RB

the universities i currently attend there has not been significant jump in tuition ... what maybe 2% .. what i have noticed is a larger amounts of initial registration hold fee prior to class starting say 2 months prior, and the interest charged on outstanding balance is competing with those credit card rates .. someone has been using their talents an undergrad degree is a minimum requirement for job opportunities and in the global marketplace we need to be competitive folks that graduate from polytechnic universities enter into the marketplace with skills the the market demands but largely universities do gear students up for further advance education and hence it is more academic. i have no sympathies, i think a poor kid can work hard, play, and study study and get into university. they must have a desire to do it. i don't envy any of the rich or poor groups, but it is noteworthy, some of you are professors here so i take your word about inflated grades.

thanks folks for the update - i'll get to see it tonight it was beginning to be a bit depressing ... i did not even watch the games the past 2 nights

I would like to pick-up the argument from this view: These debates have not change the last time I checked and there are non conclusive agreements on the usefulness of bilingualism, what is true are the arguments are nearly always political in nature. So now look at it from the education standpoint: here is your a non-english person forced into: - One syllabus, one goal, one direction as in English - Designed to meet one group needs: English - So notice any difference identified - Now see a deficiency is identified - Hence change must occur but ONLY one group must change Are you seeing ..... disadvantages, and a ......cultural deprivation? Can we now say ......INTOLERANCE? I ask why are we so compelled to uphold the dominance of English instead of French if we as a country were borne out of the two languages? my take is those against bilingual systems propose threats to national unity But then maybe this language never really unites as country as is thought, or perhaps the misfit culture that allows us to display with affection bigotry and ugly intolerance. I would like someone to tell if language and culture are not parts of a country's self-image then WHAT is? Look, I have this recent experience with language tussle, rebuffed to speak English, one woman was making a report … complaining about the toilet paper. The good devious folks incessant for language improvement in their pure English told her what to say and properly “the paper is hard on the pussy”. My point is here is a very basic situation, and English has dominated as incidental silliness Our two cultures carry the overtones of who and what we are, emphasis on the language symbolises those meaning when we speak, when we love, when we read, its our heaven to “outside” of the “self”. if we reject one of our cultures, you are looking at the detriment of a being starting with you.

no surprises for the Canadian showing off the finer side of his femininity, needed was the wan to compliment the outfit then to some disappearing act. Yeah the picture painted is a security tampered. But the Olympics it is BIG commercial activities sporting high profits. It makes money sense and added bonus for the host countries of infrastructure, improved communications, and ongoing tourist atrraction, and yes also 'em YOUTH participation - I mean here are youths with some focus Furthermore, competition is natural instincts and so why can’t we promote it civilly as sports instead of war But I like the theme bigger, faster and stronger so for now I am glued to sports

hey my kid is enroute to Alberta over the next couple a days and she was told to have her cow gears ready and also brushes? so maybe dinosaurs revealed Alberta is a fun place, and the next best province to live in

Duncan, say the dog gets a job maybe this support payments are significantly reduced and now the dog has the ability to support itself - and "al.i.mony" is mine the law is wise i guarantee

how do one appeal to the masses sensibilities to encourage equality and delete racism? Until a better system is found I think AA will support the outreach to those who absolutely need it. I don't support the abuse of AA but wondered if it is comparable.. what kind of percentage crime or "crying" are we looking at Implicit Association Test From this website: https://implicit.harvard.edu Analyse your preference towards race - takes about 5 minutes Interpretation Percent of Total -- those who participated in the test Strong automatic preference for White..............48% Moderate automatic preference for White.........13% Slight automatic preference for White...............12% Little to no automatic preference.......................12% Slight automatic preference for Black...................6% Moderate automatic preference for Black.............4% Strong automatic preference for Black..................6%

