KeyStone

I think you've partially nailed the problem on the head. Ticket prices are too low. For some concerts with limited tickets, people are willing to pay much more than the ticket price. The problem is that the artists and the promoters are being generous, and rather than that generosity helping out thousands of fans that want to go to the concert for a reasonable price - the scalpers are soaking up that generosity, and making huge profits at the expense of the average consumer. Here's a solution: 1) You can buy two tickets with your credit card at face value - either online or in person. The ticket is printed up with your name on the ticket. On the day of the concert, if your name is not on the ticket (or you are not accompanied by the purchaser), you pay an extra $50 surcharge. This way, if you are truly buying for yourself, it is cheaper. If you are looking to make a profit, the concert organizers are able to charge a premium, so that the scalpers are not making the majoirty of the money.

Well, you must have been saving up these arguments for some time. It's a shame that they don't really apply here, but feel free to cut and paste them the next time you feel that you must accuse someone of being a Jew hater. I'm not quite sure how you deduce from my statement that "one can have a career destroyed simply by saying something bad about Jews (see Mel Gibson for a prime example)", that I think there is a worldwide conspiracy of Jews. The fact is that Mel Gibson said some anti-semitic things and his career has never been the same, and he is a constant butt of jokes ever since. This does not mean that the Jews did this to him. Michael Richards had his career destroyed by making some offensive comments about blacks. Does this mean that I think there is a worldwide conspiracy of all-powerful blacks? No. The point is, that it is understood that we can not say derogatory things against Jews and get away with it, whereas Gypsies do not share that same fate. Do you think that the world would sit idly by while Berlusconi fingerprinted the Jews? Probably not. So, go on, with your protests and long-winded poorly targeted accusations of anti-semitism. The faulty deductive reasoning you've displayed here, is an excellent example of how you have come to the many faulty conclusions that you have. And if you truly think that the Jews have nothing that the Roma want, you're even dumber than I thought.

Canada stopped trying to sell itself as an honest broker as soon as Paul Martin stepped into office. We are now squarely in the Israeli camp. Neither Harper or Ignatieff have any interest in being honest brokers, their interest is in competing to see who can be the biggest cheerleaders for the Israelis.

Well, I will agree that my language was a little strong, but regardless people are being jailed for questioning elements of the holocaust: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/03/Zundel_in_Germany.html So, on the one hand, we have people jailed for disputing the numbers of Jews killed during the holocaust and on the other hand we have Jews systemically denying the majority of the reports of civilian casualties. The fact that Israel doesn't let in any international observers to verify the death counts, or assess the damage, doesn't do a whole lot to suggest that they are on the side of truth. While you seem to be under the belief that Palestinians have been caught lying, this hardly means that all Palestinians have lied. I am sure that there have been people (Jews and non-Jews) who have claimed to have been adversely affected by the Holocaust in order to get special treatment. This does not make it OK to deny the deaths of millions of people, and call their families liars.

When the NDP and the Liberals start supporting electoral reform, instead of blocking it, so that they can demand votes from Green Supporters that they feel they are entitled to, perhaps then I'll think about voting Liberal. Until then, the Liberals are trying to benefit from a flaw in our democratic system, which they are helping to perpetuate.

It's really quite sickening how Israel wants to imprison anyone who questions the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, and yet at the same time denies the numbers that Palestinians say were killed. Every story, every video, every corpse is systemically denied as a fraud by Israel and their gaggle of sycophants, so as to cause just enough doubt that those who want to believe Israel is not killing children, can believe it.

Let's have some fun with your ridiculous logic. The Nazis killed millions of Jews. So how many did the rockets kill in their fighting with the Jews?

Dancer, Surely, you're familiar with the Iran-contra affair and the fact that the US sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran. Does that ring any bells at all, or are you going to stick with this story about all the weapons coming from France, USSR and China? http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

I was actually reading with interest until you brought in the Hugo Chavez example. Absurd.

The media is only one part of the equation. Misplaced nationalism is the other. As an example, there is a vast divide between the number of Canadians that think the seal hunt is a fine activity, compared to the rest of the world. Believing in Israel's right to protect itself by killing children is as much a part of the Israeli identity as clubbing baby seals is a part of the Canadian identity.

There is nothing wrong with asking for Canada to take custody of a boy who committed a crime as a fifteen year old, as opposed to letting him remain in indefinite and untried detention. Furthermore, he isn't a terrorist. He fought against the Americans when the Americans invaded another nation. That makes him a soldier not a terrorist. He wasn't killing children, or blowing up schools, or UN facilities as terrorists do. Plenty of good reasons not to like Ignatieff, but defending the rights of a Canadian who committed a crime when he was fifteen is not one of them.

