Charles Anthony

They always worked for me. The earliest attack ad that I remember was a Liberal ad attacking Mulroney. The television ad depicted him pushing a shopping cart filled with his promises. When he got to the check-out counter, the hook at the end of the ad said something like "You can not afford all those promises!" and that convinced me. I voted Liberal. The next attack ad that I remember was the Tory ad attacking half of Chretien's glamorous face. That one was easy. I voted Tory. The next attack ad that I remember was the Liberal ad warning of the "soldiers in the streets with guns" and that scared the hell out of me. I thought: "Our soldiers should not be allowed to carry guns whether they are on OUR streets or on some foreign streets!" and I voted Liberal. Now, with these latest Tory ads attacking Dion's difficulty setting priorities, I think I will vote Tory.

These guys are now dying on a hunger strike. Would it be civilized to ignore these guys and let them starve themselves to death? Homes Not Bombs Their list goes on but they are not asking for much.

I agree.Furthermore, a Human Rights Tribunal has the tax-payer's endless pockets.

I must admit that this: is my main source of facts. Secondarily, I get the rest from Maple Leaf Web forums. The two sources sort of lend themselves to the old axiom: You are what you eat.

I have no statistics. I am just recounting hearsay from two emergency doctors in Southern Ontario. That is why I said "I have been told" up above.

Hey! What do YOU know?!??!? What books on banking have YOU read, hunh?

It is a real concern. The "good samaritan" rule does not always protect physicians. Occasionally, when there is a medical malpractice lawsuit, plaintiffs will try to sue everybody within a fifty mile radius of the incident. As a result, when there is a birth going awry in a hospital, physicians will call on the intercom for help to no avail. Everybody usually stays clear. Sad. Contrast that with what happens when an airplane pilot asks if there is a pilot on the plane. Anybody and everybody with a slight amount of flying experience will stand up and offer to help. In our current "state" of affairs, my thoughts on home-births are mixed. I have no problem with a midwife delivering a baby in principle. Their skills are probably just as good as obstetricians. They do so in hospitals and in homes. I have been told that midwife births (whether in hospitals or in homes) tend to cost more than doctor-delivered hospital births. Often what will happen is if there is even a slight worry, the midwife will call 911 and waste the services of the paramedics. The paramedics often end up standing around for the delivery of the baby and then are still required to deliver mother and child to the hospital. A huge waste. Furthermore, many of the emergency deliveries that are rushed into hospital are attempted home-births.

It seems like you have nothing to offer to regular consumers who are too stupid to manage their money.

This could be a shrewd double strategy. If the ads are pulled, the Harper team could try to take it to the Supreme Court again. If there is a law suit, the evidence -- in this case, the ads -- become public information and the Patterson team might have a hard time preventing their public display.

The Liberals have very little else to offer... ...would you not admit? So...... other than eating hot-dogs, is there anything else in the Liberal platform that you would consider an asset?

Why not? The Liberal platform and record leaves nothing else below the surface.

I think you are going about it in the wrong way. If drug addiction is a problem, deal with drug addiction. If walking around publicly and being a nuisance is a problem, deal with walking around publicly and being a nuisance. Legislating morality to stop people from walking around publicly and being a nuisance to tackle the "real issue" -- drug addiction -- is pretty convoluted. I think you are riding the cart ahead of the horse. I do not know why but this sort of strategy reminds me of the old woman who swallowed the horse to catch the cow to catch the goat to catch the dog to catch the cat to catch the bird to catch the spider to catch the fly.

Condense your quotations and posts. At least half of this thread is scroller-coaster white-space and entirely repeated posts. Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes! Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

Point of order guys: Stop repeating entire posts. It is not necessary to repeat the entire post. Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes! Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

I am going to win. You have won me over with that argument. That sounds like a good enough reason to have the tax-payer protect the fiat currency banks. Since it is the public's interest to have good quality footware at rock-bottom prices, I propose a tax-payer funded national footware subsidy. Furthermore, in the event that a footware manufacturer or distributor or retailer or cobbler should undergo financial hardship, the tax-payer should be required to bail them out. We would not want to see Canadians going barefoot, now, would we? Imagine what that would do to the economy!

You are not answering my question. You are not providing a reason why the tax-payer should be obligated.

I am just having trouble accepting this premise on face value. There are too many degrees of separation between this legislation of morality and legislation of personal safety. Do you have a link or reference to back it up?

I think we have found the problem but we can avoid it for now. Now, I want to know: is the tax-payer funded insurance the ONLY method of insurance that can do it?

Tell me why a private bank should get special treatment?

Low-level basic economic principles (make no doubt about it, that is what is lacking here; along with a cluttered thought process) is a science like any other: anybody can learn it. I am not going to argue that point -- for now. However, that is not my contention. I do not believe it is the tax-payer's responsibility to take on that risk. I do not care how much we may "enjoy the same standard of living" because it is coerced charity. If we forced Bill Gates and the Queen of England and Warren Buffett and The Waltons to send every person in the world a thousand dollars, we could all enjoy a higher standard of living too. Does that make it right??? Big deal. Many people put their money in dubious or risky investments all of the time. Some win and some lose. Why should the tax-payer be forced to take on that risk instead of just the specific agents involved????? That is one way of looking at it. In effect, you are forcing the tax-payer to fund somebody else's consumption and spending. You are not being fair. A different way of looking at it is that we lead ourselves into a fake standard of living which can not be maintained in the long run. Inevitably, we will crash and the standard of living rises somewhere else in the world. We complain about outsourcing or exporting jobs. Let us look at the same dynamics. If my business goes under, I propose that YOU and the rest of the tax-payers should be forced to bail ME out. We may call this the CADIC or the Charles Anthony Deposit Insurance Crock. Would it be fair for YOU to be forced to bail me out? We could have a tax-payer funded X-DIC for every other business in the entire country to prevent a "run" in everybody's business. Sounds fair?? I do not believe the private banks get special treatment.

I find it hard to believe that somebody who says "I want to enlist in the Canadian tax-payer serfdom corps!" would be refused a Canadian citizenship. There must be more to this story than meets the eye.

I will not dispute that one bit. I would like to make a because we are discussing prostitutes who are subjected to violence. Also, I am not convinced of your exclusive relationship between drug addiction and street walkers.

The state creates one problem which leads to an other problem that creates an other problem and so on and so on and so on. People work tons of different "jobs" to pay for drug addictions. Should we criminalize Rock And Roll music and the international modelling business too? I believe in de-criminalizing street (as opposed to patent protected pharmaceutical) drugs too. I thought I was heartless. I would rather de-criminalize the whole deal.

Permit me to be so twisted and warped as to justify a brothel but here it goes... The brothels offered a safe physical environment. If prostitution was legal and exempt from taxes, a "low end" prostitute may find that spending 30% for safety was worth it. Why deny them the choice?

Good catch. This article is apparently a "teaching" aid. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation