blueblood

Okay the folowing may be graphic descriptions for some, please be advised. Odds are no, you will not get it if, you do not have either anal sex or sex during menstruation. And even then you would have to have a cut, or sore either orally or pubically. It is a matter of how many invading organisms are required to infect someone with AIDS. Male sperm is loaded, and stays directly in the vaginal canal. Women do not excrete in the same manner men do, and the AIDS viruses, over a million of them, would have to travel up the male urinary/ejaculatory canal, unless there is skin breakage, and perhaps not then even, as women do not have bundled secretions, with millions of AIDS viruses present, through an ejaculation process the same way men do. I see. point taken. But it should not mean the guy is off the hook as far as safe sex is concerned, there's still other diseases and pregnancy to worry about.

If it's the Charter's fault, why is violent crime so bad in the US where attitudes ARE different and you CAN hang for your crimes? Comparing the US to Canada is like comparing apples to oranges, two different societies. Why was violent crime down in 1962 in Canada when laws were harsh and up when it was more lax? I'd say the problem is society and families not properly raising their kids (the ones who commit violent crime) for the most part and plain insanity for the minority of the rest, IMO.

If he means stability as far as numbers of people dying as a result of wars, then he has a point. If say 5 million people died during the napoleon wars and 500,000 died in all the little wars in the span of a hundred years then I say there is stability. Mind you that is my opinion.

So if I get with a woman who has AIDS without wearing a condom, I won't get it? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious, and if that's true you have a bit of a point. Women cheat on their husbands, bf's etc and men think they are in monogamous relationships get diseases possibly AIDS if women can spread it. I've seen plenty of good guys get their hearts ripped out due to cheating wives/gfs and likewise you've seen plenty of good girls get their hearts ripped out due to cheating husbands/bfs. Abstinence only works if you take it seriously enough, and if you get with someone you know doesn't have diseases and that. Since most people don't practice abstinence then safe sex does work. I also believe safe sex is more than condoms and birth control. If you are right and females don't spread it to their sexual partners then by all means target the guys. Education also works pretty good too.

So? The Conservatives go on about crime when the crime rate has been decreasing since 1991. The Conservatives are focusing on violent crime. In 1962, violent crime was at about 200 incidents per 100,000 people. It rose to well over a 1000 at it's peak around 1991. Since then, there have been minimal decreases but the fact is, we are basically treading water at a rate that is over 4 times what it was in 1962. Why do you think the media chooses to highlight the miniscule decreases since the peak in 1991 and hide the horrendous increases that led to the peak? Here's a site that has a number of graphs and commentary about violent crime. http://www.fradical.com/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm hmm whats so bad about trying to get it down to 1962 levels or similar. What's the difference b/w 1962 and now? -If you were part of a gang cops could make like hell for you -No charter of rights + freedoms -If you killed someone there was a chance you could hang -attitudes regarding criminals were different

Since so many people in Africa have AIDS, do you know if getting born with it now spreads the disease faster than having sex with someone who has it, sharing needles etc. If that's the case then theres a big problem 1. Person is born w/AIDS, said person is a virgin 2. Guy knows girl is virgin believing he won't get AIDS and does so 3. Child born from them has AIDS The RC church are also big believers in Abstinence as well, but very very few people follow them on that. The big probem down there is more of a lack of education, condoms can run out knowledge can't.

So your for nuking the USA? hmm. Me putting words in your mouth? I can play your game too. So you would rather send billions of people to their graves than fire off some nukes that would off a hundred or so million? Looks like I'll be seeing you in hell. Anyways it's a hypothetical situation as I blatantly said IF nuking them meant world peace... Your spin on things people say is quite alarming. My views of the middle east are to give them all guns and leave them to their own devices. Make no mistake about it WW3 could likely cost billions of lives.

So I guess what Truman did in WW2 was a holocaust in itself as he wiped out a thousands of Japanese people to save scores more people. Lesser of two evils. It was a scenario question a big what if. Would you prefer I say another location that is a vipers nest like that and has the potential to start a world war?

