guyser

Were Larry Miller and John Williamson separated at birth?

Now the other Larry Miller , the really unfunny one, has been slapped by his mentor he is now recanting his words but "said that he stands by his views that those who wish to be sworn in as citizens should uncover their face." http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/conservative-mp-larry-miller-recants-inflammatory-niqab-ban-comment/ar-AA9TnHm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2090635 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10826089009058873?journalCode=sum http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sciprc/pdf/ALCOHOL_AND_VIOLENCE.pdf http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/consultations/basr/camh.html

Life is so convenient for you isn t it? Police Forces being pretty much the right wing idea of excellence....until they arent and for that day they are left wing or liberal. "If you think education is hard, try being stupid"

This is quite interesting . It is similar in that police forces have (or are) equipment they roll out to enforce the laws , the same equipment being totally unecessary for the actions that they are performing . In other words, if we dont get the desired results we want, lets make the scneario one where we do.

Thats obvious er ...wait? Your opener says you wanted the truth and didnt get it. Now you dont care. Largely no. Can I come back tomorrow and find you flip flopped again? If its wednesday...all lies If its Thursday....the truth.

Dont worry, we havent done too bad with our current guy who only worked in the mailroom.....cuz his daddy got him the job.

Provided they stay on the street, yes. Kind of like the nude beach scenario, those that should be topless dont, those that shouldnt ....do. Ugh. No

Thats Leafs game had me chuckling from the get go. (especially the goals so early and fast) The chant Lets go Oilers followed by Go Leafs Go was in perfect harmoney . Phil's right, this is a low time. Wanna bet Kahdri was hoping he would be suspended for the rest of the season?

Even Las Vegas couldnt afford them

What does the word 'oppression mean? Ok, so then one who wants to wear it cannot by definition be oppressed. Unless of course one can oppress themselves with free will. Wanna explain that one?

Ok, lets go thru this again. Uber/Raiser sign up with INs Co for liability. ANY SUIT that names Uber and raiser has to be defended by the ins co. HAS TO BE DEFENDED . Thats what they pay premiums for. The ins co can defend that they should not cover , but that is extremely diffulcult to obtain. In any event (barring criminal actions) they will have to defend and a judge will determine the outcome. Raiser being a shell company means virtually nothing unless and until the limit for the liability is reached. Raiser can not remove themselves, nor can Uber remove them, the association of the two is readily apparent for all to see. The insurance company is always named as a defendant, unless one has a lousy lawyer, but even then a lousy lawyer would know to add them going forward. The Ins CO has agreed to defend any and all suits arising out of the legal operations of the insured, it states that in every single liability policy. I have no idea what you are tlaking about or meant by 'their unwillingness to demonstrate coverage by simply providing a copy to a judge in private' What judge, why is he asking for it, does he have something to adjudicate? No one has any business seeing the policy per se, however anyone who is doing business with them can ask for a Certificate of Insurance that will detail only the limits and deductibles and show any other named insureds. There are no wordings attached to a Cert apart from the blurb reading (short form) ..."the insurance afforded by the policies described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions and conditions of such policies." Any insurer getting into bed with Uber and raiser know their operation and what they do and where the liability lies. They charge for that exposure since there can be no denial of service for the main operating point of the insured. (like an auto policy exludes any damage caused to others-cant happen) In any event, they are on the hook to defend the suit as presented. There is no escaping that. Do you really think that Uber would leave their fortunes exposed to this sort of thing? Uber will have a policy that responds and there is no doubt whatsoever . Uber will have a policy that insures and indemnifies them against all the operations of the insured, which will include Raiser, and raiser will also have their own policy. It has to be that way and no other. In fact I can guarantee you they have mutliple policies. There is a board of directors including a google executive , Uber has raised in excess of $1.5B and you think all of that is exposed by no one thinking ' we need insurance' ? They will have E&O, D&O, CGL and many other policies, absolutely no question about it. And why? Because each Director would have his personal wealth on the line , and NONE of them are doing that. The insurance carried would have been vetted by each Directors own lawyer, these guys are worth ...well uber money ! The operations of Uber is such that all hiring and payment is handled exclusively through Uber and not with the driver personally. This legally ties Uber to whatever actions the driver may do. It cannot be any other way, nor is there any way for Uber to negate that. Proprietary property. Not one entity (Muni's et al) has shown they have any legal right to see such property. Um...yea, lets not.

It is something many (incl th survey posted here) want to wear ergo it is not a symbol of oppression. So a KKK hood and the hijab are symbols of hate. You can think that should you wish, but it is apparently not even close to true. What Canadian values? Is there a booklet you can direct me to that says CDN values do not include the wearing of any partial face covering?

