Hydraboss

Yes please.

Pint VS Politician Pint - looks good when you first get it Politician - looks good when you first get it Draw Pint - you know what you're getting Politician - you have no idea what you're actually getting 1 point pint Pint - good beer leaves a good taste in your mouth Politician - all politicians leave a bad taste in your mouth 1 point pint Pint - if you don't like your pint, order a different one in 5 minutes Politician - if you don't like your politician, wait 4 years for another one 1 point pint Pint - too many pints and you wake up with a headache (3 Advil and it's gone) Politician - one politician and you instantly get a headache (3 Advil and he's still there) 1 point pint Pint - $5 and you get value for your money Politician - $5 for your membership, and you get nothing to show for your money 1 point pint Final score: Pint - 5 points Politician - 0 points You decide what to do with your $5. Cheers.

August, of course this isn't news. I just figured if we're going to flood the board with mindless, baseless chatter then I might as well start some myself. This "story" has about as much meat to it as the "merging of Canada and the US". Can anyone think of any threads that are about as intelligent? Edit: I'm just going for the coveted "I Hate Harper" award this month.

Canadian clinical psychologist warns that Stephen Harper cannot seduce women. Can Harper seduce women? John Ivison, The National Post Published: January 9, 2006 TORONTO and LAMBETH, Ont. - Carolina McBride represents the Holy Grail for the Conservative party. A 36-year-old clinical psychologist and new mother who lives in downtown Toronto, she voted Liberal in 2004 but has been impressed with a number of Tory policies this time around. [snip] When it comes to women voters, Harper is going soft Women's support was 38% last month, suggesting some softening toward Mr. Harper. [snip] Psychologist doesn't like Harper's personality "I don't like Harper's personality. He strikes me as cunning and not trustworthy. I don't like his position on same-sex marriage, I don't think he'd be a good representative for Canada internationally and I don't think he cares if Quebec separates from Canada. [snip] NDP supporter hates Stephen Harper "I hate Stephen Harper with a passion," said Lauren, 23, an NDP supporter from Milton, Ont., who was among four young women from the book publishing industry cornered in a downtown Toronto Starbucks. [snip] Women believe that Harper is only after one thing Unfortunately for the Conservative leader, many women voters still seem to believe that he's only after one thing -- their vote -- and won't respect them the morning after the election. http://www.equalvoice.ca/harper_090106.html I know we're supposed to comment on topics, but I'm almost speachless. This is the National Post telling us this.

I support the first proposal that Kwebek should be recognized as a nation outside of Canada.

First, if the man in his 50's can't get work there - move to where you can get work. Second, if your son is 35 and tried working three jobs - good for him. Tell him to keep trying. If your son is making $12/hour - good for him. I have supported a family on a hell of a lot less. Wasn't what you would call cushy, but we made it. If he's such a good worker, tell him to come to Alberta (if he's not already here). There will be a melt-down, and when it happens I will finally get the chance to fire about sixty workers that are freakin lazy but necessary. The market always corrects itself. Always. The people who will suffer are those who don't give a damn about working anyway. They are only one step above the useless able-bodied welfare collectors, anyway. You personally did someone to be proud of (four kids by yourself). Doesn't it iritate the hell out of you when someone in the same situation as you says that it's too hard and wants the government to do it all for them? Shouldn't it iritate you? My condolences on your husband.

MLW Poster warns of Bush plot to merge the Harper Conservatives, the Bush Republicans and the Kimmy Party Hydraboss, The MLW Published: Today Ridicules CANADA -- A MLW poster who backs tough anti-stupidity threads and useless pandering on the MLW is warning MLW members that President George W. Bush is plotting to integrate the three parties. And he says Prime Minister Stephen Harper "buys into it." MLW poster Hydraboss, revered by some MLW Liberal supporters for his efforts to stop the flow of pointless threads from certain posters, said today that Bush is a dangerous internationalist. "He is going to do what he can to create a place where the deer and the antelope play. It's just that it's an idea. It's not going to be an actual "party", but more of a "shindig". The existing parties are seperated by borders. I mean this is where the guy is really going," he told himself. "A move like this could see the Kimmy Party in charge of setting policy for all of North America. It would be a disgrace; all that happiness, getting along, and drinking...don't forget about the drinking. There is simply no place in this country for an amalgamated Kimmy Party." http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php? I know we're supposed to comment on topics, but I'm almost speachless. This is a Conservative telling us this.