Whoops I wasn't referring to you there, just arbitrary individuals who are like that. I didn't know Canada had other nationalities other than French Canadians living here in the mid 1600's, oh well. Anyhoo, you'd be surprised to know that I don't support a lot of the U.S. foreign policy or their terror laws. I find ours to be reasonable. I advocate the lesser of two evils, that is IMV a primary pillar of Conservative ideology. A person shouldn't give their right to security away because of living in fear of crime.

I look at it as a part of the population having to be sacrificed so that the rest of the country would be spared. I was merely asking considering the fear concerning WW3, wouldn't nuking that vipers nest to achieve world peace and prevent a world war where scores and scores of more people would die? It's a fair question and it has been played out on a smaller scale before.

Hahahahahahaha that vid was hilarious. Won't the guys working at Chrysler just go to a Toyota plant? I'm sure they can't fit those new Tundra's in crates.

I was adressing recreational. I've seen enough people go on drugs and mess up their life and yes pot included. Plus my tax dollars having to pay for them, big problem. Cannabis would be good for oil and rope and all that when they can genetically modify the THC out of it making it useless. I run a very successful farm and am very happy, why do I need to experiment with psychadelics and drugs and wreck a good thing. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I've done very well for myself staying clean, maybe other people can get on board.

That is disengenuous and Britian has done similar, to what is above, google the Macdonald incident security England. The top priority of citizens protections is rights, they were very clear on the fact that rights and due process had to be protected first and foremost, before safety hence their ruling and types of changes that could be made, that MIGHT meet Charter litmus. But you see if we have the government choosing councillors and judges, as Harper wants, how are we guaranteed absolute unbias and forthright actions by our government? Answer we can't be. Right To Security of Person or Right to Habeous Corpus --->Pick one It is with an attitude like that we have an Organized Crime problem in Canada. Many people's rights to Security of Person are being comprimised because of all the rights granted to criminals. Without safety there can be no rights. The tory gov't is not some Pinnochet type regime as much as you'd like it to be. I found the security certificates to be fair. If you have skeletons in your closet linking you to terrorism then maybe Canada isn't for you. I'm just as scared having the Liberal party picking judges for the same reason as the tories are doing. Judges leaning both left or right on the political spectrum are equally as dangerous and should not be tolerated. We can't be guaranteed absolute unbias actions from a left of centre gov't either.

possible solution sounds much like Hitler's final solution eh? So, really you are saying that that we should just wipe out all of the ME; Israel, Iran, Irag Afghanistan, Ubekistan, Kazikstan, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Tijikistan, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyztan, plus a few more incidental little countries? wow, that's quite the holocaust you are advocating. Nice to know what Harper and his supporters are advocating! It was done in WW2 in Japan as the lesser of two evils debated in another thread. I'm not advocating it personally, I'm posting a question.

Eating is so hit and miss, every person is different, how can you gauge it? People 80 yrs. ago ate like horses and were much healthier than now. Go after the companies making us eat this crap. Every person eats. It's so much easier to practice safe sex/abstain than eat. At what point do these diseases your talking about come into affect? With AIDS its so much easier to cap.

I am tempted to throw this question out there, if nuking the whole middle east meant peace for the rest of the world is that not a possible solution? It seems like this whole war on terror is another proxy war like the ones during the cold war. Russians and Chinese bankrolling one side, Americans fighting the other. To throw a hockey saying from my coach "If someone is pissing you off, drop the gloves and have at it."

what you are pointing out is one of the biggest flaws of medicare. You and I draw the line at different places. Which is why I believe that healthcare funding should be like autopac auto insurance. If you are one that engages in reckless behavior (whatever it may be) and have to go to the hospital you should pay a deductible, but if it's an accident or beyond your control then no extra charge. I'd rather have this as a deduction on a paycheque than E.I. and immune from being funnelled into other government expenditures. IMO everyone uses the hospital, pay for it. You still get dinged for reckless behavior but won't go bankrupt because of it. Kids of course should be immune because they don't know better. On the job, most farmers with kids nowadays are stressing safety. It's getting safer. Actually what you are saying is probably one of the safest places for kids to be. The danger comes with repairs and older machinery, and being around, not in the machinery. PTO shafts are dangerous, dumping trucks, augers, etc. 20 kids each year die or get dismembered by PTO shafts. On to the next one... -Reckless eating/Obesity for sure, it's preventable + no precautions, no funding -Extreme sports exercise caution, You don't ride sno-cross w/o a helmet, we can't live in jars. If you don't exercise some sort of caution, no funding. -Car Accidents are most of the time just an accident, no way out, AIDS you can say no. Reckless sex with no attempt to use caution should not be funded by the rest of us. If a condom breaks well then you may have a point, but a person should know if they get with someone if they have diseases or not. When I met my ex-wife I made damn sure she didn't have any diseases and stuff and was safe.

