Charles Anthony

Are you trying to hijack your own thread?? So..... your answer?? am I wrong to suggest that your answer is still that Quebec bridges should be managed by the government in Ottawa? Is that what you mean by: ??? Come on, you start a thread by with capitalized letters, as if you are reproducing the title of your quoted Opening Post article. You are using emotive spin on the article. When you are pressed to concretely address the validity of your opposition, what do you have to say? Behold: diddly. I am very very serious about this because I see this Dismantling as being a good thing. People like me not only vote for this sort of thing but also pray to God that it be granted in our lifetime. You seem to suggest that it is bad. Why? One more thing: how about you explain what you mean by "effective" with reference to government? Concretely, I can see how one can define the distinct roles of each level of government. However, how (effective or ineffective) each level of fulfills those roles is highly subjective. I would rather my lower level of government (i.e., closer to me) be granted a subjective task than a government far away in Ottawa where there is a lot less accountability towards myself.

Thank you Wendy for reporting this event. At the very least, it should not be in the Federal Politics sub-category of discussion.

My asinine question is of the kind that is more worthy of debate than yours. Fine. How about you identify the following: 1) who you are talking about 2) to whom should they rat out extremists 3) are they as "free" as you? Stop right there. You never defined your ambiguous term. Unless you do, your objection is invalid. Whatever! Let me explain something to you: given that the Bible tells Christians to throw menstruating women in jail and homosexuals to the wolves and fornicators over cliffs, your appeal to the Koran to justify bigotry is a joke. Nice try.

I hope so. I disagree. Should collapsing bridges in Quebec be managed by the government in Ottawa?

JBG, are you open to the possibility that the people you are labelling are not as free to offer what you want? Also, what are you offering in exchange?

Excellent speech...on it's own terms, not because it's some bankerplot.Correct. It is an excellent speech and its banning shatters any credibility of the United Nations. It is also referenced here: Crooks and despotic leaders are thanked for their contributions yet this speaker is condemned for using a particulare tone and his issues are not addressed. This is a shame on the United Nations and worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, the implications of banning this speech get lost in the clutter and reminds me of the little boy crying wolf on the day that the wolf actually arrives. Posting this speech in the same thread as a cartoon is ridiculous.

No, it is not racist in your hypothetical example. Now, please prove that "most Muslims DO support Islamic extremism" because I know a lot of Muslims and none of them fit your bigotted stereotype. I oppose putting any responsibility on all "moderates" to make apologies for terrorists.

I like to joke with Newfies by telling them to get into the land-fill business. They have a lot of empty space. I had a riveting conversation with an uncle of mine about recycling in Europe compared to North America. He confirmed that they make it profitable because of volume and thus, they make economies of scale. Everybody in Europe recycles. We can do the same if only more people participated. This might conceivably be a good justification for the ban given our State of affairs. People who want to avoid the costs of disposing their garbage could litter. Would it not be better for everybody to aim for a reduction in consuming those products all together? If reducing these products by 50% is possible, recycling is a relative waste of resources. If processing these recycled products emits nefarious pollution, we might be barking up the wrong tree. We might be exchanging one type of pollution for a different type.

Let me play the devil's advocate: what would you do if these parents took care of their kids themselves instead? Come one! Cut them some slack! Maybe that one day was "quality" time...?

I disagree. It may be common around your parts but I actually never heard it used that way until BC-Chick insinuated that I deliberately skipped it. The biggest challenge in language arts is identifying your audience. On a national forum including members from all around the world, it would be wise to be more disciplined. I agree -- partly. I disagree. The use of foul vocabulary in written language is at best ambiguous and at worst it encourages others -- for whom the meanings are not so docile -- to escalate the language. Here is what I think is a good test: Would you speak that way to a potential mother-in-law on your first meeting? I can agree. No. I am very comfortable with Greg treating foul language in the forum on a case by case basis when it arises. He can not read every single post in every single thread. Thus, it behooves all members to take it upon ourselves to participate in notifying him when possible transgressions arise. I will wait until Greg tells ME to stop calling out what I perceive are transgressions. FrigLeaf, your attempt to explain your word-choice is what I call a bovine submission to the court of reason. The English language has an objective operator called an exclamation mark! You could have used that at the end of your sentence.

