Yaro

Bertuzzi's assault doesn't even rank in the top 25 incidents in hockey history. Just curious how you feel about Bobby Clarke's incident with Kharlamov? The whole argument is asinine, the incident 99/100 would have resulted in a headache and because of unlucky circumstances and a large group of people who know little to nothing about hockey this has been blown way out of proportion. No he doesn't, hes had a couple of incidents hardly a long history and in every incident he as standing up for a teammate who had taken a cheap shot. Never actually competed at a very high level of anything have you? Because there is no such thing as sportsmanship which you get to the level that Bertuzzi has reached, there is only the appearance of sportsmanship. He got exactly what he would have gotten if it had happened on the street, a slap on the wrist. Its funny you should bring up Joe, since hes been a huge supporter of Bertuzzi's throughout the entire ordeal. But of course calling Moores neck broken is as honest as saying someone who gets a chipped touch has a broken jaw.

But what provisions does it contravene? Thats my question you say it does, but I don't see how? As for the international covenant's; the reason I saw I could care less is because nobody else cares. I am not in favor of Canada playing by rules that nobody else does, if everyone else starts then I would be in favor of it as well. I will do some research before commenting, its an interesting part of Canadian social history that I am obviously not well informed about.

Which is why I say we build 300 small cap nukes point them at the US, then we are all equal. Because at the end of the day the only requirement for the big boy table militarily is to be able to destroy your opponent. Economically we are already FAR more important going forward then the US.

It is irrelevant what % of the population is bilingual although it is most certainly FAR greater then 4% since a large % of university graduates required french fluency less then 10 years ago for entrance. My statement was that learning a second language was hardly an onerous requirement, at most fluency in french would require a year of night school. Again irrelevant, the fact that a higher % of francophone's are bi lingual is the cause not a bias towards francophone's. None of which is even slightly relevant. Canada is a bilingual country, not a primary and secondary language, 2 primary languages. Which section of the charter does it contravene? I thought it had already passed a charter challenge? and if it hasn't I can't imagine why it hasn't gotten that far? As for the international law, I don't really care. Wake me when we actually can all agree on a binding international law structure and a solid method of enforcement. It should also be noted that I don't personally like the language laws in Quebec and don't consider them a related issue to bilingualism in the federal workforce. Every young anglo in the country who goes to school has the opportunity to learn French. Again this is not uneven application of criteria which is the basis of discrimination. The only question is whether the requirement of bilingualism as it stands in and of itself is reasonable. I think it is.

Fuel taxes have remained constant. No we don't, welfare has been cut to the bone. You should do some research on this issue, a good place to start is how the liberals in BC (which are really the old Socred party under the liberal name) tried to cut welfare lists in BC and found that there simply wasn't anyone that was employable. Those programs are long gone, nobody qualifies after a short off season anymore. Our Pension plan is one of the only fully funded plans in the world, and the liberals did that while cutting one of the heaviest deficits in the western world. That’s 4 factual errors out of what? 6 statements? But I don't get it, haven't you argued in the past that the fact that we import all these goods from china and have a trade deficit with them is beneficial to us? As I said before, your issues are with RoL (return on Labour) being driven down by competition with slave labour markets like China. The Conservatives are the last party you should want in power.

Ok, my objections are put aside then, the original article was poorly written and implied several untrue things. This is essentially the French model which I have no problem with.

The US needs us far more then we need them. You can say as many a time as you wish that it’s not true, but that won't make it so. NAFTA was, in practice, an agreement of access to there market in exchange for access to our resources. They pushed for it far harder then we did.

This is just sad, while I agree that the language laws in Quebec were ludicrous the fact of the matter is they don't contravene the charter. Your problem is with the federal government for not cracking down on Quebec on this matter, but wait doesn’t you want a decentralization of power? It’s all so confusing when you’re trying to keep track of a 10 year olds belief system. There is nothing wrong with wanting BI LINGUIAL workers for government jobs, French only speaking Canadians have no advantage over English only speaking Canadians. Either way the requirement of semi bilingualism (since the vast majority of government employees have poor French skills at best in my experience) is hardly significantly onerous.

Yes, it is possible to have a religious marriage with no civil contract (although not common). I agree that the governments role in marriage is outdated and should be done away with, it’s a holdover from before women became responsible for there own well being. Sure, the whole purpose of civil sanction is the acceptance of the civil contract of marriage. Even today I suppose you could engage in a religious ceremony and have a custom contract although I don't know if it’s done in practice. Only if you have gone through with the acceptance of the civil contract represented by marriage. You can have a contract which supersedes the civil marriage contract that does not have to be registered with the government. The marriage contract and its registration are not mandatory. While I am aware that many cultures have and do practice that tradition, a parent cannot legally entire a child into a binding marriage contract without the child’s consent. The state provides certain criteria which must be met to gain certain privileges, those privileges considered to be net positives in most circumstances are something that most apply for, but it is not necessary. A couple can make any type of contract they wish and call themselves married, saying that your married in the eyes of the government is what your talking about, and since I don't see a way for people to seek the blessing of the government without involving the government then I think your going a little circular on your logic. While I agree that the government is to involved in personal lives, pre nuptial agreements are not often overturned and when they are it is virtually always based upon the actual language of the agreement (from my admittedly limited research on the topic).

