brianw

Actually quite a few. A couple of years ago it was so bad on the east coast it made national news, Did you miss that one in your selective viewing? So if it is only one it is OK? If it is less than 100 it is OK? If it doesn't directly affect you it is OK? You can't be talking about all Canadians if you are willing to exclude some from your definition of all Canadians. Would you be OK if it were blacks who were being excluded? What about women? Chinese? How few is OK? Would you say the same thing about rapes? If one woman is being raped it is OK until the number gets a little higher? So it is OK to take things from people by force if someone else, who has a tragedy, needs it? Again it does not protect all Canadians when some Canadians are having their rights violated to pay for it. So shelter is not an important issue? Who is asking you to "throw some money" at the poor? Homes are being taken from people by force. You are being asked to let people keep what is already theirs not to give something to anyone. If you are forced from your home why would you really care what the police/fire/ambulance have? Pay attention! Right here in Canada. Local governments using the police as their tools to do the forcing. It isn't that hard to understand. Anyone who advocates throwing people from their home for failing to be able to pay a shelter tax. When someone must pay first and put food on the table second or give up their home to end up in a shelter because their home has been sold by someone who does not own it. If people aren't thrown out of their home in the first place they wouldn't need programs to put money into shelters to get them off the street. This is not a hard concept. People in their homes is a good thing. People out in the cold is a bad thing. Throwing people from their homes so that they require money to be put into a shelter stupid! No it is not. It is a human right not to have your property taken from you by force. It is a human right to have your shelter (you don't get one for free but your's can't be taken from you by force without violating your rights). Any tax on shelter, directly or indirectly, violates your human rights. Simple concept. As you see here Army Guy does agree that people should be thrown from their homes and advocates this by stating that there should be a program to handle them after they are. So please don't try to deflect the issue by making it look like I violated a rule. Talk about trolls

Army Guy, Got to thinkin and maybe I did not understand so let me see if I have it straight. You advocate the use of force to throw people from their homes to pay for an army to use force against a dictator that uses force against his own people by throwing them from their homes to pay for his army. You say it is OK for your government to do this because they provide social programs where the people who are forced from their homes get to live in refugee style shelters and the people thrown out by the dictator only get refugee camps. Does this pretty much sum it up?

You sound like people are born owing taxes. That would be servitude which is a crime. Two year waiting lists for housing. Homeless shelters overflowing. Families living in shelters. Yep there are plenty of programs. Don't get out much do you? You want social programs to solve the problem of people being thrown out of THEIR homes for not being able to pay you to play your war games. This means that taxes must go up to pay for the social programs that are required to pick up the peices of lives that are destroyed because people like you want to play "war games". Just like the humanity that you pretend to be protecting when you are out playing your "war games" And until you have been thrown from your home to support people like you then you will not even begin to know what a difference shelter can make to people right here. So it gets "played with" then replaced before it is actually needed and there is a diference because ... ? People right here are being forced from their homes to pay for you to tell another regime not to use force against it's people. "Do as we say not as we do" right? They end up in shelters to pay for you to play games. This costs us in monetary and humanitary terms. Pat ourselves on the back while out of the view of the camera we are kicking our own people while they are down. Great ideology you have there. It is if we are asked to give up our homes to do it. Wouldn't you agree? What's the point of bombing other countries in the name of human rights when we are violating human rights here? All so that you can live off taxpayers. You don't mind throwing people from their homes so that you get provided a home by the taxpayer do you?

So, throw women and children into the street to provide humanitarian relief? Makes absolute sense. Should it be? And the equipment would sit around for years until it is needed again and by that time it would be too old to be of any use. Makes sense. Shouldn't humanitarian aid be joint efforts anyway? Again, there are better ways to provide aid than to pay a standing army to provide aid. Also, should our people, including women and children, be thrown out into the street to pay for your pride?

Canadians don't even have the right to shelter, food or water anymore so how can we talk about having any rights?

In many areas of Canada women and children are being thrown out of their homes by the government for not being able to meet the ever increasing "debt to society". How can you advocate this in favour of having a "force to be reckond with"? Military is supposed to be for defence isn't it (Unless you advocate military as an offense)? Is that what we are doing in other countries? Defending ourselves? There are better ways to provide aid than to spend the money on a "formidable force". Throwing our women and children into the street should not be one of them.

That wasn't always the case. At one time people actually had rights in this country and it was the criminals who were punished not the average joe. I would guess that Argus is reffering to pre 1950 when things were a little more relaxed and most people lived in rural settings (the use of the word chit should have been some sort of a clue).