BC-Chick and FigLeaf, if you care, I will address your complacency towards foul language in the following thread: Be Canadian - Be Polite

drawn from the British Navy Sailors taken by Iranians thread post #289 and post #290 Before discussing the merits of using obscene language, permit me to make something clear: I am not a moderator. It would make no sense for me to be a moderator. My political beliefs are too extreme and I am not always level-headed. I am a forum facilitator with the job of dealing with spam and helping other members with formatting their post. I have no authority to decide what members are permitted to post. My job is to hide advertizements so that they may be deleted later by the forum administrator. Greg, the forum administrator is currently and so far has been the only moderator. If you post something objectionable, he will decide whether it should be deleted or edited. If I see something that is objectionable or a contravention of the forum rules, I will report it to him just like every other member reports objectionable posts. I make my report public in the thread to notify other members who might want to report the post too. That way, the moderator does not receive many reports for the same post. For some reason you overlooked this one....There could be many reasons: - Geoffrey is on my ignore list - I think that word is polite - I did not read that post Take your pick. IMO, neither is worth reporting... but since you feel so strongly about it, you might want to play moderator for all people who are using profanities. Not just the ones with whom you disagree.I agreed with FigLeaf in that thread. My first post in that whole thread can not be misinterpreted. You are indeed right, he did speak on the issue. Personally, I believe your word choice was unnecessary. I believe that the use of obcenities demeans the quality of the forums. The Volokh Conspiracy or Profanity:Read the rest. The author aknowledges that there are exceptions and that the context of the language may make that obvious. In an online discussion forum, foul language can be the precursor for uncivilized behavior.

That is because basically most of the federal funding to do this goes to Quebec to celebrate their St. Jean Baptiste Day. Talk about treachery.You need "federal funding" to celebrate your own culture.

I agree. I disagree. reported

I get a similar message every time I do a security update, a kernel update, an operating system update, a browser update and each time I clear my cache or my router.

Your browser is only telling you the obvious before you submit a form. Everything posted on the internet can be read worldwide.

No. I would be afraid of being wisked away at night by G-men and locked up in the funny farm. It is a good thing because it encourages more candid and honest opinion.

I think that would be a bad idea. I have my own theory about conspiracy theories: they differ from political theories only in HOW they are presented as opposed to the issue per se. Anything (for example, the inherent evil of the state or bilingualism) can be made to be a conspiracy theory as opposed to a political theory. Personally, I enjoy conspiracy theories but only in a casual while-I-am-stuck-waiting-in-the-line-at-the-checkout-counter sort of way.

Here is a hint to possibly regain "lost" posts: use your Back button on the browser. It is usually still in memory or at least your computer can be configured to retain it. This happens all of the time with me when I am on a dial-up connection. If somebody tries to telephone me while I am connected to the internet, my connection is kicked off. Thus, I can not submit a post in which I am in the midst of composing. In other words, you can, in this order: 1) log on to the internet 2) load up the discussion forum 3) start posting a reply 4) have somebody try to call you (there are often ways to stop this) 5) get kicked off the internet (there are many other harmless reasons for getting kicked off the internet) 6) never know 4) or 5) happened and still type out your reply 7) when you try to submit or save in the discussion forum, your action is rejected. This can all happen without anybody exterior actively censoring an internet user.

Good call.

You should also keep in mind that the outlawing of a product or service makes it a more lucrative business. Thus, people (teenagers included) might also be attracted to the potential profits. As you noted the problem with prescription drugs, I see no moral difference between opium dens and abusing "legal" narcotics.

This one seems like it is for the Quebec audience. It might be risky but sovereignty is dying and Mario Dumont is now the "autonomy" flag bearer.

-- because nobody can be held directly responsible for any of that land. Furthermore, your question is circular. Tell me: to whom are you asking that question? Me? You? The owner of Canada? The politicians elected to govern over Canadians? My point is that NOBODY can answer that question because NOBODY cares about the safety of that land. The dream is that you associate "ownership" to an object for which you have no control. You can say that you and I "own" those roads but we do not. Neither of us have any semblance of control over the stewardship of that land. This is where I am getting at: you will never have a solution to this 3AM hit-and-run because it is cheaper for you and I and everybody else to hide the responsibility. I challenge you to answer this question: if YOU owned that road, what would YOU do? I will answer it: I would make damn sure that it was safe. Why? because I want to sell advertizing billboards along every block; I would want to be able to rent property along my road. How? because people will wake up early every morning and jump into their car to be the first person on my street to beat the congestion on the socialist streets; they would have a better guarantee of safety because The Ch. A. Goon Squad arrests bad drivers and cell-phone operators; my street will have the reputation of clearing snow throughout the winter; there will be pretty women on every street corner handing out balloons; etc. etc. etc. If very few people drive down my street, I will not be able to sell advertizing nor will I ever hope to be able to charge a toll in the future. Fine. However, are you willing to support one small change at a time? For example, promote selling off just one "public" street or park in your town to the highest bidder and see what happens. Are you sure that the 407 operates without any government privilege whatsoever? I am not.

The government may have not yet found a middleman to broker the deal -- for which a commission would be paid. Seriously, they may be holding out in the hopes of getting a better offer.

-- the latter. CAVEAT: My authoritative opinion is based on highly biased yet anecdotal evidence. -- because they are spending money.