kimmy

The fact that you were buying stocks of these companies in the 1960s and 1970s proves that they were in Alberta 30-40 years earlier? You'll forgive me if I don't find that logic very convincing. "Central Del Rio Oils", for instance, doesn't appear to have existed before 1960. -kimmy

That's super! However, it does nothing to refute the claim that Bay Street was nowhere in sight when the Alberta oil-patch was in its fledgling stages in the 1930s and 40s. -kimmy

Welcome! Yay! -kimmy

Earlier in this thread I linked to the CBC Archive that I found while I was doing research. One of the snippets includes a university professor saying the same thing as Stampeder: the oil industry, in its founding stages, was built through American investment. Entrepreneurs who went to Bay Street looking for capital were rebuffed and went to New York instead. Bay Street no doubt hopped on once they realized there was money to be made, but what does that matter? I'm sure their investments have paid off handsomely. I don't think any of this was based on altruism or a sense of national duty. They bought in so they could make money. They came, they saw, they got paid. -kimmy

Another deep intellectual thought from the right side of the spectrum. Would you care to elaborate about a bit more specifically what you mean by that comment? My understanding is that when it is crunch time, such as the two World Wars Canada was there, and was there in all its splendor. Pray tell, WTF do we need military might for these days? Well, if the UN decides it is "crunch time" in the Sudan, and asks Canada to be there "in all its splendor" to help stop the humanitarian disaster there, we will have to tell them "sorry, we can't", because our military is already overextended beyond its means. -kimmy

Perhaps this thread should be retitled to "You really CAN judge a book by its cover!" -kimmy {what's up with Jack Layton's pornstache?}

I guess Albertans are crooked, crooked people. It appears that Bre-X boss David Walsh was a Montrealer. They must be extremely crooked as well. Just your average investor-frauding, daughter-screwing murderer. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/new_s...&showgroup=1144 Sounds like a terrible person. An Albertan, most likely. -kimmy

... ...uhhh I give up. Ernest Borgnine? Bela Lugosi? -kimmy

Yes. The west has enough problems at home, they don't need to borrow trouble. If the US leaves the Arabian peninsula, and stops supporting brutal dictators who oppress Muslims in order to exploit their resources for the US sole profit, America will no longer be under threat of terrorist attacks (at least from OBL) I'm disturbed by your lack of vision. Think for a moment on what the effects of an immediate exodus of westerners from Iraq would be. Without western assistance, what state will Iraq's medical services be in? What state will their infrastructure be in? We would be leaving that country without adequate medical services, clean water, electricity, and distrupted transportation links. Without western involvement, what state will their economy be in? They've relied upon western expertise in finding oil, getting it out of the ground, and transporting it. We should leave now, and leave them without the ability to rebuild their economic stability? We should leave now, and leave them without any sort of law enforcement capability? If we leave now, who will have power in Iraq? The new provisional authority, which is heavily relying on western assistance to maintain its tenuous grasp on order? Or would it be the hold-outs from the Saddam era? Or would it be Islamist warriors? If the westerners leave, then who has the guns in Iraq? It's not the mainstream Iraqi citizen, that's for sure. The ordinary Iraqi who just wants to go about his life will be at the mercy of the radical few, who have the weapons and the training and the desire to fight to impose their vision on the country. What would that country look like? Quite possibly like Taliban-era Afghanistan. Without any outside influence, and governed by a small minority of radical kooks, it's likely that the situation would be horrific. What would be the long-term effect of pulling out of Iraq and leaving them with crippled medical capabilities and infrastructure and economy? "They came here promising great things, they destroyed everything, and they left," is what the man on the street would say. He would be right. He will resent America for this. Some of them will not just resent America for this, they will hate Americans for it. And some of them will hate Americans enough to do something extreme. The course of action you're advocating is a terrible idea. Once the US decided to enter Iraq, they had no choice but to stay there until things are repaired. Doing otherwise would be a complete disaster from every possible perspective. -kimmy

