RNG

I read an interesting op-ed today but dang, I can't find it. The author speculated that one reason is that all the other Arab states had already decided to throw Gahdaffi under the bus so hitting on him would have little repercussion. Syria is too allied with Iran, and so intervention there could cause troubles as is to a lesser degree true of Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. Plus, the scale of slaughter in Libya was way worse than in the other regimes, or so the author claims.

He does have an employer, himself. I have worked for a company that I 100% owned for the past 15 years or so.

My thoughts exactly. My sister-in-law is from the Ukraine. What a load of crap. Unless it is "reported" crime they are talking about. When she got here, she was more afraid of cops than of robbers.

Can you think at all?

Very eloquent. Thank you. Asshat.

Labour without an employer? What a joke.

Damn you're really tough, internet bullyboy. So go and suck on something I think you really want.

And they are typically too freaking dumb to know what that would be.

What a load of crap! You are stupid. It takes someone to risk his own money, put his life and family in jeopardy to try and start a business. You chichen-shit bastard. Did you ever do this? Who have you ever made a job for? So STFU.

I can't talk about Ontario Indian lands, but I have had a great relationship with several really rich First Nations farmers in Alberta that did just fine on "Indian Lands". My son and one of "them" are still great friends.

And yet two of my in-laws (thank god they weren't blood relatives or I'd kill myself) were strong union members and would not look at amortization costs or any other expenses. They looked at total revenue and wages paid out and that was the basis of their bitches. Idiots.

WOW

I'm 65 years old, and I can not remember one time in my life that the Senate has stopped a piece of legislation.

So Section 26 makes the Senate powerless, as was posited.

I tried to Google it but couldn't find the original. I read an article probably 10 year ago which claimed that the NYC crime rate drop was the result of community based neighborhood watch type things and cleaning up neighborhoods and similar civic measures and had nothing to do with "tough on crime crap". I'm a strong righty, but tough on crime sucks brontosaurus.

We did that in Alberta and the Liberals basically said f**k you.

And this relates how?

Not obvious to me at all. Expound please.

Again, I wish this site had an "add to reputation" or equivalent button. I heartily agree with this post. I was mentally composing basically the same concepts when I saw it.

I think you have a fact wrong, at least as the laws are applied in Alberta. My kid is divorced with a son and is making support payments. The formula used in Alberta is based on current salary. You get a raise, the kid gets more. You lose your job, the kid gets zero. The laws aren't always that stupid. (Yes, sometimes but not always.)

Seriously, are deadbeat dads really jailed? That strikes me as being counterproductive in at least two ways. How the hell can he make money to pay support when he is in jail, and what does it cost us to keep him in jail? Garnisheeing wages or confiscating property would be the way to go. Alberta has a system that is surprisingly effective. Deadbeat dads have their driver's license revoked. A very effective tool. (And for the picky among you, I know it's prison, but jail is shorter.)

I find it interesting that in Germany for sure, and I think some other countries, the union is represented on the board of directors of companies. This seems to lessen conflict when the union actually understands the situations that companies face.

You, sir, are really stupid, it appears.

Been there, done that. Don't play the martyr with me.

If they were expecting you to double your workload, then you were really fucking them before. If you were performing so poorly that they could want you to improve by a factor of two, then you are a thief and a con-man.