Charles Anthony

What??? With set profits? How do they set profits? That sounds more twisted than communism.

Of course. I am not one to defend democacy much but face it: if you use votes to determine what "the people" want and if not enough people vote them out of power, what do you expect???

To be fair, there is competition by courier services. There is also the competing force of email and fax. I understand that you mean "basic" delivery to include small envelopes and postcards and such. Nevertheless, privatizing a corporation can still be done leave it as a monopoly.

I will respond. I have no problem with it because it is not my airplane -- it is theirs. They can do whatever they want. Passengers who do not like it can grow wings and fly themselves. I see no reason why not. How about full-body cavity search for every single passenger? How about every single passenger must be hand-cuffed and shackled to the chair? The whole premise behind the original question: is a little unrealistic. It can not be an either or situation. On a private airline, both liberty and security are given up anyway. You are a guest in somebody else's house and you do not make the rules. If you do not like the rules, get out. Fly your own plane. Furthermore, nobody can affordably provide much guarantee anyway. Demanding either full liberty or full security is impossible unless you are flying your own airplane.

Not for me. I would support privatization regardless of how it affects delivery in remote areas. What do you mean by a guarantee? Do you object to remote areas paying higher prices for delivery?

The answer to your question is simple: No. Everybody is making things too complicated. The reason why a film-maker should NOT be held responsible for polluting anybody's mind is simply because nobody is forced to watch movies. Period. End of story. Do you feel compelled to watch stupid movies?? Be practical: Who the hell would police the censorship of movies?? Who the hell would preside over a judgment on Hollywood pollution?? I agree that there is filth in practically every single movie. I agree that it contributes to perversion and anti-social behavior. However, I disagree with laying blame on the film-makers. I will fight to the death their right to make their filth. One of the most moving dialogues that I have ever found in a movie was in "The People VS Larry Flint" enacting a press conference. Flynt said something to the effect that because he produces the worst of the worst, defending his rights defends everybody else's freedom.

If they had half of a brain, they should accept your proposal because your proposal gives half of the proceeds to Alberta. I have a better proposal to please Alberta: impose your carbon tax on all provinces EXCEPT Alberta.

The prosecutor (and judge) are civil servants with a fixed salary and increases according to seniority. It is impossible to fire the incompetent or merely slow and lazy ones. How does two-for-one in pre-trial prison time act as an incentive for a prosecutor?I am giving the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt that they care about their job and that they have a heart when they face the public. At the very least, it leads to people like us asking questions about fairness and demanding swift justice. I am not pretending that is the deliberate intent of the law. That is why I said "some semblance of an incentive" in my words.

You ask a good question. I have a better one.Why do we give double time served ??? The two issues go hand in hand. Cutting the time served provides some semblance of an incentive on the part of prosecutor to mete out justice promptly. How else would YOU have it??

Sure, I don't see why not.I have encountered that same view from other Canadians as well. I just do not understand how to reconcile a brotherly relationship with respect to national security and military combat but an adversarial relationship with respect to commerce. I find it bizarre. The only explanation that I have is simplistic: we are dealing with two different groups of Canadians. The general public is duped into supporting military missions. The crony-capitalists are involved in trade disputes for personal gain. The trouble with this reasoning is that the decisions to go to war by all countries are made in back-rooms by a select unaccountable few people. The general public rarely knows the true reasons nor are they consulted. What does it mean to say: "You etc...." to me or to any other individual? What if I told you that I believe that what is happening in Afghanistan is purely securing a drug trade?

Are ALL muslims "Islamofascists" in your eyes? Is that part of your rant?

You just want to hear some more explicit descriptions!I am still trying to figure out the "sitting on asses smoking and engaging in anal sex" act.

BBC News The GuardianI wonder if these soldiers and our Canadian soldiers even knew why there was a Great War after all?

