betsy

Yeah. Like what...making molotove cocktails out of their beer and liquor bottles? Those so-called protests are just an excuse to have their BBQ party! These are the kinds of natives we are supporting financially for life....literally pissing their life away! And wasting our money. You can keep justifying and make excuses for their entitlements and their so-called rights....rights that has no more bearing when they go on to trample on the rights of others! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

Are you suggesting we abandon our agreements? Should the country's word mean nothing? Why should we be stuck in an agreement that is obviously bad for everyone...and that includes the Natives!

We reap what we sow. Hallelujah! That's why I think the Indians should be treated like any other tax-paying members of our society. Think of the future! Stop this special status....and entitlement mentality...cos it's only getting passed on to the next generation. Why would our future generation be saddled with the same...and worsening....burden? Yes I do believe, we reap what we sow!

I'm confused. Who are you referring to here? The Natives or the people who would civilize them through force? Yes you are confused I think. We are talking of the present now....not some decades way back!

Well, in the news, they've interviewed some passengers who got inconvenienced by these thugs. At least, one passenger was gutsy enough to say she's angry with these natives, that enough is enough! The more they do these kind of tactics, the more I find it hard to have any sympathy for their cause or their plight, or whatever it is they're whining about! If they could casually cause problems for others without any consideration at all for those who have nothing to do with their problems....then why the heck should I care about them!

We're getting a little bit into semantics here. "Diet" can be defined in a few different ways. I think the most common ones, as outlined in the dictionary, would be: - "A selection or a limitation on the amount a person eats for reducing weight" and - "The foods eaten, as by a particular person or group" When I say that diets are bad for you, I'm talking about that first definition. I, of course, don't mean that eating food is bad for you. All diets supported by the diet industry are deficient in nutrition. Instead of going on "diets", if you make an effort to actually make positive nutrition changes you can see remarkable, long lasting changes rather than short-term band-aid fixes. As for the plan that you're engaging in... I'm not sure what to think of it. It sounds kind of like a hodge-podge of different diet plans and general ideas. Have you checked with a certified professional in nutrition about this? If not, you should perhaps think about doing so. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with my diet. All I did was map it out and plan it so I make sure I don't lose out on some important nutrients and anti-oxidants. If there is anything that I'm really eating a lot of, it's vegetables! I easily accomodate 10 servings or so in a day. Which part of it do you think is of concern? My doctor had known that I was dieting. What he ordered me though was not to lose anymore weight. So that's what I'm doing now, maintaining my weight around the weight that he said was just fine. Btw, are you in any way trying to lose weight or maintaining? What do you do?

Diet takes many forms. It may be Vegetarian or Low-Fat or Cabbage-Soup or 11-Nuts or hamburgers only diet. It can also be pizza, fries, burgers, shakes, tim hortons, spaghetti all in a day. Diet is what we eat. True that there are diet fads that could be harmful and innefective in the long run.....but I'm sure, there are also some diets that need not be innefective or harmful to ourselves. It is a matter of knowing what you think will work best for you....keeping in mind, that to keep the weight off, it will mean eating like this forever. Some diets make it impossible to live on it forever. I've "tweaked" my own diet. It started as Atkins (I did the induction)....but it does not religiously follow Atkins. Mind you, I'm only doing "maintenance." I start to panic when I go up 5 lbs (that's when I go right back as close to Atkins as I can...and a couple of days doing it works for me). I know that at my age, it will be easy to balloon if I don't keep a lid on it. Some of the changes I've made to my lifestyle is making sure Friday is seafood-day (no red meat), and Saturday is my "cleansing" day meaning I only drink no-added sugar cranberry juice and water (to rinse out the kidneys), for the whole morning (eating only when I do really start feeling hungry), eating loads of cabbage once a week (to clean out the liver). I also try to make it a point that if I'm going to eat lots of carbohydrate, I make sure that day is low-fat day. Fat and lots of carbos together (like spaghetti or rice) makes me gain weight fast. On a regular basis, I don't shy away from red meat and fat....but I do eat tons (and I mean tons of veggies!). There is always a big container of green salad already washed and ready to eat in the fridge and I'm never without frozen vegetables (my preference being corn, peas and cut green beans)...and assorted fresh vegetables. I am also starting to make sure I eat lentils or beans once a week...of course on the day I eat these, it will also be low-fat day. I walk or do my own dancercise regularly as my form of exercise. What I'm trying to say is: You have to know your body....your weaknesses. It all differs from person to person.

This is a repeat of a thread that already exists. OOOPS! Please Charles Anthony, delete this for me.

