Charles Anthony

I could be in at Belleview in Detroit, MI in a week if I was willing to pay. If I could I would.With all due respect, you are not answering the question. Why must you wait for the service you need? If you need a sleep disorder specialist, but there are very few of those in your province and no new specialists want to come to your province no matter how much they get paid, how can you blame the government??? There are illnesses that exist which have no cure. There are illnesses that are treated by very few specialists in the entire world. There are people waiting for organ and marrow transplants. There are people waiting for compatible blood transfusions. There are accident or violence victims whose lives depend on the arrival of paramedics. All of those patients have to wait too. Is that all be the government's fault?? It is physically impossible to serve everybody instantly -- to varying degrees, there will always be a wait for service. Correct. It has always been here. Expanding two tier to allow more privatization will take people (willing to pay extra) out of waiting lists and let the very poor move along waiting lists faster. Start demand privatization in Canada or wait in line!

You are refusing to be objective. Your objective is supporting abortion. Your support veers you away from examining the various implications of abortion objectively. Supporting abortion is part of YOUR religion. Your question above examines valid points pertaining to abortion but I must point out that: 1) your question is a spin 2) you do not even answer your own diverted question 3) your insistance on spinning away suggests a fervent lack of objectivity My question related to applying rights if the non-aborted-thing survives pregnancy. You know that. My question is valid because each person to whom the right to life is applied must survive a pregnancy.

Ok. I agree. Then why did you appear to be arguing against abortion?I have a few answers to that question and I am not ashamed to present them. Some are simple and some are a little complicated. However, in all fairness, your question is not playing the ball but rather playing the person. Granted, I am certainly not one to point fingers. I am very guilty of not playing the ball in several instances. Nevertheless, my question truly goes to the heart of reconciling "Your Religious Views on Abortion" as they have been addressed in this thread by various people. Forgive me, but I believe that your question above demonstrates a loss of objectivity. Interesting question... I will answer your follow-up question only after you objectively answer mine: When does a person acquire the inalienable right to life and why that time? [Let us assume that we all agree that each living person has the right to life. We can argue that principle or conditions of when they lose that right or whatever later.] I realize that it comes across as a baited or a trick question. Trick questions are ones that usually have no answer or only one answer: the one you do not want to hear. Nevertheless, I would like to think that people do have the right to life at some point.

Your "white man" is not being forced to do anything. Why do you see it like he is being forced? You would do well to follow the money. I look at all of the examples you highlighted and ask: where is the money? For each of the examples, there is surely a "white man" making money. I could ask: Why does the "white man" make Hollywood movies? or the hoola-hoop? or any other non-essential diversion in life? The answer is always: because there is an "other white man" who is willing to pay for it and a "middle-white-man" who makes money. Ask the same question on a smaller scale: stay within Canada. Why do Canadians feel compelled to handout their hard-earned money in welfare or chimeric make-work programs to other fellow Canadians?

Out of what hat did you pull that conclusion??? In general, that is correct. It is usually put more specifically in terms of aggression and non-aggression between people. That is correct. You are getting "society's perspective" with "inalienable rights" confused. The common analogy is slavery. Regardless of what society's perspective happens to be, slavery violates an inalienable right to freedom. The pregnant woman's right to control over her own body naturally supercedes any rights of her non-aborted-thing. Applying inalienable rights to a non-aborted-thing is impractical. However, eventually they must be applied if the thing survives the pregnancy.

I agree -- somewhat. To be accurate, democracy is like curry: everybody has their own recipe. I can not speak for Quebeckers but I must ask: why should the constitution mean anything? I see no reason why it should mean anything.

Please be generous: what is your opinion? Why wait until that time before stating an opinion?

It is only strange if you have a natural reflex to mind other people's business rather than your own. The issues you raised (French Charter; 'notwithstanding clause') are exclusively within the jurisdiction of Quebec. Therefore, let them rule themselves their own way. That is their right within Canadian federalism The issue of the funding to federal political parties is a federal issue. It is only fair that everybody is treated equally. I agree. I am perplexed that it takes Rest-of-Canadians sooooo long to start thinking that way.

In Canadian federalism, I do not see why it should not.

Why should biologic dependence be the criteria for determining what is right or wrong?

