LonJowett
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LonJowett
-
-
Trudeau was a wife beater and gave Margaret a black eye.
Is there a contest among the right-wingers on this forum as to who can come up with the most unsubstantiated, wing-nut bullshit?
-
Contribute if you wish.
No, but thanks for the permission.
-
Well said.
And speaking of Japan, Canada didn't even enter the war in the Pacific until December of '41; or am I wrong about that?There wasn't a war in the Pacific to enter into until then.
-
They defineitely do cherry pick, but I really don't care about high risk drivers having to pay more. Tough luck, drive better.
But under the private system, high-risk doesn't necessarily even mean you're a poor driver. It just means you fit the wrong demographic profile.
Public insurance in Manitoba confines its generalized distinctions to vehicle type and safe-driving record. So it's more expensive to insure a motorcycle or a sports car than it is to insure a station wagon, because those vehicles carry a higher risk. You also pay more if you have a habit of getting into accidents. But they don't have the gender/age/regional biases that private insurers usually have, which makes for a fairer system. I don't think a 25-year-old city-dweller with a good driving record should necessarily be gouged just because of his demographic profile. Why not include his race as a factor if they're going to make over-generalizations like that?
-
We've got wing nuts on our side too.
That's for sure. Some of them probably look a lot like you, as well.
-
They remain a 'havenot' province, while many others have turned their economies around.
Besides Saskatchewan, which has a lot more oil (and an NDP common denominator), who are the many others who switched from have-not to have?
-
As long as it's being refuted by other medical studies...it is NOT CONCLUSIVE!
You can always find someone, backed by the tobacco industry, to refute the studies. Even if it isn't conclusive, that's no excuse for jeopardizing children's health just for the convenience of smoking indoors. Anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves.
-
You do not understand the difference between geology and economics.
You odn't understand the relationship between geology and economics.
-
Nevada feels its free to determine for itself whether marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated.
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/
By comparison, the CPC defers to Bush for their policy on decriminalization. There are even people on this board whos only argument for decriminalization is that the U.S. would be mad. Pathetic
-
Geoffrey, why don't you just admit that the reason you want mariguana illegal is because you just hate stoners?
-
I think that's the first time I ever saw an antidrug ad that wasnt total crap. But they don't mention that you can smoke dope and go mountain biking or skating or whatever. Then your really having fun.
-
I have quotes too. These ones indicate “national security be damned; we want to talk about blowjobs.”
Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."
GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."
"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."
GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"
Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."
Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"
Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."
Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."
-
I wish they would debate lowering the potency of today's chemo crop.......when one puffs sends you to la la land, it's way to strong......
That just makes it easier on the lungs, and way more affordable...
-
So what then? Since they are going to do it anyway wrong becomes right?
What makes it wrong? The fact that it's illegal? Then your argument can be a perfect circle--it's wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong.
-
People come here for hope. Despite all the efforts of liberals to create a nanny state, the dream of splendor and making it on one's own ingenuity still lives on here.
Or maybe the so-called nanny state has created the stability for prosperity to flourish. All emperical evidence would suggest that, given the economic dominance of North America since the New Deal.
-
Again, if it is in the interests of society to prevent people from screwing up lives, why then would we allow people to do that with drugs?
Exactly, and given Black Dog's actual, supportable facts rather than your half-baked assumptions, it seems that the only way people are screwing up their lives from pot is by getting a criminal record. If it is in the interest of society to prevent people from screwing up their lives, legalize it now.
-
And what would your learned response to that day have been? Get everyone together in a circle of friends to hold hands and think about the unity of man?
What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?
-
Let's move past jdobbin's *bash* *bash* *bash* the Conservatives and look at this poll closely.
Attempts by CPC shills to dismiss any commentary as "Harper-hating" and "bashing" are just getting more and more pathetic. It's sad when you get so defensive that you dismiss anything remotely resembling criticism (and even that which isn't criticism at all) as bashing. It looks like you're being overly defensive and, if so, why?
-
Done and done. Oil isn't running out while we are alive. Or ever.
Geofrey wasnt paying attention when they covered peak oil in intro Geology if he thinks it means we are running out of oil.
Every year we produce and use more oil than the previous year - thats not necessarily going to stop soon but that oil is going to get more expensive to produce. Just look at the what it would cost to produce a tar sands barrel. If natural gas prices jump, that estimated cost also goes up too.
In terms of investment, that doesnt even mean the oil companies are going to get higher profits. Their profits may stay at roughly the same exhorbitant rate - or even go down. It's the production cost that will drive the price so high.
-
I am 100% behind trade liberalisation in all forms. Should be no restrictions on who I want to do business with, it's better for business and consumers both.
And yet you're opposed to the trade of cannibis.
Which is the perfect way for provinces to make more revenue.
No matter what the cost of enforcement, even though your arguments are purely economic and rarely based on "goodwill."
No restrictions for business, but more restrictions on women's bodies.
It's very confusing.
-
How independent are these independent film-makers, though? By and large we're talking about people who've received grants from government or interest-groups aren't they?
By that logic, nobody is truly independent and everybody's opinion is suspect because someone, somewhere wrote them a cheque.
When I bother to tune in to one of these things-- which is pretty seldom, I admit-- I generally find the perspectives to be rather homogenous and predictable.You mean documentaries in general?
-
The peak oil scenario is predicated on too low oil prices until the cataclysm is upon us. Simple greed on the part of the many oil reserve owners makes that scenario unlikely (impossible).
No, your scenario is wrong because you base your argument on the assumption that the cost of producing a barrel of oil today is roughly the cost of what it costs tomorrow. But after the peak, it gets progressively more expensive to produce a barrel of sweet crude because they have to drill deeper to get less.
And as to your simplistic question of "why don't they just leave it in the ground now?" ignores the fact that our economy is wholly dependent on the provision of oil. Take it away and there is collapse. Nobody makes money from economic collapse, so the tendency is to enjoy the good times while we have them and hope for the best.
We can prepare to make this inevitable shock less severe. Our kids would thank us.
-
When I was a kid I had junkies always hanging in the lobby of my apartment on the Plateau in Mtl. I think I would have rather there been a place for them to go rather than there.
-
Actually, the Reform Alliance and the PCs favoured decriminalization when it was first introduced by the Liberals. Harper just suggested that the allowable limit be dropped from seven grams to five. Once the Americans got wind of it though, the CPC chickened out. So much for not being in Bush's back pocket.
Yeah, or they just wanted to make sure the black market stays black.
CBC to air comedy "Little Mosque On The Prairie"
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Then how come, in the post directly above yours, you are cited as saying you find the stereotype-based humour offensive? Perhaps being called on being politically correct made you decide to change your approach to your argument?