Look it the day of the federal election after I voted I decided to take a dip in the pool at the voting station and caught up with some young lads maybe 5 of them who did not have the slightest interest in voting. Why? 1) Oh, they did not follow the politics 2) and besides they did not think their vote is going to make a difference 3) and youth votes are just not important Well there were some young women at the pool also and I could not help that we cheer the young rodeos to vote “for the liberal” of their choice. Now I reflect that in that spirit on the moment these folks are rather impulsive aiming to please the masses, and succumb to some influence and persuasion by peers and well .. girls. I think what is needed is encouragement for the youths to get involved in their politics and that the young voters are likely to relate to other young people so maybe Paul Martin and Grumpy, grey, white man might signal what is “official process” in voting and is as intimidating as the parents. So my feeling is there is no need for the young people to: - Protest about things that do not affect their world - They are not motivated to vote even when new law can infringe on their rights - They unmotivated to seek action - They think they are unaffected by politics - Furthermore, since they feel this voting is unimportant, there is no need to become politically engage in some “official process” ….. official is intimidating – and then the feeling of being just “unqualified to vote” or to speak about the voting The politics and politicians do not speak well to young people. What I saw is that these young folks become rooted in their own lives, they go to school, get an education and hope for the eventual good job, they get a car, they can buy their food, shop for their wants, keep their friends and still have their dreams. Politics is not important really

Firstly I don’t believe the marriage vows are working because > 50% of the time: 1) it is at divorce we shall part 2) if you are broke we part 3) in sickness you are on your own 4) it is mostly for richer otherwise no marriage 5) when the money goes so does the marriage 6) the marriage is join between crowds, as it is common for spouses to seek pleasures elsewhere 7) if the man cheats the women gets 80% of the wealth 8) when the women cheats she gets 80% of the wealth 9) also you can count on hearing of your financial ruin and see your demise forever in the case of child support well I can go on with this…man I can even be convince that marriage is not a happy state Well there is the procreation theory of the marriage and other lawful benefits, but I wanted to talk about the sexual benefit of the marriage. I wanted to say that man can experience and emulate the SAME sexual feelings, urgency, responses and the eventually orgasm as he would with the fire hydrant, other males, the Venus flytrap, inflatable doll, with an animal as with a woman. But I believe that even though man can experience these and I hope I am allow to say “fetish” (animal and sorts)pleasures, that the final actualisation of fulfilled contentment is between a man and woman as they are equal in their union. This is because this “god” has mimicked himself and allowed the worldly man and woman to procreate visions of him as he had created man and woman but allowed the same to experience the creation with sexual activity. If we can say that: Married people enjoy greater sexual fulfillment: Research shows that sexuality functions best within the confines of marriage and that married people are most likely to report they are "extremely" or "very satisfied" with the physical and emotional parts of their sex life." Originally published in the September 1999 issue of the Canadian Citizen magazine. and that if there is ONLY ONE basis of marriage and it is to enjoy greater sexual fulfilment and gratification and because now marriage don’t work anyway, then I think we should allow gay and animal marriage as it is a step towards the eventual contentment

Ok the question I asked is there some sort of pressure to increase population growth in Canada? If we knew the ratio of young:old we could draw some inferences we know with the older folks we can only count on lower birth rates if the population of older people outnumber the young then we have to look @ perhaps immigration and then are we intent and encouraging our own young to stay within or are we also favoring migration - like do we know how many canadians migrate yearly I think it might have been cheaper to raise kids during the agricuture society, little education needed, and food available which might explain the now third world that even when they are seemingly poor can accept this incentive to have many children On the other hand I think the more modern a women is, the more likely she is to limit the number of kids base on cost and benefits since these kids are the little industries she invests in and therefore must take up responsibilities seriously because both these parents are co-owners, so some precise calculations really but also based on experiece yes education, career and decisions making of the female is playing out in the outcome of children

I think its lots lots less fifty years ago for sure sex was more, most women were stay-at-home mums with more free time but now for the past 15 years more women have entered into job so.... I can protest We are too busy – No sex tonight please!! I guess there is a correlation between the # of times we have sex and the # of kids conceived If this is true then I think modern women are definitely having less sex than years ago. No, no it not a lack of interest in sex, and no we are not dysfunctional like problems with arousal and orgasm as was previously thought. In fact, only 1 in 4 women are seriously distressed about sex, well this is better news than ½ of the population of American women that was previously thought to have had problems Anyway, there is less leisure time available for sex. Like there is a lot more to do during the day, watch favorite TV show, talk for hours on the phone, work twice as hard, kids coping-dropping off to daycare etc., shopping, gym etc. This is all distressingly tiring. My favorite argument is that women are not slaves to duties of roles such as wives – and also women are not energise to work hard all day and then become 'porn stars" later that night so sex is not # 1 priority!. Researchers from the Kinsey Institute "said women now have less time for sex. Today's women have less sex than their 1950s counterparts, say researchers. Experts in the United States believe the demands of modern life are to blame - leaving women with little time or energy". Oh, by the way, in order to stay healthy with your sperm counts if you are not visiting the gym sex should be up to and greater than 4 times a week and also note your sperm counts are down so maybe that can help explain why there ain't addition to this population.

