White Doors

Only if they are not citizens. Jezus. Is everything you have an opinion on factually incorrect or what?

Wrong. I haven't sold the house yet. I have not realized the increase in the value. It is only on paper right now. I will soon, but haven't yet. Currency supply never doubles that quickly. That is assinine. If it did we'd all be running to the banks and withdrawing our money.

Except that by the time the population increases the house prices have already gone up. I imagine that's why the 'professor' is still working and not rich.

Actually, if we want to talk about reality for a moment... When a guy is charged it is alleged that he has committed a crime. If the right to the presumption of innocence is to mean anything, then the default has to be pre-trial release...otherwise people get the punishment before it is ever proven that they are guilty. So, except for the reverse onus situations that already exist, bail IS a right (and in fact "reasonable bail" is the right...so forget about a US-style $100,000 bond) unless the Crown can show cause why that right should be denied. In many jurisdictions, it takes 8-12 months to get a trial in a provincial court. No bail for 12 months for a sentence carrying a 6 month jail term would be pretty outrageous. Now, before you answer something like "well they can just plead guilty then...who ever said there was a right to a trial", please refer to the full text of s. 11(d) which I have partially reproduced above. FTA But this type of reverse onus bail/parole conditions has already passed the legal litmus test in regards to murder and drug trafficing, to it's really a moot point. It has already been ruled that it is 'reasonable'. And I know that we are getting pretty lapse for sentences here, but a 6 minth term for a 'serious gun offence' Don't think we have gone that far off the deep-end.

Wrong. They already have reverse onus bail for many things, including drug trafficing, murder, etc. read up and educate yourself.

True, but my point was that there was an increase in currency supply that went with his house value increase. My university prof once said that you can accurately predict real estate prices with population trends. The effects of the currency increase may not be felt right away and it shows that the increase in house value may not be real. it's not real? shit. Well I guess I am poor. Here I was going to sell this house and be mortgage free in the maritimes next year. Guess the banks will tell me that the increase in my home's value is because of the money supply.. I will have to start all over again. thanks Poly. I may have avoided financial disaster because of your advice.

That happened because currency supply went up. The value of your house has remained the same, the value of your currency went down. Check the prices of silver & gold to see this. In Rome you could buy an outfit (white things they wear), a leather belt and a pair of good sandals for an ounce of gold. Today you can buy a complete suit with shoes for that price. You think in dollars and bankers decide how many dollars are in the economy. You are working for half what you did 10 years ago. The low priced imports and low price of genetically altered mass produced food is preventing you from seeing reality, but it will soon all come crashing down on you. It did? Crap. I guess that extra 200k will be worthless then. Too bad.

What the heck are you talking about? What policy? Mr. Harper does not allow his MPs to say a word and all the policy is written by the PMO. His MPs may as well be a bunch of robots who vote the way they are told to vote. Why do you care whether you got a female or a male robot? The reality is that the other parties have way more women - roughly 1/3 while Mr. Harper has a mere 12% women in his caucus. This just brings out the fact that the Conservatives are a bunch of sexist, racist, homophobic bigots. haha. My, what a balanced view point you have there! Harper has the same % of women is his cabinet as martin. Do you consider Martin and the liberla party the same as you consider the conservatives?

Harris saw too it? Ar you too young to remember Bob Rae?? holy Cripes.

I would likely pay less in a purely private system because I currently am in a low risk group. However, I know that status would only last as long as a $500 fender bender on icy roads where I don't even make a claim. I would rather pay more now if that means I will not be subjected to extortion because of some random event in the future. if you don't make a claim, youre insirance does not go up. period. That is pure BS. I used to live in London Ontario, I moved to Guelph Ontario for work. My rates went up for no other reason that Guelph is considered to be part of Toronto. So i have to pay Toronto insurance rates dispite living almost an hour away. It works out to nearly a $200 difference/year in my insurance rates. Explain to me the logic in that... The CFO at my company had to pay insurance rates in the order of $7K per year... because he was immigrating from overseas. He had been driving since he was 16 but again was considered a 'new high risk driver' despite passing all the MOT drivers exams including a road test... thats just plain stupid. I was speaking in relation to accidents. you make a claim on an accident, your rates go up - of course, if you do not - they do not.

