ScottSA

I don't recall saying something may be true. In what instance? You were replying to someone else, no? Quite right. It was guyser. You however asked me to prove what guyser said was false, so you are him by proxy in this equation. Gawd, I sound like Meynard. Anyway, the burden of proof lies with guyser, not me.

You might want to send it to this particular corporation that's listed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, whose address is in Washington, D.C. They should cover all expenses incurred by all-caps names. Notice it says, "Company Information" on the browser tab. Now, why would it say that I wonder? Neat link. You I suppose you think it means Canada is a corporation subject to U.S. law? Ah, so that's the nonsense behind the idea that Canada is a corporation registered with the SEC? Damn, some people shouldn't be taught to read.

You cited him but I see no actual link for Giáp in this context. Pick one. I can supply many more. http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:xFheqh...clnk&cd=3&gl=ca https://www2.blogger.com/login.g?d=http%3A%...lse&skipll=true http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:3IHg9R...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

Can you back this with a link?

Banks have done nothing but predict long term growth, always and everywhere. What they are horrible at is predicting short term fluctuations, since they do nothing but predict short term growth too. All they have ever done is predict growth, unless it is after the fact and we are in the midst of a recession, in which case they predict that it will be over soon.

I've never claimed to know one way or the other. You said you doubted it. We certainly *know* that Harper uses taxpayers to pay for styling. You said something may be true. That's a positive claim. I said I doubt it is true. That's a negative claim. You are the positive claimant. The burden of proof should be on you. Lets do it this way: I say you have ten legs, three heads and a goat grafted to the second toe on your right foot. You claim you don't. Who should have to prove his case, you or me?

You don't understand. The crimes that were committed against me were done so in public (extortion, threats, promise of no habeus corpus, royal screwing), and I had a witness come up and give me his business card afterwards. The lawyer took the business card out of my hands, laughed and said he couldn't do anything - he was just a high level public servant - older guy, manager of something. I had to smash that lawyers hand against the table to get the witnesses card back. I later contacted the witness and he explained that he contacted his lawyer and that because there was a lawyer that commited the crimes he should stay out of it so I got twice from you lawyers. The lawyer that committed the crimes can go after the witness. This is why I absolutely hate lawyers and its why I think the whole legal profession is just rotten with corruption. I similar things have happened to others. Not all lawyers are lying criminals but if you want to be a lying criminal and you can afford law school, I would say that that is definetly the path to take. I explained all this to the law society but do you think the law society would pick up the phone and call the other witness that was there and that had signed a contract that the lawyer denied the existance of and extorted me over ? - no way. They are too important and they don't do investigations. You see we public are just "specks" to the legal profession and anything and everything goes with lawyers when they choose to screw the public. You need to lay down almost 6 figures to even file a criminal complaint against a lawyer - it doesn't matter if you have witnesses because the legal profession will just intimidate those to protect their own. Polly, you believe everything is a plot. Were I your lawyer I would run away as fast as I could. You are your own worst enemy when it comes to grownup coherent debates. I can only imagine the looks you got. All those quizzical looks they gave you when you embarked on your *ahem* case? Here's a hint: it wasn't because they were trying to think up a new plot to deal you dirt.

If it isn't, prove it. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. That would be you.

What level is Conservative support "down" to in Alberta? 55%? It's in freefall. Just wait till it hits 51%.

Perhaps he didn't ask because he thought people would laugh at him if he tried to make an issue of such a piddling little issue. Or maybe he didn't because he didn't want to concentrate on the ant in the corner when there were so many free range Liberal elephants about. This is a measure of the lack of issues to slam the Tories on, not a measure of the Tories. Every time someone trots out some insignificant thing like makeup, or some irrelevant thing like innuendo thrown at some minister because his sister's brother'd friend's cousin knew someone who worked for someone who knew yada yada...everyttime that happens it actually hurts the Libs, because it points to the lack of substantive dirt they can throw, and by extention it underscores the lack of substance in the Liberal Party itself.

Apparently , according to the actual paper version of the Star, no they did not, Martin & Chretien. The online version is condensed. I sincerely doubt that is true.

MPs can take any number of courses on the taxpayer's tab. So can their staff. The only money that changes hands is between government procurement and the company providing the lessons, so Dion is taking English lessons on the taxpayer's tab, and no doubt Harper took French lessons on the taxpayer's tab. Back to the original makeup thing. What a tempest in a teapot. So what? What's the next big whoopee scandal, "Taxpayer's Pay for Harper's Nailclippers!"?

This is an answer? You first acknowledge that you owe society a debt ( "Ok, for this purpose I agree. I owe society" ) and then do some mumbling, apparently work yourself into a fit of spleen, and then announce you don't owe society because it doesn't have a name ( "I don't owe squat to anything that does not even have a name" ). That's not an answer. It's not even coherent. It's a semi-educated bluster that reverts to the legalistic sophisms your entire temper tantrum against the very legal system you mock rests upon. Again, put the legalities out of your mind. "Society" is not a legal entity. It is a name for a cooperative of individuals who live under certain constraints for the deemed benefit of all. Society doesn't take checks. What society requires is cooperation with its norms...at least the larger norms, and that requires adherence to a body of laws agreed to, not individually, but representatively. It's fine and dandy if you want to declare yourself outside society, but on a point of honour, shouldn't you absent yourself from its benefits as well? This question is not rocket science. Anyone with the capabiltiy to use a bit of logic can figure out what I'm asking here. If you want to treat my question like a high school debate on semantics, then lets not continue. If you want to try to honestly answer my question, then please do.

