xul

She was banned? At least I have seen that she has won one issue, "speech" is not absolutely "free" even in a virtual community.

I guess the police did not strictly act as what they were trained. This is why some parts of their former statements of the event was not coincidence with the video. I guess the using of Taser was stricted by some police bylaw or internal striction. This is why they stated that they only shot twince not four and the Polish was resisting when he got the shots. I think the real problem is not whether the police did correct or wrong by using Taser in this situation, but it is that the Police might not tell the truthe of the event for covering their fault if we believed the video was the truth. And if the public have no longer trusted the police's statements, how a judgement could be convinced by public when a policeman charges a person by attack police while this guy denies the charges?

It would be but it is very difficult to practice. Internet is a great place of speaking freely and was flooded with various information, so people can hardly discern which of them are truth or lie. Just as an Arabian King complained British government's neglect of his information of terrorists attack. But if he sent 1,000 of such information and only one is thruth, people would hardly condemn British government not taking it seriously. I don't think bully is the main cause of school shooting. Perhaps modern education system unduly emphasized more press on teens by asking them more competitive. The losers sometimes feel they would be abandoned by the community that they will face in future. Psycho assistance sometimes made circumstance worse. If a teen was asked for Psycho assistance, he would feel he is more special or more frustrate than others. Usually, friends and parents may help them more to get ride of the feeling of frustration. But in my impression, most school shooters are lonely, they usually had no friends in school and their parents usually did not care them more than asking them to get good scores in examinations. I think educating the parents would be more efficient than educating these students, and teachers would encourage other students to do more for helping their loser schoolmates.

I think there are some misunderstanding about that Tibet was conquered by China Communist government. And Dalai Lama is not the name of the person Mr. Harper met. In fact Dalai Lama is the name of a occupation, likes Pope in Roman Catholic. According a shory I knew, the first Dalai Lama was named in about 1580s, then Mongolian ruled Tibet. In 1578, a leader of a branch of Tibet buddhist moved to a temple in Qinghai, now as a China province, to missionize Tibet buddhism. He was investitured by a local Mongolianl tribe leader as Dalai Lama. "DaLai" means "the Sea" in Mongolian, and "Lama" means "Lived Buddha" in Tibet native language. After then, he called himself Dalai Lama 3rd, and backward his master as Dalai Lama 2nd, ang his master's master Dalai Lama 1st. But in this time, Dalai Lama was not the top leader of Tibet Buddhism. He was only the leader of one of the many branches of Tibet buddhism and Tibet was ruled by Mongolian secular regime. About 1670s, the last China dynasty Qing Dynasty ruled China. Qing army dispeled Mogolian from Tibet and the emperor decided to use clergies helping him to rule Tibet. The clergy was chose was Dalai Lama 5th. After then, Dalai Lama was promoted as top religious and political leader in Tibet and each Dalai Lama must approved and investitured by emperor. After British ruled Indian and its fleet come to China, the power of Qing Dynasty began to decline. British ruler in India tried to incite some Tibet clergies separating from China. So cleries in Tibet was divided to two branches, one kept loyalty to emperor, another tried get rid of China to pursue their new powerful master. When Qing Dynasty was pulled down and replaced by Republic of China, China got into a Civil War between local governments. It seems British would take a good chance and for a time, Dalai Lama 13th seemed to be inclind to depend on British to seek for independence of Tibet. But meantime, Indian uprised against British ruler. Dalai 13th finally understood that British was not "up" than his China ruler, he met a representative of ROC president Jiang and expressed Tibet would still loyal in Chinese government. In 1949 communist leader Mao ruled China, Dalai Lama 14th was only 14 years old and obviously he was too young to be a politcial leader. Tibet regime was actually undercontroled by other pre-British old clergies. These guys supported by Tibet army killed another pre-China old clery who was responsible for guardian of Dalai 14th and poisoned Dalai 14th's father when they took the power. They deployed their army trying to block the communist army tookover Tibet but their army was defeated by communist army. This event led to a palace revolution in Tibet regime. Of couse, all plot was under the name of "buddha's willing". eventrally, Dalai Lama 14th and his supporters took the power and met a Mao's representative. After Mao ungrudgingly promised keeping his power and would not change the slavery system in Tibet, Dalai 14th expressed loyalty to new china government and agree Mao deployed army in Tibet. In 1954, he was "elected" as vice-chairman of China parliament. In 1956, he visited India and come back China. This period was his honeymoon with communists. But in 1958, Mao changed his mind. He started a moving named "Great Leap", ask for local government "runing into Communism". Obviously, the slavery in Tabit was out of step of Mao's "grand plan". I guess this was the conflicts between them. One wanted to keep slavery, becacuse all his supporters, the nobles of Tibet, were the bigest slaveholders. And another, wanted to use communism to takeover the old system. Eventually, Slaveholders militia gathered in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, but they were defeated by Mao's army and Dalai Lama 14th and his supporters fled to India. When he was 24. It is not all clergies in Tibet supported Dalai 14th. Another top clergy of Tibet Panchen Lama kept loyal in Mao and tookover the top religious leader. Even the commander officer of Lhasa rebels also surrendered and get a job in local parliament because he blamed Dalai 14th had never informed him his escape when he was fighting with communists. This is the story I knew. Of couse, all for china and those pre-China Tibet scholars' articles. I'm not sure all these are the truth, but I believe a lot of them are truth.

