Slavik44

Good to know who we can trust on economic opinions! What course is it? I think we have similiar naming/numbering structures between BC and AB. Hey every ones got an opinion...but yeah the course was Money and Banking I really don't know what the hell I was thinking, every one in that class is a business or accounting major and I am History Major so I think I am a little out of place, it certainly is harder than macro and micro.

I think I played this game once before....for like 2 days...but I figure I will give it a try while I recover from the GPA suicide that was my economics mid term. The People's Republic of Vancouver_2010 is a tiny, environmentally stunning nation, renowned for its complete lack of prisons. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 5 million enjoy extensive civil rights and enjoy a level of social equality free from the usual accompanying government corruption. The large, liberal government devotes most of its attentions to Social Welfare, with areas such as Law & Order and Defence receiving almost no funds by comparison. The average income tax rate is 27%, but much higher for the wealthy. A small private sector is led by the Book Publishing industry, followed by Automobile Manufacturing and Arms Manufacturing.

With Nordic combined there is no womens organization or events period so if Womens Ice hockey is in the infant/childhood stage Womens nordic combined is in the sperm and egg stage, it is about as developed as ringette for males. Where as Womens Ice hockey has had a world chamionship tournement since 1990. Although it is somewhat dissapointing that Womens hockey is a Canada versus America, Finland versus Sweeden event...I think the development of womens hockey is best served as a part of the olympic games, and certainly it is not an anomaly.

So what, you're saying that because Italy's team sucks balls we should eliminate women's hockey from the olympics? Makes perfect sense. While we're at it, let's disband men's hockey too, since Kenya's team is so terrible. Heaven forbid they might get schooled by superior players and embarassed. Canada wins because we have superior female hockey players. You do them an injustice by dismissing their skill and prowess. No doubt. It's not an international competition with only two real teams though. But this is not odd for an olympic sport, especially not a new one. 37-1-3, 403 goals for and 34 against. 1924, 110 goals for only three goals against. Basketball 12 out of 17 gold medals have gone to the U.S. Table Tennis 42 medals of a possible 49 have goen to asain countries almost all to china and South Korea. No woman outside of South Korea or China has ever won a Gold medal in the event, only one male outside of south korea and china has ever won gold in the event. Or even diving where U.S males have won 27 gold medals next closest is China with 5 Gold medals. Or mens swiming U.S males 111 gold medals to second place Austrialias 29. Or womens badmonton where all but two medals have been awarded to China and Korea. In fact Track and field the United States of America 627 medals next closest Great Britain with 149. Or mens double luge only three countries have ever won a medal in that event and it has been in 4 olympics. Or what about Mens single luge otuside of Germany/East Germany only two gold medals have been awarded.

But the pimping is done by the party Someone sold one of their members? dude whatever, It is a sorry state we are in when we argue about examples and completely ignore the situation at hand. It is a sorry state when their is a refusal to admit when it comes to politics hipocrisy abounds, there is no more hipocrisy in the NDP's actions then there is in the actions of Stephen Harper to proposition Emerson into becoming a political sex slave, I am simply using the terms consveratives used to describe belinda stronach, only to turn around and ask Emerson to cross sides. The hipocrisy is evident in all parties, in that sense it is a failure on Canucks part to recognize such hipocrisy a failure to address it.