My Webpage Canada gets lit up according to this. I wouldn't say stills are as rare as hen's teeth, maybe in Ontario. Where else can you get 80+ percent liquor for next to nothing. It is a time consuming process to make booze. Some of the neighbours do it, it's quite the process. Kid's grow pot, it shouldn't be too hard to grow. I can't see it being hard to grow at all, no weeds, no freezing. That having been said, I don't know how good the quality is and that's a whole new ballgame. I'm not too sure if kids care about the quality too too much. I consider burnouts the ones that do smoke pot like cigarettes and suffer some sort of mental damage. I've seen some bad consequences of it back in the day that scared me straight. like with booze too much is bad. No a person who only smokes up once in a little bit is not a burnout to clarify. I do hate pot, that is my opinion, let me be damned. Seeing a neighbour lose his farm and watch his life go down the toilet due to being high all the time sort of helps in my judgement. I said I'd be fine with booze being back on prohibition. I hate cigarettes too, cost the health care system too much money. The way things are right now concerning drugs are fine. I don't want to rock the boat and risk kids getting into worse things.

Nice try is right.....right back at you. So....your a business like I have a business. But I pay full pop for all the gas that goes in my trucks. I too have 2000 acres of land, and pay tax on it too? Who gets the break? Thats right you do. (dont get me started on tax, my little half acre lot up north is responsible for probably ten times or more the tax of the same piece of your land) I also have 15 cars.....and pay insurance on all of them. So whats your point? You pay based on what you own/need for the business. But you get a rebate or reduced price. I am not at all complaining about your benefits so dont make it an issue. I too pay GST and income tax. What the H does that have to do with anything. No one is atttacking your subsidies, or lack of as you put it. What I and others are saying is that you cannot have some "health " covered and not others. It is a slippery slope none of us should go down. As you said...nice try. Forestry and fisheries get the gas break too, don't know why other businesses don't get it, they should. Someone else was complaining about farmers with federal subsidies and the like which is why i was pointing out GST and income tax. The point of the matter is small business owners have a much heavier tax burden on them than most other Canadians. Your business should be getting similar breaks, helps out the economy, the extra money you'd be spending would make up for the tax break. What I and others are saying is that we're drawing a line. Blatantly reckless behavior shouldn't be paid for, what kind of an example does that set? The government of Canada already states that some health is covered and not others, Dental, ambulance, and vision aren't covered in Medicare to name a few. I guess some people don't want to pay for that as it would be too expensive, so what's wrong with not subsidizing someone who contracts AIDS through reckless sex?

Why not? It's poorer than us, more densely populated, it should be a gong show. Per Capita we are worse. There's still homemade stills around. The thing with alcohol is that its harder to make and therefore more easily regulated. Pot is easy to grow/produce. Why go to a store when you can grow it at home? If it was like booze and legal and taxed heavily then we'd have a problem with bootlegging to get a cheaper product. Pot should stay on that banned substance list. A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's better off that people are running around doing pot than something else. Personally i'd still have booze under prohibition, so it's next to impossible to enforce, but so what, they're too busy having their "rebelling fun" with booze than something more dangerous. Pot is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, also being a burnout is no good either. I don't know what the pot smokers are bitching about, Weed is so cheap right now, so easy to get, nobody really enforces simple possession. Booze is legal and costs a fortune.

Actually it is not a good point if you read any of the above posters. We pay for all sorts of things for people who did not think before doing. It just seems that you want to be able to say no to paying for things you have no idea about, while other stuff you agree with gets paid. Again, cherry picking. Here is one for you, since farm gas has reduced taxes payable versus what the rest of us pay, should you be in an accident you will receive less treatment than the regular paying person would. After all, reduced gas tax, reduced insurance bill , both of which got to pay for Provincial Health care. After all.....it is affecting my tax dollars. So...which is it? 2000 acres of farmland +2 farmyards means I pay more in property tax than gas offsets. Plus paying autopac insurance on 15 different things more than makes up for it. Nice try. I think and do precautions before my activities, why can't those who contract AIDS sexually do the same thing? Hmm. I'm profitable and don't use bailouts. All our stuff we get from the feds is what we pay in GST and income tax, no loss to you guys.

Hey lets not stop there . Lets us expand your right to bitch. Backwoods rescues drunk driving suicide victims skydiving mountain climbing snowmobiling toboganning trans fat eaters too much sugar eaters too much alcohol drinkers too much red meat eaters the list could go on and on yet some people like to feel their addiction and actions of choice are superior to others. It seems to be more of a case of low self esteem in regards to those who want into the bedrooms of others so they can feel superior. They are being intellectually dishonest with themselves because: There should be no more morality ascribed to sex/addictions than anything thing else listed. In the case of pedeophilia or other sex crimes. Then it is not morality either but a crime. Don't worry about trans fat that's becoming illegal which means farmers like me are cashing in on that. Red Meat is healthy for you, it gives protein and builds muscle providing its not processed and you exercise regularly. Problems related to sugar eating are because of laziness. If your reckless with anything it bites you in the ass. I don't care if people have sex or not, but when they are so blatantly reckless with it to the point where it affects my tax dollars then I wave the red flag. Geoffery makes the good point of

Barbados has a much lower crime rate than we do and has much stiffer penalties. If we legalize everything like how you want it, our crime rate will decrease because more things are legal. Do you believe that Canada was a country like Chile when Pinnochet was in charge before the charter. This fear of the authorities and acting on it is dangerous. I wouldn't say our crime rate is decreasing, I'm surprised it's not out of control since as a country we're deciding to enable it. If we legalize pot, the grow ops won't go away, there will be a bootlegging problem that will be out of control. Plus people who don't smoke it will be moreso pressured to do so because it is legal. Then they'll be crying for something else to be legal. Smoking pot is illegal, that's the law of the land, if you don't like it emmigrate.

It would seem that you are cherry picking . So being a snowmobiler , you very well know that many of your compadres do not take anything with them to ensure their survival. $2.99 ice picks to hang around the neck are almost never worn. You are also very aware of the problems of drunk driving while being on sleds. Reckless is reckless . Aids can be transferred thru childbirth, blood transfer (not now tho) so lets not be sop cold as to turn away from those that need help. I'd say sky diving is safer than snowmobiling, they take a LOT of precautions. I'm fortunate to live in an area where thin ice isn't an issue. I haven't heard of a sled going under due to thin ice in my area. I usually don't go on ice anyway as my preference is deep powder, I check ice conditions before I go on ice (if I go on it). I used snowmobiles as an example, I am very aware of drunk sledding (they IMO shouldn't get public health service cost benefits as part of their punishment) Your absoultely right in the fact of Aids through childbirth and regulated blood transfer, they can't help it and should get help. As far as the two hoores who got with the AIDS football player, I have no sympathy for them, they had an option.

Do not confuse "NO Knock" warrants as have been approved in the US. They are causing a stir because it seems some cops just dont have a good sense of which house is which. Frankly we should not want no knocks in this country. Our warrants---we knock, then politely go in the door. In Wilber's scenario, the cops did knock. The thing I'm concerned about is officer safety. We should not have dead officers for the sake of being polite. If they do get the wrong house then a full apology from the police department should suffice. Usually the Canadian Cops are pretty accurate in their warrants, if they got the wrong house you'd probably hear about it on the national news. In Quebec an officer knocked on the door and identified herself (I'm not sure if she had a warrant or not) and got shot through the door with a shotgun. IMO when the cops have a warrant, they have sufficient evidence to cart your ass to jail and should do so as quickly and safely as possible. Sometimes the saftey of the officer means some discomfort for the suspect.