Therefore, you could certainly be right. The difference in quality delivered may exist but the burden of volume will be lifted since some people will go to private care. The public-care waiting lists will have fewer people. Compared to our taxes allotted to health-care, you may not be paying as much as we do.

Sounds Shakespearian: "To be or not to be." What was the question???These arbitrary reasonings that involve "survivability" as a criteria are missing the point. It is a question of rights in the same way as you should have the right to commit suicide regardless of whether you are doing something good or not. Similarly, you should have the right to eat like a pig and die of heart disease. Determining a "survivability" criteria with respect to abortion requires a faith in irrelevant principles in the same as a religion can.

The "universal health care" does not mean that the government provides the care but rather just pays for the care. Correct. I believe such clarity could only come from a person who does not have the luxury of distorting the free market mechanism as we do in Canada. Canadians think they can solve the problem by "reducing wait times" or "pie in the sky" or "group hugs" or "fighting capitalism" or Trudeaumania.

This "waiting-time guarantee" is one of the most laughable examples of how stupid the general public can be and how the politicians trully take advantage of their stupidity. People who look to their politician to "reduce waiting times" would have a greater chance of that same politician coming over to their houses and mowing their lawns. Only a reflexive-lazy-freeloading-Canadian can see anything concrete out of a "wait-time guarantee" as a policy. This sales-pitch is just as creative as a government saying: "Vote for us and we will create money falling from the sky! All you will have to do is rake it up!" and the general public biting it hook, line and sinker. From that article: What the hell are they going to do if medical procedures take longer? Come down from Parliament Hill and help out in the hospital?? Penalize the hospital?? Cut off their funding?? I can partly imagine the government providing some sort of reward system to providers who succeed at the waiting times but still, the whole premise involves a completely mind-numbing separation from the reality of why waiting times are getting longer. When you think the electorate is soooo stupid, what happens?!? they come up with something even stupider! We would do better by saving the wasted paper upon which these mindless policies were written and throw them in our fireplaces.

No. Funding our "democracy" is. Funny how we conveniently use "democracy" to wield power and forget about it when it does not suit us, is it not?

It sounds more like a selective socialist attack ganging up on a minority group. In this case, separatists are the target. Joseph Stalin would be proud.

I have a better question: should separatist families be required to pay federal taxes?

QUESTION: ANSWER: An honest person who calls "this kind of money" theft and just wants his money back.

Need the deal? It is the smaller lumber producers who get put out of business by trade restrictions. Hunh? Are you advocating for free trade in lumber or for trade restrictions in the lumber market? Canadians lose too.

How does competition force them to lower the retail price, when all of their competitors prices would be equally affected?The same market force that keeps them from being able to raise the price too high. Just consider the tax as if it was an extra production cost. No. They can re-sell it. So, you're saying that someone who drives their car only once or twice a week to get groceries should pay the same amount of tax as someone who drives a lot everyday? Both are driving the same vehicule, but one uses much more gas than the other.Excellent example!

I did'nt say we have not taken down poppy fields, i said in my 2 tours we have taken down one, present combat operations don't leave any time to take down fields. Besides taking down one out of the thousands is really not making a dent.Can somebody explain what you mean by "taking down poppy fields"? What exactly happens?

Why repeat the previous post in its entirety with the QUOTE feature?

Would you search an old and frail nun (EDIT: whose face is as pastey-white as her habit because she never gets outside much) hobbling through with a walker EXACTLY the same way as everybody else??

For better or for worse, I think those two guys would do anything to stir up shit. Lifting up a Hezbollah flag is a bold move. Who knows what their motives might be, however, those guys are not stupid. They are certainly much more worthy historians (or rather editorial film-makers) than Michael Moore!

That is two questions and both answers are simple. Answer1: The rest of Canada can separate from Quebec in the same way as Quebec can separate from Canada. Answer2: No. I think it is a subject for debate and my solution is separation instead of bickering. I think more and more Rest-Of-Canadians should start asking Quebec to separate instead of just bickering. You asked a question. I quote: And I answered. What I hear from the rest of Canada is constant nagging against Quebec but when Quebeckers talk about secession there is continued nagging. That is useless bickering. I do not think that Quebec deserves more or less nor do I think they are better or worse than the rest of Canada. I just think they are different and have the right to conduct their affairs in their own preferred way. I think each province should learn from their example too.