My beliefs... the beliefs that will form the basis of the Futuristic World of Kimmorrow are a mixture of personal responsibility and reasonable expectations and consent. If you buy a house in a neighborhood with a pub in it, you're taking something of a risk. And it's not a reasonable expectation that a neighborhood will never change. If the only basis of the complaint is that the neighborhood changed without your permission, then I don't think you've got much of a case. But that doesn't mean you can't work with your neighbors to find some other remedy. If you join a no-contact hockey league and somebody body checks you and hurts you, they're in the wrong... you never consented to forceful physical contact when you joined a no-contact league. If you join a full contact league, and someone hurts you with a check that's within the rules, then you've only yourself to blame, because you understood that kind of contact was part of what you signed up for... you accepted those risks. But if you're in a full-contact league and someone bashes your head open with their stick or Bertuzzis you face-first into the ice, they have done something to you that you never consented to when you signed up. If you are walking down the street, you have a reasonable expectation that you won't be punched in the face. If you've entered a boxing match, you don't have that expectation; you've entered that situation with the reasonable expectation that someone will indeed be trying to punch you in the face. I'm not sure if that's "chick world", "jungle-guy world", "Red Queen world"... this is how I think things should work. This is "Kim World". There should be redress for people who have been wronged by others' negligence, but people who have got in harm's way through their own actions have to face up to their own lack of foresight. As applies to this restaurant case... If you go to a restaurant, you have a reasonable expectation of not being poisoned. You don't have a reasonable expectation that you'll find the food to your taste, but I think it goes without saying that you're entitled to expect the food will be safe. Now, if this case is indeed linked to improper cooking of ground beef, then yes, the restaurants failed their patrons. The first thing that struck me about this case was that it seemed odd to me that 5 restaurants in one city would somehow all forget how to handle food properly at the same time. If it was lettuce was the source of the bacteria, did the restaurants fail their patrons? In my own (thankfully brief) experience in the fast food industry, all we did with lettuce was wash it with cold water. I personally don't know if that's sufficient to kill bacteria. You can't boil lettuce before you serve it... maybe there's some other means of sterilizing lettuce before you serve it without ruining it, but I don't know what that would be. What I am leading up to is that the restaurant also has reasonable expectations of their suppliers. They have the expectation that the food they are buying will not make their customers sick. At the very least, they have the expectation that the lettuce won't have been soaked in poo-water. What should have been done in this case? Would naming the restaurants have helped the public safety? That depends. If you know which restaurants the problem originated from, you send in your inspectors, and they're able to trace the problem to a source that's out of the restaurant's control, then I don't see how naming the restaurant helps. If they link the problem to improper procedures at the restaurant, then the restaurant should be named because they failed to meet their responsibilities. If the inspectors can't identify the problem, then they should probably identify the restaurants as a preventative measure in the public's best interest. -kimmy

Syrup! I'm surprised this didn't merit a whole thread of its own! I'm sure that would be a meeting of profound importance. Layton: "Your Excellency! I'm here to tell you that the NDP is bringing New Energy to Parliament Hill! I'm here to tell you that we are On The Move! I am here to tell you that we are Bringing Canadians Together and we're going to Make Parliament Work! I'm here to tell you that the new Green Economy is going to--" Clarkson: "Jack, I'm sure this is all terribly interesting, but I must be off. My plane is waiting." -kimmy