I would approve the use of force in instances of self-defence and, (and this is an important consideration) in cases of self defence where the use of force is likely to acheive something. For exaple, this past summer, I had no problem with Israel trying to root out Hizbullah rocket launchers. I had a problem with them bombing and blockading the entire country. The use of force must be proportional, and must have measurable results. Not force for force's sake. Hizbullah, to my knowledge, never agreed to a ceasefire in South lebanon. And there was no bilateral agreement on Gaza. Whereas the use of force clearly sends the message that terrorism doesn't work, which is why Israel was able to solve its terrorist problem. Wait...what? Basically he approves of force as long as it's not Israel doing it.

A lot of people in the Maritimes thought private insurance was good until everyone in the province started experiencing huge increases. Good for you that you are doing well. Some provinces have not done well with private. I'm from the maritimes. That was mostly because of 9/11. If the government controlled it they would just increases taxes.

There is definitely private insurance for cars that can be cheaper for some. It is a bigger difference based on age, location and driving record though when you look at private versus public. There's a reason why some people have been getting pissed at private insurance lately. Well then I defintely prefer private insurance. I don't want to be associated with other high-risk groups - nor should I be.

I would likely pay less in a purely private system because I currently am in a low risk group. However, I know that status would only last as long as a $500 fender bender on icy roads where I don't even make a claim. I would rather pay more now if that means I will not be subjected to extortion because of some random event in the future. if you don't make a claim, youre insirance does not go up. period.

So can you find fault with his message or do you simply dismiss it because of the source of the person who posted these facts?

The Salvation Army is run differently that any other church and operates mainly in downtown areas. That is why I specifically used the term _suburban_ churches.It was Jerry that made the original assertion that higher charitable giving amoung the right-wing crowd was proof of a more charitable mindset. I pointed out that such conclusions cannot be drawn from the data if it includes donations to suburban churches. That is a crock. Salvation Army churches are all over the place. I grew up in a town of 3000 people, there was one there. You've been had - just admit it.

Why don't you try proving that my claim is false? I have seen the financial records of at least two suburban churches and I know that 90% of the money was going to pay for buildings and priests. It can't really post that info online though. From my perspective it is obvious that suburban churches do not domuch charity work and anyone who claims otherwise is making a rediculous claim. You have heard of the Salvation Army right? You do know that is a church? Your assertion, your burden of proof.

Which does more charity work: a group that sets up food banks and asks for gov't and private contributions or a group that lobbies politicians to outlaw abortion? Your statistics cannot be used to draw the conclusions you would like to draw so don't bother pretending you have proven anything. If you really believe that 'right-wing' people are more charitable then post some statistics that exclude donations to churches and political lobby groups. Again, why would you want to exclude churches? They do lots for charity. Because you are obviously ignorant to what they do doesn't mean that they are any less a charity than Greenpeace is. You just don't like Churches, obviously. Besides, I'm sure there are alot of liberal supporters that give to churche's too. Your assertion is assinine, illogical and hateful. Back it up or retract it like a man.

Rediculous. Suburban churches are nothing but glorified social clubs that do almost nothing that can be classed as 'charity' work (i.e. feeding the poor). They should not even be entitled to a tax deduction in the first place but that is a different issue. Evidence? Back up your ridiculous claim.

