Times Square bomber is a middle aged, White, Tea Party member!

Times Square bomber foils Obama's plans.

Ann Coulter said:
After the car bomber and the diaper bomber, it has become increasingly
clear that Obama's only national defense strategy is: Let's hope their bombs don't work!
Click to expand...

You are right
he is actually hoping for an attack.
We know the measures they will ram through
as a result will make the Patriot act look like child's play.
 
jimpeel said:
ORANGES

Nothing proven that they did anything but participate in political free speech (which is verboten in Canada). [/I]
Click to expand...

Verboten, Jim? Hardly. Both of our countries have limits on free speech..Canada has a few more, including hate-speech of a very specific nature.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Birds of a feather flock together...
Your Jedi powers are not working.



Faisal Shahzad registered democrat and bush hater.

Yet another face of the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...

Claim that alleged bomber is a registered Democrat collapses
May 05, 2010 11:25 am ET — 125 Comments
Right-wing media have falsely claimed -- citing no evidence -- that alleged Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat. Media Matters for America has contacted the offices of the registrar in Shahzad's hometowns and confirmed that he is in fact not a registered voter in those towns.
Click to expand...
So much for that one.
As for the Homegrown terrorists with the crosses and the AKs, 1 out of how many are registered? Considering their viewpoint on GVT, I doubt that many are registered at all, and that those that are registered certainly would not have voted for Obama (or Hilary for that matter).
 
Gotholic said:
Just wait. I would not be surprised if there is a false flag assassination attempt that made it to look like it was right wing extremists. Obama might even get a minor flesh wound for dramatic effect.

Then the grand finale! A false flag nuclear explosion. The rest of our liberties and the Constitution will finally be put to rest.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Click to expand...

Aren't you worried that THEY might be reading this?
 
MrBishop said:
Aren't you worried that THEY might be reading this?
Click to expand...
I am if that's any consolation.

I'd be just as worried about being reported by certain people if I said anything that was even questionably reportable. Seems there are some of those types here.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
I am if that's any consolation.

I'd be just as worried about being reported by certain people if I said anything that was even questionably reportable. Seems there are some of those types here.
Click to expand...

If any of the Admins or Mods deems it prudent to remove/edit my post then I have no problem with it. I can still do it myself, not sure how long though.
 
2minkey said:
oh the drama.
Click to expand...
report.gif
REPORTED
 
MrBishop said:
Verboten, Jim? Hardly. Both of our countries have limits on free speech..Canada has a few more, including hate-speech of a very specific nature.
Click to expand...

Laws based upon nothing more than political correctness and feelings are not laws. They are tyranny in the making.

All laws metastasize into greater and greater limitations on freedom. Your "hate speech" laws will do likewise, adding more and more types of speech, until you have to wear a muzzle to keep from accidentally blurting "God bless you" to someone who sneezes.
 
Like I said, your laws are the mirror of ours and will eventually come for you, too. This will be a good mate for your double jeopardy laws.

SOURCE

Journalists cannot protect sources: top court
May 7 12:45 PM US/Eastern

Canadian media's attempt to establish a right to protect confidential sources was quashed by the nation's highest court on Friday.

In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the National Post daily to hand over to police documents obtained from a source in 2001 alleging a former prime minister's involvement in a loan scandal.

The court recognized the public's interest "in being informed about matters of public importance that may only see the light of day through the cooperation of sources who will not speak except on condition of confidentiality."

Canada's judiciary was urged to respect promises of confidentiality given to a secret source by a journalist or an editor "in appropriate circumstances."

But the public's interest "is not absolute," the court ruled. "It must be balanced against other important public interests, including the investigation of crime.

"The bottom line is that no journalist can give a source a total assurance of confidentiality. All such arrangements necessarily carry an element of risk that the source's identity will eventually be revealed," it said.

The leaked documents appeared to expose then-prime minister Jean Chretien's role in loans made to a country inn and golf course in his hometown of Shawinigan, Quebec.

The documents, provided in exchange for a broad and unconditional promise of confidentiality, allegedly showed that the owner of the golf club owed money to Chretien and planned to repay it with a loan from a federally funded bank.

But the bank complained to federal police about what it called an attempt to commit forgery and dupe the Post into publishing a story implicating a former prime minister of serious financial conflicts of interest.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police asked for the documents and the envelope containing them as evidence of the alleged forgery in order to determine the sender's identity.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court also said that a constitutional protection of freedom of expression is not limited to "traditional media" but is enjoyed by "everyone."

The rights extend to blogging, tweeting, "standing on a street corner and shouting the 'news' at passing pedestrians," as well as publishing in a national newspaper, the court said.

But granting immunity to sources deemed worthy to quote on condition of anonymity by "such a heterogeneous and ill-defined group of writers and speakers... would blow a giant hole in law enforcement and other constitutionally recognized values such as privacy," it added.

Copyright AFP 2008
Click to expand...
 
Gonz said:
Not much question there. Canada does not have freedom of the press.
Click to expand...

Sure we do. The press can print to it's heart's content.

The Press's assumption that their sources would never be checked :shrug: is another story entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top