But the pimping is done by the party

Women's hockey shouldn't be an olympic sport. There is only 2 countries in the world that compete at an olympic level, how ridiculous is that for an event. They had to blow out the score because home advantage against the Americans in the final is decided by goal differential. It was embarssing to watch, and hopefully the IOC eliminates women's hockey in a hurray, its just beyond ridiculous why they are there. Why should the IOC eliminate womens hockey? It has made great strides in the past years as countries start to put the effort into developing the womens side of the sport. Of course it is small but under the olympic banner it will develop much faster, comepared to the non-existent development previous to 1998. In fact the same can be said for mens Ice hockey the first 7 olimpics Canada won 6 gold medals and one silver in a case of Britains Canadians being better then our Canadians. Likewise the United states won 5 silver medals. Needless to say the rest of the world will catch up, and they will catch up sooner with people having the olympics to look to and inspire them. There are plenty of sports out there were only a couple of countries succesfully compete and then there are a couple of sports so ridiculous that alcohol could substitute as a performance enhancing drug, say oh skeleton maybe. Skeleton require about as much core strength as gymnastics. There's greater G force on them then in a fighter plane, so yes, it takes both strength and skill. Don't justify women's hockey because of something thats happened in the past. The games in men's at the beginning didn't have a goal differential of over 100 by the end of the tournie. It's a big embarassement and all it turns out to be is a crowning of Canada year after year. We can get our 25 medals without women's hockey, don't worry. Women don't compete in a few events (Nordic Combined is one that comes to mind) because not enough of them participate. This can be applied to hockey as well. Italy only has 200 women that play hockey, and most of them are under 16. How can you put together an olympic level team if everyone that shows up gets a spot? Do not justify my claims with the past??? Well if that isn't a load of absolute bullshit, today thousands of decisions will be made and many of these decisions will be based on and justified by past action and knowledge, decisions will be made based on history. In fact in your eagerness to reprimand me you used history, all be it you were somewhat misinformed, you yourself used the past. Today in Canada somewhere someone out there will most likely be found guilty of crime, much of the judges actions in handing out that verdict will be done based on precedent, based on standing by what has been decided, decisions based on the past. It is foolishness to say don't base your decisions on the past, when the past plays such a big role today, when the past informs the decisions of tomorrow. I was playing poker with some friends the other day, and I won some money, thanks to the past I knew who was most likely to bluff and by knowing the past I capitalised on it and made money, actions today initiated by information from the past. All this to say that the past plays a great role in the decisions of today and we should therefore not be so quick to throw away a wealth of information at our finger tips. For instance the past would tell us that in the 1920's North American hockey players were viewed as acrobats on skates, it would tell us that between 1920 and 1952 Canadian hockey teams had a record of 37-1-3 with 403 goals for and only 34 against. The past would tell us that in 1924 the Canadian olympic hockey team outscored its opponents 110-3, would you like me to repeat that, 110-3, that is a goal differential of over 100 in the early days of mens olympic hockey. From the past we can justify the existence of Womens Ice Hockey be looking at the history of mens hockey at a time when Canadian men were not only Acrobats on Ice but gods on ice and from the past we can recognize that mens hockey was allowed to continue and develop into a more competetive game at the olympic level, and if we can award that benifiet to mens hockey at a time when it was in almost the EXACT same situation as womens hockey today, we should award that same oppurtunity because the precedent has been set. Because for years Mens olympic hockey was less competetive then the womens Ice hockey we see today. I say give it time, countries are working towards developing a much improved womens ice hockey program that will result in more competetive womens hockey games, just like it did for men, however I am willing to wager my life on the fact that it will take less then 32 years for a non-Canadian team to win the gold in womens Ice hockey, because hell it has already happened.

Liberals and CPC didn't expel Hargrove, the NDP did. Why didn't they expel David Miller for the same reason? Hypocrites? Hows your parties prostitute holding up?

Well according to you these athletes are Canada's tax dollars at work, so being Canadian we apparently have a financial investment in such individuals, so we have bought a right to call them our athletes. No it's far better to funnel them into Liberal friendly add firms. An election is a far more dangerous form of the olympics. You get a bunch of people together that care more about party then people and get them to tear the shit out of each other for someone elses right to sit on his ass in a big old building and blow more hot air. Atleast people around the world can take away pride, joy, and entertainment from watching the olympics, where as the politically involved can spend eight hours every sunday in confession.

