gc1765

Perhaps you can show me where exactly in the modern version of the Hippocratic oath it specifically says "I will not give morning after pills to women who were raped" and then prove to me that this particular doctor actually took that oath, and that the oath is legally binding. Then you might have a point.

At least my "hunch" turned out to be correct...

Exactly.

Like I said, if it's private property then the bar owner can decide how they want to charge/tax people. But I can tell you I'd never pay extra money to put my health at risk to go to a smoking bar. If we are talking about public property though, if we are not going to outright ban it, then the smokers should at least be the one paying. Look at the example above...why should I have to pay more money and put my health at risk just to wait for a bus, for example?

I find it ironic that the people who are complaining about taking it to PM never actually take their own disputes to PM...

They also tend to be the angriest 10%

"This website is the property of the Conservative Party of Canada and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without express written permission. Copyright © 2006 Authorized by the Registered Agent of the Conservative Party of Canada." Link

I am just curious why other posters decided to jump all over you for simply reminding another poster of the rules.

But the smoker willingly smokes. Why are you Ok with not only putting your own health in jeopardy because of someone else's actions, but also Ok with paying for it? If it's a private business, then I guess they can decide for themselves how they want to pay this tax...but if I were a bar owner that allowed smoking, I'd charge the smokers, not the non-smokers. Otherwise, no non-smokers would go to a smoking bar (at least I wouldn't) if it is going to cost them more money.

Shouldn't the smoker pay the extra health premium? Or are you talking about private health care now?

What is so wrong with pointing out to another poster that he is in violation of the rules?

Those 10% are probably the same 10% who are the most anti-homosexual...

No, but I could see someone who was secretly gay and repressing their homosexuality doing just such a thing. Maybe that's why some people are so obsessed with being anti-homosexual...

Was that directed at me? If you're accusing me and GC of being the same person, you might not want to go down that road, considering how much your posts resemble somebody who got banned from this forum a year back. -k If Betsy is accusing us of being the same person...well, that's probably the best compliment I have received on this forum Thanks Betsy (even though you are wrong).

No, I wasn't thinking of the Conservative party at all. Double standards seem to be pretty common around here lately...

And how would you feel about a party that was formed on a religious basis to benefit one religion over all others?

Geoffrey is a socialist?? I think that comment belongs in This Thread Good one...I'll be laughing for days...

no need to get angry because you were wrong. I don't think it's excluding any races to say that they work hard for Chinese Canadians, just as I don't think it's excluding any races to say that they work hard for white Canadians. If they had said the ONLY work hard for Chinese Canadians then they would be excluding based on race. I think the purpose of this party is to try to look out for the needs of new Canadians. Since I am not a new Canadian it's hard for me to be more specific about what those needs are. See above.

Perhaps you should read the entire thread in order to avoid such an obvious strawman. Show me where they "omitted everyone but Chinese Canadians". "But he later said the NAP wasn't a Chinese Canadian party and he intended to recruit immigrants from all ethnic groups." Link

Answer the question...

Not unless you give me some reason to have a problem with it... Are you saying the Conservatives don't work hard for White Canadians?

No, but some people on this forum seem to think that if a party says it will work hard for Chinese-Canadians, that somehow makes them "Chinese-only". Apparently you missed that.

You think the Conservatives are a "new Canadian"-only party???

Also on the party's website: "Today I want to talk more specifically about how my new government will address the concerns of hard-working immigrants and new Canadians" "Hard-working immigrants and new Canadians need a new government – a government that shares your values, a government that shares your priorities." "New Canadians will be a critical part of making the 21st century our greatest one yet. New Canadians deserve a federal government that truly respects your efforts and hard work, understands your values, and never takes you for granted" "On January 23rd, stand up for accountability, stand up for new Canadians, stand up for Canada." Ooops, wrong party. That was from the Conservative Website I guess that means the Conservatives are also an immigrant-only party??

I realize that, but the argument about pharmacists refusing to sell morning after pills came up in another thread (the taxi driver thread) and is related to this discussion. Betsy seems to think that everyone should be boycotting taxis who refuse to carry alcohol, but when it comes to the issue of refusing to sell morning after pills, she avoids the question. A clear double standard.