Bryan

People do get dropped from EI if their claims aren't valid. It's no different than my car insurance. I have to pay for it, no choice. If my car gets damaged through no fault of my own, there's no limit to how many claims I can make. It's only if it can be proven that I'm intentionally abusing the system that I might get cut off -- and even then it would probably be in conjunction with a driving suspension and/or criminal charges.

You're still talking in circles. YOU applied the eating method to the culture. I pointed out that the thing you assigned to specific people was already widely used by the people that you assigned a different method to long before that. ...and me leftist? What is this, the "August says the opposite of anything that's true" thread?

This. Only those with a job pay into it, only those who were paying in to it can collect it if they lose that job. It's insurance.

It's called fulfilling an election promise. Last campaign, they said they'd do it before the next election (once the deficit was gone), they won the election, and they did what they promised to do. We should only be so lucky if other parties (national and regional) actually considered their election platforms as actual promises. All of it is a good idea. It's never a bad idea to give people their own money back, especially those who are stretched the thinnest -- working families. Our entire country is set up on the idea that that those who can help out those who cannot. That's what happens with health care, school taxes, welfare, disability, etc, etc. They are all good ideas as long as they are managed well. Gradually extending things like tax credits and income splitting certainly complicate the tax code, but they also allow for managing the costs and benefits to the overall budget and economy. Especially with respect to the child care benefit, this is the way it absolutely should be done -- gradually increase it as the budget allows, as opposed to the plans that both the NDP and the LIberals have proposed where they want to build out a national day care program that would be a tremendous expense. If $2000 isn't very much to you, feel free to give yours to a young family in your area that could really use it.

???? You're the one who introduced the topic of how different cultures eat, you even ranked them:

No. You have to be deliberately and actively attempting NOT to get hurt. If you stand there and let someone hit you, the ref has to stop it. You do not have the right to consent to just let someone hurt you -- in any setting. You probably SHOULD have that right, but under the current laws, you don't.

You can't consent to box on your own. You have to apply for a license, operate only under the sanctioning body's strict ruleset, and a referee decides for you if you're defending yourself sufficiently. You cannot consent to just let the other person hit you. You can't get a license to box someone who isn't a fair match for you either.

Also, violence for pleasure isn't necessarily legal in Canada either. Two adults can't, for instance, mutually consent to repeatedly punch each other in the face.

Unfortunately, that's often not how it happens. People's lives get destroyed with literally nothing more than an accusation. People lose their jobs, their kids, their homes, etc. Even if it DOESN'T end up in court, the damage is already done.

What they should do is change the laws that currently make it illegal for private companies to provide the service. Stop dictating that they have to charge significantly higher rates too. If the demand is really there, someone will step in to provide it.

It doesn't always work that way, but it certainly should. If you make serious allegations that can ruin a man's life, the standard better be a lot higher than he said - she said.

You already have all of the fair dealings rights that the proposed legislation would have made any kind of "exception" for. Copyright is not the part that is different between the general public and political parties. What's different is when a writ is dropped, the parties are expected to automatically get air time.

Yes, yes, and yes. Those are all fair dealings, all fully within the law. Gain or motivation is not a restriction.

Yep. I'm mostly right when it comes to domestic policy (esp. economic), but I can't get on board with most foreign policy coming from the right.

That changes based on the topic. The the broadest group definitions like "left" or "right" are fluid depending on what we're discussing. The subset that is "in" or "out" on a different topic will often be a collection of people who would not be anywhere near agreement on a different topic.

No it doesn't. Not in any way. It makes sure that it is crystal clear that there is NOT two different rules, and that political parties have the SAME fair dealings rights as everyone else. You've got that confused too. ANYONE can quote from your commentary, even if you vehemently object to it. They can't republish the whole thing, but quotes, clips, and excerpts are absolutely allowed. All of the above.

The supreme court has already ruled that they aren't within their rights. The media consortium's own lawyers warned them that what they want to do isn't legal.

As usual, you're wrong.

Chopsticks are a utensil. Both India and China had spoons before Europeans did.

You could probably get your nutrition by I.V. too if you really wanted to.

He's considering ways to prevent people from circumventing the existing rules for fair dealing. Nobody's copyright is changing.

Then you have the timeline exactly backwards. The media consortium proclaimed the ban on political advertising that used their content, THEN the government began considering rephrasing the copyright act to specify that they can't do that.

Which party are you calling "they", the media, or the govt?

The media consortium is trying to circumvent the current law. Even though their own lawyers have told them this is ill advised, and most likely illegal. Because the media wants to apply different rules regarding fair dealings that are specifically targeted at political parties, the CPC is considering putting language into the copyright act that makes it crystal clear that they can't do that. It confers NO special rights, it only explicitly confirms that political parties have the SAME rights as everyone else.

You are trolling. I explained the difference clearly.