Charles Anthony

Correct. Now, Wilber, I challenge you to put yourself in the shoes of such an airport owner. Two questions: 1) Would you let your airport become a refugee camp? 2) Would you let the airplanes pollute your airport? Anyway, Canadians do not want private property. They would rather shuffle off personal responsibility. Thus, I am proposing that the airlines and the shipping companies be responsible for their cargo before they are allowed to unload it.

What part of I believe this because all "public" property should be private. Thus, the admission of a traveller should be decided by the private property owner -- not by irresponsible statesmen. do you find difficult to understand?????Wilber, did you conveniently skip that next part just to dismiss my proposal? or do you genuinely have difficulty understanding those two sentences? Either way, it is no wonder that you can not make sense out of my proposal. Maybe I wrote too many sentences all at once.

I did not mean to suggest that you are not one to be able to have fun. If that is how it came across, I should have just kept my big trap shut. [You are probably thinking "Finally! He is starting to think straight!"] Your biting sarcastic re-labelling of the CBC made me chuckle. I do not ever recall you referring to them with such condescencion -- not that I do not think it is warranted, mind you. Do you think the date chosen for that first debate was merely a coincidence or am I being too ridiculously cynical? I do not know the numbers but my highly biased a$$umption would be that more Quebec voters were watching that hockey game than the debate. I would bet that RDI would make the same a$$umption too. Aug91, have you been following the Habs recently? You must have heard about the Kovalev overseas interview. The franchise is struggling for a play-off spot this year (the Leafs too, but that is nothing new) and there has been a LOT of press recently about them. Everybody is talking about what they should do, whose head to cut off, should we blame Gainey? should we blame Carbonneau? etc. etc. I wonder if Montreal fans really feel that they need to hoist the Stanley Cup again and again but it certainly seems like part of their dignity lies in at least making the playoffs. The Kovalev shenanigan is the cherry on top of le Canadien cake this season. It is a fiery Quebec political issue of its own kind. When everybody was going on about their accomodements raisonnables, Kovalev was condemning les Quebecois de souche for being racist.

What if, during the course of an MP's term, everybody in his riding changes their mind and develops a different opinion? should the MP still follow the orders of what he was elected to do????

I have a few questions for you. 1) Are you expecting to make profit by exchanging one currency for an other currency? 2) What do you plan to do with your money? 3) What do you mean by better?

I must let the Europeans retaliate as they please. It is their perogative. If I owned Canada, I would accept the European retaliation and my citizens of Canada would have to deal with more bureaucracy. It would be tough luck. This extra bureaucracy is the price we must pay for how we believe we must protect ourselves. Protection should not be free. It will only get worse as long as our transportation industry -- with state support -- continues to unload its responsibility to the public. -- and we do not have to. Who brings these refugees to Canada? The airplane and the shipping companies. Refugees should not be a Canadian problem. They should be the responsibility of the agents in our transportation industry. CAVEAT: If somebody takes this next comment and simply labels me as a racist-bigot, so be it. They are wrong and they would be stupid for misunderstanding the important issue of Who is responsible for refugees? My parents are foreign and if they never came to Canada several years ago, I probably would not be alive because neither would they. I believe all state borders should be abolished. I believe all people in every part of the world should be free to travel and reside wherever they are accepted. I believe this because all "public" property should be private. Thus, the admission of a traveller should be decided by the private property owner -- not by irresponsible statesmen. Now for the comment: Airplanes, airports, ships, shipyards and ports should not be allowed to pollute in Canada. Think about that. We would not permit an airplane to leave unattended luggage or drop off its garbage at the tarmac before flying off, now, would we?? We should not let them unload people.

Thank you for reporting this for further reference.

What would be permitted? The scenario you described (49% of population getting ripped) can happen with or without Citizen Initiatives anyway. That makes one of us because I still am confused about why you think we should have Citizen Initiatives. Maybe my shoot-from-the-hip objection was not clear. I have no objection to having things added to a ballot -- the paper is wasted anyway. However, the Opening Post suggests that we have a referenda if, for example, I, the loony anti-statesman, feel like putting forth neurotic pettitions every other week.

Guys, why should any of us bother voting?? Are you comfortable with cronyism? Are you aware of cronyism? [in an online discussion forum, quoting a blog entry gives me a vague queasy feeling. I do not know how to describe it but it seems to feel worse than plagiarism to me. Oh well.] This quote is somewhat out of its original context but it is very a propos to this thread. The Gods of the Copybook Headings

Barring a violent retaliation -- nothing.I do not understand why you ask this question. How does a Citizen Initiative make a difference?

You ARE getting bitter with them! I thought it was bad enough that they choose to hold the debate on a hockey night with all three Eastern teams on the ice!

--- and GeofFrey, if you had the opportunity to do so, for what major news network would you work? I am just teasing. However, the call-out of this thread is clearly not meant for you nor me.

If thats how you choose to see it *shrug*Yes, that is how I choose to see it. If I am mistaken, correct me. I am taking it as implying that people are coercedTherefore, yes, equating coercion to evil feels good to me as I would expect justifying coercion feels good to evil people.

That the best you can do? TskI followed your rant more than enough. You say religion is like slavery and everybody is a slave if they have a job.

Yes. Why would they not? Actually, that is not a bad idea. We should capitalize on it. It sounds like a highly unprofitable line of business that belongs in the movies. It would be like somebody inventing a typewriter after we already have computers. Sure. But I'm interested in the ethical and philosophical aspects of this.When it comes to the ethics of it, I only object to the action of inserting them into people without consent. Forgive me but I do not think you understand that these chips can be inserted ANYWHERE in your body.

You have a personal vendetta against religion and you can not justify it.

That makes sense. That is not subservience. People can quit their jobs. Now you are suggesting that religion is necessary...??

No. That was not my question. I asked: what makes slavery evil? You equated religion to slavery and you said slavery was a necessary evil.

It has everything to do with your message because you equated religion with slavery. What makes it evil?

Everybody should be en guarde including the cops. CTV

Do you identify slavery as being universally evil? I do.

Um... if you have the chip inserted into your body without knowing, how would that help? Full body armour?

How should that be done?

No. That forces the rest of the non-petition-signers to pay for something they do not want: a vote.

Did you notice that before or after you re-posted her post?