They tout it as a significant coup for the NDP! http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...3c839bf&k=14293 It speaks volumes how come a former environmental minister would leave the Liberal Party to join with the NDP. This move, along with the acknowledgement of mismanagement by the Liberals regarding the environment issue, would seriously hurt Dion's attempt to be seen as the champion of environment.

Why did they gain it all back? Plus some more? Because they went back to the old habit. Dieting is intended for weight loss….and a change in eating habits and lifestyle is necessary to keep the weight off. Unless something is biologically or psychologically wrong with the person. So of course, in the end it all boils down to self-discipline. SELF-DISCIPLINE. I would rather be straightforward rather than lull them into deflecting and blurring the issue. For some, the issue is a matter of life and death. Your comment however suggests all fat people are overly sensitive and fragile…unable to face reality….that they are all in denial? You've got to face reality in order to succeed. You've got to know and understand your weaknesses in order to win. What is ridiculous is blaming the diets! You, yourself had said “diets are for losing weight..” Well, if they’d lost weight…obviously the diet delivered what it ought to. What diet had promised that you will lose weight…and never gain again, even if you go back to the old ways? Can you name one? Who made the choice to get into those diets anyway? Depends what you mean here. If they got normal weight….then why did they go into diets? Do you think it’s just for the sake of going on a diet (which I doubt it, cos like you said, who would want to starve themselves)….or because they’re trying to emulate anorexic celebrities? The latter one is most likely. Therefore in this scenario, you can’t really blame the “diet”. If the girl is obese…why shouldn’t a parent put her on a diet? The doctor can offer some healthy suggestions. The older she gets, the harder it is to lose weight…not to mention what it can do to her health and self-esteem! As for the influence of commercials….what do you think these celebrities are doing? They’re not promoting food….but a certain look or image! Why do you think McDonalds or Tim Horton have promo tie-ups with Disney? Why would these companies waste billions in advertising…if they wouldn’t be able to get more people in? It makes it harder for a lot of people to keep their weight off (after going through excruciating diets)….since a lot of these people had most probably been going to fast foods in the past. But you can make home-made meals healthy…because you’ve got control over it! That’s part of the ball game, isn’t it? TAKING CONTROL OF YOURSELF! It’s one thing if you don’t have any problems….but if you’re trying to lose weight or maintain your weight…and if you’re highly susceptible to gaining weight…boy, oh boy! Besides, most of those little frozen meals….have you seen how much veggies they’ve got in them? The kinds of protein? You’re lucky if they don’t use processed meat. And most of them have trans fat!

What cover-up? She was not hidden at all. I saw the stylist on tv....while she's preparing Harper before the camera starts rolling. The journalists were there watching....they were all waiting for the interview to start. You think she's doing it for free? For the love of Harper? Lol.

Petty? How is it petty to ask how much the taxpayer is paying for a service provided to the prime minister? I'm afraid your answer doesn't make sense. This initiative came from the media through normal channels of information access. Those channels are closed and Harper said his government would be open and transparent about access. What you are describing as a "reason" for blocking access is what you probably despised about the Liberals. It is political games being played with our tax money. As you have stated: I take it you agree with me about the necessity of having an 'image-maker" at this time in our society when practically everybody is "packaged"...and practically everyone who has savvy knows the effectiveness of having the right image. That this is just part and parcel of EMPOWERING our leader whenever he goes out there in public or have meetings with other dignitaries! There was nothing hidden about the stylist. She was there, grooming Harper infront of the journalists before they went on-camera. If she is just part of the norm, why is it suddenly important whether she's in the payroll? Don't we just all assume that she is in the payroll? So what prompted the digging by the media? And the ensuing digging from the Liberals? If she is on the payroll....so what? Why is this information suddenly so important? That's what I find petty! It's nothing more than trying to dig up dirt!

Should that tab be secret? Why isn't the image maker listed as a staff member? Why deny it if it is a cost than can be justified? Why does Parliament have to go through a long and complicated process of having to request the information? Harper has always said that freedom of information should be a hallmark of his government. The media request for information was met with stony silence and when pressed the government said no information on that subject existed. Not exactly an acceptable response when taxpayer money is being spent. Well, who knows. Maybe it is a ploy by the Cons to get the media's goat...and to sucker in some Liberal MPs, who couldn't resist to grab this bone and turn it into a contention....thus making them look so petty! P E T T Y! Ask again your question. Why do you think the Cons would do a stupid thing as hide the tab, when they know the oppostions are just waiting for something to attack them with? UNLESS they're doing it for a reason. Such as leading the Liberals to look.....uh....petty. I guess that's how Harper would want them to look like! As a taxpayer, I ask...why do these blasted MPs waste most of the time questioning fashion and hairstyles instead of discussing important issues? HAVEN'T THEY THOUGHT OF ANYTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL TO DISCUSS FOLLOWING THEIR TWO-WEEK BREAK? No wonder hardly anything got done in 13 years!