Let me get this straight.... Because he was over in Iraq, "beheading" is justified? Dookie, my friend, you have no idea what you've walked into... In just a few minutes, someone will be along with a reference to an obscure website with "photographic evidence" that one of the killers was wearing a US-made wrist-watch and the walls are the same color as the walls in Abu-Ghraib prison. "A CIA frame-up," they will conclude. For some people here, their desire to condemn the US and apologize for the Islamists exceeds the boundaries of rational thought. They'll question why foreigners are in Iraq, and yet they'll question why we're not doing more to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and economy. "If he wasn't in Iraq he'd still be with us" is one of the most poorly thought-out comments I've seen on this forum. Yes, he probably would still be with us. Meaning what? That the country should be abandoned? That westerners should get the heck out, and take their expertise with them? That the Islamists should get their way, isolate the whole country from anything modern, and take Iraq back to 600AD? That's an extremely unfortunate view, in my opinion. -kimmy

I think what most Canadians are wondering, is what is Mt St Helen's position on the throne speech?? -kimmy

We have a contaminated beef problem? -kimmy

I'd say that the format was a help and not a hinderance. Indeed. Although, if Bush and Kerry had a clown like Layton on stage with them, this would have probably turned into a zoo too. -kimmy

He sure was. YEARGH! Says you. YEARGH! ...can't argue with that. YEARGH! I actually disagree with most of what you said here. Bush is at his best when he's talking about caring and compassion-- the segment tonight when he was talking about his meeting with the soldier's widow during his response to the "is it worth it?" question was probably his strongest point of the whole evening. Likely, it was thoroughly rehearsed, but I do think he came across as sincere. Likewise, his speeches in the wake of 9/11 were probably the high point of his career, and again he came across with great sincerity. And a few weeks ago during the Republican convention, I could actually see a glimmer of what his supporters see in him. He does have some charm, and in that environment, full of supporters and with no hostile questions anywhere in sight, he was in his comfort zone and his connection with the live audience was almost tangiable. Bush's weak spot, and it was obvious tonight, is in thinking on his feet. He's just not good at thinking and talking at the same time. (many would suggest he's not good at thinking, period; that's another debate. ) There were a number of instances tonight where it seemed like Bush was struggling to remember which catch-phrase his handlers had prepared for that topic. Kerry, on the other hand, seemed extremely assured throughout; I agree with the poll that says he won the debate, although whether it has much impact on the election is kind of doubtful. -kimmy

A couple of questions, Terrible... --having looked at the photographic evidence the author provides, do you believe it supports the claims he makes? --having looked at some of the other content of the website you linked to, how would you assess the author's objectivity? How would you assess the author's overall capacity for rational thought? -kimmy

I don't quite understand these faces. "Confused" and "I knew I should have stayed at the Rinkratz Chat Forum", respectively. ... uh... I'm just not following the connection to the issues of liability and responsibility that we were talking about in this thread. So yes... I guess "Kimmy still doesn't get it." -kimmy

Surrey also has possibly Canada's largest population of chain-smoking single moms with rusted-out '83 El Caminos. It might be tempting to put too much stock in ethnic factors in elections. To assume that ethnic voters will just naturally vote for somebody from their own demographic is perhaps not giving enough credit to these voters. In the past Federal election, in the Edmonton Beaumont riding, Liberal David Kilgour defeated Conservative Tim Uppal by literally a couple of dozen votes. Thanks to some creative map-drawing by Elections Canada, the Edmonton Beaumont riding contains not only a large rural area, but also a big slice of Edmonton's tremendously diverse Millwoods district. Not surprisingly, the two different parts of the riding had different views. But perhaps surprisingly, Uppal, a turban-wearing Indian businessman, received most of his support in the white, rural area of the riding, while Kilgour received most of his support in the diverse Millwoods part of the riding. I am sure that if Mr Brar wins this byelection, it won't just be because of his ethnic background. -kimmy

