Yaro

If you’re going to say I am wrong please point out where I am wrong. The divorce laws ARE 30 years old and are incredibly outdated, even before this you would be hard pressed to find many circumstances where divorced women were treated unfairly except rural Alberta. This was not the standard as this case was severe enough to have overhauled the whole system. Furthermore this woman was clearly an idiot for allowing her husband to maintain the entire estate in his own name. This was however a different time and clearly she deserved a significant settlement. Again this is your opinion, I have never been married, and I have never been divorced but I don't think that there is any real doubt at this time that divorce laws are slanted heavily towards women and you have shown absolutely nothing to refute this. So will I, what is your point? Prior to 1975 there weren't a significant number of divorces, there wasn't a significant need for any kind of real divorce legislation. First off, you know nothing about me. Incredibly dominant and privileged? I am not native, I don't get grants for my race/sex, I don't have bursaries for my race/sex and companies don't have quota's to fill for my race and sex. No minority group calls me there own and is happy to provide me with work at a place of employment which is almost exclusively made up of my own race. Such demographics at an establishment of white males could be legally sued. I have no privilege, in fact my position is the antithesis of privileged. I see now, you just hate white men. Men get paid more then women because they are an imperically more valuable asset, they don't take sick or stress leave as often as men, they don't get pregnant and they do more work. Men dominate the positions in there family because they are genetically built for it, have a problem with it? Go beat on Darwin for a while. As for white men in politics and business, bullshit. The Equal rights movement achieved equality on most fronts by the late 80's, you pointing to a pair if institutions full of 45-60 year olds and saying that they should reflect the current reality shows poor math skills. At the end of the day women have massive advantages over men in modern society, they are encouraged both socially and financially to achieve more. That is not justifiable, the same can be said of other races and white people. Society owes to each individual the opportunity to make of themselves what they wish and are capable of. Society does not owe equality of outcome just equality of opportunity. You don't know dick, as someone who has hired many people; the reason men are hired before women is simple, reasonable and obvious. Hiring women is more expensive then hiring men, this is life. Again women get pregnant, women take more stress and sick leave, and women do less work. I am all for equal pay for equal work. However the statistics show that you are more likely to get more work out of a man. Because there was a time when men ran the world, and women were treated unfairly. What does this have to do with current reality? Again what does this have to do with current reality? Are you this simple that you’re comparing 40 years ago to today? It’s completely asinine, there isn't a segment of society where there isn't a double standard against white males. That’s the current reality as opposed to the fact that women and minority groups experienced similar realities in the past. Could you please actually show me by what legal mechanism white men have it so good? Until then you’re just spouting off with little to no actual information to back you up. There is no such thing as be a man. Women wanted, fought for, and got equality (with my full support). No a woman is not entitled to 50% of everything in a marriage morally, they are entitled to 50% of the amount earned in the confines of the marriage. What does this have to do with anything? Either partner is entitled to the opportunity to gain the same education, at the expense of other if that is deemed fair. Saying that you deserve a chunk of compensation for the work of your long divorced partner instead of saying that you have the right to the opportunity to build the same practice is ludicrous. Of course this is exactly what I have been saying since the beginning, each person is responsible for the deals they make. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with it, it’s a useless 3rd wheel. However this is of course pretending that courts don't tear up pre-nups they consider unfair (which is something they do with some regularity right now). As an aside its clearly you that doesn't view women as equals as you seem to be spending allot of time simply arguing on the basis of being a man, what exactly is a man to you? Because by the definition that you seem to hold it’s clear that you believe a man is superior to a woman.

You are leaving the term efficiency and going into the nature of customer care. I have no problem with people arguing that better service is needed but the term efficiency should not be used as it’s not relevant. I agree, and I stated as much there are inefficiencies in our system because of under funding and underutilization. Everyone knows this but it doesn't matter whether we have a public or a private system without more funding we aren't going to improve this. Again this has nothing to do with efficiencies other then as they apply to underutilization and capitalization. Regardless of what level we fund our public system to the comparative ROI is going to be better then a private system. There are literally hundreds of papers showing that public healthcare is more efficient and there’s literally a couple by organizations like the Fraser Institute who show otherwise. This is also another area which can create many issues, I have no problem with a private parallel system competing with the public system but in the full private-competitive models there are costs which come into play which make the system impossible to run as efficiently as a public system. Advertising, Administration, and profit margin make competing on efficiency with a public system impossible. The reason we will look more like the US is pretty simple really, markets in logistical proximity tend to develop along similar lines. Canada being so close to the US that we are nearly fully integrated means that we face many of the same forces from lobbyists to high practitioner costs (health care professionals in Europe make almost 1/2 as much as they do in Canada). Unfortunately because there is so much disinformation and there is nobody arguing with self interest for the public system I think we will probably end up with a US style system which will just end up hurting us all.

