Alta4ever

Who are you to decide what business model should be emulated in this country. It should be the consumer end of story.

You would be surprised how fast costs add up in claims that involve bodily injury. Would you at 25 years of age like to have your life crippled because you missed a stop sign, hit someone and have to pay the litigation costs and awarded damages for the rest of your life? Taking the majority of your income for the better part of your life. Taking any wealth you had accumulated to that point in your life leaving you destitute with nothing, and no hope of bettering yourself? That is why we have liability insurance, so you will have the ability to move your life forward after such an event.

America has no empire. You might want to look up the definition of the term.

If you can't cover the debt who then does? If you are require those who do not have the means to cover the debt then buy liability insurance, you've got the same system we are operating now. If you want to insure a vehicle you are only required to buy a minimum amount in Alberta it is 200,000. Basically you are self insuring against any claim that may arise above that amount. So if you have a claim against you of 500,000 the insurance company will pay 200,000 and you are required to pay the rest. IF you have the borrowing capacity you can take out a loan and pay it back over time, if not you will be selling off your assets to pay it, and what ever the short fall is after that will be paid over time as described by the court. So if you do as you advocate one claim can have the effect of destroying your standard of living for the rest of your life, because you may have made one small driving error.

The insurance model is the one that works best and is far simpler then what you propose. Your problem is that you see no value in an insurance policy because you have not needed one yet, but the day will come and when that day does you will be glad you had it.

I would agree, it is we Canadians that are the victims of the CRTC.

He is saying you should learn that dre also seems not to understand you can't get blood from a stone.

What are the physics of you falling on a child? It is a belief that you won't hurt anyone, but it can still happen.

Keep 500,000 out, Gift my parents and inlaws so they would have a very comfortable retirement, set up trust funds for my kids, gift a couple of charities invest the rest and live on interest.

It doesn't matter matter what you believe its what can happen, no matter how much caution you exercise you can and will make mistakes.

What if you don't react to a situation fast enough, and you do injure someone. Though you may not have done anything against the law you can sit be held liable for damages incurred.

So right.

Maybe not but the family of the deceased has the right to sue you for damages.

And yet you still pay to much. I can insure two vehicles much cheaper in Alberta then in MB or BC.

I miss read ratio's post?

Clearly you've never made a typo.

Where you not taught the difference between conservatism and fascism, if not you paid way too much for your education.

You really have screw loose don't you.

BTW Ratio, you might want to educate yourself on political labels. The Conservative Party of Canada and Harper fall under the label of Conservative Neo-liberalism. Your hyperbole is interesting Ratio.

Maybe you should go back and read the supreme courts judgement. The incidents you are referring to happened in 2003 2004 that was before Harper became PM or do I need to give you a history lesson too. Posted page two of the thread you may want to go back and read why you have no idea what you are talking about. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16921&view=findpost&p=569915

Its more then your offering.

Too bad it was nothing more then hyperbole.

So he was only interrogated after January 2006? Why in the desision does it say Didn't know Harper was the Prime Minister in 2004. Oh wait he wasn't Dumb is you middle name and you wear it so well! Remind me who formed the government in 2003? So the actions of the government officials in 2003-2004 are the subject and basis of the supreme court findings, might I remind you again who formed the government at that time? So wait a minute what did I tell you earlier in the thread it was the actions of the Government of Canada not a single politician. You might want to read the supreme court judgement before you start talking about what is in it. http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2010/2010scc3/2010scc3.html

100% in agreement with you, you missed one other fact as well the fire bombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese centres actually created higher civilian death tolls then the two atomic attacks, and yet this did not dissuade the Japanese military leaders from continuing the war. It took the shock of having a city vapourized not by 100's of aircraft carrying 1000's of bombs but the unimaginable power of one bomb destroying one city in a second.

You must like eating sand because your head is buried in it. So is the a persons actions illegal at the time of the alleged crime or does it become illegal after judgement of guilt is rendered? Khadr was first imprisoned under a liberal government, they did nothing to bring him back to Canada. The Harper government continued the policy set out by the previous liberal government. So in fact it was the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA not a single politician. So yes you are spouting hyperbole as fact because you can't bring yourself to pull your head out of your ass.