give the same courtesy?

Perhaps some weight would be given to an article if you did that.

I suggest you grow up old man.

[Walter]

Why would anybody bother to even read this trash when you can't even be bothered giving the source of your quote?

You should be able to answer your own question.....you have read it and you have responded to it. My work is done........

[Walter]

there is a whole forum up there with 'dead end' threads that ended when we asked you for facts or to clarify your claims. The usual result is you calling Jovin a baboon, or dragging my personal life to avoid actually having a debate.

Why should anyone answer your questions or take you seriously if you don't give the same courtesy?

Perhaps some weight would be given to an article if you did that.

I suggest you grow up old man.

May I suggest that you post those questions that have not been answered...of course I mean questions that can be answered and not those rhetorical questions like my wife will ask....."What does that driver think he is doing?" or Why don't they make this in a bigger size?" etc.

[Tim]

Well take a quick trip up to your forum, and just a quick sampling will find you 1) announcing that we have been taken here in Toronto with Miller's deal with the city's garbage collectors, however after having been asked several times, you provide no information, no numbers, in fact no facts of any kind other than a couple selective numbers you read in a newspaper article (one of which was very badly written and it's author didn't seem to have any answers either...).
2) you announced again that when an upcoming election arrives we should 'file' something away, but you don't say what. Just some claims made by a Tory leader with nothing to back it up. I asked what he would have done to solve the problems, and all I got was a feeble, unsubstantiated half answer, that seems to not have anything to do with your claims. I guess if that qualifies as an answer, than I guess we can assume that is what we should 'file' away for the next election?
That's good for the Tories...

I'm still waiting for your cost analysis of public verses private garbage services. I'm afraid pulling numbers from a report doesn't say anything. You make the claim, support it.

What would make this different, is if you let go of your absolute blind faith in anything that in anyway swipes anything Miller or McGuinty, and hold everything Tory as the gospel. With no facts, nothing. If you were to post threads without such a blatant blind love for all things Tory, perhaps I might take you a little more seriously, and just might join in trashing McGuinty as well. Hell I do it in other circles with people who are a little more balanced...

[jovin]

You should be able to answer your own question.....you have read it and you have responded to it. My work is done........

Didn't read it actually. Quoted articles with no reference are meaningless. And I don't think I responded to the article, but then you may think otherwise.

[Mouse]

. My work is done........
No unlike Charles Emerson Winchester III.

"I do one thing, I do it very well, and then I move on."

[Walter]

Well take a quick trip up to your forum, and just a quick sampling will find you 1) announcing that we have been taken here in Toronto with Miller's deal with the city's garbage collectors, however after having been asked several times, you provide no information, no numbers, in fact no facts of any kind other than a couple selective numbers you read in a newspaper article (one of which was very badly written and it's author didn't seem to have any answers either...).

Offered an opinion, which seems to be the same one held by a number of people working in the media, and the knowledge that in the old City of York the cost per tonne for pickup is less than in the City of Toronto. If I am wrong then you supply the proof.

2) you announced again that when an upcoming election arrives we should 'file' something away, but you don't say what. Just some claims made by a Tory leader with nothing to back it up. I asked what he would have done to solve the problems, and all I got was a feeble, unsubstantiated half answer, that seems to not have anything to do with your claims. I guess if that qualifies as an answer, than I guess we can assume that is what we should 'file' away for the next election?
That's good for the Tories...

You can't be that stupid? When politicians are in opposition they are always campaigning and since Tory was elected you fiberals have been asking what he stands for.....this was an answer to your request. When the next election is called you are quite free to stand up and ask him where he stands and make a decision whether to vote for him or not. It is understandable that you would be so critical seeing you supported McGinty and I don't ever recall you defending his lack on action on his election promises or defending his breaking promises. Excuse me, I take back my original comment....you could be and you are.


I'm still waiting for your cost analysis of public verses private garbage services. I'm afraid pulling numbers from a report doesn't say anything. You make the claim, support it.

What would make this different, is if you let go of your absolute blind faith in anything that in anyway swipes anything Miller or McGuinty, and hold everything Tory as the gospel. With no facts, nothing. If you were to post threads without such a blatant blind love for all things Tory, perhaps I might take you a little more seriously, and just might join in trashing McGuinty as well. Hell I do it in other circles with people who are a little more balanced...

Blind faith? Hmmm! Let's put things in perspective. I don't think about McGinty and/or Tory (or you for that matter) other than when I read of hear about them mentioned in the media or in these forums and by the way these forums are not at the center of my universe. You want substantiation Google and prove me wrong.

You are not obligated to read everything I post and I am not obligated to get into substantive discussions on everything I post and that is the reason I ignore most of what you post......you are not significant enough to warrant the time.

Try originating a post............


..