When I used to work in Centre Block a long time ago, we refered to these MP reply letters as "PFO" letters. It stands for "please f--- off", and as you'll note, it says "yeah we got the letter, yeah we know what you said, now please forget we exist and go play with hand grenades". In no way does it give any form of legitimacy to your philosophy of legalistic Cynicism. In any event, you have not answered my question.

It's a secret war, known only to the 100,000s of thousands of soldiers who fought in it but never drink or talk about it, the presstitutes who are all in the plot, and the Council of the Imperial Black Hand. Or is the Imperial Council of the Black Hand? I forget.

Politicians are like everyone else: good, bad, somewhere in between. They are not some sort of class of nefariata solely concerned with enriching themselves. I'm convinced that none of the people who think politics is about getting rich ever held a job that paid over $100,000 per year. Most politicians take huge cuts in pay to be politicians.

Nonsense to all of the above. And in this particular case there is not even a whiff of impropriety except in the case of the accuser.

Actually, he or she is a hebophile, a pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to a child (<14) not a youth (14-18). Presently, this is not illegal in Canada nor in a number of other nations. Please keep in mind that sex is as much a part of developing an adult identity as anything else in a teens life. And please stop infering that teens are mindless bags of hormones that must be protected from themselves. Sure we have issues, so do adults, but we all grow through our experiances. I may regret many things I choose to do between now and the day I die (especially the thing that made me die) but I'd rather live life than second guess it all the time. You have a mature outlook and well developed sense of humour for a teenager!

I have. It's called civil society. You just won't accept it because it's a philosophical term and not a legal term. A bill for what? Not at all. I'm saying that if you are going to absent yourself from obligation to civil society, then you ought, honourably, to absent yourself from its benefits also. Are you willing to do that? You are taking a narrow legalistic viewpoint and engaging it with Sophist wordplay. I am neither equipped nor interested in debating legal semantics with you. FTA is I'm sure willing to engage you in that context, but I'm simply trying to get a straight answer from you on the logic and moral aspects of your ideology of cynicism. Are you able to parse out what I'm saying here or are you convinced that the totality of reality is contained in the legal terms you reject? Let me ask again:If society, by whichever name you use to define it, is owed nothing by you, does it owe you anything? If, for instance, you reject the social contract implied by the law, does the law owe you its protection? As an honourable step, ought you not declare yourself an 'outlaw' in the feudal sense and live without legal protection? Further, ought you use fruits of society like the internet if you reject society's claims over you?

First, it's not a tax, it's a tax cut; and second, it is simply giving a family with one income the same tax status as a family with two incomes. Actually, giving all families with the same income - regardless of the income split between the spouses (some families have two non-equivalent incomes) the same tax status/liability, in the same way that they currently have the same benefit status/eligibiliity. Those who turn thumbs down on this concept should keep in mind that this change has been put in place for pensioners, with the pension-splitting changes introduced in the recent budget. If it's the right thing to do for pensioners, it's the right thing to do for working families as well. True enough...it gives an advantage to two income families where there is a disparity between the incomes as well. From the POV of the government however, it is without question a tax loss, which makes it in effect a tax cut.

My daughter and I went on a gold-panning trip in 2001 up around Revelstoke. They were in the process of clearcutting strips (maybe it's called strip cutting instead?) of spf on the mountainsides. I went back and visited it this year, and until I got close I couldn't tell the difference between the old forest and the strip cuts. In a few years the trees will be close enough in size that they will be indistinguishable from each other. Nature heals itself fairly fast. I don't even think the strips were replanted, but I could be wrong...

Or a psycho could go for a bomb, and kill hundreds instead of tens. We ought to ban propane, gasoline, fertilizer, kerosene and baking soda. Or a car in a crowd, or poison in a cafeteria or a hundred other things that can cause death on a much larger scale than guns. Let's ban everything and live in bubbles. There is nothing, nada, zero (0) we can do to stop this kind of thing in a free society, and the benefits of freedom far outweigh the benefits of perfect safety. Go ahead and by afew hundred pounds of fertilizer and see if any comes to check on your rose bushes.... Fine, I'll use propane. I can buy enough to level VT and everything within miles around it and no one would check. Anyway, I'm sure you see the point I'm making.

It's not "allowed". It has nothing to do with "the empire". Stop lying. Scott. Who has control over the contractors? Are they subject to Iraqi Law? American Law? Which one? Either? Neither? Since they are immune from Iraqi law, they fall under US military law and the ROE of US forces, as I understand it. I also understand there is an attempt to make them subject to US domestic law. In any event, they are not simply allowed carte blanche, even under the greater category of intl law.

Or a psycho could go for a bomb, and kill hundreds instead of tens. We ought to ban propane, gasoline, fertilizer, kerosene and baking soda. Or a car in a crowd, or poison in a cafeteria or a hundred other things that can cause death on a much larger scale than guns. Let's ban everything and live in bubbles. There is nothing, nada, zero (0) we can do to stop this kind of thing in a free society, and the benefits of freedom far outweigh the benefits of perfect safety.

That is hilarious! It's too bad not many people get the value of self-effacement.