Hydraboss

Alcohol isn't illegal. If you're human, I'll remain whatever it is that I am.

1200 vehicles (+/-) aggregate of two operating divisions. Just went partially self-insured ($50,000 deductable) because the insurance premiums were killing us. It's not always the law when the collision is a rear-ender, just most of the time. Last year alone, we had two incidents where people backed into our guys (one was a parking lot, and I can't remember the other). We were not at fault in either case, but the IC payed out anyway. It's not that it was a lot of money, just frustrating. Still, probably ended up saving us money in the long run. Oh well, not my decision. Shavluk: What's my claim to fame? Not much. Work hard. Coherent when I speak and type. No criminal record. Good enough.

My god, is there anything you HAVEN'T been? A provincial candidate, a federal candidate, worked for Revenue Canada (you know that's not their name, right?) as a lawyer, and let's not forget.....a millionaire!!! All this and still taking your candidate picture from a web cam in front of a $25 Ikea lamp. What a load of BS. As for settling out of court, it is standard procedure in some cases to automatically settle. Take for instance my corporate insurance. If one of our employees is involved in a rear-end collision (where our guy is in the rear position) our insurance company doesn't even investigate it, they just pay out a settlement. Why? They feel it's cheaper in the long run. This too is BS, but there is nothing I can do about it. 1200 vehicles registered and we probably pay out 8-10 a year. Maybe the Conservatives are doing the same thing? Dunno. <edit to add> As for settlements not being enforceable, that tends to apply only to issues of small claims (in Alberta, that's $10,000 or less). Any amounts over that are heard in provincial Court of Queen's Bench and carry a fairly stiff penalty for failing to comply. Ask Shavluk, he's a lawyer.

Dancer, my statement was kind of tongue-in-cheek.

You mean the 57 people that voted in this poll aren't the same as 30 million plus? Nope, never knew that.

So if so many people are against provincial separation, why does this poll stagnate at 60% in favor? There appear to be a great number of posters that even get to the point of anger over the idea of succession, yet the numbers stay constant. Do we just call this poll closed and accept the results as is?

Yes, why don't we ponder the cause of this extraordinary rise? I'm sure it's due in part to how many jobs have been created in Ontario and Kwebek in the last months. And the Maritimes. And all the oil and gas being produced in Manitoba. Ya, that must be the reason. Or maybe it's because world financials like Harper? Wouldn't THAT just burn your ass. I'm quite positive that the rise of the Canadian dollar has nothing to do with Alberta. Or the fact that the US dollar keeps nose diving. Nah, it's probably just the parasites.

It's kind of a veiled statement....but I agree. I don't think it likes income tax. I could be wrong, though.

If a Canadian is traveling in a foreign country, it is that person's responsibility to be familiar with the local laws. Break them and you have to pay the price. The extent of the Canadian government's responsibility is to try to ensure that that person receives due process....that's it. The taxpayers of Canada have NO RESPONSIBILITY to pay for anything past that investigation. I certainly don't want any more convicted criminals coming to (or back to) our soil. As it is, we basically give them a free pass (and free cable) in this country. If they die overseas, that's their problem, not ours. Canada may have mistakenly done away with capital punishment, but we have no responsibility to try to change other countries' minds on the subject. If you don't want to be subject to the death penalty, stay out of jurisdictions where that is a possibility.

If a non-Canadian commits murder in Canada, and his home country wants him back to face the (non)penalty, should we give in? Think of the Sharia example. Keep in mind that in the reverse, other countries are loathe to return Canadian citizens because our "justice" system is a joke. If a Canadian commits murder in Texas, the US knows he will walk in 10-25 years in Canada instead of being executed. As a parent of the (pretend here) victim, I would fight that extradition tooth and nail. If my country exacts the death penalty, I expect the man to die. The Canadian government could kiss my ass.

What are you typing on? A product of oil. What did you watch the news on? A product of oil. How do we get that oil? The oilpatch. And, yes, it uses water. What do you find so hard to understand? Let's all remember that it was YOUR generation that started this problem, not ours. Yet you seem so willing to blame everyone else for these problems. What gives?

And yet we would STILL have more power as a state as we do as a province. Go figure.

