Figleaf

deleted

Which is how PetroCan was formed. That one was a real winner with the electorate and the business community. What do you feel was wrong with it?

Point of information for those getting all worried ... nationalization doesn't need to be carried out like a third world confiscation. Nationalization could mean just the gov. buying up the industry on the open market.

Let me try anyway... No, the finder of fact can evaluate the credibility of an unrebutted affidavit, just like unrebutted testimony. The words indicate that the document is not intended to bind the signer to that position in a court of law. A counterparty who gets a document signed 'without prejudice' can refuse to acknowledge it as affecting them. A contract in which a party purports to sign without prejudice would be void. No. An entity created under the constitution of Canada; the split-sovereign government over the geographical area known as Ontario. They are not corporations. Possession is not 9/10s of the law. That's just an old saying that doesn't reflect much truth anymore. You are refering to land (real property). I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you ask 'why'. Do you mean how did it evolve that way? Or do you mean why hasn't the government changed it to something else? Or what? Lots of books available on this subject. Basically, all specialized areas of knowledge develop jargon because it's efficient for those within them. Consider computers: 'application', 'menu', 'location', 'business analyst' ... Just walking down the street, no. Lawyers can do whatever a normal citizen can do in terms of creating trusts or being trustees. They also have license to hold client money or property in trust under the terms of retainer agreements. Other methods can be used if Birth Certificates are unavailable. This question is nonsensical, so far as I can tell. Trustee for what person? What "derivatives"? Why would they? No. Yes, if he/she thinks so. Many of your questions pertain to information you could look up in legal materials. Other are malformed or assume an incorrect premise.

Not really, it's pretty easy for me to sit here and point out Coulter's essential baseness and that anyone who condones her has questionable taste and integrity.

Y'know Figgy, you probably don't even realize that you instinctively look to government as the solutioon to all problems, but you do, of course, like any self-identified leftist. You would be so much safer to avoid unfounded assumptions. I am not a self identified leftist. I'm a rational centrist. So, in fact, I do not instinctively look to government. My post here has nothing to do with instinctively looking to government. It has to do with whether free speech should be protected from a certain type/source of censorship. ??? I haven't called for it. I've raised it as an issue for discussion. You have a very strange view of things.

I don't even think he needs to leave cabinet, but he can't keep this portfolio with this allegation unresolved.

I acknowledge your point. I don't think there's a practical way to insulate a celebrity from the economic consequences of not being popular. I'm thinking more about cases where the economic consequence is imposed by an employer, or a contracting party and is based not on the market/economic factors, but on say a political difference.

Because to protect it in that way is to curb the freedom of the other folks. I know your first inclination is to get the government involved, but why not just keep the government out of it? You know, Scott, it's just plain tiresome to have you shooting crapshit like "I know your first inclination is to get the government involved" into every discussion. The fact is, it's not my first inclination. In fact, I usually advocate free markets. I'm trying to have an interesting discussion here about a point of policy and it just drains the friggin' life out of things to have to respond to dilatory imputations whose purpose seems to be solely to satisfy your need to vent aggression. If you want to participate in the discussion, it would be better for you to attempt to respond to the issue by perhaps answering the question I posed. Or to actually make the argument to support your obvious kneejerk impulse to "just keep the government out". I'm sure you consider yourself a real brainiac. Why not try to show it?

She is a vicious, hurtful, mendatious idealogue who plays to ignorance and malice. It's no wonder she's the poster girl for today's Right.

Headline: Some Irrational Pollsters Create Imaginary Headlines. If you're thinking about becoming a headline writer, I advise you not to quit your day job as a political hack.

Blah blah blah. If you bothered to read the statute I referenced, you'd notice that it specifically contemplates resignations.

If you didn't mean to imply that Christianity should be exempt from accusations of religoius extremism, then your comment doesn't seem to have had any meaning at all. Your choice -- were you senseless, or simply wrong?

Surely you are not trying to pretend that fundamentalist Christians are a figment of the collective imagination!?!! It takes a truly weak intellect to hinge an argument on using the absolute fringe of a position to represent the mainstream of the position. Fortunately my comment is in no danger of falling within the scope of that criticism, and it would take a truly weak intellect to think it could.

I think it's hilarious how western hawks get so bent out of shape by Muslims chanting at football matches, but think it's AOK for themselves to urge bombings and invasions in internet blogs and letters to the editor.

Knowledge builds confidence. Read... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17

Keep counting your chickens, Rod. You'll soon see what comes home to roost.

Maybe they'll get around to making that change after they decriminalize pot.

You don't suppose Mohammed could have walked there, or ridden a horse or something? Are you calling Mohammed a liar? I've never met the man, nor read his books.

You don't suppose Mohammed could have walked there, or ridden a horse or something?

Someone should forbid it. History where you 'take your own side' is really propaganda. Real history ought to be a search for truth. Are you endorsing the Islamic way of doing things?

Not the State's business. If people want to talk, then they deal with the consequences of their actions, good or bad. But presumably we protect this freedom because we value it. Why shouldn't that value extend to protection from economic or social coercion? Do you mean more so than other groups? Yup. I'm dubious. But it may be simply a difference in definng 'professional groups'.

What don't you ilke about Rollins? What's that got to do with Coulter?

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...7653b90&k=37328 Former MP refuses to confirm or deny he got rich payout to vacate seat for Day ..."Seven years ago, my desire was to protect my family until I found work. I was just a grassroots guy, not independently wealthy and trying to do the right thing." TELL IT TO THE JUDGE, JIMMY!

Don't treat poll results as firm numbers. Do an average over the last few polls. If a poll comes out and says 50% than the next day another one says 60%. It doesn't mean opinion has changed by the whole 10% in a day. It just means both (or just one) poll is on the opposites site of the error margin. We'll need to see the next few polls before we can make *anything* of these results. Headline: Tories Attempt to Dismiss Latest Polls