Canuckistani

Neither am I, but he makes some good points. I didn't know they were not living together when the supposed abuse took place - to me that makes it harder to believe her. I was willing to accept the judges findings that she was abused, now I'm not so sure. An inquiry seems like a bit much - the case is dealt with. The inquiry will either find that the cops and justice system don't always protect women properly, or that women lie during custody disputes. (Hello sexual abuse allegations) We already know those things, doubt if any radical new solutions will be found. Just a lot of money spend to produce a boilerplate report.

I've fixed that. You said you found nothing on google - couldn't have looked too hard. What do you mean my quote isn't good enough? For what?

So what's your term for people who make the claim that God doesn't exist? As i say, in common usage, atheism is the term used here, while agnostics are the ones who are not certain either way.

It's a belief that there are no supernatural beings. Otherwise it's agnosticism, not having belief either way, if belief is to mean certainty.

The supreme court deemed that the defense of duress did not apply.

Since we've never heard his side of the story before, probably good that we do: Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-whose-ex-wife-tried-to-hire-hit-man-says-courts-got-it-wrong-1.1125724#ixzz2IvYzXVeh

He wasn't charged, she was. He didn't have to refute any charges, and as has been stated here several times, the crown did not address allegations of duress because it did not deem it relevant - as the Supremes agreed in their judgement. The Supreme court did make a ruling, they ruled that her defense of duress would not stand. They just chose not to have her tried again after being aquitted twice.

You're not very good at it, are you? http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-whose-ex-wife-tried-to-hire-hit-man-says-courts-got-it-wrong-1.1125724 the interview but a summation of it. http://www.news957.c...eign-of-terror/ that's a youtube video, not the one I saw.

Actually he mad the same point - he was never called to testify about the allegations - his side should be heard too. Also he has a copy of her psych eval, and was reading from it. In it she says she chose the timing for the hit to be before the custody hearing, because she "didn't want to see him court." She had apparently been plotting this hit for about a year. To me this raises serious doubts. There is no physical evidence of abuse, so we're left with a he said she said scenario. A woman making false allegations in a custody dispute is not beyond the realm of possibility, as is this man using psychological terror to make her afraid for her life. If she wasn't living with him for tow years before the hit was supposed to go down, that makes the psych terror less likely, IMO.

No link. You should be able to google it pretty easily, unless you think I'm hallucinating.

How can that be. Since we know that "legitimately raped" women don't get pregnant, this baby would only serve to prove that the woman really wanted it and is now only claiming rape to harm a good, god fearin, man who was seduced by this evil temptress. If she carries the fetus to term and delivers, it's no longer a fetus but a baby. If they want the fetus for evidence, they only need to wait until the 11th week before aborting.

Good points Waldo. Also don't forget how much Americans spend on healthcare. If any of the peer countries spend that much per GDP or per capita, but didn't waste it on administrative costs, high incomes for doctors or overuse of procedures and equipment, think of how much the health in these peer countries would improve. Especially if that money was put into prevention, which would include poverty alleviation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/israels-fading-democracy.html?pagewanted=all

Just saw an interview with him. She hired the hit man two years after he moved out and was in a new relationship. It does sound like she hired this hitman to prevent hubby from possibly getting custody. In which case, of course, any sympathy I might have for her is gone, and she should have been tried again.

http://www.mapleleaf...89

Sorry, the US is one of only two OECD countries with less that 50% public funding, in the US it's 47% In Canada it's around 70%. But as Bill Kristol famously said, ordinary Americans don't deserve a single payer system like the US military has. Or US medicare, with the famous slogan "keep your government hands off my medicare."

Just slumming, I guess.

Yep, the US has lots of tech. But primary care has been shown to be lacking. Just scroll back to some of the links/quotes that I put out.

But it's fun. Actually, the OP was about the state of health in the US - my mistake for the title. But, since it became a discussion of healthcare, some of us have put out metrics just how poor the US system is, especially if you take the cost into consideration. Private health care just doesn't seem to deliver a cost effective product, and administration costs are way more expensive than single payer. But, when you've got nothing, you twaddle on about minutiae.

So you're an agnostic. Pretty well any thinking person is, even one who thinks there is a God. Atheist is usually applied to people who are sure there is no God, which of course can't be substantiated any more than the belief there is one. God is outside the limits of objective proof.

Don't forget the pre-existing condition crap. "You're sick? How do you expect to get health care coverage if you're sick?"

Actually b_c is doing a wonderful service here. It's so much fun ridiculing the US with him around, we don't pay attention to tall the things inviting ridicule in Canada. b_c is probably a Harper plant and not American at all.

http://www.commonwea...-Countries.aspx But we can't crow, we came in at number 6.

http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/49084355.pdf

oh, let them have their fun. The US is in such a sad state they just have to point out every instance where Canada does it toooooo.