brianw

Throw someone in jail for not paying a third party to be allowed to work. Novel concept. You want people in jail for refusing to pay to be allowed to do something they have a right to do. Are you suggesting criminals should be set free? Another interesting concept. We have organizations trying to get people off the street (salvation army, habitat for humanity, OCAP, etc...) and you want to see more people thrown into the street. How does someone actually OWE taxes simply for owning property. And just exactly how is someone who owns property getting a free ride. You want them thrown into the street so that you can have subsidized services. Who is the one who wants a free ride? You are something else.

Where are all the "High Tax" advocates to answer these questions? Here is another question: Who do high taxes hurt the most High income or low income people?

Yes, if it was shared by the majority.......it doesn't mean that the minority will agree though. As i said before, it's all in the eye of the beholder. So you agree that if the majority decides to kill then murder is justified? Again, what are you saying. You keep contradicting yourself every time you post. If basic human rights are basic and fundamental how can you suggest that having one more individual on your side makes violating those rights OK? If two people disagree and one kills the other there is a problem because there is no majority? If two people gang up on one then it is OK because there is a majority?

If you do not see a contrast then you must see the similarities! What are you actually trying to say?

These are contradictory statements. If one hands over the "reins" and have no choice after they cast their vote then whether they know or agree is irrelevant according to your own statement.

Until you are a suspect why would your information be of interest. If you are not a terrorist why should you be "tracked". How do you become a none terrorist if you aren't constantly "monitored" to see a change in behaviour?

People like you because you defend this type of activity. But after it happens you would claim that you didn't know and it wasn't your fault. It would obviously be someone else's fault. Maybe us because we couldn't make you see. Anybody but you right?

Given the chance when wouldn't they?

What does Iraq have to do with the Patriot act? Also, as I asked above, why is the onus on the Bush government instead of the BC Liberal party over these medical records? What did IRAQ have to do with 9/11? Saudia Arabia was more invoved and yet they were allowed to board planes and leave while the whole flight system in the US was shut down. Why is the onus on us to make you see that things are not exactly right with the whole thing? Why do you need convinding that people have basic human rights?

Simply follow the victim into a hair salon. Place gum on your shoe and walk up to the hair stylist to ask a simple question stepping into the hair while you are there. you now have DNA evidence. Plant it where you like and it is irefutable evidnce that your victim was at the scene of the crime. How can your victim prove that they were not there if the DNA evidence stated otherwise?

Talk to a police officer and they will tell you that a search warrant is a waste of time. Is it? How would photo radar help catch drunk drivers if they are not speeding?

No answer? Interesting! Obviously it serves your purpose! And again, obviously! Dito Still defending drunk drivers are you. HEHE. Want drunk drivers treated special do you.HEHE.Lex Luther are you?HEHE

Does life only exist on line? So what are you saying? History books change after grade 9? Or nobody except you has an education above grade 9? You want us to believe that we were taught one thing up to grade 9 then suddenly people are taught "gotcha, just kidding, the american revolution was a scam". That is your personal view not facts. You also want us to believe that the american political system was just a change in the leader after the revolution and the rest of the system was the same. But what was produced was a bureacracy. That is not an example, again your persoanl view. But it is a very good indication of your thinking. Wasn't that a slogan used during the cold war? Wasn't it repeated over and over by some group? What was it called? A socialist republic something or other? You were asked to provide examples of unregulated societies that failed and you go on to say that all Capitalist societies failed and they are all welfare societies. Does this mean that our society will eventually fail for the same reasons.

It wasn't much more than Ontario that voted for Liberals. Ontario has such a high number of seats that we almost don't need anyone else to vote. Apparently not. You could also say it is just another way winning politicians play on the naivete of people (convince the people that it is the majority that decide). So other provinces aren't Canadian? No wonder so many provinces are talking seperation. Ontario is Canada. What a concept. Because it is Canada? Is that the Alfa Male?

If someone refuses to pay a workers tax (income tax) should the government have the power to refuse to allow them to work? Wasn't there, originaly, a clause in the income tax act that stated compliance was voluntary because it violated people's right to work? Hasn't that been removed recently? Also, if someone refuses to (or their circimstances change so they can't) pay property tax should their property be taken and the prople thrown into the street? What if it is a family, does that make a difference?

Only if they are speeding. That is not usually the case on secondary roads. That would just reasure someone who is drinking that there will be no police present because the police will rely on the photo radar to do the job for them.

Many women assult children, many men assualt childrenm they don't need to be drinking to do it. Drinking is not the root of the problem, it is the morals and attitudes of the people committing the crimes. Most road rage is not committed by people who have been drinking. That is a basic fact. Most accidents, even fatal ones, do not involve a drunk driver. They involve someone who is driving dangerously (asleep at the wheel, distracted by other issues, etc...). None, How much road rage do you have? Want to continue name calling? It serves no purpose really, it just glorifies your ego. So do other impaired drivers. I simply stated that chances of being killed by a drunk driver is not as great as being killed by other impaired drives. You are focusing on minute issues rather than the real problems. Keeping people from leaving their homes would save more lives. Would that be a better use of YOUR money? Martial law would save more lives (until people became too fed up) would that be a better use for YOUR money? Apparently nothing to you! But the same thing happens there. Do you not care about your children? You seem to prefer to spend money on something that saves one life than things that would save many lives (even childrens). You agree that it is a control mechanism but you fail to realize that control is not the same as changing people's minds. No, what is working is the change in people's attitudes. You can't change 97% of the drinking drivers when you only catch 3%. The real change has been publicity and education. I stated that driving issues should be treated like other criminal issues and you have argued with me the whole time. What is your stand on the issue? Do you not think that crimes should be treated like crimes? Should we continue to treat drivers special because they are paying for a privilege? What do you really want. Laws that do not have any real effect or criminals to be treated like criminals.