Do you have any evidence that marriage produces a better society? Even a hypothesis, I have heard this a great many times but have yet to see even a half assed bit of reasoning behind it? Again what burden on society? Your opinion is predicated on a rather specious bit of reasoning. An opinion is demi- legalize is still just an opinion, this opinion is based on the notion that we don't live in a society that is based on personal responsibility. Your interpretation of the reason the state exists is also interesting, the state exists to serve the WILL of the people, not for the good of the people which are not always the same thing. Children should not be left wards of the state, which says nothing about the nature of the division of the child’s time nor the nature of the best interests of the child. I don't think anyone is suggesting that children be abandoned because they there is a divorce but the notion that a custodial parent deserves "pay" to raise a child which is what spousal support amounts to is ludicrous. We no longer live in a patriarchal society and our divorce agreements and laws should reflect that. I agree that it is certainly not in the spirit of the constitution for there to be a gay marriage amendment but since the constitution is the ultimate law of the land pretty much anything stuck in there is constitutional. I think what you should be railing against is the methodology for changing the constitution which imo should be a 70% national referendum. I think this would be more in keeping with the nature of the constitution. I also think it would have been wise to create a super-constitutional legal document that outlines the nature of what belongs in the constitution, noting certain criteria, such as no language referring to ethnic/racial/sexual etc... Groups. This type of a document could have a higher standard to help prevent any kind of hypocritical BS from entering the constitution.

Absolutely, only someone with little to no experience with the American political system would ever say that freedom of speech is greater there then here. And you would be very wrong, there are many things you can't say in the US that you can say in Canada and there hate crime legislation are just as tough if not tougher then ours. Thats before you get into the insane patriot act legalities.

Unfortunately our divorce laws are rather archaic, what we need to do is update them. For those that don't know or don't understand why our divorce laws are so insanely slanted towards women (which they are) it’s rather simple. There was a time when males were the bread winners and women kept house, that was the reality and it wasn't that long ago. It simply wasn't realistic in any way to expect a woman, 50 years ago, to support herself after 25 years of keeping house. Unfortunately the bias in child custody has combined with the fact that our laws on the subject haven't been updated in generations to form one of the worst countries in the world to be a man in. The government simply has no place in marriage, if people want to make a marriage contract then that’s there business and these contracts should stipulate the terms of there agreement. In the absence of a contract then the same laws that rule in the case of any other legal division of partnership should rule.

I wasn't refering to the NAFTA agreement on energy, I believe there was a specific treaty signed which stated we couldn't drop the % of oil shiped to the US (% vs production). Maybe I am insane though...

This is actually a good point, but this is actually one of the good things about buying Russian as they provide the specs necessary for countries to build there own spare parts as the US doesn’t. It’s actually one of the big benefits and why I tend to look at Russian equipment readily. Another good point, we would definitely have to come to some kind of agreement with a basket of nations, but I figure if Romania can build F16's and Apaches then we should be able to find people to purchase our productions. But I would certainly agree that we would have to line our ducks up before proceeding. That’s true we did pay allot more, but isn't there a certain pride knowing that as of right now we have the best frigates in the world? The reason that IMO a small group of these heavy lifters would be a good idea is because there are so many nations around the world that are in exactly the same boat as Canada when it comes to moving there heavy equipment. The market for these lifters would more then make up there purchase and cost in fairly short order at the rates that we are charged. I think there was, but since the US is building 8 bases there that seemed directly aimed at threatening China and Russia I think its time we left to be honest .

I’m shocked that you can't understand the fact that I value honesty for the sake of honesty, I really am. Lie? Sigh, the Canadian military has always maintained a certain amount of international respect for its ability to simply carry out the governments instructions without becoming a mouth piece or a platform for hairless monkeys. That doesn't change the fact that most people in the military have way to much testosterone, they are monkeys/apes. People who join the military tend to be aggressive, violent, and/or anti-social. This is historical fact and this is the reason I don't want some general sounding off, I understand the need for the military and I understand the difficult job our military in particular has but that doesn't change the nature of the majority of people in the military (any military). Soviet era Russia produced many of the world’s best engineers, doctors, writers, and the world’s undisputedly best programmers. Russian doctors pioneered many procedures with substandard equipment, there are a great many innovations that were developed in the communist block that are in common use today and they were certainly every bit as qualified as there western counterparts. Romania in particular produced many of the world’s best doctors and has several of the world’s best medical schools and a very very long tradition. I see, so the propaganda that they were fed makes them ignorant while the propaganda that we were fed makes us? Perhaps you should read a book on the USSR in the 20s-40s and the 50s, you might be surprised by what you find. Your going to use the honesty required for learning idea on me? I suggest you go back and read your posts because of the two of us clearly I am the one more well educated on this topic. These countries were all EXTREMELY socialist, far more socialist then present day Canada. Once again you only betray your ignorance by claiming otherwise, they had highly regulated markets and extremely flat wealth scales. That’s cool, I have no problem with your opinion. I disagree, but perhaps that’s because I tend to think of socialism as something different then you do.

