ft.niagara

The idea of paper is it is lighter, and easier to carry. The idea of coins is for vending machines, but there is already the ability for vending machines to do paper. Change is easier to loose falling out of pocket laying down, or in a chair. The savings does not seem to be that big a deal.

Nor will they have them if the people who develop them can't make a reasonable return on their investment.I do not see that as a problem. It is not a problem that cancer is not cured? The next antibiotic is not created? Funny how those people with disease lobby for government to solve the problem of their disease or condition. Here we have someone who wants all progress to stop, probably because he is without disease AT THE MOMENT. It would not make a difference to my freedom. Being free does not mean you have an infinite abundance of choice and opportunity. The Swiss Family Robinson was free on their island. Charles Anthony's vision for the future: SIMPLE LIVING.

Harsh words for Christians. Islamists are far more extreme than any Christian I know of. At the rate they reproduce, and they are being imported, it won't be long before you are praying toward Mecca, or else you might be missing a hand, or worse.

If 'corporatism' is set to destroy western society, how is it all the developing societies are anxious to get onto the band wagon. 'Stupidity' is relative, one man's stupid, is another man's smart. Poverty is Poverty. What has changed is asian workers are now directly competing with N/S American and European workers, which is eventually exporting their poverty here.

Huh? Educate themselves in what? The only thing the religious conservatives are interested in obtaining a moral compass from is the Bible. The liberals have educated themselves in the school of what feels good. As long as it feels good both physically and mentally, it must be right. Who knows, maybe they are right (not likely), but they surely did not come to their conclusion from study. In fact, on the issue of homosexuality, the Greeks used homosexuality, but did not embrass it as a lifestyle. I can not think of any old society which embrassed it. Greeks, Romans, American Indian, Soulth American Indian, Chinese, Persian. Name one where it is mainstream. And that is just the issue of homosexuality.

In many ways GWB is not a conservative, and he sure has gotten into trouble with his base. On fiscal responsability, he is terrible. Let me address at least some of your points. On stem cell research, one of the tenents of Christianity is do not kill the unborn. In fact, the unborn are the most helpless of what some consider to be a living being. Stem cell research is not illegal in the US, and is being done by corporations. When all contribute to the national tax base, and public money for this research could be considered a donation, it is certainly in every taxpayer's right to have a say in who gets that donation. Especially since this research could be considered promoting murder, it is certainly understandable that such research not be within the federal research donation pool. A similar parallel might be the pledge. If everyone does not believe in God, then the Under God statement should not be in the pledge. This arguement is a liberal arguement, same root. As far as intelligent design or Darwinism, one thing that Darwinism does not address is where did life come from. If it was a primordial soup, why can it not be recreated in a lab. Also, there seems to still be major holes in the fossil trail. Of course, some will say that some places are not prime for producing fossils, but still given the fact that there are holes leads to some other possibilities, including flying saucers, God, angles, whatever. Part of the problem might be that both sides " wish to harness the power of government to push on us all what they *know* to be in our best interests." The liberals just know what is right because they just know, and the conservatives know because of old teachings.

Then we are talking about different things. The conservative Christian types think you are wrong in your lifestyle. If you thought someone was doing something bad, human nature would propel you to try and stop them, setting a trash fire next to a building for example. You, in fact might be defined as conservative in every way but your lifestyle.

Then you haven't lived, my friend. You haven't lived. There are many flavors of conservativism: fiscal (which is just common sense budgeting), moral (antiabortion, antigay, traditional marriage), and religious (traditional service, church going, missionary). One of the tenents of the Christian Religion is to spread the news. Conservative Christians who are spreading the word are probably also fiscally and morally conservative, but then they are also just doing what the Bible has instructed.

If you have listened to RLimbaugh, his definition of the left is those who know what is best for everyone else and want to control government so they can exercise their moral authority, whereas the right wants to limit government so that people are tasked with the responsibility of themselves. Largely, I believe he is right.