I was speaking about the children in Toronto who have been sexually assaulted and mutilated. But then if you don't know about that then you would not know those spedific cases. With all the child abductions and attempted abductions I am surprised you are not aware of any. The unlimited resources are the tax dollars being spent in the wrong ways. Wouldn't you like the money and personel used wisely? The road blocks can not identify people who are driving without due diligence (what are you thinking, that police officers are psychics?). They can only identify a very limited number of drivers that have a very strong indicator. So how many drunks have you seen on the road compared to people driving dangerously? What I have said is that the chances of being killed by a drunk driver are much lower than being killed by someone impaired by other reasons or driving dangerously. This is not an emotional response this is reality. Most drunks are not mean drunks (where would you get a statistic like that?). So now you are stating that domestic assault should be considerd a driving issue? This just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Now, if only the rest of us would. Unfourtunately I don't think Ontario (where I live) would be so open to this suggestion since Ontario has such an overwhelming decision at the federal level.

Just what was the percentage of votes received in the last federal election? Was it 100%, or "all Canadians" or was it even over 50% or was it something less. Even at 50% your talking about only half of the Canadians (and the results were less than that). Who voted in the Liveral government? Quebec? Alberta? Saskatchewan? British Columbia? Or was it Ontario (where I live). How can one province represent the views of "all Canadians". Our political system is very distorted. I don't believe we (Ontarians) should be able to dictate to the rest of the country. Do you? Is Ontario the view of "all Canadians"? The federal government should only be involved in issues that cover all Canadians (with an equal representation of all provinces with each province having one and only one vote on issues) and as a mediator for disputes. They should not be "micro managing" local issues.

They used their Birthplace/ethnic background/religious background/etc.... Is that mediacal records or a census records or what. Either way is it not private information? So now if I were a criminal all I would have to do is follow you into a barber shop, collect some DNA, plant it at the scene of a crime, and it is up to you to prove that you did not commit the crime (or using your analogy, leave it up to you to prove that you are not a terrorist). Can you prove that you are not? But if you are not, should another state (i.e. government) be able to monitor you without your consent? Medical records or any other records being used to do the monitoring? You!! Shouldn't they? Do you have something to hide if they do? And with that said, it would be your choice, not someone elses. To enslave their people? To invade the people's rights? To bypass the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR)? Pick one. And how does surpressing your own people fight terrorism? So if "he" as an elected representative can give up your rights what happens after that? Once your rights have been violated is it alright to keep violating them? Conventional methods worked. The US government did not listen to the warnings before hand. Did you not hear the results of the investigations about 9/11? What have you answered? All I have seen is "Trust me I know what I am talking about" [QOUTE]As a Canadian, would you not want the government to use all means necessary to protect you from a terrorist attack and/or a public health crisis? Who has attacked Canada? Oh yea the only foreign power to attack Canada has been the US. Have we ever been attacked by anybody else? None, if it violates your rights. Just read section 15 of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms or the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There is no "moral legitimacy" if it violates morality. In the majority, minority, or otherwise! Taken directly from the UNDHR The onus isn't! Didn't you yourself bring up the question about what they would use them for? Isn't the whole point of the discussion, that it is private information that should not be bought, sold, traded, or given to anyone?

Wasn't a Canadian sent to Syria by the US recently as a suspected terrorist? Of course they won't use information against us, and I have some swampland ... I take it you have voluntarily submitted a DNA sample to be kept on file, since you have nothing to hide. I take it you would not mind having webcams scattered throughout your home as you do not have anything to hide. Someone may not have anything to hide if they have a rash in a sensitive area but really who elses business is it but theirs? Statements like "if you don't have anything to hide ..." have been used for a long time to "fear monger" people into giving up their rights. Would you please wright a complete diary of of your life, including personal thoughts and fantasies, and publish it on the internet? You don't have anything to hide so this should not be a problem for you.

So you suggest that spending unlimited resources on on something that has a negligable effect is better than actually using those resources for other areas? Tell that to the parents of those children who were mutilated. So catching the people in the act is not their main concern. If they only lay 3% of charges and they warn people first then there must be other motives. Lets see, they lay many more charges for other minor offences so I would say it is a money grab but more importantly it is a control mechanism. Can you tell me what the difference is between a driver who has been drinking and someone who is falling asleep at the wheel or someone who is so preoccupied with problems that they are not concentrating, or someone who is playing with the radio, or anything else that "impaires" their ability? The point is that there are many other things that need attention. Emotions have been taken advantage of to focus people on one point, drinking and driving, when there are many other more serious problems. What should be happening is that resources are focused on crimes (with or without alcohol involved). You seem (this is the impression I get anyway from your posts) to get very angry very quickly. I am more affraid of someone who experiences a bout of "road rage" (or with many people working 12 hour shifts there is a real problem with people being over tired) than I am of being injured by someone who has been drinking.

I provided two examples of tax revolts. Your response was to say that you don't believe the american revolution was a tax revolt but a scam prepetrated by the founding bureaucracts of the US. This contradicts history books. I suppose since you don't want to believe then those are scams as well. You claim that bureaucracy is good yet you also claim that the first bureaucrats of the US were only interested in getting rich (this supports my statement that government = get rich quick scheme). You seem to flip flop back and forth whenever it suits you. I have provided examples could you please provide some? No I did identify the proper group. You state that they are already wealthy. well that pretty much accounts for the politicians dosen't it? The same people you are stating that are not part of the identified group. I must go now but I will continue to pick your statements appart later.

I forgot. Would you also be suggesting that the Police Cheif is one of them since he stated they only result in 3% of charges or are you simply directing your insults to me?