Mad_Michael

Gosh, the kettle is calling the pot black here. Your communication here is as mangled and pointless as those of GWBush. Did you have a point?

Way too late for that I'm afraid. It is a done deal. The west has become their own worst enemy and adopting te mentality of the fanatics. Question is, who are more fanatical or more numerous? The Muslims or those who love to hate them? This kind of multi-culti brainwashed muzzak type of comment is tired and used up. The only reason we're still hearing this kind of hogwash is because Canada hasn't yet been inundated with the serious numbers of muslims and problems that europe has. Bemused giggles. The reason Canada doesn't have the same Muslim problem as is common in Europe is because our government doesn't treat Muslim immigrants like second-class citizens as they do in Europe (though our xenophobic Muslim-haters here in North America are working hard to re-create the European Muslim problem here). But don't let any real facts get in the way of your rant - it is much more fun and entertaining as it is. Btw, what is a "muzzak type comment"???

I'm way more worried about, or scared of, people like you than any Muslim.

The Liberal Party of Canada has never tried to hide their support for open door immigration policies. It has never been a secret. Indeed, many assert that Liberal Party support for immigration has been the backbone of Liberal party support in Toronto and the GTA for many decades now where the Liberal Party traditionally dominates. Canadian immigration policy is not some nefarious political plot. It is sound public policy that is widely supported by a majority of Canadians and his highly beneficial to all Canadians - even the xenophophic racists benefit from it.

Technically speaking, your lack of understanding of the issue doesn't prove that there is no substantive meaning in it. Nor does this mean that you don't understand the issue. "Nothing more, nothing less" is indeed precisely what the statement means. But that has huge significance that you apparently don't see. Your inability to see the significance doesn't prove there is no significance.

Yes, this is essentially true, however, it cannot be positively and/or absolutely discerned entirely from first principles nor is it self-evident. Descartes supposition does indeed stand alone in logical terms. I other words, to prove that your statement is true, you must accept Descartes' assertion as being true as the foundation of your proof. That our present day science may assert that Descartes' assertion is not medically true, this does not detract from it being logically true. This was addressed by Kant. The space-time continuim is taken as the 'first principle' for this reason. It provides context and reference points for abstract thought. The space-time continuim is a 'principle' because it is assumed, it cannot be proven by observation since one cannot absolutely trust sensory perceptions. Actually you are moving into difficult ground here since God is a potential outside force upon which Descartes' thoughts could be entirely dependent upon (cf Bishop Berkeley).

Perhaps one ought to wait to see what happens with this court case before speculating.

In the first or second cases listed, I think it might be justifiably possible to bring criminal charges against these persons (criminal negligence posing a danger to the public). In the third case, I think you'd have a hard time getting even civil charges against that person for the reason that they didn't actually or willfully infect you. And you'd have a hard time trying to prove that your infection came specifically from that person and not someone you passed by on the street that day.

Don't mess with the Honourable member for Jane-Finch! And the Honourable member for Church-Wellesley might liven things up a bit. The Legislature is rather drab.

Gibberish. Discussion quality at this forum is low at the best of times. Your contributions drag it down further.

Statistics show that up to 10% of the population have a metal illness. I'm pretty sure our present system already accounts for representation of this demographic. At least 30 in Parliament I'm sure.

Women and minorities are just as capable of sucking up to the trough as any other wannabe politician. I have no need to see the makeup of Parliament reflect exact demographics. Demographics is no substitute for good government. And you are correct. Canadians do like to defeat governments. That's what pseudo-democracy is all about. You can't trust their word about future intentions, so voting for liars is silly. But I sure can judge their term of office and decide to throw the bums out is the best policy.

Of course the President's personal affairs are no one's business. But lying about it under oath is illegal and that is the nation's business.

Way too late for that I'm afraid. It is a done deal. The west has become their own worst enemy and adopting te mentality of the fanatics. Question is, who are more fanatical or more numerous? The Muslims or those who love to hate them?

His crime was not answering questions about the relationship. The affair itself was not a crime. Actually in quite a few states in the union, adultery is in fact against the law.

Posting identical nonsense in multiple threads is the very definition of SPAM.

And someone thinks this is news? Gosh, tomorrow someone will post something saying the sky is blue!

You saying reality is subjective? You mean the Americans really were greeted with flowers by the Iraqis and there is no violence going on there at all?

Race is a subject created so racists can worry about it.

And if they are defeated they can be appointed by the list. And that is a travesty of democracy. An elite system designed by the elites, for the elites. The present system is ugly. The proposed changes are much uglier. Come October, I think it is far more important to defeat this nonsense than it is to throw McGuinty & his whole second-rate government out on their collective ass. That being said, I suppose it would be nice to do both!

Your definition suggests that the most fanatical trolls are the most serious posters. As a general rule of discussion forums, anyone on the top-ten poster list isn't pleasant to discuss anything with.

Yes, it is ironic (and fitting) that so many of these politicians with their bullhorns on 'family values' get caught by this type of thing.

Methinks the range you define is rather narrow here. Yes BC tends to supply a majority of the US export market, but Ontario & Quebec is notable in completely supplying their own domestic markets with local produce at lower prices, greater availability and higher quality than ever before. I've got several cousins in the lower mainland and they often report local 'shortages' due to demand from the US export market. Btw, rumour has it that some 90% (or more) of all indoor-grown hydroponic pot seized in North American can be traced in origin to the hybrid developed at the University of Guelph in Ontario (one of our leading agricultural academies, of course!) by some enterprising graduate students back in the late-1980's.

Canadian identity predicated upon the ugliest sport on the planet? No thank you! That's even worse (and more embarrassing) than the usual 'non-American' definition! Btw, are the hockey playoffs over yet?

Everything is always your own fault. Knowingly getting into a car is to accept the high risk of accidental death and/or dismemberment. Knowingly walking down the street is to accept the risk of getting hit by a car or breathing unhealthy exhaust fumes. Knowingly eating chocolate, salt, fried foods, white bread is to accept the risk of heart disease, hypertension and/or obesity. Riding a skateboard, rollerblades or bicycle or downhill skiing is also to knowing accept a significant risk of accidental injury. Going outdoors in the summer is to risk an insect bite and potential disease. I could list another hundred things that people knowingly do that put themselves at risk of injury or unhealth. Everything is always one's own fault, and thus, your plan here to reduce cost is just a plan to eliminate health coverage period. There is no defensible line that you can draw here that is not arbitary and subjective.