Media bias is showing! -If it bleeds, it leads. The media concentrates fully on the inevitable body count in Afghanistan, but interestingly, only ours. The DND has released that it suspects about 2000 taliban have been killed by Canadians, providing a measure of success, yet one would be hard pressed to find this information presented as readily as our own (very important 42) casualties. If we had achieved a 50:1 kill ratio in either of the World Wars or Korea, they would have been very short contests!! -Very little information on the billions of dollars in FA spent by Canada, the US and other allies in Afghanistan in development of infrastructure, creation of industry and on NGOs to maintain and raise the QOL for the Afghan people. -Circumstances surrounding soldier's deaths ignored. It does'nt make it any less worthwhile or painful, but does'nt the public have the right to know that Cpl. X died in an intense urban engagement in which he was killing numerous enemy in pursuance of our larger goals? Conversely, the last 4 casualties have been sustained as they guarded the construction of infrastructure - yet media reports repeatedly said they were "ambushed" - this creates the perception that we are hapless targets - disregarding the fact that the attackers in these situations (direct fire attacks in daylight) rarely escape with their lives. -Repeated assertations by various left leaning public figures that the only way to build Afghanistan is through development and aid, disregarding the fact that most NGO's have now pulled out due to the poor security situation. You simply cannot have development or aid without security. These figures are given prime soundbites on the evening news. -Referral in the press to Afghanistan as a "failed state" when more accurately it is a state that never was, being a violent patchwork of tribal allegiances, a fact alluded to by the British in the first and second Anglo Afghan wars. Once again, you can't build a nation in the presence of a band of religious zealots, intent on spreading their version of government on a road of decapitated government officials, burned girls schools and kidnapped and murdered aid workers. No development without peace. -Referral to the war in Afghanistan as "Bush's War" or a "war for oil" when Afghanistan has no oil reserves to speak of, and the only plausible explanation is the three decades old plan for the Trans Afghan Oil pipeline a possible link to caucasus oil. The idea that we would go to war to secure a pipeline route is laughable. -Little media coverage of the fact that the Taliban harboured AQ, and AQ attacked our best and strongest ally on 9/11, killing 33 of our own citizens. -Taliban atrocities against NATO troops are ignored or presented as rumour, while NATO's killing of enemy combatants or civilians reasonably thought to be so are presented as suspicious acts of murder, despite CF/NATOs full disclosure of all relevant information not compromising OPSEC. -Little attention given to the nationalities of many "taliban", in defiance of intelligence stating that many are mercenaries, foreign jihadists, coming from as far away as Chechnya, and in the employ of ostensibly friendly nations such as Pakistan.

What about the 'loose' / 'lose' debacle? It drives me crazy. LOSE (when you lose the hockey game) is spelled as 'loose' ALL THE TIME. I have NO idea why. drives me nuts. There, I feel a bit better. thanks!

What stats are necessary? The gov't treats churches as charities which means that all stats regarding charitable giving includes donations to churches unless someone has gone to the effort to separate them out. It doubt Frum would bother to do that since separating them out would undermine his arguments. I also know from experience that the overwhelming majority of monies donated to Catholic churches go to pay for priests and buildings. The priests do some charity work but the majority of time they spend working with parishioners. What a asinine assertion. You think it's cheaper to run a church or Unicef? feel embarrassed yet?

Report'd! I see you and the other fella missed the point. If you want Israel to get special treatment, expect it to recieve a bunch of attention. And maybe if there wasn't a big-time Israel lobby (sorry, Rue, but it exists.) pushing the interests of a certain segment of Israeli society, we'd be seeing a bit more progress. Wanted: A moderate pro-Israel lobby haha Reported for what exactly? haha Anyways, I am not asking for special treatment for Israel. In fact, I am sick of the 'special treatment' that it already gets from the UN and the media. Think the UN human rights commission they had in Darfur. Think Reuter's photoshopped pictures during the Israel Lebanon war. No, I'm not asking for special treatment for Israel, in fact I am asking for the 'special treatment' to stop.

Agreed. The price difference is amazing. Sure, it may be tax funded to some extent, but this is one case where I think the government can provide far superior services than the private sector. Think about how much cheaper it is to spread the risk over the 2 million Alberta drivers compared to the 50,000 clients that a mid-sized company has. Not mention everything would be much more transparent. Perfect competition doesn't work that way. We'd see near rock bottom rates... as long as someone could do it cheaper, they would, and gain the customers. Like I said, I pay half with ING as I did with Monnex, same coverage. Why do I find it difficult to believe that ING has half the costs of every other insurance company I've got a quote from? The collusion is very evident. The government forces a reduction, and the companies turn billions still in profit. There is no price competition at all... we see new players like ING insurance coming in low... and yet 90% of the companies retain their high prices. Hmm... The insurance market, at least in Alberta, is very far from perfect competition. Hey, I hate Insurance as much as the next guy. but I have cheaper insurance than anyone I know from BC or SASK. Yes, there are flawa in the system that can be fixed - but calling for the government to com ein and take it all over is like asking your mommy to make you a hot chocolate becuase you have a tummy ache. That very attitude is what is so wrong with where this country has gone.

No thanks. I paid my dues when I was young so you can too. Don't ask me to pay for your age groups higher risks AGAIN.