Before World War One was labelled as such, it was called the War To End All Wars. Calling us in World War Three makes sense except that it would be wiser to just accept that we will perpetually be at war.

How do YOU know?

Can you be more clear? What exactly did you ask? Please re-iterate what your question was to Mr. Clement. Do not say you "questioned" him. What question did you ask? Do not say you "cited" anything. Say exactly what you cited. Do not say you "reminded" him of this site. What exactly was the dialogue? I am struggling to understand exactly what you are saying. You told Mr.Clement that this discussion group said that the Conservative government is scrapping the CBC. Is that correct? It sounds like you are attributing Conservative Party platform to things that are posted on this discussion group. Is that correct?

Thank you for reassuring us that it was just politics and drawing our attention to "A handful of protesters" in the Yukon with an agenda. Slow down! Did you read any of your quoted article? Take a look at this: That sounds like an any-which-way-the-wind-blows agenda justification to me. Stop the politics.

Thank you for: 1) understanding the question 2) answering the question. I am still interested in what "rights" are being attributed to personhood. They were renamed "right to life" but I want to know what that actually entails because regardless of what side of the fence we sit on the issue, neither one seems to have an answer.

I'm not sure what you mean about the first part.Stop the politics and be realistic. You said "a group of people asked him" and I suggest that you ask exactly who you think those people happened to be. Really? There are about 25,000 people in the whole Yukon territory. Most of them are there because: 1) ancestry 2) they love the outdoors (hunting, fishing, recreation) 3) they accept extreme cold during the winter 4) some or all of the above I suggest that you visit the Yukon when you get the chance. It is the most beautiful part of this country. You expect people to believe that Yukoners are really interested in the World Conference on AIDS in Toronto more than they would be about defending the Northwest Passage. Are we so stupid as to not even consider the possibility that your "Yukoners who asked him" were not planted for a counter-strike against Harper? They are probably back in Toronto right now.

Most political parties are represented in the Yukon too. I wonder if people will still be ragging on Harper about this triviality even after the conference is over?

So, what is the obstacle? Just lower the age at which young offenders are admitted and build more "youth detention centers". If they can not be sent home, what choice is there? What you are saying is that "if the top of the kid's head does not reach this height, he can not get in and go on the ride" is it not? I am saying: lower the bar and build more rides for smaller kids. The infrastructure exists. We do not have to invent new ideas. All we have to do is deal with more capacity. What exactly would be scrapped? It certainly does not seem to add anything concrete. I think most of this announcement by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is garbage: nothing more than political fluff only intended to appease and shut us up. What will it take to have a politician say that parents are slightly responsible for what their kids become? Is it because there are so many silently negligent parents who honestly associate their own parenting with those of "broken homes" and thus are reluctant to attack parenting as an issue?

Are you open to the Canadian military joining American forces overseas and following direct American command?

It sounds like you are attributing "rights" once the umbilical cord is cut. Specifically, what could those rights be? Secondly, whatever those rights happen to be, they must be provided to the newborn by somebody else. Those rights are meaningless in the same way as it is meaningless to attribute rights to the non-aborted entity. Who is responsible for upholding the newborn's rights? If you can not assign a person who is responsible for such rights, the criteria accepts infanticide. Some cultures do accept infanticide in various forms -- commonly death by abandonment and exposure. Are you willing to go there?

The ones that NAFTA and the WTO have repeatedly said the U.S. broke, that the U.S. should not be charging duties:Thank you. Now, what do you suggest Canadians should do with respect to future military engagements vis-a-vis the States?

What rules are you talking about? Consider me wanting to buy your bakery. You are an old baker wanting to retire and I am a young baker wanting a business. What do we do??? We haggle. I want to get the lowest price (but I do not want to be out-bid by a third baker) and you want to get the highest price (but you do not want me to go buy somebody else's bakery). The haggling continues but there are no rules for this business deal. The softwood lumber dispute was a little more complicate but neither side was asking for free trade.