I did not mean Israeli government actually wants to expansion into these area. I just meant if any country wanted an entire victory in mideast, it would have to occupy oil field. Or else it have to keep a large amount of army anytime to defend what it had got just as Israel. If America occupied Bagdad but left oil field to Sadaam, it could hardly be considered as a real victory of the war.

I guess partially it is beacuse "the exclusive triumph of Israel" is not according the maximum interests of America. If Israel ruled the middle east, with her technology that she has owned and the oil resource that she would controled, Israel would become a big power in the world and then Europe, Japan, China and India must flatter Israel to get the oil for their economy, so Israel would become a threaten of the rule of America.

That's the truth. Let's just imagine, if 30 years ago, an alien starship flew by earth and occationally fired a quantum laser bomb at china and extincted all brutal and not-brutal Chinese , Obviously there would be another country or a group of country to instead of China being the role China is playing today. Partially I think this is not fair to these companies. Poisonous toys, food and cheap crap usually sold in China "1 yuan" stalls and its mainly consumers are those poor Chineses lived in poor rural area. By the way, I must honestly plead for my dear CPChina rulers for they have moved nearly 400 million(equal to the population of America) these guys into city and made a welfare system for them in recently 30 years, so the CPC is not only do bad thing in China. But the problem is these guys have bred out another 800 million kids during the same time so the populations of them have not been reduced significantly. Chinese revenue cannot afford the spends of such amount of people's welfare, so these part of people have less responsibility and lower moral level. Most poisonous products were made by them and most people being poisoned were them. But multinational companies usually do not choose them as suppliers. Of couse these companies want more benefits. But if they supply bad products to their clients, they will finally loss their benefits especially their credits. In fact, the problem products is only very small parts of their goods manufactured in China. Several millions of toys having problem seems that it is a very big problem, but considering the total amount of their toys manufactured in China may be summed to billions, so it in fact is a very little persentage of products have problem. I think they are accidents, just as American space shuttles crashed several times by mechanical problems don't mean the manufactures want to kill their astronauts. Sometimes these comments partially are not fair to CEOs and MBAs of these companies. For example, American auto industry was beaten by Japanese far more than they move their factories to China and it seems China is the only place that American cars can beat Japanese cars. So we would deduce that CEOs is not the cause of the decline of American auto industry. Usually a corporation was considered as an individual. In the ethical or law aspect, an individual have the right to live its country to pursue its will or interests just if I want immigrant to Canada, no Chinese have the right to condemn me. But coming back the topic, I think I have no right to bring the Chinese territory I lived such as the yard of my house to Canada so I agree with you separatists have no unquestionable right to bring the territory they lived out their original country without the agreement of the others even if in a local place they are the majority just in my yard my family are the majority. This proposal sounds good but technically it may be impossible. Industrial products today are very comlicated even if they may seem very sample in aspects. For instance: many years ago, several American made passanger plane engine failed in air because the metal of the wrenches that workers used to screw the engine parts chemically reacts with the metals of the engine parts and reduced the life of these parts. Finding these kind of problem before they become real problems needs a group of top scientists working for severl months. And obviously no one would be more professional then those manufacturers. So if government involves, they also will need help form manufacturers, not entairly independent as people think.