What seems like more of a threat? A leader quoting some ambiguous words which potentially suggest that he wants the state of Israel gone, but clearly does not suggest ethnic cleansing or Iran attacking Israel? or A request from Israel to the US to make a military strike against Iran? Furthermore, the US makes all kinds of implied threats against Iran, including labelling it as part of the axis of evil. But perhaps the most threatening thing of all, is the US veto of a UN resolution that would have forbidden nuclear countries from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. Frankly, unless the US reverses course on that decision, I believe Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons.

That's right Dancer. No Palestinians were actually killed. It's all just Hollywood makeup, smoke and mirrors. The bodies of those children, are really just kids with makeup on who get up and dance in the tulip fields as soon as the cameras are off. And naturally, those alleged terrible living conditions are all a front. Underground, all Palestinians have huge lavish mansions adorned with the finest art and the occasional swastika (because the Pallies all hate the Joooos, don't you know) For a country that has a hissy fit, whenever someone wants to examine the actual holocaust numbers, it seems surprising that Israel would want to stoop to that level.

Well Rue, while you have clearly established that you are one of those that sees anti-semitism in cloud formations, that was not in fact the point of my question. The point of my question was to determine why two groups with similar histories of persecution have such different results today. Perhaps the success of the Jews, in terms of changing public opinion, can be learned from, and applied to the Gypsies such that their persecution is no longer tolerated either.

While I am pro-immigrant, here are some of the reasons why some Canadians are anti-immigrant 1) General Xenophobia: They don't want change. They want everyone in their environment to speak English and celebrate Christmas. 2) Fear of Change: As immigrants come in, there is a fear that their culture will erode, in an attempt to be culture-neutral. 3) Crime: Certain groups have higher crime rates than the average thus causing a fear of people from those countries. 4) Jobs: Some feel that immigrants take jobs away, or at least lower the standard such that your employer can replace you with a worker from Pakistan for half your wage, so you should shut up and be grateful. 5)Terrorism: Some are scared of those from Muslim nations because they fear ties to terrorism. 6) Loyalty: What happens if Canada goes to war with Ireland? Whose side will Irish Canadians be on? Some of these fears are rational and some are irrational, but never the less they are fears that need to be overcome if we want more people to accept immigration.

A Western party isn't going to be our Federal government. In addition to the West, the CPC also has a strong base in non-Toronto Ontario. The Liberals are not an Eastern only party. Granted the CPC won more seats and had a higher percentage of the vote, but the Liberals fared well in all provinces but Alberta. I must have missed the part of the Coalition agreement, where they agreed to jettison the West. Harper acted as if he had a majority, trying to financially cripple the other parties, at a time when the Liberals were in dissaray, and did not have the money for a new election leaving them no choice but to attempt to topple the government. If you don't understand how our parliamentray system works, and are still convinced that it was an undemocratic coup, then perhaps both you and our current Prime Minister need to take a remedial course in Canadian politics. Perhaps you are right there. Quebec, Alberta and Newfoundland are destroying this country by continuing to exploit Canadian's desire for unity, by using the parties self-interest as a tool for unfair one-sided deals. Once we get an Ontario party showing the same level of greed and disinterest in Canada, this country is through.

Yes, the parallel between the Jews and the gypsies has always been an interesting one. Both groups have been persecuted and blamed for many things. Both groups were rounded up and killed during the Nazi holocaust. Yet, it seems that the persecution of gypsies is still generally acceptable, (see Italy recently for a prime example), while one can have a career destroyed simply by saying something bad about Jews (see Mel Gibson for a prime example). Why did the rules change for one, but not the other. Why are the Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust so well known, yet the Roma victims are almost unknown (about on par with the Nazi persecution of the Swing Kids).

Bush-Cheney It would seem that we agree that WMD was not the real reason that the US went into Iraq. Perhaps you even agree that Iraq was not a threat to the US or anyone else (other than Kurds and its own people) But, what I still fail to understand, is what you think was the real motive for the US going into Iraq?

SEU, also known as slightly-enriched uranium is a type of enriched uranium that has a higher concentration of U-235 than standard yellowcake, but is generally lower than 2%. Incorrect. Enriched uranium refers to any uranium with higher than the standard 0.7% U-235 concentration. The process of extracting the U-238 to give it a higher concentration is known as 'enriching' Well, you've done a poor job of articulating what you believe, as it was prone with error. Aside from that, it seems that we agree on the facts of the matter. Where we fail to agree, is on the interpretation of those facts, and the consequences thereof.