[Tim]

Offered an opinion, which seems to be the same one held by a number of people working in the media, and the knowledge that in the old City of York the cost per tonne for pickup is less than in the City of Toronto. If I am wrong then you supply the proof.
Which you have never substantiated. If you want to believe tweety bird who wants to selectively quote figures from a report then that's your folly, don't expect others to swallow er, garbage without asking questions first. I prefer to live in a world with facts not biased newspaper articles. Your choice...
You can't be that stupid? When politicians are in opposition they are always campaigning and since Tory was elected you fiberals have been asking what he stands for.....this was an answer to your request. When the next election is called you are quite free to stand up and ask him where he stands and make a decision whether to vote for him or not. It is understandable that you would be so critical seeing you supported McGinty and I don't ever recall you defending his lack on action on his election promises or defending his breaking promises. Excuse me, I take back my original comment....you could be and you are.
You seem to have not gotten it yet. I'm not a 'fiberal'. I didn't support McGuinty. And I despised the liberal candidate in my area. This delusion of yours just seems to continue doesn't it? The reason I haven't defended McGuinty is because I won't. I didn't vote for him, and I never will. Why Wally is that so hard to figure out? You stated that we should 'file' something for the next election... WHAT? I asked you to clarify the rhetorical BS a little, and you failed. You failed to give me something to 'file' for the next election. Because only sheep will believe that sort of political opportunism BS, and not ask questions as to what 'his' plans are. I asked, you ignored. It's still open, I'm all ears. I never said Tory didn't have a plan, if he does, I'd love to hear it. So, what would he have done to solve the blip that he's using to cream the er, 'fiberals' with?

Blind faith? Hmmm! Let's put things in perspective. I don't think about McGinty and/or Tory (or you for that matter) other than when I read of hear about them mentioned in the media or in these forums and by the way these forums are not at the center of my universe. You want substantiation Google and prove me wrong.
You made the statement, now back it up. You said we were losers. Why? I saw no details as to why we were losers, and as a 'loser' I wanted to know why you said so. If you can't make a better case, that don't whine when I ask the 'whys'.

You are not obligated to read everything I post and I am not obligated to get into substantive discussions on everything I post and that is the reason I ignore most of what you post......you are not significant enough to warrant the time.
I do realize that substantive discussions are not your forte. You prefer to post the Sun's headlines and take them as the gospel. And if anyones tries to question the post, well, you ignore it, because I now realize, you haven't a clue about anything past those headlines. Again, it's your choice to believe without questioning the media, but I'm afraid it's not everyone's choice, and you might have to live with the idea that a forum is a free interactive place. Sorry old boy...

Try originating a post............
I've started to originate a few, but after responding t yours, my coffee time is ususally way overdue and I have to go 'pass myself off as a businessman' at some point. Perhaps I might try to originate a few more

The thing you have clearly missed is I tend to come more form a devil's advocate point of view rather than a 'leftie'. I'll give credit where it is due, but will question either party regardless of stripe on any issue. If you came from a bit more of a balanced point of view rather than your clear blind rage that Miller/McGuinty were elected, maybe you'll be taken a little more seriously.

[Quintin]

Walter, the only thing I think you do leftie is throw the raw meat into the pit to see how the pitbulls snatch it.........LOL

[Tim]

my. You don't miss a thing do you...
;)

[Just Doug1]

If you take the quoted article at face value (and finding the source is easy if you even bother), can any of you offer comments on the questions raised?

[Tim]

for what reason? To have Wally call you a baboon or feel sorry for your family and friends?

[Just Doug1]

Then ignore that and discuss it with me.

[Tim]

Then ignore that and discuss it with me.
Ok. Wally's out.

"To Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

In light of your statement yesterday that, "I believe -- I know -- that there are those in this country who, either alone or with others, might at some point choose to do (us) harm":

Why has it taken your government almost four years since 9/11 to even begin to admit this obvious reality?
Sure it's nice to hang someone here, but I'm more interested in what is being done NOW. So my question to this author is, why are you more concerned with trashing a government than looking at what is actually being done? We are interested in safety I presume...

Why did former prime minister Jean Chretien continue to insist long after Canada's security agencies revealed the existence of at least 50 terrorist groups in Canada, that there were no terrorist cells in Canada?

How much did his apparently complacent attitude work its way down into the government bureaucracy charged with keeping Canadians safe and how far are we behind in our efforts to combat terrorism and ensure our own security today as a result?
Again, it seems we are looking at something I see as a waste of time. Maybe not if your main concern is roasting a liberal government. Go ahead and roast Cretian, be my guest, I despise him like many others, but I thought we're interested in what the -current- government is doing. Not the last PM

What is your response to the letter sent to you yesterday by Ron Moran, head of the Canadian Excise Union, stating that "on a daily basis, since the first bombings in London ... customs officers from across Canada have called my office to inform me that their work site is not in a state of heightened vigilance?"
Sure. I'd be interested in the answer to that. It could be the same result as the head of the INS saying there was no way they could properly protect the US border. My that ruffled a few feathers... Lou Dobbs looked like he was going to have a coronary over that one.

To Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.

In light of your statement yesterday that, "I'd love to be able to give that assurance to Ontarians, that it's the kind of thing that would never, ever happen here ... but we're not":

Given that we no longer have enough power to adequately supply our province during a simple heat wave, what are your contingency plans to deal with a terrorist attack -- even a failed attack -- that forces the closure of a major power generating station in Ontario? (Yesterday's attacks in London largely failed, but still forced the closure of parts of the transit system for security reasons.)
Since when did we have enough power to 'adequately supply during a heat wave without pleas to conserve energy? Are Tory supporters that Moronic? I thought they had at least a little brain power to at least try and not be so blatant...
But ok, I'll let that slide a little... in the interest of safety, you know. I'd like to know. Although we did get a nice sneak preview of total blackout in ALL of Ontario for 24 hours. So I have to ask what exactly is this question asking?

To Mayor David Miller and Toronto city council.

Given TTC Chairman Howard Moscoe's statements during the last terrorist attacks in London that terrorists would probably have trouble finding Toronto since we do not have soldiers in Iraq:

Is this the view of the mayor and of city council?

Are you concerned that the chairman's statements and the attitude they suggest may detrimentally effect -- consciously or unconsciously -- the seriousness with which TTC officials charged with ensuring public safety approach their jobs?

Is he the appropriate person to chair the TTC at this time?
I would have to agree that Moscoe's words were idiotic. I would have to wonder about his commitment to safety based on those words as well, and I can't blame anyone, right OR left for jumping on him for that.

To CBC News Editor-in-Chief Tony Burman.

Is it your intention to continue the CBC's policy of not referring to incidents such as the London transit bombings as terrorist attacks, in the event a similar attack occurs in Canada?

How will you justify this to Canadians who pay for the CBC?
oh man, can they at least *try* to keep it in their pants for gawds sake? Is that a matter of national security?

[Just Doug1]

You comments would indicate that you believe the current leaders are "doing something" about the issues raised. What is it that they are doing?

[Tim]

no. I didn't say that anywhere. What I *did* say however, was I thought the author of the piece seemed quite obviously preoccupied with Cretien, our power questions in Ontario, and the CBC.
hmmmmmm...

Is this an article about the state of security here? Or a badly written piece that takes swipes at the Liberals, that failed to ask the right questions without belying it's bias?

It sort had it right with Moscoe, but how do you take seriously an article that badly written?

[Just Doug1]

That the current federal, provincial and local administrations have done little to provide any details on what are the steps (if any) being taken addressing Canadas security is telling enough.

[Tim]

well perhaps the article should have focused itself on that, rather than show it's 'belly' and swipe Cretien (who cares) and the CBC.

Perhaps that's why people don't feel like discussing an article like this.

Waste of time...

[deadkenny]

....
What would make this different, is if you let go of your absolute blind faith in anything that in anyway swipes anything Miller or McGuinty, and hold everything Tory as the gospel. With no facts, nothing. If you were to post threads without such a blatant blind love for all things Tory, perhaps I might take you a little more seriously, and just might join in trashing McGuinty as well. Hell I do it in other circles with people who are a little more balanced...

The fact that you're at the opposite end of the spectrum makes you no better.

OK, you say you want to talk about what's being done NOW. Well, what has Martin done since he got into power? Other than damage control over the sponsorship scandal and trying to buy votes in the next election with a bogus budget?

[Tim]

where did you get "opposite end of the spectrum"?

Surely you aren't as blind as Wally boy too???

[Wingnut31]

Okay all I've heard lately is how we aren't prepared or protected etc. but we have a major emergency at the airport and by all accounts the airport emergency services all responded very well, transported people to the hospital in a timely fashion etc. so that tells me maybe we are a little more prepared than the "experts" in the newspapers seem to think. Remember most of these reporters likely has no more access to what goes into getting us prepared than the average citizen does but many of them have axes to grind and do so on a regular basis.

My question to everyone is what should we prepare for?

London is likely one the most security conscience places in the world and they were still attacked, The US as we are told over & over are the world's superpower and they were attacked so in my mind as long as you have people willing to die for a cause you will never be safe from attack.

The answers are in a change in foreign policy and until that happens terrorism is still a major threat and so far I see no signs of it changing.

[deadkenny]

where did you get "opposite end of the spectrum"?

Surely you aren't as blind as Wally boy too???