Ok I have no idea why you think they do not bear the burden of their actions, repeat drunk drivers pay a fortune for insurance, have heavy restrictions put on them, their spouses/children pay a hefty premium for the actions as well. It is very expensive should they blow more than .08

Again, the terms being as shady as they were.It was not common knowledge I dont think anyone thought the terms were as bad as they turned out to be. Imthankful some whistleblower got the details to the Star and exposed the asinine details. If you are saying what did we expect, ok, but once the wool was pulled over pretty much no one fought to see the light. Did I know that 6 packs in LCBO stores was contractually mandated? Nope, figured since it was called LCBO it meant (to me) that ok thanks for at least having some beer here to save me a trip. And if you wanna get even more wide eyed, go look at the history and what we had in the 60s and early 70s/ An LCBO worker could deny you service because youd bouthg too much this week/month. There was a file kept on you. Or the books you ordered from at fron of the store. Not a bottle to be found in the open.

It would be great to see both Van and Mtl get a team. Natural rivalry with Seattle and it would appear Van will support a team. But who much will they? I have a feeling ther is some residual doubt left from the NBA Grizzlies leaving many moons ago. As for the Mtl Expos, MLB knows they shafted them, it is no secret they royally F'd them over to get that team out of there. Loria is a giant douchebag and MLB knows it. MLB wishes they never had that dickhead as one of their own. But again, it comes down to $$$ and if our dollar goes south like $0.62 again....it makes it doubly hard to convince anyone at MLB HQ to move on this.

The terms being as shady as they were. It was not common knowledge.

No you didnt. Let me explain it to you. You said... The assets have nothing to do with the lawsuit UNLESS the judgment is more than the liability limit. The lawsuit proceeding means there is a liability policy in existence as evidenced by the ins co defending it. The no asset ruse means nothing to the policy being active. Example: You own a house. You file for bankruptcy and have zero assets left. You get sued for a slip and fall on your property and you lose that suit. You have no assets though. Doesnt matter, the ins co is paying the suit and the defence costs. Should the plaintiff get more than a $mill, then the lack of assets means you are held personally. I never said that so how could I agree? Having no assets means nothing to the validity of having a policy.(see above) The plaintiff will sue the company and the ins co will respond. They have to. Cahnces are a claim will arise to test these waters, and it is a certainty that Uber does have a liability policy. Assets mean nothing until the policy limits are exceeded. NO idea how you come to this conclusion. A liability policy will have standard terms and conditions applicable to every company written on form. There will be minor variances. A suit will be before a judge and should he find for the plaintiff, under liability, then judgement will be rendered and the ins co will pay.Hell, there could be some exclusionary wording that a judge could easily ignore, it has happened plenty of times. Yes appeal appeal appeal ad naseum, but thats a normal course of business. Ubers real problem is convincing folks to sign up with them and for those (foolish) folks to think that Uber has some policy that is readily available to cover shortfalls that may occur....like denial of any passenger compensation under Accident Benefits . The scenario goes like this.... Pssgr injured in Uber Cab. ------> got his own car-----> file claim with own personal car insuance carrier. Pssgr injured in Uber Cab.-------> No car at all?------> file claim with driver of Uber car------>claim denied *** then sue driver and Uber. (*** Or as many in the business think, dont confess to the uber angle from passgr and driver alike and hope ins co pays and doenst look to hard into it- a VERY real possibility)

No need to. I understand it clearly. But I guess I could walk up and buy the setas being offered....right this second , and pay $65. Neither team would make me do that. Or sit just off the glass for $146. So there are folks who spend more. Ok Would seem that with the availablity of seats,at pretty cheap rates, $300 or $400 is a pipe dream. If they get that, good for them, free market. NO doubt. LOL, you keep trying to sell that. Best check your own backyard. Id hope so, its their home rink. But we both know that far more Leaf fans exist anywhere than any other team.

IN the event of traffic tickets, it is but one part of the process. You get a ticket, pay the fine. Get a few more...pay as well. Then the insurance company runs a report and charges you more, or cancels you . Then you pay again! Take drunk driving. The ticket is hefty. The suspension is even heftier. The cost for cabs, friends to drive you is even more ! And then...............you have to find insurance. Now youre going to pay big time and for a good five years after. That $50 cab ride is the dumbest one many have ever denied themselves. Go ahead, spend $20,000 instead.

Oh...error all mine then.

It was the Star that broke the story. When they got their hands on the contract and published what they found, the story got legs.

Good idea ! Dont forget to report yourself too while you are at it. Do you need help finding where you do/did the same thing? It really is easy , denigrating my dad, telling people they live in moms basement, .....but you know there is lots more. Now be a fair one and report yourself. No? Typical then. carry on.

In many cases yes.It allows them to shield from being doled out should a claim top their liability coverage. Dont make that bet, you'll lose. If they succeed (plaintiff) then there was a trial, there was a defence entered and that means there was a policy since it would be Ins CO lawyers doing so on behalf of Uber/Raiser. Chances are, the industry would be well aware of Ubers policy and actual existence . I would think it would be fraudulent for them to say otherwise. A liability policy never 'offers' anyone anything. It exists to meet the requirements needed to protect the company against lawsuits. A cab company has the same thing, no coverage offered to the passenger, only the drivers policy does that. (and your own of course, which is first defence-mandatory) Uber has been working with traditional carriers here and in the US. As for here, the rules are pretty strict against using off shore Ins Co's and while it is done it is done under the strictest of arrangements. No doubt about that.

Good lord, dont put those in with nurses. Sheesh...