Women's hockey shouldn't be an olympic sport. There is only 2 countries in the world that compete at an olympic level, how ridiculous is that for an event. They had to blow out the score because home advantage against the Americans in the final is decided by goal differential. It was embarssing to watch, and hopefully the IOC eliminates women's hockey in a hurray, its just beyond ridiculous why they are there. Why should the IOC eliminate womens hockey? It has made great strides in the past years as countries start to put the effort into developing the womens side of the sport. Of course it is small but under the olympic banner it will develop much faster, comepared to the non-existent development previous to 1998. In fact the same can be said for mens Ice hockey the first 7 olimpics Canada won 6 gold medals and one silver in a case of Britains Canadians being better then our Canadians. Likewise the United states won 5 silver medals. Needless to say the rest of the world will catch up, and they will catch up sooner with people having the olympics to look to and inspire them. There are plenty of sports out there were only a couple of countries succesfully compete and then there are a couple of sports so ridiculous that alcohol could substitute as a performance enhancing drug, say oh skeleton maybe.

uhhmm...from Airfarce, I would like to nominate........Mike from Canmore

But is force required to teach that lesson? Listen if/when I have kids, I would make sure they know when their actions were wrong, I simply belive that spanking is not neccasary to accomplish such a thing. I belive punishment of some sort is neccasary, but that punishment doesn't have to be a spanking. Saying now little boby it isn't nice to hit, will not accomplish anything, I think thats probabley worse then spanking, doing nothing that is. But saying little bobby its not nice to hit and because you have hit me this is going to happen...., not only do you let them know its wrong to hit but you also show their is consequences associated with certain actions. Showing that actions have consequences is important, but I don't belive spanking is the only way to do so. For instance in the case of moderateamerican and his jewish comments, why not ground him and take him to a holocaust museam? Consequences for his actions and the ability to learn why such words are so offensive. Generally after you learn or read some first hand documents about the holocaust, you loose all apetite to make such jokes.

People should be allowed to cross the floor, in many multi-party states around the world cabinets are made up of people from a number of different parties. In canada we now have the neccesity for co-operation amongst parties but the idea of co-operation is foriegn to the majority pollitics Canadians are used to, we like opposition parties to oppose not support. Given that fact it is tough to see a cabinet of Liberals, Conservatives, and New democrats operating under present circumstances, defection becomes the closest thing we can have to an outright coalition of parties within a cabinet. It bothers me that defectors and the party being left can get very nasty, and I think that is a shame, seeing as how many defectors can go on to accomplish much in their new party.

I think it is a very dangerous and slippery slope to be on when we equate Spanking for punishment. While Punishment needs to be used for control of children when they do something wrong, it is a mistake to think that the form of punishment must be a spanking. Every parent tells their children that they are unique, one of a kind and special, it seems somewhat absurd then that peoples first hand recomendation for punishment is always spanking, as if spanking is the only punishment or the best form of punishment for any and every child, completely and utterly absurd. Perhaps before anyone jumps on the spanking bandwagon they shoudl first try multiple methods of punishment in good faith to the method and not some half assed job. Perhpas you coudl sit down and watch super nany for a while, hey she seems to get some of the biggest brats in the world under control, with out spanking, in less then a week. I think sometimes spanking is over rated, a guy at work went on about how spanking was the best method of punishment and it worked so well for his kids, of course hsi daughter got knocked up at age 14. For me I say bulshit to the effects of spanking, it never stopped me from doing anythign bad, I never had that thought I might get spanked in my mind at all. It wasn't until after I did something wrong that I tried to cover it up and when I couldn't cover it up I got scared shitless. Just the word spanking was enough to scare the hell out of me, the word is etched in my mind as being nothing more then a crude form of psychological terrorism. But when you're having fun out playing in the mud you never think that, hey I might get in trouble for this. I have a very big bone to pick with people who wave spanking around as some sort of miracle cure for all societies ills. Its not, there are better methods, more effective methods, and less harmfull methods, Punishment might be better then no punishment at all but don't belive for a second that spanking is always the best method of punishment, or neccasary for a proper up brining.

I really don't have a problem with defection and in Canada's political landscape we may need to start getting used to defectors, wether it be Brison, Stronach, Emerson or who ever. Undoubtedly some will defect with selfish intentions and others for good reasons and only time will tell which was the case for Emerson. I can't see him defecting for the money or power he already has plenty of both, but as someone from British Columbia I am happy with the fact that he got the position of International trade an important role that has big ties to the province of B.C, and if all else fails next election Emerson could move to abbotsford for his coronation.