I never said that my job or any other was protected for life, so quit trying to put words in my mouth. As for walking in his shoes, I did it for a hell of a lot longer than a few weeks. Not once did I cry to the first naive ear that would listen and squeal like a spoiled child that "someone didn't pay me", even though my boss at the time bounced my paychecks religiously. I kept at it and took a second job to boot, and when the opportunity arose, I changed jobs. Never collected welfare or EI (welfare). I WORKED. And I supported my family, not the government, not the working taxpayers. ME. As for the thirties, it will never happen again TO PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK. I can only HOPE it happens again to lazy bastards that sit on programs. It would serve them right if the government CUT ALL WELFARE AND SUBSIDIES FOR ABLE-BODIED PEOPLE. Self-satisfied? Thank you. I stress the SELF part in that. Not the welfare-satisfied. Not the taxpayer-supported-no working-lazy ass-someone else will pay my bills-satisfied. At least I can go to sleep at night IN THE BED I PAID FOR knowing that I am not a boat anchor on society.

Then he should get a freakin' job! If he's able-bodied, then THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BEING ON THE STREET. Margrace, quit pandering to the lazy and the stupid. There are people that are on the street that need help, but that guy is not one of them. He admits that he can work, SO WHY ISN'T HE? Friggin laziness and a feeling of "oh woe is me" will keep him right where he is. The Newfoundlanders that you spoke about are exactly the same. "Won't someone please take care of me and my family. I don't feel like working." I am so sick to death of paying for these rejects.

This is what I was talking about with regards to child support payments. If your T4 says you make $70,000/year, then your payments are based on that amount. Now, if you could transfer half of that to your non-working spouse, your payments could be based on $35,000. This may not be the case if the courts only consider your T4, but what if they don't? How many payment receivers would get less? I'm not against this necessarily, but it may be an angle that has not been considered.

August, I couldn't help but notice that in your post the left wing has less "......"'s. Would it be possible for the right wing to transfer some "...."'s over to the have-not left wing in order for everyone to have the same level of representation? It just seems unfair to Riverwind, and I'm sure that Gerry will claim that it is all an underhanded plan by Harper. Let's head this off at the pass. Just a thought.

What a load of crap. Just drop the base tax rate and be done with it.

Calm down, breath deep, use your head, don't recite what you read in the Calgary Sun. Oil is a newly discovered commodity in NFLD. Second, there isn't that much of it out there at all. Third, it's in the ocean and it's much more expensive to get. Fourth, the federal government is not letting NFLD have the same deal as Alberta - in Alberta if you find oil, you develop it within 5 years or you lose it. In NFLD, you can sit on it forever. The reason being that Harper is an Albertan and not a NFLDer. So what's going to happen is that the oil companies will dig up all the oil in Alberta and then move to NFLD. Which is good because the oil rigs in Alb are ran by NFLDers anyway, so they are fully qualified to do the job. What may be inconvenient for you is that you'll have to move to St.Johns. Do you even have the most basic of understanding of what you are talking about? Newly discovered? Maybe. It would depend on what you use for relative terms. Nefoundlanders running rigs? Hah! There are not that many Newf's on the rigs first of all. While there is a huge number in Ft. Mac, the rigs are overwhelmingly run by Alberta toolpushes (rig managers). The vast majority of Newf's that are on the rigs are lease hands or maybe roughnecks (this would make sense to you if you understood the patch). As for "digging up all the oil in Alberta", that is simply a foolish statement. Hibernia and White Rose on the coast have huge deposits, but nowhere near what lies in the Eastern Slopes and the Basin in Alberta. Don't even start to compare MacMurray to anything else in Canada. Maybe Saudi (or OPEC etal). If Newfoundlanders don't like the Liberal policies as concerning the natural reserves of the province, remember....it's provincial jurisdiction. You might want to press your provincial government on that one.

At a Petroleum Services Alliance of Canada conference in June, I attended an impairment seminar. Amazingly enough, talking on a cell phone while driving came in at #6 on the top ten causes of vehicle accidents. Above that were eating while driving and applying makeup, among others. So why are we making a law about #6? Why not ban McDonald's while driving. No McDriving. Call your MP.