I don't largely hold the believe that men are the beating kind, but honest, decent people. I think that while women are advocating changes for themselves and have created tons of options for the female that in the interim men were not given some changed model to work with and is still kept with the traditional social perception of their role. But I strongly support any options available to the female in their decide making process - this time they are independant and can think for themselves I am sorry I haven’t been able to find in all sincerity a female mentor so I usually invariably declared my own path, but also eternally grateful of my male mentor, Armstrong who went and died on me, but I think his widow Sally Armstrong a strong feminist and mother might have had some influence and motivated him in the way he pointed my direction. I think what is missing is for the females are female roles models to demonstrate real capabilities of the female and whom can transcend that seed of ambition and who can also demonstrate that power and achievement are not incompatible with femininity, the female sexuality and shared responsibilities in a home.

I believe in promoting fairness and equity into a system, but also when implementing such a system and deciding to make it operational to futher review its: 1) processes, and 2) practices and 3) making sure it is effective 4) making changes where necessary Now, you have to acknowledge that biases exist, whether it is individual or systematic, or institutionalised in order to recognise the need to promote diversity and also to speak of descrimation in the same breath - for "white" or "other" Let me propose this of you, here is the list below of criteria of certain groups whom are historically treated unfairly and discriminated against. Can you identified a couple of folks you know that fits the list and compare them with “white man” – in relation with jobs and opportunites for career development such as training, promotion and selection for advancement, wealth, happiness etc. what is the conclusion? The percentage of happiness is at the bottom of the write-up Here is the list: Race Color Culture Ethnicity Linguistic origin Disability Socio-economic class Age Ancestry Nationality Place of origin Religion Faith Sex (in the case of women, serious limitations and gross inequalities) Gender Sexual orientation Family status Martial status Now the issue is if we can identify all these so-call barriers and unjust practices, WHY can't we find a solution to remove these factors and to have people contribute fully to society, and for those people to experience a meaningful life and to promote successes overall for the future My one-way surely to start is to educate folks to understand about covert agendas, systemic barriers, to understand similarities and differences of discrimination and to: 1) challenge unjust practices and 2) to promote “inclusion” into the system The percentage for inclusion in affirmative action is somewhere about 20% see below and yet, yet it seems as though even 1 person out of the group is just way too much – that’s what I am talking about, it is discrimination. Reports upon surveys show that there is descrimation. we all need to support equity: it means FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY. as a society we need to move beyond what is principle to what is IMPERATIVE to ensure equality http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ec-fpac/sf-fs-2_e.asp#four – Employment Equity-Embracing Change Support Fund: 2000-2001 through 2002-2003 “The Visible Minority share of external recruitment rose from 5 per cent in 1999-2000 to 8.3 per cent in 2000-2001 and 10.0 per cent in 2001-2002. A substantial effort will be required to bring the Visible Minority share of external recruitment up to 20 per cent by end of 2003-2004. The task ahead, therefore, is to maintain the momentum while focusing on achieving the results and making progress at a pace to realize the promise of the Action Plan.” My point in all of this is that “white man” you are not discriminated against YET. You are doing 80% of the time better than the entire population. But the statistics on demographics was given to show you are being replaced by in the “other” groups participating in the workforce. In 2011 the baby boomers retires but are replaced by guess who no not the singing sensational group but an continuous influx of immigrants majority from the Asian region never mind they are also retiring but the numbers keep increasing every year and replacing your numbers. Maybe then I can bear to hear even then a subtle form of reverse discrimation. ok some employers pursuing equity maybe accused of reverse discrimation is a catch-22 position to be caught in and is controversial and the HR system is usually accused of unfair practices. But, I am happy Argus responded that way about the compentencies. We see a system full of flaws and contamination. So perhaps we can also say this is another one of those error - subtle? In response to the language difficult with new immigrant, if we are going to bring immigrants in whose language skills was not screen and who cannot function fully into the labor market. Then the need is to set up social systems for immigrants to integrated and contribute into the society as soon as possible, so afforadable housing and schooling. Some one has to take responsibility for a job badly done.