And as it has been repeatedly asked: How do you know unless someone tells you? Which was her point entirely. How do you know unless someone tells you that you are offending them? You say: If they don't say anything then how do you find out? How do you know? Are people supposed to be psychic? I seen on another thread someone used the word comrade. Could that be offensive? What about mon ami? What about buckaroo? What about ace? What about hotshot? Anyone could find any of these (or any term for that matter) offensive depending on their past experiences but unless they say something how do you know? I have very little hair. If someone calls me Kojack can I take them to court without first telling them I don't like it?

That's not registration that is banning. You are assuming that the people who don't have access to a weapon won't pick up a stick, use a boot, fist or whatever else is handy. You are assuming that the object somehow controls the individual rather than the individual controling the object. Why not just place a registration number on people's arms instead? Wouldn't that solve all the worlds problems and be less expensive than having so many other registrations?

It is amazing that when governments want to scare people into giving more they threaten to cut needed services instead of other areas (like the govenor general's budget). I won't repeat the list that has already been presented but I believe that we could come up with an extremely long list if we really tried. And about those flags in Quebec: it was lost during the sponsorship scandal but, businesses came forward and admitted that they were asked to submit fake invoices for flags that did not exist (so that it could be said that 1,000,000 flags were handed out even if they weren't). They were paid for the flags that they didn't deliver but the business owners that came forward did not like what they were asked to do.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. The Liberals can just ask business owners to submit fake invoices for flags that don't exist and the federal government can pretend they put the flags back up. Heck they can tell people they passed out 1,000,000 flags and have the invoice to prove it (just like they did in Quebec). But of course they would need to dip into that oil money to pay an ad firm to pass a cheque along to the business that didn't supply the flags. If they get more than one business that supplies a fake invoice do they get to pay more than one ad firm a transfer fee?

I seen a statistic the other day that said there are 1,000,000 children living in poverty in Canada. $2,000,000,000 to a useless gun registry works out to $2,000 per child if it wasn't wasted. Then add in all the other "boondogles" (HRDC, ADSCAM, etc...) and it would make one heck of a difference. We are forced to hand money over to a black hole (that does very little to do what socialists claim it's purpose is) when we could do more with that money ourselves. Our local council just apporved $33,000 to do an arts and culture study and at the same time I seen in the paper a list of people who were being evicted from their homes, because they can't meet the state set quotas for state property rent and shelter tax (anyone who has an acre of land and some form of shelter is an evil rich criminal). Socialist keep saying that those who wish to keep more of what they work for have a "mine, mine, mine" attitude. Meanwhile the socialist have a "give me, give me, give me" attitude with the pretense of helping others. Very little actually gets to those who need it and what does reach them creates a dependancy cycle that isn't usually broken. These socialist cram people into housing projects (more like refugee camps) where they are demoralized and degraded.

Why not just ban left lanes?

Even if every object that could be used to harm (which is probably just about every object) is registered how would that address the reason for the attacks in the first place (which is violence by people not objects)? How exactly would having a number engraved on a knife be of any use? Take a hacksaw and file it down. You now have a 12 inch knife. Take a chainsaw bar and file it down and you now have a weapon. Where does the registration stop and the addressing of the real issues begin?

Now I can see why people must keep telling you to go back and read the posts again. It is the governments who waste money on boondogles that throw people into the streets. What do you consider high tax? Anything over 100% maybe. They do not have to be directed at the poor to hurt the poor. High taxes to place a barrier in the path such that it is very difficult for poor people to break through. Is it now? If you pay a fee to be allowed to keep possesion of something (land, car, TV, and so on) isn't that rent? If the government charges you a fee to keep possesion of your land isn't that rent? Many poor people could feed themselves quite well with some land and a garden. Ridiculous to allow people to feed themselves that's what we have heroes like you for correct? Where did this come from? Maybe you should read twice post once. Need me to look up any more definitions for you? If I had empty spaces in my head would that make me left? Is that what you meant when you said: Would I be like you?

How do I draw pictures on this forum? Let me try a little slower for you. Government throw people onto streets to pay for boondoggles how is this socially responsible? High taxes hurt poor people how is this socially responsible? Government charges rent on land where poor could grow gardens how is this socially responsible? Government charges shelter tax (as part of property tax to clarify) which hurts poor people how is this socially responsible? etc... etc... etc... It is really hard to talk slowly on a computer. I tried leaving spaces between the words but they did not show up. The questions may not be worded the greatest but come on who are you kidding?

It is your social government who throws people in the street for failing to meet their set quotas. Why didn't you answer that? It is your social government who jails people for having the right to work. Why didn't you answer that? It is your social government that charges rental fees on private property (which means a poor person can't even grow a garden to feed themselves without paying state rent). It is your social government that charges a shelter tax. It is your social government that charges a fee for people to be allowed to build shelter. You keep claiming that we need to be socially responsible yet you seem to support such anti-social behaviour. If a homeless individual were given a home would that help them? No because they would be treated as a criminal and sent right back to the street for failing to meet your social responsibility. Can you answer these basic social questions?