Norman, my post was not solely leveled at pot-related issues. More so the fact that it is a current law that, like many others, carries no consequences. People ignore it. I have never made a secret of my belief that while it is a law, it should be fully enforced. If the government changes that law (which I would not agree with) then so be it. As for the so-con position (I guess that's me), Harper has been p*ssing me off for quite some time now. Will I vote for him again? Who the hell knows. Where is the "law and order" guy I elected? Where are the consequences for actions in this country? There are none. bk59: while the press may only report on the exceptions to justice, there sure seems to be a hell of a lot of exceptions, and horrific ones at that. An exception should be just that...exceptional. It's not in this country. It's almost bloody daily. Pot should be illegal and even posession should carry jail time. Capital punishment should be reinstated. Criminals should be punished. The youth criminal injustice system should be abolished...everyone goes to adult court and then the judge assigns the sentence. Like everyone else, I have my beliefs and you don't have to agree with them. And like everyone else, I will support and cheer for any move made and any statement made that supports those beliefs. Your opposition to my beliefs and your freedom to do so is what makes us a democracy.... ...and you wrong. (I was kidding about the democracy thing, by the way)

So would any sane person. But Harper is the only leader of an elected Canadian political party who believes that a criminal record and potential jail sentence is an appropriate punishment for youthful possession of a few grams of marijuana. That criminal record is permanent and no help in obtaining future employment. This is so-con Harper's position and is out of tune with the view of most Canadians. Yet some rabid Harper supporters claim he's a libertarian. ...and anyone busted for pot SHOULD have a criminal record that follows them for the rest of their life. It's called consequences, and life is full of them. Unless you're a drug user...or murder someone with a baseball bat...or rape a child...or kill someone while driving drunk (in Canada, that is). Argue all you want about the dangers or merits of pot. The law says it's illegal, so if you break the law you should go to jail and get a criminal record. Funny how this is a "so-con" belief until the news shows a story of someone getting house arrest for committing one of these crimes, or a suspended sentence that will end with the convict having no criminal record. Then people of ALL POLITICAL STRIPES whine and cry and shake their fists at the tv. "How can this happen???" I'll tell you how: There is no punishment in this country. No consequences. If you believe that there should not be any, then don't you dare get upset when one of these criminals moves in next to you.

Absolutely.

All defense lawyers are scum.....until you need one, right? Anyone who believes only the first part has never been, and knows no one who has been, charged with a serious offense. Suddenly, you'd sell your most prized possession to pay one of these "scum".

So some little immigrant can wear a dagger to school, but my kids cannot put up pictures of crosses? What part of the Middle East is this? Absolute BS. No crosses? Then no Star of David, no kirpan's, no turbans, nothing religious or religion-related. No exceptions. No Ramadan (sp?), no Hannuka, no Christmas. Nothing. Wanna see the east indians freak out? This country was founded on a belief in God. Making kids deny that fact is catering to minorities for no other reason than they're minorities.

Good lord, are you for real? There isn't even enough politcal will in this country to put murderers in prison, and you think anyone in the ROC has the balls to arrest an elected government? Ha! You know damn well that if and when Alberta, or any other province or territory, decides to seperate there won't be a damn thing the ROC can do physically. There may be court case upon court case, but no one is going to call in the Armed Forces to arrest anyone and you know it.

The SAP at the last conference I attended said that there was a "current impairment" test being trialed, but wasn't available commercially...yet. Supposed to be some kind of mouth swab for pot, and a type of skin or blood test deal that the cops could implement roadside. I searched for a link but couldn't find it. You can bet that it will get plenty of press if this goes through.

France ceded its territory in Canada to England. England established Canada and set it up to operate as its own thing. Both these were formal processes with 'consent' of the relevant parties. Alberta separation as you envision it would be an attempted unilateral secession of a part of Canada. The moment it were attempted Canada would be entitled to take over. There's no way such a theft could be tolerated. ...or prevented.

Your comments don't even make sense. Lands would revert to the Crown? No more than Canada reverted to England or France. You're grasping at straws. Is that really the best argument you can formulate to prevent provincial seperation? Come on, you're smarter than that. Try a little. I notice that the poll still sits with only 44% against seperation. Hmmm. Do I sense support for an independant Alberta?

"Hold a referendum declare sovereignty for SN. What is SN going to do? Start a war? Sovereignty means nothing if it cannot be enforced. You really need to dispense with your obsession that aboriginals are the only people with rights. All people have rights and they cannot be denied. If the 500,000 people do not want to be part of SN then they have a right to secede and take the territory that they occupy with them." Just like Albertans, right River?

Alberta SHOULD NOT stick around. That is the answer. We do not benefit at all by remaining a part of Canada. Defense? Easily handled. Culture? We have our own. Justice system? Canada doesn't have one, but you can be sure that Alberta would. Federal transfer payments? Okay, next one. CPP? Are you kidding? RCMP? Again, easily dealt with. House of Commoners? You can keep that one. Senate? See previous comment. Official bilingualism? Never was in Alberta. Never will be. Immigration? We can handle that one too, thank you. Can anyone name one thing that Alberta would lose by leaving? Of course you can't, because there isn't anything. We should be leaving, and leaving now.