<I was going to make a comment about convicted criminals running for public office, but I won't>

Yes, and that is my point. Extradition laws work in both directions so if Canada wishes to intervene on the part of a citizen and receive action, then we must be prepared to give as well as take.

So anyone who doesn't believe in climate change/global warming is a sociopath? Wow, Margrace, that's really deep. Have you ever NOT been scared by something? Is the water shortage Harper's fault, or GWB's, or both?

As an autonomous entity, Alberta would do better than the rest of Canada. Given the other two choices, I would say join the States. Albertans have more in common with the US than the ROC. At least we would own our land and not be persecuted for owning our guns. And bonus marks would be awarded for no french language laws. And no Kwebek.

I know I should just put you on "ignore" but I can't seem to help myself. You're kind of like a bad car accident...don't want to....but just have to look at your next childish, inane comment. Anyone want to argue the fact that pot kills brain cells?

Thanks for the great visuals on that one.

bk59, So you're saying, by extension, that if a man that follows Sharia Law stones his wife to death in Canada that Canada should bow to his country of origin? Due to the fact that (under certain circumstances granted) his country of origin may not see this as a punishable crime, Canada should extradite the man to Wherever, Middle East because they feel that the punishment is unfounded. Right?

What in the hell are you talking about? Do you ever write anything comprehensible?

Eloquently spoken, all. Why aren't you running for the Green Party instead of the less intelligent>>? You and I will never agree on this issue. Fine. Am I a facist? Definition depends on view. I view the Federal Liberals as facist. Do I know a lot about pot? Certainly. I have had the pleasure to sit through lectures and talk face to face with some of the most highly regarded doctors in the field (by the way, if you drink booze you would not want to speak with these people...they have every bit as grim a view as on drugs). I watched the effects of drugs drive my best friend to suicide, and I had to clean up the mess. As for my kids, they are very well adjusted and fitting into MAINSTREAM life in Alberta. The schools teach anti-drug and anti-smoking all the time, and that has resulted in both my kids and the children of others becoming their own next generation of non-abusers. Will they try pot? Maybe. The teenagers across the street were flaunting the law. When my kids asked what happened...I explained. They were smoking illegal drugs (in front of my neighbours four year old I might add) and when they refused to go in the house to do it, I called the police.

You know, you just don't know when to quit. Learn to read....and a word called C-O-N-T-E-X-T. The genocide comment was what one poster used to describe capital punishment, which I happen to agree with. The only thing I can surmise is that you have placed yourself under the Green Party banner to intentionally sink the party in your riding. Nothing else makes sense. <edit> The signature is what another poster of long ago referred to me and other Albertans as.

Actually, to an extent, you do see that. Isn't that what a lot of people's problem with Harper is? Don't you accuse him of being "heavy handed", etc...? Is that not what the whole debate is centered on? "No one has the right to tell me not to smoke pot!" Yes, the people of Canada elected law-makers to tell people what they can and cannot do. Where the debate degrades is when the two sides end up saying "You can't do that" and "I can so do that". Neither side will ever have the upper hand, until someone steps in and points out the obvious...the "It's the law" argument tips the scales to the "You can't" side. The law as it stands, is supposedly based on sound evidence that pot should be illegal. Is it true? I'm not a doctor so I cannot say. Unless one of this board's posters happens to be a medical professional with research on pot and it's effects, then all arguments posted are based on second hand knowledge. Until such time as the HoC sees fit to believe contrary medical proof, the law should remain as it is. And yes, people who break the law should go to jail.

Higgly, the debate over whether or not this Canada's drug laws are proper and applicable is directly based on whether or not an individual feels pot is harmful or not. Since there are myriad "studies" on both sides, neither side will give in. You want to debate the merit of a law? First you would have to admit that it is a law, and not just a recommendation. Merit of law and enforcement of same are inseparable. So you've taken it upon yourself to determine which posts by which posters are acceptable? You're a Mod now, are you? I could just as easily say that there are people on this board that should go to other sites that promote the breaking of laws, as we are a lawful bunch here (for the most part). Is it any better for posters to write on this board that people should break the law? Get the hell off your high horse or you may just fall.