Depends on whether you are the discriminator or the discriminatee. In Japan is is not illegal to discriminate, to them it is not disgusting, and they do not care what you think. Your long arm of social justice has no effect on them because you still buy the Toyotas and Sony Playstations. In Saudi Arabia, they discriminate on religion. I have heard that a nonIslamic can not go to Mecca. They do not care what anyone thinks about it either, including the Pope.

I think you have done a very good job supporting your position. To be anti for anti sake is an intellectually empty tank, but it is a life style. It is a lifestyle with alot of built in activities such as parades, love fests, and who knows what else. The idea of burka clad women with aging hippies makes me gag though. Canada, perhaps more than other western nations has embrassed diversity. Hopefully, it will not come back to haunt.

Of course he went down in 1929. I know that. First he was a monarchist. Some of the rooms in the house were designed for an anticipated visit from the English monarchy, to which he saw Canada as a loyal subject. Second, he paid for Canadian soldiers to compete in European (British) military competition. Part of the movie is showing Canadian soldiers training for the competition. Besides promoting other things which helped the general citizenry (the name escapes me) having to do with young people with uniforms, he developed at Niagara Falls the power project. That ornate building coming into NF from the south on the Canadian side is part of its remains. On the American side, there was also a private development of electric power. According to the movie, that development of electric power production was taken without compensation. Even if he lost all his money in 1929 plus, taking that property without compensation was a black day for Canada, at least as it seems to me.

He lost his entire fortune in the Crash of 1929. You suggesting that the Crash of 1929 was a socialist conspiracy? Not really. According to the video of his life shown at Casa Loma in Toronto, Canada, the functioning electric power project was taken from him and the two other investors without compensation. Had compensation been given for 'nationalization' of his property, he certainly would have not been consigned to poverty. Or is the video wrong, or did I hear wrong, and he was indeed compensated for his property by the Canadian government. I am confused by such hostility to the man by Canadians. He should be a national hero. As far as his lavish home, so what. By today's standards, his house does not seem all that lavish for a high income person. It was nice, but not up to the standard of the DuPont estate, or the Hearst estate. In fact, there is no estate. I suspect that neither MM or MD have ever seen Casa Loma, and know little of the man.

From Time Magazine: Ann Coulter's Funny That Way... Monday, Mar. 05, 2007 By JOHN CLOUD Are straight people allowed to say "faggot"? Are white people allowed to say "nigger"? Generally no. Our unwritten speech codes require that those words be used only by gays and blacks, respectively (black gays can say both). Which is just as it should be: minorities can reappropriate slurs if it empowers them or even if it just humors them — I think it's funny when fellow gays sarcastically say "Hey faggot" to me. But it wouldn't be so funny if, say, my heterosexual boss said it. Sorry, straight people: you don't get to say "faggot." (I can still be fired for being gay in most U.S. states, so you still have the better end of the bargain.) Speech codes are one of the many social devices that keep us from all murdering each other with our bare hands in the grocery aisle. But speech codes deeply offend conservatives, which is the point Ann Coulter was making when she said this last week: "I was going to have a few comments about the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" Pretty much everyone in mainstream politics, right and left, then condemned her. Coulter is very good at sparking these controversies. She does it once or twice a year, to the great benefit of her fame and book sales (you can read my fuller take on the last Coulter explosion, regarding 9/11 widows here. Coulter is heterosexual, so I suppose I should condemn her as well. But note that she was using the word "faggot" with virtual quote marks around it. Surely all of us are allowed to do that — just the way I used the N word in quote marks above. She didn't say "John Edwards is a faggot." She would never say that — not because she respects the rights of gays to full equality before the law (she doesn't) — but because it wouldn't be funny. Coulter wants to make people laugh more than anything; she is, as I have argued here, a right-wing ironist and comedienne as much as she is a political commentator. This is obvious if you watch her speak with the sound off — she is smiling or even giggling most of the time; she theatrically rolls her eyes; you can see her pause and toss her hair into a jaunty cant before delivering a punch line. We don't read her body language the way we normally do because the words she is uttering are so peremptory and shocking. If we did, we would put her in the same league as Bill Maher or Jackie Mason, not the dry policy analysts who are sometimes pitted against her on cable-news shows. I have interviewed both Coulter and Edwards in the past, and I'm pretty sure the attention her comments have drawn pleases both of them, at least a little. (Well, it pleases Ann a great deal; I wonder if she can now charge an extra $5,000 for her next speaking engagement...) Edwards got some free media, his first since the Obama-Clinton standoff began in earnest; he is also using the incident to raise money, something Coulter has noted with glee on her website. I do have one complaint with Coulter's joke: It wasn't that funny. Edwards is many things — a little dull, wrong on Iraq, hopelessly reductive on the economy (there are many more than two Americas). But he doesn't seem the least bit gay to me. Coulter has at least one close gay friend, and when I was reporting my profile of her, she always remembered to ask about my partner at the time. She is always trying to get me to go with her to the Halloween parade in Manhattan's West Village, which is the second-gayest event in New York City after the Pride parade. So I'm not sure why she thought it would be funny to target a gay joke at Edwards. But then again she doesn't need her semiannual cadenzas of outrage to be funny: she just needs us to condemn them, louder and louder every time.