descrimation within the government with regards to white man is entirely untrue first you must match the competencies, statements of qualification in order to secure interviews, and you have to know how to sell your skills, and abilities to do a good job. I always thought it is that 4 second look that is the most subjective - and if the look is white I believe you have a over-whemling chance having said that face reality of the demographics of the canadian labor market True 1946, over 90% of immigrants to Canada were from Europe. But In 1996, 57% came from Asia and the Middle East. Yes.... and here is also whats new do the math Canada’s workforce is aging so start 1946. At present, 36% of Canada’s population is over the age of 45. By 2011, this percentage will rise to 44% and now 55- to 64-year-olds make up 9.2% of the population. what i mean if you don't seem to get a goverment job - it is because you have not accepted reality of who is participating in the labor market. the fact is you must compete with 57% of other different than yourself only because i still have this survey on my desk I can able to provide this information with regards to women (Ottawa June 9, 2004) Article Source: Globe and Mail “The gap in labour market outcomes for foreign-born visible minorities may be related to incidents of discrimination or unfair treatment,” the report says, “According to the Ethnic Diversity Survey, about 20 per cent of visible minorities aged 15 and over said they had sometimes or often experienced discrimination or unfair treatment in the previous five years because of their ethnicity, culture, race, skin colour, language, accent, or religion.” don't we have laws protecting descrimation? Foreign-born visible minority women were the only group of working-age women to experience decreased employment rates between 1981 and 2001 when unemployment increased in the 1980s and 1990s, foreign-born visible minority men, especially new immigrants, fared worse in the job market there must be some conclusion drawn between whites, non-white, non-white immigrants and wealth because even when you fear discrimation of not getting a job you continue to do well economically How does this happen?

Oh i consider myself very lucky that 30% of the Canadian population are employed in government and are there so that they can take care of us and make us happy so managed the economy? well i sure like paying to be lucky this day. while we are at this maybe we should add some more folks since I did not mention about the funded projects and consulting projects funded by governments i added the 75,000 to last years employed stat in public servants 2,910,419 - no problem

oh gawd this government just keep getting bigger Increase in public sector workers (+32,000) - JUNE 04 So far in 2004 (+75,000) please visit Statistics Canada http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Lab.../LFS/lfs-en.htm Do we need so many people to manage this economy?

First off, here is a tissue for your poor overworked, underpaid, discriminated self. Secondly, get a life. Women are NOT discriminated against, what you need to do is go live 50-60 years ago and then come back and judge the differences. Women today in many cases are PREFERED to men and paid far more, dont judge things on CEO's. Men are more for conquest, so heading up businesses are more their style. Some women get CEO because they too have a desire of conquest, but most of the time women get MARRIED and have KIDS and therefore they dont get the major careers they want. Should we then make mothers kill all their children for the sake of political correctness? Do ALL women feel as do you and WANT a career over a family? I dont agree, because I have talked to MANY women about this and 90% would prefer a good family with children to a career. This statistic would explain why so few women hold major careers in business, because they ARE in a major 'career' called motherhood. The most important thing there could be, the most important job here Hawk try to comprehend and internalise some stats Women working full-time, full-year, earned $33,494 in 1997, compared to $45,841 for men. [ Survey of Consumer Finances, Income Trends in Canada, 1980-1997. ] In 1998, less than 10 per cent of directors at Canada's top 200 industrial and service companies and top 100 financial institutions were women. [ Women Board Directors in Top Canadian Companies: The 1998 Corporate Women Directors International Report, November 23, 1998. -- (Ontario's Success Story, p. 8) ] Women are severely under-represented in non-traditional apprenticeships that lead to well-paying jobs. They make up only 1.6% of the automotive workforce in this province. Only 10 per cent of registered apprentices in Ontario are female, and they are concentrated in lower-paying occupations, such as hairstyling, child and youth work, horticulture and cooking. [Ontario Ministry of Education, 1999.] taken from this website http://www.gov.on.ca/citizenship/owd/engli...ts/economic.htm I don’t have the time to convince anyone that wage inequality exist and very overtly in some occupations I might add But i can say that women don’t just enter the workforce because they simply want to contribute to household income, they are in dire-straits and in economic need. They have to provide for all those additional family members that you want me to believe women are born to produce. Here are some more facts for you In May 1986, two-thirds of working mothers with children at home said that they worked to support their family. Over half of all working women worked to support their family and/or themselves. In 1992, 44% of women in the labor force were the sole supporters of their households: Single - 24% Divorced – 12% Widowed – 4% Separated – 4% recap your arguments: - first with the outrageous traditional family concept of predetermine role for the woman - secondly women are not descrimated against. so it is okay that they are found in traditional “female” jobs – usually menial clerical with low wages - thirdly when the women speaks up – she is ridicule into oblivion It depresses me this denial and more denial. Number one priority should be, a way for women to have access to high wage jobs is demonstrated by the fact that nearly 45% of all family households maintained by women lived in poverty and are POOR So it is common sense that women need to plan and determine their own paths, and YES they need to become career oriented and have contingencies: get educated, acquire new and up-to-date skills, get retraining become self-sufficient and be reoriented to a psyche to provide for the family before they start live in your dream world So number four don’t give us lip service about wage equality and in reality provide us gaps in wages and then covertly cover-up with some flimsy explanation alluding that women usually want to be at home and raise a family because in reality they are on their own @ 44% of the time struggling by themselves. No wonder the gods and man mock and mar them But even when the labour force consist of 56% females they occupy low level, traditional women jobs. Discrimination exists. Well here is a simple task, give all your "many women" you have spoken with the opportunity for one-month spa treatment getaway to “get back into shape” immediately after giving birth – bonding with the baby anyone? so much for family The only difference between the sexes should be procreation and breast feeding. The fundamental propose and wish would be for equality for all persons and paramount is wage equality and inclusion to the good ol buddy club so that women can experience some better standard of living Here is some other stats on wage gaps http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/myths.shtml

