Charles Anthony

Turn that around: if women can be free to dress scantily (I believe they should have that right), is it fair for them to complain that men do not look at their eyes? or to "see them for the person they truly are" yadda yadda yadda?

Are you kidding?? When was that discovered??? I am sure the law predates our perception of health issues and risks. I wonder why Calgary still requires businesses within the city to provide rails for tying up horses? Neither. I thought my example of taking advantage of a mentally retarded person person was obvious -- but obvisouly not. I am saying that the concept of "consent" is not cut and dried. Here is a challenge for you: do you know what consent means??

I recommend we call an exorcist. NOW!

What exactly does Quebec have over and above any other province?

It certainly was not part of the election platform and I do not recall any discussions leading up to it. It was fast thinking. It is naive to expect the rest-of-Canadians to understand how this strategy affects the separatists. This is just a chess-match between the Harper government and the separatists -- unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how big you like your government), one which only parliamentarians can truly understand. The rest-of-Canadians will be fixated on getting their farm back. As a result, it will likely back-fire.

Rah! Rah! Rah! Three cheers for democracy! Hip! Hip! Hooray!!! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coersion of the State! If Canadians had one ounce of dignity, they would learn from the Bloc and elect more regional and provincial parties. The Bloc Quebecois is the first party to bring common sense to the House of Commons.

I agree. One has to ask: do we REALLY need our politicians enacting motions which effectively amount to nothing? I agree. That is probably all it is. However, why do we pay politicians to play games? Is it not bizarre that we pay our federal politicians to grand-stand? He get better bang for our buck turning on the comedy network. Hell, I would even say the CBC is more useful! I do not think Duceppe should stoop so low as to even consider this stupid motion. If I was Duceppe, I would be curt and rude with the federalists. I would stand up in the House and tell them all off -- in terms that are disallowed in the MLW forum rules.

Huh??? Other than their parents scorn, what exactly limits them now? Why? What makes that so certain? The concept of "age of consent" is difficult and not so cut and dried. Mentally retarded teenage women are occasionally preyed upon by twisted youth -- and they get pregnant. Where do these people fit into our concept of "age of consent" laws?

What about Coke or Pepsi?

A traditional right? Would that be a type of universal human right or an inherent right or maybe a "God-given right" perhaps?

So what? They are providing lower rates to more people who otherwise had high rates. There are too many variables for this to work,Name one. I just took OUT variables. I took out your bureaucracy. What an interesting "essential" service. I wonder if this logic can be applied to other "essential" services..... What would they fear??I do not think free-loaders will ever be satisfied.

I would do that too. I would NOT do that. I would treat them as we treat our friendly neighbors to the South.

Telling the same joke twice is up there with painting-by-numbers too... I know, I know.... it is a bit trollish....

I think using racist slurs at any time is foul. I believe a performing artist (dancer, musician, comedian, whatever) should ALWAYS be able to keep his cool. A performing artist who can not handle hecklers belongs in the same pile of art as painting-by-numbers. The modern culture of stand-up comedy is exceedingly wimpy. The general protocol in stand-up comedy is that the ONLY response acceptable from the audience is laughter and applause. Absolutely no other interaction is acceptable. Members of the audience are often ejected from the room for non-compliance. In my opinion, that is very wimpy and very poor performing art. It is a real treat to experience a stand-up comedian who can spontaneously manage hecklers in real time and incorporate the distractions into a performance. Those are the ONLY artists among stand-up comedy. The ability to bounce off hecklers should be the way to judge the talent of a comedian. Having said that, I insist that Michael Richards was the only humorous actor on the "Seinfeld" show. Each and every other actor was complete and intolerable dreck.

No. So long as the link is still active, search engine robots will follow them. By the way, have you ever seen BoardTracker and Google.com log in to the forum?? It is not just deleting the messages but the IP addresses are blocked so that the forum does not receive more spam. The sooner the spam address is blocked, the less spam the forum will receive. If the spam message contains links and people click on those links -- or if search engine robots follow them; something nobody can control -- the spammer receives notification through server logs that this forum is alive and a good target.