I stole the following from another message board, total and complete plagerism. I don't know much about it but I will be researching its validity, anyone else know anything?

Gwynne Dyer is an excellent author and a brilliant political prognosticator; he has several extremely good books. If you can get your hands on an original copy of his book war he predicts the Iraq invasion as well as virtually every side effect of it stunningly 15(86' I believe) years before Bush came to office, its really quite frightening. His follow up book Ignorant armies is just as good. If you want to know where the world is headed he has as good an analytical mind for it as anyone on the planet.

Actually they will hardly make anything, by the time the Tar Sands are truly needed Bio-Diesel Hybrids will be long since practical. I think that Alberta has a very good 10-25 year economic outlook, past that they have very little going for them geography and weather being what it is in Alberta. Nobody is going to stay in Alberta when it’s no longer subsidized by oil and mining, what will be the difference between Texas and Alberta besides the weather?

Riiiiight... So now Alberta is going to win a war with the rest of us? I will admit your entertaining. Just out of curiousity when did you drop out of school?

Oh great, now were gonna buy French weaponry. The only good weapons the French have were designed by the Germans (like there newest LeClerc). What I really wish the Canadian military would do is buy 5 of these: AN-124 Buying 5 of these would actually be a profitable enterprise just by renting out the moving capacity during downtime to other nations as Canada currently does with other countries to get there equipment moved. Or if we really wanted to get ambishus we should hire the old design staff for the old Russian elekto planes. If we could get a Canadian company to get a head start on that it would be an unbelieveable windfall in jobs and money. Although I can't seem to find any links for it, maybe I am spelling it wrong? Does anyone else know what I am talking about?

I think it’s probably helped the conservatives in the same way that talk radio has, conservatives tend to be a little louder and more aggressive so they tend to get there message across a little more on open mediums like the internet.

I am not defending communism because I am "protecting communism". I don't like lies, whether they are about capitalism, communism, fascism, the church, Charles Manson, Hitler, martin Luther king, or Gandhi. Communism has enough bad points that lies don't need to be made up about it for it to be effectively argued against. Because apparently, unlike you, I value honesty in a discussion, I consider it to be of the highest importance if anything of value is ever to come from it. Rhetoric is for politicians and talk shows, not for mature discussion. Actually it’s a lie if you state it as fact and you have no information to back you up or if you just don't know. I don't have the burden of proof since I didn't make the original statement. But here’s an excerpt from one paper on the subject, and this paper doesn't examine the fact that the most highly educated portion of communist societies were much larger then there western counterparts. In fact they were far too large, so large that at one point the USSR used doctorate level mathematicians in there tanks. And if one examines socialist (in the modern sense of the word) nations the contrast becomes even more stark. Iraq, Japan, Germany all socialist countries had the highest levels of education in there respective spheres.

Actually BC has the best natural port in NA, and is the worlds only remaining super rain forest. BC is in MUCH better shape long term then is Alberta.

Just out of curiosity Rbacon do you know how much equilization payments are in the US? Oh and shipping through US ports costs about twice as much as shipping through BC ports. Theres also the fact that the land on which the Trans Canada runs as well as the land on which the railways run is fedrally owned land. If anyone is punch WAY above there weight its Alberta whos economy (dispite there oil) is still expected to grow less then BC's. Theres a difference between a growth economy (BC and Alberta) and a maintanince economy (Ontario & Quebec) I suspect that there are alot of people out west that will be learning some incredibly difficult lessons in the not to distant future.

Oh I understand you’re trying to define the upper limit of how dense one sock puppet can be... I understand. As for freedom of choice, I am all for freedom of choice right up to the point where it interferes with mine. You can live as anti social a life as you want just so long as you do it without causing harm to me or mine. Difficult to understand? Backpedal a little faster your almost there, when he made his statement he was referring to social freedoms just because you lost track or didn't bother to read the posts since then doesn't make me look bad, get it? Personally I am all for personal freedom, I don't care what you do with your life. You want to put a gun in your mouth? Ok by me. You want to live in a cave and hump your dog every night? No skin off my nose. You want to breathe smoke in my face? Well that affects me, and when you’re not on your private residential property I don't have to move an inch to expect to not be affected by your shit. What you made was an asinine statement with no basis in reality, what you did was present your rather ignorant and as usual arrogant opinion as fact. That is a lie, get it? If you had put an IMO, IMHO, or said I think in front of that trash piece then everything is fine, sure you’re not too bright but at least you’re not a liar.

Yup spending was certienly never a problem for Mulroney, he sure could borrow money.

Are you trying to prove what a simpleton you are? Trying to define the word maybe? The Canadian military has the respect of governments all over the world for doing what they are asked to do and not becoming a political entity. Is that clear enough for you? The vast majority of military people are social rejects, human history has displayed this well enough but by all means show the man occasions in which the military has proven to be the refuge of the intellectual giants. I know more about the military then you could ever dream of knowing. The military pay rates are PATHETIC; if you knew anything about the military you would know this. What has largely happened in the military however is that in order to maintain people and to justify paying them higher wages many have received undue promotions to the point where our military is insanely top heavy in officers. The reason I don't want more soldiers is because there will never be an occasion in which a large conventional force is relevant and our military is pretty proportional with every other military in the western world outside the US. But you know all this with your well researched position so I don't know why I bothered. And of course the typical Argus stupidity, I could care less about the US, I just realize (through actual thought and research) that following there methodology in the new reality isn't viable. But I can certainly understand your steadfast reliance on talk radio and Fox news to provide you with your view. As for military equipment, I will be brief. You have no idea what your talking about, you are so far out of your depth talking about military equipment with me you might as well take a good long run at brick wall right now. American equipment is overrated, way overpriced and extremely unreliable. Among those that know about these things American military productions have become something of a joke always run up in cost and with released specifications way above there actual practical capabilities there are many many examples of Russian equipment built in the 70's that outperforms all but the very best current gear. The Su-35F is the best current fighter in the world; it is well suited to the Canadian environment being highly resistant to the weather and has extremely long range. It is a near perfect fit for the Canadian environment; did I mention that it doesn't inexplicably crash periodically as well? The Black Eagle is one of, if not, the best MBT's in the world. It is tough enough to have a negative penetration on anything short of a 132 at all angles. It is lighter, faster and better armed the M1A2. The only weakness the vehicle has is its electronics suit which we could upgrade ourselves. Both of these pieces of equipment could be obtained for far cheaper (read about 1/2 the price) of the crap that we buy from the US. Third rate crap? I am talking about the luxury editions. I wouldn't want any consistent solutions, there’s no point. I want them for the same reason that everyone else wants them because without them nobody respects you. The fact that your so pro American and anti nuke speaks nicely to your ignorance though. We should double our spending in our military to develop a small elite conventional force that can serve our purposes anywhere and we should have a nuclear deterrent which would, you know, deter anyone regardless of who they are or where there from thinking about "claiming Canada". I kind of feel sorry for you, I keep shooting you with a 44 and you keep hitting me with spitballs.

Long standing tradition has been that Canadian generals have not spoken of anything but clear facts, clearly this man wishes to push us towards a more personality driven military. I am saying there are no benefits to letting a monkey operate a type writer, and monkeys are what most military men are. I for one believe that we should be doubling our military expenditures, I don't think we need a larger military but we certainly need a better equipped and paid one. But I would put the caveat of never again buying any American equipment. I am sure that we could manage to sweet talk the Russians into selling us a hundred or so Su-35's and some T 95s or Black Eagles until we got our own productions up to speed. It would also be nice to build and maintain about 300 or so long range 10-30 megaton nukes, seems that nobody gets to sit at the big table without them. As for the Americans, I ask you who gives a shit how the Americans do it? They are a country born by the sword who doesn't yet realize the sword has become largely irrelevant. If you’re hitching your wagon to the "American way" then you had best prepare for the reality that it’s going to be a short bumpy ride. In the end it’s once again obvious you have no clue what you are talking about, it’s sad that you’re so representative of the increasingly uneducated population.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? It is a workplace, it falls under the jurisdiction of a workplace, and this isn't a private residence. We are NOT talking about a social safety net, we are talking about the totality of freedoms of which restrictions created by the existence of a social safety net are a miniscule part. But please prattle on its amusing. Really, so you didn't just lie in this thread about the education levels of socialist/communist countries? That’s fascinating and no, I had never seen this site before a week ago and the idea of you beating me at anything is nothing short absurd. In this thread you have yet to make a single intelligent point much less the plethora of them that would be required for you to be considered mediocre.

But what do you think of that? I don't know what I think but I sure don't like the fact that we signed a treaty that barred us from reducing that total.

The question of course becomes what level becomes the primary level of government? The provincial level? The municipal level? I think there is real value in the notion of the modern city state, with micro manufacturing costs coming more and more inline with macro costs and the rising costs of logistics it may become a defacto reality at some point.

ok then I am kind of having trouble with why people are mad at parish, this general has absolutely NO BUISNESS at all giving his opinions on anything but direct military evolutions okayed by the government. He’s not an elected official and he should be muzzled, not having moronic generals go off at press conferences is one of the reasons that the Canadian military has always maintained a respectability not found in most other nations. It’s not something I am anxious to see change. Regardless of whether you agree with him, he should keep his mouth shut.