Maybe that is why Bovine Growth Hormone is banned in Canada, and why milk is destroyed if antibiotics are found in milk? Most of the critisicm of Farming practices and the horror stories you hear about milk generally come from things that happen to the south in america where laws are generally more lax then what is found in Canada. If you are really bored and have soem tiem to do some reading you could check out a number of such standards here. Generally speaking we may need to put even more effort into such standards but I belive some of your major worries about canadian farming are misplaced.

Most economists are very rich? I think that is the most popular joke in any economics department, most economists are in the Stephen harper Range, your above/average middle class person. It is not as though Stephen Harper was a poor guy or something. His bank account may have been a couple zero's short of Paul Martin's but, PM PM was one of the richest leaders in the western world.

No you are seeing appeasement through the tainted scope of World War two, appeasement is exactly what you dog and bunny example was, a legitimate part of negotiation in the hopes of establishing better relations, in other words it is just that a reasonable compromise or concession. True appeasement is generally done froma position of power. In that case I have the gun and you are currently my slave, you come and ask me, if you can have your own flower garden and I say yes. The opposite that you suggested is nothing short of outright war and Suddam Hussien was not asking to be appeased he was not asking to be permitted to have weapons of mass destruction...In fact if a case is to be made for appeasement going on, it would be the countries that supported George Bush...they appeased him.

Or, we can just zap 'em. Though hanging in a central square gives more public confidence in the system. Yup lets hang 'em. Crucifiction? Or is that too "inhumane". Isn't it somewhat ironic that the most notorius case of capital punishment, was one where an innocent man was killed? I think society today is much like a person who jumps in a cold shower only to throw the tap over to hot and burn their skin, in the end niether situation was the correct one. But such a knee-jerk reaction resulted in a flawed solution that hurt more than it helped. Generally when we get tough on crime we go about it wrong, Geting tough on anyone from harmless squege kids to the biggest mass murderers. Much of the arguement for detterence hinges on the assumption that criminals are cold and calculating, as if they are as mechanized as your computer. However the majority of, even serious, crimes are not done in such a cold calculated manner, normally in a fit of rage, an emotionally based act. Not a guy who sat down with a sheet of paper and wrote down the pros and cons of his actions.

I thought the conservative phrase of the decade was "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? It is an act of bad faith and pure hipocrisy to oppose the practice of appeasement, it is an error of ommission. It is easy to sit back and say 60 million people died in World War two, and then to associate every one of those deaths with appeasement, and further then to critisize appeasement as failed, because of those 60 million deaths ignoring the 6 billion lives appeasement sustains. But, please don't take my word for it find out for yourself...try to live a whole week with out appeasing someone or being appeased, appeasement is the foundation of fundemental human interaction, and at one level or another, directly or indirectly it is impossible to live, even just a while, with out it. Besides appeasers didn't keep the U.S out of World war two, isolationists did, and appeasement itself was not the issue in GW2. Appeasing people by compromise in daily interaction is a little different then selling lives to a dictator. So then you are not opposed to appeasement

Yes it is important to note that Harper quit the reform party because of the emphasis and movement towards social conservatism fair enough. But do you not think that it is also fair to note that a number of CPC'ers are easily described as social conservatives and that Stephen Harper, will not be able to ignore the heavy faction of the Religous right in his own party. It is important to note that Stephen Harper Quit the Refrm party, it is even more important to ask if he couldn't stop extreme Social conservatism then, what makes you think he can easily succeed now? It might be easier amongst a united right party that is trying to soften its image, but easier is not easy. If you were to ask me to move a mountain I would say I can't do it, if you were to give me a few sticks of dynamite i still couldn't move the whole mountain, it might be easier but still not entirely do able.

I thought the conservative phrase of the decade was "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? It is an act of bad faith and pure hipocrisy to oppose the practice of appeasement, it is an error of ommission. It is easy to sit back and say 60 million people died in World War two, and then to associate every one of those deaths with appeasement, and further then to critisize appeasement as failed, because of those 60 million deaths ignoring the 6 billion lives appeasement sustains. But, please don't take my word for it find out for yourself...try to live a whole week with out appeasing someone or being appeased, appeasement is the foundation of fundemental human interaction, and at one level or another, directly or indirectly it is impossible to live, even just a while, with out it. Besides appeasers didn't keep the U.S out of World war two, isolationists did, and appeasement itself was not the issue in GW2.