Oh, Syrup, don't feel that way. We're not saying you can't celebrate Mr Trudeau's life. We're just debating whether naming a BC mountain after him would really be the most fitting tribute. Like, for instance, when Mr Chretien moves on to that big caucus meeting in the sky, what would be a fitting tribute? Naming some mountain in his honor? Some place that few humans will ever visit? That doesn't seem to represent what Mr Chretien was about. A more fitting tribute, I think, would be to build a golf-course in his honor! The Jean Chretien Memorial Golf Course! There would hopefully be a burned out hotel nearby. I am gonna fill in for MS on this one and let you know we can get Bre-x to help us with that. Brilliant suggestions all. I did a quick survey of some people in my life who remember The Man, The Legend. My dad was somewhat indifferent. Mom, being from a remote part of the province where they didn't have "regular" plumbing until just recently, told me that they had already built their own monument to him: the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Memorial 2-Holer. However, my Special Guy thought naming a BC mountain after Trudeau would be a terrific idea, and suggests that Pierre's surviving sons could inaugurate it with a skiing trip. (I thought that was a little harsh. Funny, but harsh. ) -kimmy

I can't imagine how anybody with even modest reading comprehension skills could have gotten that out of my message, Syrup, but I've given up trying to figure out how your mind works. -kimmy

Why not choose a site somewhere in Ontario? Surely it would be better appreciated, and might even see people go to pay their respects (kind of like the Terry Fox memorial just ouside Thunder Bay.) Locating it in Western Canada will result in it being not appreciated, and leaves people with the daunting task of figuring out how to deface an entire mountain. -kimmy

-kimmy

Delusional. "Oh yeah, the Islamists aren't such bad people; so it was probably a CIA plan to discredit them!" This is shifting from apologism to sheer denial of reality. I can only shake my head at the mentality of somebody who'd make light of a beheading. Truly classy, syrup. -kimmy

A couple of things jump out at me from your post. First off, all the shows you mentioned are half-hour sit-coms, aren't they? Are there any one-hour dramas from that era that you'd point to as exceptional? I don't know of any, myself. The only examples of drama from that era I've seen ranged from so-so to flat out bad. I can admit to finding "The Rockford Files" mildly entertaining, more due to James Garner's charm ( ) than any particular brilliance of the program. Aside from that, I don't know of a single hour-long drama that would stand up today. As well, you point out that Mary Tyler Moore and All In The Family and other shows broke social taboos and put controversial issues on TV. Which is great, and I understand that television might be different today if shows hadn't broken barriers earlier on. I'd just offer that pushing the envelope isn't in itself a mark of quality. "Murphy Brown" strove to be controversial, but it was still a pretty crappy program. "Will & Grace" is groundbreaking by putting raving homosexuals as the stars of a TV show... but I just don't find it entertaining. "Friends" was groundbreaking by basing an entire show around the mentally handicapped, but I'd rather jab my eyes out than watch it. I couldn't agree less. I think "Scrubs" is a terrific program. I don't normally watch any sitcoms, because it's an inherently crappy format, but Scrubs is as good a half-hour comedy as I've ever seen. The only other half-hour comedy I watch is "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", which is outstanding. The people at "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" and "The Royal Canadian Air Farce" should watch an episode of the Daily Show; they'd either learn something, or commit mass suicide as they realize how weak their own shows are compared to the Daily Show. And for dramas, I don't think TV has ever had as many quality dramas to choose from as there are right now. Without A Trace, CSI, Law and Order (and its spinoffs), Joan of Arcadia, and "24" are some shows that I think would stand up well against any drama from any era gone by. Last season's (tragically cancelled) Boomtown and Wonderfalls were simply brilliant television (and apparently too intelligent for the average viewer to follow.) And that's not even mentioning shows like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under, which I've seen a couple of times and thought were very good, but haven't seen often enough that I'm prepared to speak for them personally. On artistic merit, I just can't imagine an objective observer picking any show from the '70s over any of the shows I've mentioned. The zenith of television? This is it, right now. Well, maybe last season, when Boomtown was still on the air. And yet, people look past the quality shows that are on right now, and focus instead on the plague of reality shows. (And, for what it's worth, I'd pick The Amazing Race over The Gong Show or The Newlywed Game or The Dating Game, any day of the week. ) -kimmy