Spiderfish

It matters because their actions are misdirected at the wrong people. They will have a hard time finding support for their cause by making the people who they feel should pick up their tab suffer. They say they are fighting for opportunity, but who is forced to pay for their opportunity? They're a bunch of spoiled brats who already have everything handed to them, but it's not enough. They don't just want it all, they want to take opportunity away from the people who have dedicated themselves and actually want to work for it. If these protesters want everything for free but have nothing to offer (as seems to be the case), they will quickly find out that in the real world, employment isn't automatic. It is attained and retained through hard work and dedication. If you have nothing of substance to offer, you are of no use to an employer. This reality will set in soon enough and all the crying and stomping of feet that they aren't getting their way will be of little consequence. It's not just the evil banks and hapless public that has to endure the inconveniences and consequences of people exercising their rights in a free country, it goes both ways. Ahhh...freedom.

Obviously "better educated" and "higher intelligence" don't correlate, if you take the actions of the students as a measure. These students claim to be the 99% fighting against the 1%, but clearly the ones being most affected by this bullshit is the average citizen who just wants to go to work, school, or carry on with whatever business they have, but can't because of these hooligans. It's the doctors, lawyers, and scientists who are trying to be allowed to attend classes, which is being hijacked and taken away from bullies and thugs calling themselves peaceful student protesters.

I've heard the criticisms about the newer 870 Express, I picked one up a couple of years ago and have used it for two duck seasons without a misfeed or jam. We'll see how it holds up over time. Still can't beat my Mossberg 500 though. The 500 is tough to beat for a good economical well constructed utility pump. I have an old Canadian made Lakefield Mossberg 400G that's 25+ years old, just as smooth and reliable as my new 500.

Okay, lets just review what was said... Tow which Dre replied... To which I replied... Notice in my initial comment I said nothing of decriminalization or legalization. I was discussing the issue from a social and medical perspective, pointing out the obvious fact that a heroin addict will be much more likely to be a burden on the system than someone that engages in j-walking. Dre disagreed. It was then Dre that brought the decriminalization and legal issue into the discussion.

I agree that addiction is treatable. Too bad that's not the objective of these 'treatment centres'.

No doubt...but I don't buy the line that there's no evidence suggesting heroin addiction is not a health risk or does not increase the burden on the health system. If we were talking about treatment of addiction, I would be on board. But we're simply talking about making it easier and safer for addicts to shoot up. Never mind the obvious fact that 'safe injection sites' is a contradiction in terms.

You're kidding...right?

It isn't?

Apparently, scheduled delivery has been delayed due to engine upgrades. I wonder if costs associated with this change and delay have been factored into an updated procurement cost? A delay of 5 years is sure to change the numbers more than a little (ie. fuel, wages, and shoelaces haven't gone down in price since 2009). Where's the outrage with this sham?

Whether they shoot up in the alley, or shoot up in a 'treatment facility' and then go OD in the alley, the outcome is the same. These facilities are not meant to address that part of drug addiction, only make it safer to shoot up, reducing the risk of infectious disease.

The intention of these facilities according to the researchers is not prevention, but harm reduction. When the researchers that put together the Ontario report were asked about offering support to addicts with their addiction, it was clearly stated that the program is not trying to stop drug addicts from injecting. This program is about reduction of risk to users from infectious diseases.

Assisting these people with their poison to help them kill themselves does not seem nearly as practical as helping treat their addiction. It may be cheaper in the long run to just let them kill themselves, but actual treatment for the disease seems more practical and ethical to me.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the drug addicts?

The health risk and medical support is 100 fold what these other examples would require. Someone who smokes or habitually crosses the street on red lights may be making poor choices, but government and medical support for people in this category is nowhere near what a drug addict will undoubtedly require. The comparison is not even close.

We better save some of that money for the inevitable lawsuit that will be coming from a family member of one of the junkies after they od and die as a result of the government assisting and helping them pump this crap into their veins.

There's two separate entities here, large corporations and wealthy people, and I think the Occupy crowd may be lumping them all into one. The whole movement seems to be driven by jealousy and resentment against people who have earned a quality of life they feel should be automatically granted to them. It's hard to tell exactly what their target is since their attack is so generalized, non-defined and broad. Targeting wealthy people and labeling them as predatory, is subjective and baseless without proof. And if there is proof of predatory actions, that's what the courts are for. Your quick analysis of the importance of corporations to the economy is hypothetical and off point. This discussion and the larger movement is not about corporate mega-mergers (which I personally don't think does anything to promote the health of an economy). I don't think there is doubt that a large company or corporation that employs people is contributing jobs to the economy. Just because they are publicly traded or function through shareholder investment does not make them evil in my opinion. I'm sure the Occupy crowd would have a different opinion. Of course, these people aren't really worried about jobs... if they were, they would go find one.

Man, did they ever blow their initial estimate! Sure hope they hold whoever is responsible for the screw up accountable. I do think that separating the costs is a good idea however, as operating costs are speculative and can skew the purchase cost, and it is possible to take the current operation budget into consideration when estimating the new budget.

So it's the predatory wealthy people against the non predatory wealthy people and everyone else? What defines a predatory wealthy person from a non-predatory one? This sounds like garbage to me. The whole 99 percent against the 1 percent argument is flawed in concept, as it's this 1 percent that you loathe so much that pay the lion's share of the taxes. Just because you have yourself convinced that everyone shares your delusion and is against this mythical opponent, doesn't make it true. Contrary to what you may have yourself believing, everyone does not share your enthusiasm for defining a segment of population as evil and waging a baseless fight against them. Don't forget, without these evil corporations and their shareholders, our employment rates would rely solely on small businesses, and government civil service jobs.

She's trying to recruit you, Shady...resist!

I agree, this is the problem I see with increasing taxes overall for the 'wealthy'. The definition of wealthy is not a constant, once the idea of tax increase for higher income earners takes hold, it is nothing for the government of the day to simply slide the marker down the scale.

A couple, actually... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20364 Still, good to hear changes are coming.

Good news for legitimate charities, bad news for Tides and other manipulative groups trying to shape Canadian domestic policy through foreign donations. I agree, should have been done long ago.

Cheers!

From the earlier posted Hill Times link:

Fair enough, this entire thread is based on hypotheticals at this point, so my contribution should fit nicely. I wasn't asking if electoral fraud may have effected the outcome. What I actually asked is if you thought 800 voter complaints involving 200 ridings could change the overall outcome of the last election.