Don't worry. Politicians knew how to play their games. To western politicians, meeting Dalai Lama is a good deal. People in their country may say,"great! Considering our PMs/presidents/chancellors/or somethings have been so bravely beating Chinese in political aspects, perhaps we may forgive his inability to resist Chinese goods fooding our macket." So politicians can get both votes from people and fund from multinational companies. To Chinese politicians, I guess they thought, "They likes meeting Dalai Lama? That's great! We must pretend angery so they wouldl feel they had done enough and would not do more things such as taxing Chinese goods. We would not worry the Lamas in Tebit rioting if we fund their temples by spending a few bit of money we gained from export, and often meeting westing politicians and involving in the conflicts between Western and China will make Dalai Lama most likely a politician not a religion leader, so his divine right would gradually fate in his believers. And if any of Lama dared against us, what we would do is just expel them to western then these clergies and their tamples will become the headache of western politicians."

There is a Chinese political humour: One day in a cinematography history museum, a teenager asked his mother,"why our new films are not as good as old ones?" His mother answered,"our film star's salary now is not as good as emperor's time, so most of our best guys with performing talent have become politians not performers."

I think you are right. I live in China for 40 years and have never received any card from politicians and government except several fine bills for parking car in non-parking area. So Canadian would be cheerful for they can get a card from politicians though sometimes it is a wrong card.

All politicians around the world have to be inclusive all of the people under their ruling unless they want their country consumed by conflicts between different groups(races, religions, poor and rich, or women and men ) of people. I think this is mainly their jobs.

Sounds like that you consider Israel as a pawn in this multi-world chess, always being deployed in front of King, queen, knights and castles to keep out and bear "barbarism" cannon balls for those civilized "upper" chessmen? How cruel you did to the Jews who live in Israel and bear bombing everyday?

I think that Ms Kofman felt offensive with the mail because this mail hinted that she was born in a Jewish family so she was predestined to inclined to support Israeli or Jews and their religion. Just as if one day I immigrated to Canada and became a Canada citizen, but Canada government sent me a card to celebrate China National Day, I might also feel it is an offensive. That don't mean I must not love China when I become a Canadian Citizen, but it means I have the right to not be supposed to destine to love China or support China just because I carry Chinese genes in my cells. So I think that the best way a politician to express concern to his voters is to present himself in their gathering. In a gathering, he knows the topic of the gathering and so he knows what is the standing of everyone, so he can speak more lovable.

Thank you for instruction.

I read the article again and I found I made some mistake in my former post. The article said there is a group of people: 1 Their income is beyond $250,000/year. 2 They pay no tax to Canada for their income. 3 They collect EI. It seems impossible to coincide all above unless they are cheating. But I think there would be a case can be considered: I suppose there is a person, he is a Canada citizen, and his boss sent him to this company's American subcompany for six month and then laid him off. He gained $250,000 when he worked in America, so American government taxed his income. He still declared his income to Canada government and payed EI in Canada because he is a Canadian citizen not American, but Canada government did not tax his income again. When he came back Canada, he would still collect EI when he was waiting for a new job.

