Peter F

Hmmm... the lower the wages and the fewer the benefits the better off we'll be. Sorry. Not buying.

I voted No. Suck it up.

On the face of it, I disagree. If net neutrality is about preserving integrity of data and ISP need only preserve the integrity of the data to meet the requirement of Net neutrality. Is Net neutrality concerned with the speed at wich data is transferred? No. But integrity of the data must not be meddled with and the ISP's don't meddle with that. Your example of trying to watch a streaming football game that has been throttled is a good one. Unfortunately the integrity of the data was not affected, only the speed. Of course, the fun of watching the football game was destroyed, but the ISP did not muck with the integrity of the data. The game was all there if you have the patience of Job. Of course not. What business can be trusted to act in good faith?Your provider babbles about its Hi-speed then throttles it. If its good for the company what do they care about your football game? As regards to the Telecommunications act sections 27(2) and 36; The ISP is not violating these sections by throttling transfer speeds. If I was you I'd look for a new provider, but I suspect you already have and they all do the throttling for thier own benefit. The old Roman saw "Buyer beware" comes to mind.

August 1991: In the matter of healthcare, cost can never exceed benefit. Its an effing GoldMine!

'Some' August? No blanket North Americans tend to live in fantasy worlds? Just some North Americans? Yet Muslims (and many south Asians) have a tendency to live in an imaginary world ? An aberation for us NA's but the norm for Muslims?

Hmmm. So World of Warcraft is loaded up with Muslims and South Asians too. Us North Americans aren't into fantasy I guess. Star Wars was an allegory and Spiderman reflects reality. You have heard of Hollywood?

Oh, I forgot ' Gunsmoke. Twilight Zone, Apple Pie and the Bee Gee's. All part of the Canadian experience. The curse of sharing the same language as you guys. Quebecers don't suffer so much from it.

Yeah there is! As Topaz said...Leave it to Beaver, Brady Bunch, Get Smart, I Love Lucy, Bonanza and a few CBC produced shows that you've probably never heard of. We don't refer to the USofA as the elephant for nothin.

Which explains why he went to the GG, not to have an election called, but for parliament to be sent on holiday.

Oooo. Us non-jews discuss your foibles publicly too. Same with all other 'certain' groups. If this is your claim to jewish fame its pretty feeble.

I dunno...the whole thing sounds bunky to me. Naturally, the Taliban want to embolden the Anti-war sentement amongst Canadians. Apparently they achieve this by killing Canadian soldiers. But I wonder, if it were not for thier determination to mold weak Canadian minds, would they be killing Canadian soldiers? Well, of course they would. So Canadian soldiers are going to be killed by the Taliban no matter what Dadulah-kabula-or-whateverhisname-is reads. Deaths of Canadian soldiers are going to have an impact on Canadians no matter what the Taliban (or the linked embedded reporter) thinks or what thier aims are. The implication of your statement, as Sir Bandalot pointed out, is that the Media in this country are somehow tools of the Talibans Propaganda department. In that they report the deaths of Canadian soldiers. And by reporting the deaths of Canadian soldiers, give opportunity to certain persons to criticize the involvment of Canada in the war against the Taliban. Certain Persons being Me, to be precise. In order to not be pawns of the Taliban, under this line of reasoning, no one must criticize the involvement of Canada in Afghanistan. Nor should we be angered by reports of dead Canadian soldiers since such reports are mere taliban propaganda. It seems Canadians, must suck it up until victory and remain silent. To do otherwise is to be a pawn of the Taliban and that is bunk.

Well, yah. The onus is on them to adapt. Those who slay their children to save 'honour' are in for a big shockeroo. Same with ginital mutilations. You make it sound like the government turns a blind eye to those things. "An honour killing you say? Oh. Well never mind then. Have a nice day" "Surgically removed the childs clitoris? I see. Thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice day" Such things are a crime in this country. I have not seen anyone turn a blind eye to these events. Yet, somehow, us lefties are accused of allowing these things. Its the nature of democracy. Majority rules. Those with most of the votes get thier way. Your analogy of the overun homeowner does not reflect any reality. Immigrants, upon gaining citizenship have as much say in the colour of the house as the non-existant homeowner. No one person owns this country. Citizens do - no matter where they come from. No doubt some might have changed thier minds. As one of those Canadians back in the seventies - I havn't. Firm decisions about what? To charge them with murder? or Assault? Like we don't already make some firm decisions? gimme a break

You're right! 103 dead soldiers is nothing. We can and should lose far more than that before we start considering the term 'defeat'. Just look to the Taliban. They have lost far more than that - by miles - yet they have yet to admit defeat. Good thing the govt put a time limit on this thing cause if we go by body count we'll be there forever.

Wendy Mesley. Hands down, no contest.

I'm fine with happy holidays.

Only in Canada would this make the Canadian news. Its self-perpetuating!

and there's the goon, Oleg. We did not begin as English and our original family was not 'British'. It was also French. The mother of my children is Quebecois to her very soul. She sat on our couch, in rural Ontario, during the last referendum with tears of heartbreak flowing down her cheeks. She is that way, and has raised her children to be, the direct result of 12 September 1759. Here's the goon, Oleg: She is only one, just one, of millions. Millions Get it into your skull - they were'nt going anywhere on the 13th September 1759, nor at anytime since. Nor today, or tomorrow either, no matter how much you build up your fantasy of Canada being an English country. It isn't and never has been.

If If If If wishes were horses beggars would something-something... The strife existed long before the Plains of Abraham - thus the Plains of Abraham. Britain should not have made any concessions to the American Rebels either - but they did, and for very good reasons too. Same with Quebec. Without those concessions present-day Canada that you find worthy enough to issue lamentations for, would not exist. or for that matter, English?

You dont agree with my interpretation? Ok by me.

I see. So under what circumstances should opposition parties actually oppose the government? Only when that government has a majority in parliament? What should the opposition parties have done? Let the conservatives do whatever they want for fear of fund managers making decisions?

I would be wrong if I thought that, yes. But I know markets react to everything and anything. Hell, Prime Ministers and Kings passing wind affect markets. Even peace and quiet affect markets.

Of course the investor gets to invest or not in whatever they wish for whatever reasons satisfy them. But that doesn't mean we should pander to their every irrational whim. Lordy, what do these investors do during an election? Dump canadian investments wholesale? Should we then not have an opposition that complains endlessly about the government? Perhaps a good system is where any opposition acts as cheerleader for the governing party? That would have kept Canada off the moron-fund managers radar and the investments would have stayed invested. Sorry. Our politics outwiegh rediculous investment strategy's.

Ah, the sound investment strategies of Fund Managers: "I don't understand what they're going on about, so I sold" And we should pander to these shallow fools?

I never liked Stephan either...but others elected him to his position - so it is safe to say they think different. As far as the bloc is concerned I trust them to do what is in their interest to do, just like every other MP in parliament, Lib, con or NDP. They will lobby for benefits for their own ridings/partys/voters just like every one else. Its thier duty.

card carrying NDP voter. I see nothing wrong with legitimately elected representatives in parliament forming voting alliances to achieve their goals. Thats what a parliamentary system is for. If a coalation of mp's can muster amongst themselves a majority then they get to form the government. Something Harper and the cons seem to have put aside . The Cons needed a knock on the head with a two-by-four to remind them that they only have a minority of seats in parliament. Therefore I support the coalation.