on the other hand women are not compensated for their talents .. well there is a small shift for some inclusion but no major impact for equal monies for equal work hence the usual .. they are kept economically at a disadvantage we find that female have twice the qualification, twice the education, twice the performance in order to be on par with their male counterparts i usually attribute this to less vocalisation of women talking about women, and women representing the same in politics i find women are counterproductive meaning that the few women that do find their way into politics and streamlined are swayed to party polictics which men are more persuasive in their arguments and set rules for women's issues. well, maybe its not the women's style to shout at each other four at a time to agree on policies. but what i mean is men are the usual ones who bring up issues about women, and then determine what is acceptable. the women who are in politics for whatever reason usually veto against what the common woman usually want we want wage equality we want rights such as abortion rights to choose so that we don't have to stay at home to look after kids and are able to work as many hours as the male for the same amonts of money we want to share some POWER such as power to control economics that we should not be kept poor i believe that male is fearful of loosing their bits of control of power. what i mean is that the male dominates the decision as to who get in and stays in and unless they can release themselves of such a hold which is for me a "cultural shift of the minds of male to see something as EQUALITY of the sexes" women will continue to struggle and be poor and continue to work twice as hard, holding two jobs to make ends meet. the same cannot be said for men.

the only difference between a man and women exists in their genitalia. men and women are similar in the roles they play and those roles are perceived social roles. it is my opionion that if we can come to grips that we can view these social roles of men and women as equal, then our expectation of the sexes are viewed as equal. on the other hand if we continue to select some irrelevant reflections and pronouce it as DIFFERENCE then you would have succeeded in creating biasness, and your answer is prejudiced towards the way we look at men and women. Familiar points to ponder 1) men are fearful that women gossip, we talk about their measurements 2) Without men the world would be a better place: softer, kinder, more loving; calmer, quieter, more humane 3) Both men and women are fallible. The difference is, women know it 4) Some of us women usually become the men we wanted to marry 5) It is not women’s fault if we are so tender. It is in the nature of the lives we live. And further, it would be a terrible catastrophe if men had to live men’s lives and women’s also. Which is precisely what has happened today—to women. 6) We know men are men, and this is because they have to remind you of it as soon as you meet them 7) When men and women agree, it is in their conclusions 8) One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman 9) men are about their rights and nothing more; women are about their rights and nothing less. women, men are different, decide!!

