"on an eastbound Greyhound bus on the Trans-Canada Highway about 20 kilometres west of Portage la Prairie."

and:

"He must have stabbed him 50 times or 60 times," said Caton.
"Like, just everywhere, arms, legs, neck, chest, guts, wherever he could swing it, he got it," said Olmstead.

20km is quite a really long way, almost impossible to bridge, if you're injured that badly though..

As for the knife:
"Caton said he heard a "blood-curdling scream" and turned around to see the attacker holding a large "Rambo" hunting knife above the victim, "continually stabbing him in the chest area.""

Yes it was. With the rise of the cities in the 11th to 14th century, serfdom was abandonned for more commercial-orientated surplus extraction system. During the 12th century, serfdom had disappeared almost everywhere. Eastern European countries with low urbanisation like Poland however did suffer a 2nd serfdom, wich came to rise in the 16th century..

"You seem to be forgetting that 99% of europeans were slaves in their own land for more than a thousand years...
you were slaves for 150 years...
If we've gotten over why shouldn't you..."

I'm not even going to point out the historical errors in this post, but directly ask the question: What retard taught you all this rubbish?

"The real issue isn't about wether guns would have changed anything. I don't think it would have."

"ofcoarse you dont think so, you're against the use of guns"

The man stabbed the lad several times, without any reason; so no one saw it coming. The lad would have died anyway, he was have been injured too badly to survive before anyone realised what was going on. In the best case, some cold blooded person shoots the murderer, but you still end up with the same loss of life as now.  Thus: having gun carrying people on the bus wouldn't have made zero difference.

Grease, some sort of Jazz? I must have had a different version then!

I'm merely extinguishing historical errors as this thread goes on. I can't be bothered about the American elections (at least not on such a close distance)..

"im surprised the people have no problem with the government controlling what information they get."

If you don't know any better, you're happy with it.

Jazz is not my cup of tea lad. I'm sorry..

He was indeed a relative of Julius Caesar (a great-nephew or something), but Augustus was in fact the first real emperor. Julius Caesar merely combined different positions wich made him the absolute ruler of the Roman empire.

And collects agricultural money of the EU!

"i don't understand the idea of royalty..... at birth, without public opinion, they are given power money and respect... having earned none of it.
you forget that these people made all of this money, and ownership of lands through the suffering of you ancestors...... kind of like the colonist did off the slaves, but in this case it's still going on ...???... think about that for a minute."

We chose our first king. Leopold I was chosen by the Belgians, and he accepted it. He was a limp part of the English Royal family when his wife died, but accepted to be king rather than doing nothing or the rest of his life. Also, our king a has zero power, in fact he has less power than your or any other president. He's the executive power, and has to make every law valid by ratifying it, but he has no right to veto or anything. His role is to be a neutral beacon in a nation that consists out of 2 groups. The only thing he can do is pick a person (among the electorial winners) that forms a new goverment after the elections.

"The members of the Royal House of Oranje-Nassau has always been a beacon of stability for the Kingdom. They're proffesionals through and through, well versed and capable at what they do. Their neverending effort to promote our nation across the world has given rise to many profitable trade agreements."

Same as in Belgium, I think. The sole role of our king's to be a referee between different political players (who often polarize due to different political ideas and who are afraid to lose a lot of voters). I wouldn't call them "professionals through and through", but they're the best possible people to do the job. And indeed, they they're good for the economy. They hold a vast network of international contacts (with other princes, large industrial leaders etc, wich they build up at elite schools (like Beau Soleil in Villars) ) and their economic missions and so on. It's proven that a royal family is very profitable for the economy, more than a president.

Also, a president would be a terrible choice in the case of Belgium, when you consider the shifting of votes among different parties in both wallonian and flemish parties. It's more than likely to assume that we would have a different president with every new election. The problem is that we'd have to pay a vast amount of money to different retired presidents. People nag about the dotations we pay to the king, but it's be nothing compared to that (although, I do think we shouldn't give dotations to every prince, mbut merely to the first in line.

While we're going off-topic:

"the fact is because of medical technology we are living longer than in the recent past, it was amazing for some one to even live to be 40 in the years of our independence."

A healthy man normally should live past his 40th birthday in those days. I think 45 to 50 is more correct. Although it should be noted that women often died earlier, as the chance to die while giving birth was 1 out of 6. And obviously, wealthy men usually grew older than their poorer counterparts. For example: Philip II of Spain died on the age of 72 (16th century and 200 years before the American Revolution).
Another thing is not the fact that medical technology made people live longer, but merely different opinions on how people got sick. One of the most accepted theories in the late 18th and early 19th century was that a bad smell caused diseases, wich led to serious changes in hygiene. People started to fill up or to vault smelly waters, rather than to drink from it (instead they used groundwater) and things like that. This caused the largest change in life expectancy, medicinan advances did their part too, but not in that amount..

All this comes from a standard work (Vrijen en trouwen van de Middeleeuwen tot heden) about demography in dutch historical literature by Chris Vandenbroucke. Perhaps it's been translated, that I don't know