You claim you want to discuss what's being done now, yet you conveniently ignore the main point of my post, which was


OK, you say you want to talk about what's being done NOW. Well, what has Martin done since he got into power? Other than damage control over the sponsorship scandal and trying to buy votes in the next election with a bogus budget?

and latch onto the comparison to Walter instead. Your reponse has just clearly demonstrated that you are no better than Walter as far as your rhetoric is concerned.

[deadkenny]

Okay all I've heard lately is how we aren't prepared or protected etc. but we have a major emergency at the airport and by all accounts the airport emergency services all responded very well, transported people to the hospital in a timely fashion etc. so that tells me maybe we are a little more prepared than the "experts" in the newspapers seem to think...

Are you seriously suggesting that the reaction to a jet skidding off the end of a runway, resulting in a couple dozen serious injuries and no fatalities demonstrates that we're in any way shape or form 'prepared' to deal with a massive terrorist attack?



....The answers are in a change in foreign policy and until that happens terrorism is still a major threat and so far I see no signs of it changing.

Exactly what foreign policy change are you suggesting that would keep Canada safe from terrorism (as if such a thing were actually possible)?

[Tim]

You claim you want to discuss what's being done now, yet you conveniently ignore the main point of my post, which was



and latch onto the comparison to Walter instead. Your reponse has just clearly demonstrated that you are no better than Walter as far as your rhetoric is concerned.

Really!!
What was your first clue????

Damn!!! Give this genius a cigar, a cognac and a helluva handshake.

[deadkenny]

Really!!
What was your first clue????

Damn!!! Give this genius a cigar, a cognac and a helluva handshake.

Another quality contribution to the debate.:rolleyes:

[Wingnut31]

Are you seriously suggesting that the reaction to a jet skidding off the end of a runway, resulting in a couple dozen serious injuries and no fatalities demonstrates that we're in any way shape or form 'prepared' to deal with a massive terrorist attack?

Nope not at all, the point was that it was handled properly, reading a certain Toronto newspaper beforehand would have left one with a feeling that anyone other than the people working for said newspaper couldn't even tie their shoes without help.

I live between Darlington & Pickering and I know if something goes wrong at either plant my evacuation center is Durham College so that also tells me we are prepared for an emergency and I think we are far more likely to have a problem there then be attacked by terrorists.

And you didn't answer my question about what exactly are we preparing for cuz we aren't going to prepare for free. Would you like to see your taxes go way up?




Exactly what foreign policy change are you suggesting that would keep Canada safe from terrorism (as if such a thing were actually possible)?
Canada's foreign policy seems to working well right now, by staying out of Iraq and BMD we've distanced ourselves from The US and that'd be my guess why we aren't high on the terrorist priority list.
As I said earlier you will never protect yourself from someone willing to die for their cause.

[Tim]

Another quality contribution to the debate.:rolleyes:

And your was? What the hell did you expect by stating the obvious?

[Tim]

Nope not at all, the point was that it was handled properly, reading a certain Toronto newspaper beforehand would have left one with a feeling that anyone other than the people working for said newspaper couldn't even tie their shoes without help.

I live between Darlington & Pickering and I know if something goes wrong at either plant my evacuation center is Durham College so that also tells me we are prepared for an emergency and I think we are far more likely to have a problem there then be attacked by terrorists.

And you didn't answer my question about what exactly are we preparing for cuz we aren't going to prepare for free. Would you like to see your taxes go way up?


Canada's foreign policy seems to working well right now, by staying out of Iraq and BMD we've distanced ourselves from The US and that'd be my guess why we aren't high on the terrorist priority list.
As I said earlier you will never protect yourself from someone willing to die for their cause.

I think you nailed it with "but many of them have axes to grind and do so on a regular basis" and that is so obvious with Mr. Ws posts it makes it an exercise in futility to have any balanced discussion about the issue when the whole purpose is to swipe the 3 Ms. Absolutely useless.

[Walter]

Walter, the only thing I think you do leftie is throw the raw meat into the pit to see how the pitbulls snatch it.........LOL

It is so easy that it is embarrasing......the discussion is about protecting Canadians from terrorism and the bubbsy twins carry on about collecting garbage........ :eri:

[Tim]

Actually Walter, the only thing you discuss is swiping the 3 Ms. It's about a useful as...
;)

[Wingnut31]

I think you nailed it with "but many of them have axes to grind and do so on a regular basis" and that is so obvious with Mr. Ws posts it makes it an exercise in futility to have any balanced discussion about the issue when the whole purpose is to swipe the 3 Ms. Absolutely useless.I haven't heard many answers from the half empty club just questions.:rrg:

[Walter]

Isn't it amazing that a stupid, poorly written article generated so much traffic? I see myself as a facilitator providing the raw material to start a discussion and my work is done once a single reply is posted.

[Tim]

continue to pat yourself on the back. I don't see any discussion, just another bad article, your evasive BS, and your final ha ha I something or other... who cares...

yippee.