Well, that's not quite accurate. Since you don't really know what you're talking about, and are doing a particularly inept job of copying and pasting someone else's talking points, I'm going to throw you a bone here. Enriched uranium is any uranium that has the U-235 content raised above the natural state of 0.7%. So, even 2% U-235 is considered enriched uranium. What you are referring to is the difference between low-enriched uranium and highly enriched uranium, also known as weapons-grade uranium. Some particles of highly enriched uranium were found in Iran, but their origin is unknown. It is believed that most, but not all came from contaminated equipment from Pakistan. Ordinarily, Iran should give full access to the IAEA inspectors to verify their origin. However, given that: 1) The international community is not helping Iran develop nuclear energy as is their obligation under the NPT. 2) Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities with essentially no repercussions from the international community. 3) It has been revealed that Israel has already asked US permission to destroy Iran's facilities. It is more than understandable that they are less than forthcoming about their nuclear activity.

I sort of agree, but not entirely. Your free exchange of ideas principles rely on the assumption that consumers have perfect knowledge of the market. It is a reasonable assumption that consumers research a big ticket expense such as an auto before buying it. If Volvo pays R&D money specifically so that they can then make a profit by charging extra for the repairs (which are now easier to fix) then it is fair game. If they intentionally make it impossible to fix the vehicle unless you have the software etc, then they are engaging in a form of anti-competitive behaviour whereby they are creating a monopoly (they are the only ones who can repair the autos) for the sole purpose of gouging. For other products however, the same can not be said.

The FACT is that the US justification for going into Iraq, was that they currently had WMD, not because they had WMD 10 years ago - which is not disputed since the US sold the fricking things to them in the first place. This is one of the most contrived, horseshit excuses I've ever heard. So they invaded Iraq, killed tens of thousnands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people under the pretext that Iraq did not have a full accounting of all their WMD and weapons. Hmm...let's try to understand. Ever have an audit done in your workplace? Ever seen Deloitte and Touche find some inconsistencies? It happens. Now imagine that D&T might be planning a hostile takeover of your company. Are you inclined to be particularly forthcoming. Now imagine that your workplace just got firebombed, and that the people have to sanitation or clean drinking water. Do you think keeping the books in order is something of paramount importance at a time like this? If they had WMD when they were invaded, why in the hell didn't they use them? What exactly are they saving them for? It's just pathetic how you war apologists can't own up to being wrong.

Bullsh!t. Any links? No. Use Google. Research U-235 vs U-238 and pretty much every site will say that you need to separate out the U-235. You're just putting a blatant lie out here. Most reactors (and all new reactors) extract the U-235 from the U-238. It's standard practice. So for you to suggest that we 'know' Iran is building nuclear weapons because they are separating the U-235 is simply absurd. Yes U-235 creates an explosion. So does gasoline. WTF do you think nuclear energy is? I simply can't perceive a way that you would get this wrong if you had done any research whatsoever. Either you are as dishonest as Dub claims you are, or you are simply being lazy and copying inaccurate information from a biased source. Which is it? http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00108.htm Here's a simple excerpt (directed to a 15 year old) for you to follow from the US Department of Energy. "Since U238 is a stable isotope of uranium, it will not produce energy in a nuclear reactor. For this we have to have U235, which is unstable." Not sure if I can make it any easier to understand, without the use of puppets or an animated short film.

When some posters replied in contest, evidence was provided. Is there a problem? I think the problem is the suggestion was that Iran couldn't be trusted because they had ties to the nazis. But as other posters have pointed out, I'm pretty sure Germany had ties to the nazis (not 100% sure, will try to find a link), but they are allowed nuclear energy. That's a brilliant observation. It's handy to have a nuclear physicist like yourself on hand here to point these things out to us. Since the Candu reactors seperate the U-235 as well, it seems a no-brainer that the UN should impose sanctions on Canada, to quash Canadian nuclear weapon ambitions. In actual fact, U-235 is far more stable, and is far more common in nuclear reactors than U-238. Do some research, and hopefully this will cause you to question your source. Well, there is a pretty big difference between: a) Suggesting that the character and trustworthiness of a nation be judged on events eighty years ago. Asking that land be restored to its previous owners based on events eighty years ago. Surely, just because we disregard the characterizations and judgements of the people of Iran based on something that happened that long ago doesn't mean that we have to throw out all past events and history entirely.

Let it go already. I guess it's easier to deny, deny, deny than admit you were wrong since proving the inexistence of something beyond doubt is pretty much impossible. Do you remember when the US first went in there? They claimed that none of the Iraqi scientists would cooperate because they feared for their lives from Saddam. They claimed that they couldn't find them because they didn't have unfettered access to the royal palaces. Well, those excuses are gone now. Saddam and family are dead. Do you not think that there is ONE SINGLE PERSON in all of Iraq who could come forth with irrefutable evidence of WMD, considering that the US would likely have no problem richly rewarding that person? And yet, no one has. No one has been able to do it, causing even the Bush administration to admit that there weren't any WMD. So, just give it up already and stop flailing for wild excuses about the weapons going to Syria etc.