bien takeanumber mes amies ont bougés à NDP, peu de le mal

Choices, I like those. It usually is not a right to abort but THE right of women to control their own bodies. I do believe we need to give much more due credit to a women’s intelligence to decide when she is ready to reproduce Just an observation - from the names you are quoting, so is it just mere coincidence that men and menopausal women have a some dedicated interest and take up platforms to dictate the affairs of those women who actually have choices. yes, i did not think those choices are available to those two groups. If it is then I am very fearful then, that our women of choices still live in ignorance and have not acheived any self-determination of their bodies even in these modern times. because folks it would still be about control and power of women Suggestion now!! what if the government take up some responsibility in offering all those abortions .5 million dollars to raise a kid to age 18, see how that works out. Of course, we can't leave the dedicated folks out so you will be contributing some maximum funds as perhaps taxes, yes. Might very well reduced drastically number of abortions and then no one has to worry about abortion laws. and then money can create havoc, maybe you’d have some slightly altered views?

yes this would be solution especially if we develop into some common market like the EU and why not there are hardly any dissimilarities in the economies here and with your advantage of cooperation and joint decision (hmm i think these are the lingo they usually use) my take is canada exist in this relationship with the US, that we need to finesse gently. now if you are traditionist and believe in marriage for life then I won’t bother to argue about dangers of being left out of decision making, afterall its your welfare, and especially when one partner is trying to bond with others. what i am saying is you either join the US as the 2nd biggest opportune and participate, or be in some silly lose-lose loop now just for argument sake ... say canada was to impose some economic or trade sanctions, like take some stand aginst china for something moral .... human rights abuse. how does it impact china’s economy? Ditto! because we know fully well that other trading partners will continue to do business. well that, and also our canada is not important enough to have economic impact by itself and therefore needs to ally with the US and be the extension of the US, and to admit we are an extension well firstly the basis of establishing trading blocs is different in Europe, than Asia, than the Americas. For example : Europe - with their Political agenda 1) where integration of trading blocs serve the purpose of control of destructive nationalism 2) blocs are inward looking with such concerns of conflicts of region nation states 3) they have common rules, standard and centralized policy for their area 4) here is an acqusition they are mostly self-absorbed and not engaging with multilateral systems North America - with an Economic agenda 1) a free trade zone set up to help with external tariff that is too costly 2) more so to pusue regional economic integration 3) outward looking – and serve as a building bloc toward global trade 4) so now try and enlarge NAFTA with smaller countries, the US loses some policy dependence – because it would have to harmonise with more countries - some agenda here 5) canada’s interest with the US is preferiential arrangements same as Mexico Asia with international economic agenda 1) ASEAN and APEC initiatives are for international influence and bargaining to regulate their market 2) Institutional sturctures – a sharp contrast to EU So who would you like to join up with, the asians for institutional structures and some common external policies, and would you be able to keep cost and benefits in check? Or you'd rather join up with more politics on yin yang in EU? Or then perhaps you'd rather stay with the US and be ambiguous? and unknown? how about that Larry King chap with Brian Mulroney former Prime Minister of Great Britain here is how we are signed off MULRONEY: Good to see you, Larry. Thank you for having me and delighted to be with you. KING: My pleasure. Good guy. Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister of Great Britain (sic).

custom unions (cu) are a far more superior arrangement than FTA however you are looking at it. it is simple with common external tariff, eliminated obstacles of rules of origin (though some Euro communities retain quotas), and whatever else you have written up my opinion if trade zones are established in other areas such as Europe and Asia then we definitely need to liberalized the Americas. canada cannot be contented to have bi-lateral arrangements, while say Mexico have several arrangements with the The Group of Three, FTA, NAFTA so we must agree to pact with more of NAFTA to proceed i am much in favor of some hybrid arrangement of FTA and CU -like some arrangements of cut-off tariff rates say 1% -eliminate rules of origin, since tariff is so low we would have achieved our transshipment problem of trade deflection and now no one is very concern about political implications of rules set in Washington because that is what extended negotiation and a promotion of joint decision making with the US means to Canada

Economic left/right: 3.88 Social libertarian/authoritarian: 1.90 mmm i did this before, dang....slight move further right and i keep thinking i am a liberal

i am with business on this one ... they usually have a one track mind and a softly corporate "killers instinct" it means staying in business and also keeping it the thin line drawn for extended 3-4 seconds to mess around and have fun should not be to some detrimental ripple effect and expense of businesses bottom line and i actually do support gays in their quest for what is equal