No. I could say: one accident and you are cut off from having any benefits again. Problem solved. or Treat it like a crime: one accident and you are charged with assault. Problem solved. How careful should drivers be, according to you? That makes no sense. What exactly happened to support your conclusion?

This: reminds me of a scene from Lord Jim's ship. Sure! Why not?? Does it not go something like "He who is without sin...." Are you insinuating that he is a sinner????

You are not saying what you want. What are those rules? What is "coverage" mean? What exactly is this insurance?Let me put it in a different way: what exactly do you want to happen when somebody gets into an accident? If you are not going to deny people a policy, my proposal is cheaper.

That is exceedingly vague. What "service" exactly is essential?If you are talking about a government taking over a service, be more precise. What service do you want the government to provide? By the way, what do you think of my proposal in post #6 which still stands: Get rid of insurance companies altogether.

How do you describe GeofFrey's experience above, i.e. ING coming into the market and offering 50% lower rates? Is that a result of government or unfettered capitalism?

I agree. I think that is the only rhyme or reason. Absolutely! :clapping hands smiley:I still believe that my proposal is more fair than income-splitting for "couples" but it is only under the caveat that we want to consider "household" income instead of individual income. However, my proposal is still too ridiculously complicated. Filling out income tax forms is stupid enough. I am starting to see the light and I think it is better to just get rid of income tax altogether. Keep it simple.

?? Both Leafless AND Ambrose are switching to the Quebec sovereignty side at the same time? It can not be true! What are the chances of that happening??? I am just jealous that I never thought of starting a thread with just my own name in the title.... even if it was an accident.

No. You would fit in the |...uses invalid formatting..........| category.

This looks too much like a set up but I will bite. I am in total agreement. The only thing I would like to add to the above is that you mispelled insurance companies: it should be G_O_V_E_R_N_M_E_N_T_S instead. Wrong. This is government-cronyism (or blind-submission-coersion) at its finest - if you have the power of government on your side, then use it to screw your fellow man. The government forces people to have car insurance and the government dictates the rules. That is not the free market. Your attack on the free market is invalid. When industry is in cahoots with government, it is not free market -- you know that. You attack freedom but hide cronyism. What exactly do you oppose? You are not spreading risk -- you are spreading cost. If that is what you want, my proposal in post #6 still stands: We would do better to forget about insurance companies altogether, right? Do you dare to counter my proposal? I might add that we could do the same with the personal computer and the pet supply and the hoola-hoop industries: raise everybody's taxes and the government warehouse can provide us with personal computers and pet supplies and hoola-hoops whenever we needed them. Transparent?? What do you want to see?? All you need to see is a price so that you can compare. Perfect competition doesn't work that way.Of course not but the concept of perfect competition is irrelevent. You may be right. However, they may simply have more available money. Why do you not ask yourself: why did it take ING so long to get into our market??? The answer to your "perfect competition" problems are found there. Ask yourself: what barriers to competition prevented ING from being in our market all along??? What role does your government play in the financial market? High prices and profits are not evidence of collusion. In my lemonade stand example above, are we colluding? Why should it be anyway?? When you say above "we see new players like ING insurance coming in low..." makes me ask: why would you have a government step into this market (and have all tax-payers responsible for paying its freight) if you are seeing evidence of growing competition within the market???? I am reminded of an Industrial Arts class introduction to drafting three dimensional objects. The teacher opened by asking us to imagine four people each standing around a four-sided building. Each one would draft a sketch of the building but each sketch would be different. However, each one are looking at the same building. I am also reminded of my father's amazing collection of amateur photographs. He has a unique habit as a tourist: he would photograph statues and monuments and various attractions from behind. We can always get picture books and postcards but, we rarely get to see the whole picture.

To prevent the second (and the third and the fourth and the fifth and .... and the next who just logged in) person from reporting it too -- obviously. Why would Greg want to be get a million PMs about the same spam message???? The best for who?? Try to think of what it is like to be Greg. He probably gets a million PMs everyday. Some of those are reports of spam and some of those are reports of childish flame-bait threads. He only needs ONE notification for a spam message.