scribblet

We watch Top Gear on BBC Canada which is pretty good most of the time and sometimes quite funny, but this time, they have created a religious storm. LOL There's a video on the page. Not sure if this is the right category either but - here goes. My favourite episode is when they went camping http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1342138/Top-Gear-stars-cause-religious-storm-dressing-burkas-Boxing-Day-special.html#ixzz19SW5hiEH cont...

I'm not opposed to it, I never said I was, I just have some serious concerns. I'm always up for rational discussions which seem to somewhat lacking these days. I and hubby do have end of life provisions written up it's all good. I just have a problem with opening the door to a wider scope or interpretation, such that we could see countries legalizing the deliberate ending of certain other lives eventually widening the categories of those who could be put to death with impunity - or - denied treatment. Defined parameters can be quickly broadened, once something becomes acceptable practice. It would also be wrong to keep someone alive against their will. Certainly if we are looking at costs we should start with 'heroic interventions' on preemies who might never have a decent quality of life, or not keeping alive babies born with very serious problems, lots of places to save money. Is any system of safeguards foolproof? http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5296 Holland: Euthanasia's Slippery Slope Now the Dutch Pediatric Association has asked to be able to put to death severely handicapped newborns. (AP wire 7/30/92)

Saw the title and thought - yikes, it's the end of MLW, the loonies really are on the rise.

:rolleyes: Maybe the Sopranos/liebrals should accept that they are no longer entitled to their entitlements

:rolleyes:

Was it 1984 where people over 65 where no longer allowed prescription meds?

The modern definition of euthanasia is the intentional hastening of someone's demise in order to relieve their suffering, at their request itis voluntary, without it,it is involuntary. Withholding treatment because of age and or cost etc. becomes a form of passive euthanasia so IMO it belongs in the same discussion. It's possible that a person of any age feels that they are a burden so will consent to having treatment withheld, it is the slippery slope that I worry about, not that I disagree that at times it is futile to continue treatment or to keep someone alive who will never have any quality of life at all - I just worry about abuse. I worry about when the right to die or the right to refuse treatment etc. becomes an obligation to die. Maybe we should be looking at better palliative care and long term nursing assistance as well as not sustaining life anymore.

Fixed election dates should be the norm, but federally I don't think it was ever binding. I believe the amendment to the Canada Elections Act is subject to an override clause saying the Governor-General retains the power to dissolve Parliament at his or her discretion, which means of course, at the request of a PM. They can get an election together in less than 6 months but it's a scramble. Speaking of elections, I would like to see a permanent R.O. for both federal and provincial elections (not appointed but hired based on merit etc.) with permanent polling stations and returning offices.

This is the thing isn't it, who is to decide if it's futile or what quality of life someone should be allowed to survive with? I agree that for instance keeping a baby alive who was born with anencephaly is futile, no question there, but where do we draw the line, and what would we have in place to ensure that ending someone's life at a particular point becomes mandatory? I agree that expensive cancer therapy for 87 year olds would probably be futile and maybe most wouldn't want it anyway, but what if the 87 year old is other wise robust, active with all his faculties. We should really take each case on an individual basis. If money is the main force behind the decision, then at what point do we say no to keeping premature babies alive, especially if it's likely they will have a low quality of life... it can get pretty sticky can't it. I just worry about when end of life planning or even euthanasia could become mandatory... I don't think we are talking about rabid anti birthers here either - BTW, what exactly is an 'anti birther'

It's a slippery slope, how long before the option to end life becomes, a must end life - to save the State et al money

Pretty expensive 'rocks' doncha think, wonder how many people they could feed with that kind of money. They launch thousands of rockets without any rational logic into Israel, then wonder why Israel eventually retaliates. Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/30/letter-to-gaza-from-a-soldier-we-have-a-lot-more-in-common-than-you-might-imagine.aspx#ixzz19K7jK1A6 http://www.cjpme.ca/documents/35%20En%20Qassam%20Rocket%20Attacks%20v.1.pdf http://www.honestreporting.ca/news_article_name/987654attacks.aspx Strange how many people always dump on Israel for defending itself, but never a word about Palestinian attacks Not to mention the lies they continually spread like the 'Jenin Massacre' and this recent one parroted by Islamic News Daily et al. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/12/burning-sheep-story-proven-fake.html further reading http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=6153

Well, I disagree, they do not give up ALL pretense of a private life, they are entitled to privacy at least in their bedrooms and marriage. We don't 'hire' a PM either, you know how they get there. It is disturbing that some people who usually are pretty good (including Specter) would stoop so low as to muckrake like that. Apart from that, many marriages fall apart for various reasons, it doesn't make them lesser beings, I wouldn't wish that and divorce on anyone.

Ignatieff - Rae - or - hmmm too many perogies LOL

That it's a no starter, it's not okay to talk about Trudeau's - err - peccadillos but it's okay to trash Harper for something we don't even know is true. This thread is really scraping the bottom of the barrel and goes to show that if they can't find something worthwhile to bitch about, they'll resort to unsubstantiated gossip.

Gosh, I'll say :lol:

Well, the U.K. has more than it's share of radicals, they sure won't win friends and influence people with these types of activities. I did read that some of the protesters have been arrested for public order offences. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/211263/Muslim-fanatics-We-d-burn-more-poppies

Not any time soon - well - Christianity maybe but not Islam, it is growing. It would be interesting to test the waters by putting out a similar ad only changing 'Christmas' to Ramadaan, see what happens

:lol:

So here ya all go, wise up quit celebrating Christmas, you'll all be better off LOL The bottom of the poster declares: 'In Islam we are protected from all of these evils. We have marriage, family, honour, dignity, security, rights for man, woman and child.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340794/Muslim-group-launches-poster-hate-campaign-festive-period.html#ixzz18t0rZpm3

Yeah, but it's only bad when PM Harper does it LOL

a different take on this as the CPC is saying that the ruling is outrageous: “The Ontario Court of Appeal has authorized the practice of political parties double dipping at the expense of Canadian taxpayers,” said party spokesman Fred DeLorey. “The entire rebate that the Conservative Party has received is being held in trust so we don't have the use of it, and we look forward to returning this money to taxpayers once our further appeal is determined.” The party is pledging to appeal this case all the way to the Supreme Court. Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation called the ruling “a very dumb decision.”

I call bullshit on your post ROTFLMAO If you mean I'm not good at throwing insults, going off on irrelevant tangents or telling people to shut up so breaking all the rules, you are right. I have posted links showing rocket attacks and casualties, and aty least I'm sure not a Hamas terrorist shill. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38410267/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ the last person killed that I know of is here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/middleeast/19gaza.html http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-strikes-gaza-after-overnight-mortar-attack-1.329659 and Israel is supposed to practice restraint hah ! http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1607367.php/Israel-complains-to-UN-about-Gaza-mortar-and-rocket-barrage-Roundup http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-21/gaza-rocket-strikes-near-israeli-kindergarten-as-violence-grows.html these kids were only injured, does that count....

The fact that there has been so much news about it could add more to their (Muslim's) list of perceived grievances, although how they would determine who was gay or not on the front lines, I don't know. As I said, I do believe the problems will come more from within their own ranks, but eventually it will all blow over and no one will think about it. If gays want to get shot at along with the other guys, it's their decision, not ours IMO.

Yawn... tin foil hat time

ho hum... not another one I'd like to hear some opinions on the impact or the feasibility of the pension proposals.