Funny Mike Duffy noted that none of the leaders from any of the other parties commented or criticized Harper. Duffy surmised that they also got their own image consultants/stylist/make-up artist/whatever they might like to call him/her. Their parties are picking the tab....which is just right since they are not sitting Prime Ministers.

You want him to use taxpayers money to have someone comb his hair? One thing is certain, you would be singing a different tune if Paul Martin had someone to comb his hair. If Paul Martin is the Prime Minister, I wouldn't be complaining either if we pick up the tab for his grooming! Let's face it....nations' leaders are also like celebrities. They tend to get their photos splashed on the front pages of newspapers or face the cameras on tv WORLDWIDE. High definition! And not everyone has the natural knack for fashion and grooming. Would I like it if Paul Martin, as the leader and representative of Canada, look so shabby beside a dapper Clinton? You think politicians do not hire consultants to teach them how to talk effectively (including body language?) Anyway, I surely wouldn't want Harper to look like Ruby Dhalla yesterday on Mike Duffy. Somebody ought to show that poor girl how to apply make-up. She looked like her face got dipped in flour...same color like her lips. But her lower neck was her own natural brown color! If she'd sat still, she could've been easily mistaken for a corpse. Night of the Living Dead! I was distracted by her looks....and hardly paid attention to what she was saying. Get the pic? And yes, WE SHOULD PAY THE TAB! The Prime Minister wouldn't be needing a personal stylist if he is not hubnubbing with other leaders, being photographed and interviewed...if he was not doing this job! It's part of the job! It comes with the job! If he wants to command attention as one of the leading world leaders in the international stage, he's got to have the looks! Why should it be said that for all our generosity to other countries' poor....we are cheapskates when it comes to our own leader? Get real!

Diet is one of the biggest money-makers in town. And it doesn't help either to have high-profile celebrities preaching. How many fads of diets (meaning, books sales) did Oprah promote so far? She goes up and down faster than any yo-yos I know...and I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up with liposuction after all! But I wouldn't point the finger of blame on diets. The finger should be pointed where it ought to. The blame lies squarely on people, who had lost control of their eating habits. In the end, it all boils down to self-discipline! Second, commercials and ads and promos provide the temptation, and makes it harder to resist. Third, it's the way we live! People are so busy that cooking becomes a big deal. So we find an abundance of these quick-fix meals that are loaded with things that are bad for you.....because they use these things to make it taste better! Whatever happened to simple cooking from basically scratch? We have no more time for those! And furthermore, parking all day infront of the tv and on the computer makes matters worst! Using the car to drive three blocks to get movies, instead of walking..... Admit it. It's the current lifestyle that plays a big role why society is literally changing shape! Diets and fads had simply found a treasure trove of a niche and is just taking advantage of the damage that's already there.

Well guess what! Journalist Gloria Galloway apparently had a buzz with pollsters and she said that it's bad for the Liberals and very good for the Conservatives. This was at Mike Duffy today. They didn't name the pollsters....but they're talking Conservatives at 39% and Liberals at 29%. It's really volatile. Could this be the result of the May-Dion affair? Or irate citizens fed up with pettiness from the Liberals over their continued whining about Harper's stylist? Really, when Harper was looking so "sloppy"....people were making a big deal out of it. Now that he's trying to improve his image...the Liberals are complaining. I don't know about you, but I want my PM to look sharp! After all, he is the head of and representing my country.