Thank you for telling me about these. I just meant if it was an insurance, a rich man or wealthy collecting money from it would not be immoral if he was qualified. But if its purpose was a kind of welfare or subsidy only for the poor people though its name sounds like an insurance, government must set some restriction to awoid any misunderstanding or misuse. I'm not sure I have understood what you said correctly. It seems you meant some business owners who were the high income EI collectors. But I'm not sure whether could a bussiness owner also collect EI as an employee? And if a business gets a large income at startup but losses overall, its annual income can not reach 250,000. But at all events, according to an article I read, the maximum that a person can gain from EI is only $400/week. It seems very few to a person who had ever gained $250,000/year. So I don't think there were a lot of people may give up his $250,000/year job for gain EI chronically. Perhaps there were some one who were laid off from $250,000 jobs and collected EI when they waited for a new jobs. Usually a bussiness owner may use accountancy to avoid paying more tax by legal way. But welfare is a very small amount of money to a wealthy than tax, so if he colleted it by cheating, it would be unwise.

I guess there were some misunderstanding of my job. I said I'm an engineer worked in a China research institute so it seems you thought I was doing some kind of market research in a big company. But in china, research institute usually mean it is a desing and development department belonged to a high-tech company. I'm a mechnical engineer, I do the job that Canadian engineers do, designing and developing machinery, these skills can be widely used in any country. Canada immigrantion law requires immigrants' specialty fitting the occupation list of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. Only a person's speciaty in the list he would apply immigration to Canada. You ask me to tell you what job I will do in Canada today, it is ridiculous. Could I email each Canadian company and tell them:"Hi! I'm a Chinese and lives in China. I don't know which day which month which year CIC would give me a Canada visa. Could you employ me now? " If you ask me what is my plan. I can tell you if I come Canada, I will try to get a licence of my specialty. Perhaps it needs one or two years and I also can use these time to improve my English. My English is not as good as my posts showed here. Most my post needs help of dictionary and I cannot express them as this level orally. I admit it is a challenge to me to immigrate a foreign country especially I'm no longer a young. But I'm not a man who fears challenges. I suggest any Canadian would not worry the chanllenges from immigrants. They come here to play with your rules not their rules and use you language not their language. Why do you need to worry competing with them?

If you go into Google and enter "EI Canada" you will find a lot of information about it. There is a comic story of me when I first come here. I found a lot of people here talking about CPC so I wondered why there were so much people concerning about the Communist Party of China. But when I read these posts, I found they were not talking about that CPC. Then I enter the keywords "CPC Canada" in Google and found it is the Conservative Party of Canada.

I think the essential divarication here is how to comprehend EI. Is it an insurance, or a welfare only for low income people? Perhaps Canada government would redefine it if it was not defined clearly before.

So, you would see the fact represented here seems against your "old posts" in another issue of hatred. Even if without immigrants, some people may also hate each other. The only problem is who is the target they would hate? A wealthy, a poor, or a "system"? Just as if there were no Jews in Germany, Hitler woud not become a charitarian. The only question is: Who would be his next victim?

I just said it is not easy to change the law because someone may easily defeat jennie's proposal in commons by using such instance of trifling garbage. I also used the same way to query the theory that the poor pay less tax to government so they have less function to a country.The contribution of the poor That don't mean I support poor or act against the rich. Just as if one of my fellow engineers claimed he made a luxury "safe car" for worldwide multi-millionaires, I would try to use different car hit his car by different angles with different speeds, or suppose an object either as trifling as a gravel raised by other cars or as big as an ice block falled from Toronto TV tower hit the windscreen of his car and to observe what would happend. That don't mean I disagree him to make a safe car, my job is only to help him to perfect his design.

I think sometimes law makers had to consider some extreme circumstance. We would suppose there was a guy, he found a job of $25,000/month in January and was laid off in October and was unemployed in November and December. So he annual income was $250,000. But if he lived in luxury and spent out every penny he gained every month and had not any saving, he would starve in November and December without EI or other welfare to support him. So law had to allow him to get some welfare.

Why do you so worry about that? The company you mentioned is actually one subcompany of a huge parent company. In the parent company, you still hold 82% shares.

Don't worry, you still have 48%. A business man told me: "If you hold 30% shares of a company, you will control it. Because others usually hold less than 10% each shareholder."

Perhaps you are right. Any perfect law need a judge to practice it. But judges are human, they may make some mistake too.