Why not just dissolve the institution of Marriage. If it makes people unhappy, and locks people into situations they may not like, get rid of it. Just do contracts. They can be as loose or tight as desired. Negotiation can be done between the two parties before the 'signing'. The ceremony can be called the Signing Ceremony. People can say they are Under Contract.

Because people decided that they would rather be happy instead of married. Good point, but there is no such thing as traditional marriages, as defined by those here, in the fist place, let alone, have them be the bulding blocks of Canada. "people decided that they would rather be happy instead of married" is a Good Point? Marriage does not make people happy OR sad. "no such thing as traditional marriages, as defined by those here" is for sure true. Drea is a 42 year old living together divorcee who wants to get married, Catchme is gay, living together with a former heterosexual husband. Renegade thinks the act of Marriage brings on a perminent state of unhappyness, and Catchme agrees. Yep, a typical group for sure.

No, a giant land fill into the Mediterranean Sea. NYC has been very successful in making land out of reclaimed sea.

It is quite possible that it wasn't the US government. It might have been Isreel. As far as AlQ wanting to do it, that is pretty well documented going back to 1991, and the first WTC bombing. Israel? What an unfounded and unsupported slur. It has to do with motive. What would be a motive to demolish the buildings. The Arab motive might have been a desire to fight someone powerful, anger over the influence of the West in Moslim world, etc. An Israeli motive might have been to mobalize the anger of the West against the Arabs, and sympathy in their direction. Motive for the US government to demolish the buildings, they wanted an urban renewal project? BTW, slur is a poor word for a speculation with a strong basis in possibility. What was the reason for the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel? It was not likely a mistake, and it definately was Israel. It might have been the same reason as for the WTC.

My spelling, my grammar, I'm bad. You're alot of hot air. Party A LOL

It is quite possible that it wasn't the US government. It might have been Isreel. As far as AlQ wanting to do it, that is pretty well documented going back to 1991, and the first WTC bombing.

Not really. There is a famous interview with Barry Goldwater. Goldwater said that he called Curtis LeMay asking him what was in Area 51. He said LeMay got very defensive and told him never to ask him that question again. I am surprised how it is never a campain issue, like 'if I get elected, I will'.

Too bad the US has only one more party than communist Cuba. As opposed to Canada which has only two more, but only one viable.

Kerry looks like a Halloween costume party attendee. Sunken cheeks, curly sandy greying hair, long nose, sunken eyes.... His nickname is lurch. Far from an Ann Coulter. I get a charge how a Bill Maher says he is sorry Bill Cheney did not die and NOTHING, yet Ann Coulter says something and Booo Hooo. The only reason is she is very attractive and Bill Maher looks deformed. Furthermore, since 100% of the faggotts vote Democrat, being PC becomes less important, ie no downside to your base.

She is fairly tall, well educated, blond with long stright hair, thin, sharp featured. What is your definition of good looking? Flat nose, big lips, big ass, kinky hair.....

He brought electric power to Toronto. That was worth billions. He was not a victim of an enlarged ego, he was a victim of a socialist Canada.