If that's what you believe, then I'm not sure that you've been paying attention. Lots of people are raising their voices about this, particularly in the "health foods" industry. But not as loud and robust as those who had declared war to fat....and I don't mean just trans fat either. Remember the low-fat craze? There was a time when it's hard to find pure, normal-fat content yogurt. Everything is either low-fat, light and non-fat. There is nothing "sinister" of their presence in food IF they NATURALLY come with the food...such as fresh fruits have natural sugars in them. There is a problem however if our children are moulded and MIS-GUIDED to develop a taste for sweets! Pop Tarts....and those sugary-coated cereals....have you tasted those BREAKFAST items, btw? And that's just for breakfast! Then there are the juices consumed throughout the day...and the muffins, or the donuts or the cookies....and who knows what else! On top of that, some fruits are developed now to be more sweet...and since some are made bigger or jumbo in size, of course the serving size changes too, not to mention the amount of natural sugars in them. There is an overload of sugars in our products, and in what children consume in one day! Then there are the starchy items like the breads, pasta, fries.... Just imagine all the carbohydrates from sugars and those starchy items....how much do the children consume in one day? The accumulation of all those things! ON TOP OF THAT, we've got these children becoming more sedentary....not enough physical activities. And we wonder why there are lots of children developing diabetes. Can't they see the co-relation? Yes, growers have been developing and improving plants and fruits for a long time. But I think, it's only in the recent 20 years or so (not the exact number of years) that there seemed to have been a more attraction for bigger and sweeter fruits. Have you seen the various kinds of apples lately for example? They come in varying degrees of sweetness and sizes. There are jumbo granny smith and jumbo fuji...there are honey-something varieties. I don't know the exact term used (is it hybrid?). I have seen mammoth strawberries! Atkins does not eliminate carbohydrates from your diet. It's only during the first two weeks when you're in the induction period that you're allowed only 20 grams of carbos (those that comes from fiber do not count in that 20 grams). Induction is hard. Because you go through withdrawal syndrome from sugars. If you're trying to lose weight, you have to find how much carbos you can eat that still makes you lose weight. If you're just maintaining your weight, you've got to find the ceiling amount of carbos you can eat without gaining weight. It varies from individual to individual. I can eat as much as 100 grams of carbs without gaining any weight. And if I do my power walk in that same day, I even still lose weight on that amount of carbs. But you're right, no diet really works UNLESS YOU MAKE IT YOUR NEW LIFESTYLE. I find it easier to stick to the Atkins method because really, I'm not being deprived of anything. And I do love the steaks with all its marbled fat! If we go back to the same eating habits that we've had before we'd lost the weight, of course we gain it all back! And yes, TOO MUCH carbohydrates are evils to be avoided. Why on earth when the whole world was on the low-fat bandwagon...and everyone's just pigging out on pasta and breads...did obesity really become a problem??? I don't even remember hearing that word "obesity" as a teener (because obese people were not a common sight then). Now, you can even easily spot a three-generation family, all obese....and guess what, usually, it's the grandmother who seeemed the least fat of the three!

Oh yeah! Those "shakes" that we get means crashing down. Due to sugar and high carbos. I always get the shakes after eating cereals (after about 2 or 3 hours)...and boy, when you get to that point, you end up stuffinf just about anything in your mouth! High protein don't give me any of those. But the thing is, you don't have to actually give up on fruits. Some fruits have something that others don't. Strawberries and oranges are loaded with vitamin A, roughage/fiber and vitamin C. I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. It's all about moderation. A small slice of papaya gives mega-dose of vitamin A (Beta carotene).....vitamins I'd rather get from the real thing! Studies show that it is highly questionable if synthetic vitamin supplements does any good at all. And studies show that synthetic vitamin A can actually be bad for you.

Just look at the children and teens....a lot are not just "chunky"....but actually fat! But what I find odd is that nobody is raising any voice against the loads of sugar and glucose-fructose on juices and other stuffs. They still maintain that we should eat several servings of fruits and vegetables. Fruits grown twenty years ago do not have the same sugar content that a lot of fruits have now. Fruits now have been grown to be sweeter and/or bigger! The most recent study among the popular diet shows that Atkins (which is high-protein/low-carbs) seems to have yielded healthier results (was announced on CTV news sometime last month). Carbohydrate is the culprit. If we should get any carbohydrate at all, it should mostly come from vegetables. And if we have to eat fruits...it's got to be fruits that really counts...or make it all worth it!

Duceppe is not running for Prime Minister either. Oh? I know he's been vocal about his priorities being Quebec....but is he endorsing anyone among the other leaders for prime minister? May is endorsing Dion.

The Virginia shooting had taken the center stage for two days now. MDuffy Live had taken a backseat, giving way to live conferences and updates in Virginia. Most probably triggered back the gun-registry fever. Lots of talks about guns. Let's wait and see when things get back to normal.

What about this new Anti-Denial law by the UN? It is now a crime to deny genocide. If the UN says it is genocide....you better believe it and don't question it!

Do you think that Elizabeth May will be successful in deflecting attention away from her actions? No. The NDP alone will surely be adequate enough to make sure no one forgets about this.

... not if Elizabeth May can pull in higher ratings and more viewers. So networks are doing this because of ratings? I thought it's for public service....being a federal election and all.... Maybe the debate should be broadcasted by the taxpayers-funded network. Exclusively.