If someone falls behind on their quotas, set by government corporations, then their home is taken and they are thrown in the street. This is a very fine example of the hypocrisy. Throwing people into the street while claiming you are socially responsible. Self reliance has very little to do with money. You could be self reliant with a couple acres of land and a little home. I say could, although it is not possible because you must have money to pay state land rental fees, state shelter tax, you must pay the state for permission to build your home on your land, you must pay for a school system even if you don't use it, etc... The state is the one who has taken away the ability to be self reliant and replaced it with the need to be dependant. Then if someone refuses to give up their right to work for the privilege of working for the state they are: a) called a deadbeat if they don't work, called a cheat if they work in the black market, or c) thrown in jail if they work without paying for the privilege Is throwing someone in jail for working socially responsible? I think people have lost track of what socially responsible really means. Does it really mean the state owns everything and everyone?

wouldn't it have been in the interest of the gun registry supporters to break down the costs and only include the costs of the registry alone so that the figure wouldn't have been that high if, as you say, the figure includes every aspect of gun use? Oh wait a minute, they did break it down and the $2,000,000,000 (boy that's a lot of zeros did I add extras by mistake?) was for the registration, correct?

Just thought I would add a tidbit here. If the police even check the registry before going into a situation what will they find. If they find that there are no registered weapons then are the police going to go into the situation believing that there is no danger. Absolutely not. They must go into every situation as if there is danger. There could be a visitor with a weapon, a knife, club or anything else involved. They must go into every situation with caution. If they believe the registry then they may be putting themselves and others in danger. If they do find a weapon registered then they may be overly eager with the use of force when no weapon is involved in the situation (just because someone has a gun does not mean it is involved and in most cases they are not). Should they go into the situation with their "fingers on the trigger" and possible hurt someone who is innocent? Absolutely not. What does all this boil down to? The police must go into every situation exactly the same. They must be alert and attentive but they must also not be in a "Rambo" state of mind. So what does the registry accomplish. It does not stop criminals from obtaining weapons, it does not stop smuggling, and it does not help the police even if they do check the gun registry 1500 times a day. By the way. How does the gun registry stop someone from "losing it" (which is most of the domestic disputes) and using a registered gun to kill?

Economic Left/Right: 2.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

How exactly would you make a child exercise? You can't force them to. Heck if a child refuses to do the dishes without getting enough of an alowance what can you do as aparent? Legislation won't work and punishing parents when parents don't have any control any more won't work. Kids go to school and learn that they can say no. Look at the 5 year old in the US several years ago that called 911 because he didn't get his favourite (sugar loaded) cereal for breakfast. How do parents cope? Many don't they just give up.

Ask your doctor what goes in the shots! I am not asking you or telling you to believe me. You have a mind of your own don't you? Can't you think for yourself? Do you not even consider all the chemicals being put out (approved by our government) part of the problem? Or is that a conspiracy theory (excuse me insight)? You believe in aliens? Or you have definite proof they don't exist? Are they causing cancer? What do they have to do with this thread? Just a personal jab to boost your ego? Wouldn't matter to someone like you. Everything you can't understand or don't believe is a conspiracy theory. So sucking on someone else's spit would eliminate all the hazzards of smoking? And you laugh at me? But in Canada it is affecting children faster than adults. Would that be suggesting that adults have become more immune to cancer or are there other issues that are related? Isn't Canada right up there with sun block usage? Isn't Canada right at the top with imunization compliance? We must have quite a hole over Canada. Japan must have all the ozone over them.

I seen a study online (I will try to find it again) that showed cancer vs smoking. It showed that Japan has one of the highest rates of smoking and one of the lowest rates of cancer. We are told that the sun is causing the increasing occurances of skin cancer in children. This would mean that places in the third world use more sun block than in North America. At the same time those shots that are given to children (isn't Canada the leader in compliance with these imunizations?) have known carcinigens in them. They also have 3 times the amount of mercury as fish. We are told that this is good mercury (I don't think there is such a thing though). Could this be what is causing our cancer along with other enviromental issues? (btw I don't smoke, never have and think it is a disgusting thing but I don't fall for all the hype about it either). We keep putting our "faith" in the government to keep us healthy by mandating certain things. Can we really continue to do this. Look at those tourists down in Australia who tried to pet sharks while sitting on a dead whale. The Austrailian government passed a law against that but if people are that stupid will it really help. You can't legislate out stupidity, you can only create people who are (for the lack of a better word) "dependant" . Will legislation make people more healthy? Will people become more healthy by having a law that says they must be healthy. Isn't the only real cure a change in attitude to get people more interested in health and exercise?

Like our Heritage Minister asking businesses to provide invoices for flags that never existed so she could say that she handed out one million of them (without actually doing it of course)?