Iraq is one of the biggest string of mistakes the western world has made in recent memory. The Iraq situation is a minefield of Political disaster. In 1991, we fumbled a perfect touchdown pass, an excellent oppurtunity to throw out a dictator more corrupt then Jean Chretien. Of course we passed up that oppurtunity as soon as it appeared that that the people of Iraq actually wanted us, were willing to fight for us. Now 12 years later we returned to give democracy, instead creating anarchy and driving the countryside into the control of the terrorists. Now after doing all that more and more pressure is being placed on politicians to pull the boys out. Pull the boys out, and hand the country over to Al Queda, personally I would have stuck with Hussien. U.K 57%, Poland 59%, Australia 53%, Denmark 48%, say pull them out. About 60% of Americans say pull the troops out. So what does Bush do? What does the man who said "Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory." So what does bush do? no he doesn't pull troops out, he moves them out. This certainly isn't a war of half measures, no he must be giving it atleast 60% effort, and that is a pass. Unfortunately victory is not on the horizon, and the man who promised no outcome but victory looks to be accepting defeat with honour. I find it hard to believe Iraq has been cleaned up enough to be withdrawing troops. I didn't support bush starting this war, but if there is something I detest even more it is pulling the troops out before the Job is done. May I ask why the hell Canada should send troops to die for a dream, when the leaders of this war are to weak to achieve it. Why should Canada now send troops when every one else who started this shit is running away. They won't negotiate with terrorists, nope but they are more than happy to surrender. Canada shouldn't have been involved because right from the get go it was apparent that the leaders of this war were not willing to pay any price, beer any burden, or meet any hardship. In fact it seemed as though they thought they wouldn't meet any hardship at all. They were not prepared to fight and their primary reason for fighting was flawed and Canada made a wise decision in staying out of what will be known as nothing short of a disaster, a disater of the first magnitude.

No not true I said it would be better to say "lock the doors keep clinton out" instead you targeted the women. It makes no sense to me to punish people if a criminal is coming to town, just keep the criminal out, if thats the way you feel. Instead you lock up the women, my original question was why, are they not allowed to ahve consensual sex, if Clinton is a rapist and a criminal lock out clinton don't punish the women. Rank Partisans like myself??? God you are full of shit, if there is one thing I am not, it is partisan, I supported CPC in 2004, the B.C Liberals(conservatives) in the provincial election, voted for a mix in the municipal election, and voted NDP in this Federal election. I don't vote on partisan lines or support things based on parties, I hate it when people do that, I am not one of those people, I have no interest in towing any party line. Unless you can point out where I defended clinton for his monica lewinski issues, stop claiming that I have. Well when you gave the credit to the President and made no mention of the troops that is when I pointed that fact out. As well I am not interested in what the left said, I am not the left, again stop associating everything the left says with me. I am not debating that fact, I am asking why the double standard. I think he was pretty well liked, no Clinton is not a reagen as far as popularity is concerned, but Clinton is well liked, clinton was above average. As well stop saying my beloved Al gore, he is not my beloved al gore, I told you I don;t care much for Clinton I think much less of Al Gore. thank-you well...I don't know what to say... uhmm...here we go.... Posted on: Jun 16 2004, 09:13 PM well I am from B.C and I want harper, Forum: Federal Politics · Post Preview: #24194 · Replies: 50 · Views: 873

Perhaps Harper should be more open about his health given the position that he is in, but I would gladly trade secretive information about Harpers health for that of how the government is operating. He might be sending the wrong message, if Harper is secretive about his health what else might he be secretive about, but is harper un-fit to be Prime Minister because he visited a hospital, nope. Does he have to be more open about hsi health, nope. In the future should he be more open yeah probabley but this is really making a malignant tumor out of a mosquito bite.