In a civil marriage the state takes the role of the church, when you get married by your church are you marrying your church? It is possible to get married and have no civil attachment. Marriage in Canada has certain legal ramifications, a marriage licence is an acknowledgement of acceptance for that agreement. We have no fault divorce, you can get a divorce anytime you want the courts have nothing to say on the issue. Legally nobody can choose your spouse regardless of your age. Absolutely or you can enter into a legal contract which supersedes common-law with whatever type of arrangement you want. The government dictates to a great extent what one can have in a contract and what one cannot. Contracts cannot violate basic charter rights for one. At the end of the day though IMO, the government has no business in marriage. Let there be some standard contracts commonly available covering different types of relationships and let that be the end of the involvement.

Lawyer, same as in the US. Theres very little difference in the process really.

I don't get you guys, who cares what they say? Tucker lashing out at Canada because he had just been destroyed by Parrish is hardly surprising or really of any import at all. Freedom of speech, there's always going to be people that say stupid things on both sides of the border.

The provinces do run there own healthcare, the federal has been handing out the money no strings attached. Whether thats good or bad I don't know.

The insane tangent was the internet, not the issues with mail (which wasn't brought up and is a legitimate concern), but in no reasonable way is a new service provider like a a new technology.

Because it didn't cost 20 million, that was the Alberta Government's Contribution. So again no you don't know what your talking about. Its also ludicrous to compare the National spending on health care from the federal government to a special project for 1200 surgeries in Alberta. It should also be noted that under utilization of facilities was one of the major issues cited in every evaluation of Canada's health care system, this isn't a private health care act these are doctors performing operations in public facilities that have been underutilized due to largely exhorbinant doctors fees (Specialist doctors in Canada make more then in any other western nation).

Again wtf does any of this have to do with the internet? There isn't even the remotest connection here. Unless UPS is being barred from delivering mail to people, which I know for a fact there not this is completely irrelevant. Your way off on some insane tangent here how about actually discussing the topic? Canada Post is de facto not a monopoly, UPS is in direct competition, UPS is unable to compete therefore sues Canada Post on trumped up grounds in order to remove it from competition. What a retarded argument, that mail box access isn't decided on by Canada post, its chosen by the individual owners of those boxes. UPS's bone isn't with Canada Post its with landlords and strata's that don't give them access. Oh and posting an article from 1997 when New Zealand had declared bankruptcy and was run by psychotic ultra right wingers doesn't help your case it sort of embaresses it since virtually all the changes made during that period have since been overturned.

This is funny on so many levels, your first statement is meant to imply that Hans Blix is not a Hawk, when of course he is an ultra hawk, and then you don't quote the last report that he made before the attack but the one he made two weeks earlier which simply implied a bunch of unprovable suppositions. As per usual lots of words little substance, at least your consistent.

Not that I want to get into such a stupid argument, but clearly you have no idea what your talking about because the goods from Canada arrived before the Federal response in your own country. As for the notion of Canada not helping the US, I can point to half a dozen times that Canada has had no practical self interest and took actions strictly in support of our "friends" to the south but I can't come up with a single time that the US has ever helped Canada with anything without significant self interest. This has been a one way relationship in the extreme.

I won't even bother to point out the hundred reasons this is a retarded statement until you actually go read a few history books on Canada and come up with a half assed coherent argument in support of this. Wow, just wow is all I can say. I more then most Canadians have real issues with multiculturalism. But your religious beliefs mean as much to me as what the pink elephants have to say when I am drunk, in fact they mean less because at least the pink elephants are as real as my drug induced hallucinations where as your religious notions are far more fanciful.

Robinson is extremely popular period, the funny thing is that if it was Robinsons opponents that had done this he would be a pitbull about it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

WTF are you talking about? that's about the stupidest parallel ever made, this is a pair of companies in competition and UPS saying they can't compete. Canada Post doesn't need protection from anything, its UPS that's asking for protection from competition from Canada Post.

Of course its so simple! all we have to do is invent a time machine go back in time and make sure that oil develops in every province so that everyone has that extra revenue! its so obvious now! Also 7 week reduction to an 11 month average should not be referred to as a fraction which implies a small fraction. Technically 998/999 is a fraction.

Who's says the Americans are trying to screw us? Its quite clearly us who are screwing ourselves by signing agreements like NAFTA.

Yup, can't compete with public sector? Isn't the private sector always more efficient? gee that's a very difficult thing to reconcile isn't it?

Actually anyone who has ever held a position at his level knows that its not only possible he didn't know, its highly likely that he didn't know. Only people who operate in non-directional capacities can't understand how someone could not know. On a more reasoned and practical note, you have seen very little money stolen. In fact far less then in virtually any other western democracy, if you followed the politics of other countries you would know that.