SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    daycare and 24 hour personal care are two different issues. What about the superior who told her she would have to put her child in foster care? What about him?
  2. SkyDekker
    If you read carefully you would have noticed I already answered it. The first amendmend does not contain qualifiers, why would the second amendmend?
  3. SkyDekker
    yes, abandoning the child would have clearly been the better and patriotic choice.
  4. SkyDekker
    Sorry this is Speaker's Corner and that is not an option. You either agree with Ron, or you are against guns. Those are the only two options available.
  5. SkyDekker
    No, she chose what's best for her child.
  6. SkyDekker
    I am sorry I am standing in your way to tar and feather her.
  7. SkyDekker
    According to the story I read, she did exactly that. And was told she would have to ship anyways and her child would go to foster care.
  8. SkyDekker
    Umm, she had the plan in place. Her mother back very close to her deployment date. There doesn't appear to be other family capable. She decided she felt more responsible for her child than her job. I can't fault her for that choice considering the known circumstances. Don't know why you address that to me, I am neither American nor liberal.
  9. SkyDekker
    Sounds like you are assuming her fear isn't based on something a superior might have said to her.
  10. SkyDekker
    Not according to the wording of the second amendmend. The Foundinf father's were pretty clear that the right to bear arms was to keep the government in check. If they meant in general, they would have said: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Look at the first amendmend, they kept that one pretty to the point. (For those with serious reading comprehension, this does not mean I am in favour of the american government banning arms. What I do mena is that the right to bear arms in the constitution was granted for a specific purpose. Hence, arguing that the right to bear arms for another purpose is a protected right under the constitution is IMHO not valid.)
  11. SkyDekker
    How about you stick to the topic above. is the right to bear arms for self defense a right protected under the constitution? Is that your version of logical discourse? I'm also not in favour of the American government to ban weapons of any kind. Personally I think Americans should have access to any and all weapon they can purchase.
  12. SkyDekker
    Once again you misread what I wrote, but that is par for the course for you. The claim that the constitution grants you the right to have sex would indeed be false. Just as the claim that the constitution grants you the right to bear arms for self defense is false. I don't, which means that the right to bear arms to hunt is also not a right protected under the constitution.
  13. SkyDekker
    Here in Toronto, red light cameras are installed at very limited intersections and all those intersections are high collision intersections. After implementation of the RLC, the number of minor fender-benders increased. However, the number of collisions with injuries and fatalities decreased.
  14. SkyDekker
    Did I say all? To specifically exclude that, no you did not....some, subsequent to your well thought-out post, did.
  15. SkyDekker
    Except it is not a right specifically granted in the constitution for that purpose. The right to bear arms is specifically mentioned in the constitution for a different purpose. Hence, the claim that the constitution gives you the right to bear arms to defend yourself from crime is not correct.
  16. SkyDekker
    if her story is correct she had every reason to be AWOL. They treatened to take her baby and put it in foster care. Funny how the american conservatives, who normally claim to be so high and mighty on family values, are now saying this woman should be locked up for protecting her baby.
  17. SkyDekker
    So not for self defence, or also for self defence? Cause when I said that above, you told me this wasn't true.
  18. SkyDekker
    Don't know if it should be "the left" but obviously somebody needs to oversee you. Since, without oversight you tend to eat yourself to death and spend yourself into oblivion.
  19. SkyDekker
    In Ontario red light camera (dont have speed camera) fines are on the owner of the car identified in the picture. No points and no impact on insurance.
  20. SkyDekker
    from what I am reading in Canada the Khadr case isn't that sound. But, I can't say that I have seen the evidence myself. There appears to be a picture that refutes some of what the military is claiming. However, in the Khadr case, military tribunal is better option to protect the relationship with Canada, and to ensure that canada could not interject itself in the case.. There is a lot of political pressure on the PM here to interject itself.....including a case in front of our Supreme Court right now that is trying to force the government to do something...... In civilian court, Canada would have more option to interject itself with requests for extradition, requests to have the sentence served in Canada etc. If the case is in front of a military tribunal, those options are likely not on the table. This would prevent issues that could get ugly politically.
  21. SkyDekker
    Except you are ok with somebody chosing to forego their right. Like you chose to forego your right by your choice in employer. or your choice of educational facility, or your choice of shopping venue. The only difference is that you agree with the military, but not the local university or shopping mall. Lastly, as Andy has pointed out the sentence isn't as clear as you seem to think it is. For the reconrd, I would have no problem with any and all weapons being available and legal in the US. Certainly would make for an interesting social experiment.
  22. SkyDekker
    Marg, I think you might be overthinking what the deciding factors were in deciding who gets a civilian trial and who gets a military tribunal. Personally I believe a much simpler deciding factor. If the evidence was strong enough for civilian court, off to civilian court they go. If the evidence is a little iffy, off to a military tribunal they go.
  23. SkyDekker
    Yup, but that double standard has been going on here for years now.
  24. SkyDekker
    Is that your version of a substantive post? I am still waiting on your answers. If you have forgotten what the questions were, just scroll up in this thread. Its okay, I have top secret clearance, Spectre himself signed for it.
  25. SkyDekker
    Since this is your baiting poll, how about you respond to your own question? How would you respond?