Trial-and-Error

Okay, so you didn't comprehend well what you read and yet opted to take an offensive approach in your reply. Not to worry. I obviously hit on a soft spot. Your mistake was inferring something I didn't imply. Where do I suggest that we should pull funding from religious schools to save money? The clue lies in the second half of the sentence and the sentence following. I was engaging in rhetoric, unless, of course, that is disallowed here at Maple Leaf. Over.

That is a no brainer. Not only should funding be withdrawn but all Catholic and other religious schools should be taxed for messing up the brains of their students. We're going to pay dearly down the road because of what tommyrot is being thrust into their impressionable heads. Moreover, while we're at it, all churches and properties and income of said churches should be taxed. Look at the Catholic church, for instance, they are sitting on untold wealth while millions among their flock of sheep go hungry every day. While I would never ban belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or the little munchkins that live in the forest, if any group would rise up and form some kind of a congregation around their fantasy, I would not be giving them any tax breaks. So why should it be different for churches who support a fairy god?

Absolutely! I mean, c'mon, look at the horrific legislation Georgie Pordgy got through when he didn't have the whole enchilada and when he did, he took no prisoners. And Barrack don't got no Cheney running interference. Still, Barrack missed the boat big time. But then, I think it is entirely possible that he like Georgie is only the titular head. In fact, I think the public would be mortified to learn what the real deal is in politics on both sides of the border. That's why I've given up listening to the news--which it is NOT--it is only that which they want us to think that we know. We in the West live in the lands of smoke and mirrors.

His original point was that he disagreed with spending 850,000 on a bloody ceremony to "honour" those Canucks who fought in Libya--who engaged in murder and maiming--a celebration of inhumanity to man. He kind've thought that the money could be put to better use. So, I agreed with him and as far as the spelling was concerned, I was able to overlook it cuz I understood what he was saying. I am a spelling/grammar critic no more--well, not on forums. I used to engage in that myself but then I reexamined my motives and found them to be welllllll just a tad supercilious. (Joking, just joking). How about a tad elitist (with no justification!!)

You're gooooooood! "...in terms of slogans." HEHEHEHEHE

Cybercoma, in my opinion, it is rare that mistakes are made. We may attribute bad legislation to "mistakes," but it is very deliberate. And that's what angers me the most. These so-called mistakes are by design. And one more thing, I believe strongly that conspiracy in government is the norm; it is not the exception. Far too many people have it backward. Once we have that one clearly understood, everything else falls into place and makes sense. Take 911 for instance; identify all that has happened since, and Eureka, the puzzle is solved. We may not like the picture it forms, but damn it does make sense.

Oh, for the love of gawd, Moonbox, get a life. Topaz is absolutely correct, we need fewer representatives. Not more. For the population of our size, we are over-governed by a bunch of money grabbing thieves. I don't trust any of them. They will do anything to get elected. They will humiliate themselves, they will lie, cheat, do anything at all to achieve power. And we need more to join their ranks. Are you kidding me? Anybody who thinks politicians are there for our benefit, give your heads a shake. They are the dregs of society and while occasionally one comes along that shows some promise, they are cowed by those already there. If government were run on the up and up, I doubt you'd get many who'd want to step up to the plate to get elected. After all what would be in it for them? And then, we have the senate--a joke at best; at worst, sheer theft of the taxpayer. And we don't have the collective good sense to demand change. Anti-regressive conservatives? You bet! But do I think the Liberals are any better? If they are, not by much. The NDPers? Not bloody likely but so long as they are in the opposition, they can talk the talk. The entire system stinks. Canada the true north strong and free. Gag me with a spoon!! and to the south, "...with liberty and justice for all.: Does anyone actually sing or recite this tripe any more? But I digress. Moonbox, we do NOT--I repeat--we do NOT need even one more politician--not one. As for your criticism of Topaz' figures, who cares. He made his point. Not another red cent for more reprobates.

You, Topaz, are spot on IMNSHO. Our health care system was working swimmingly in the 70's and 80's and then ever so slowly things began to change until today our health care system in no way resembles that which it once was. For my money, it has since been monkeyed with and re-designed to fail. What do people do? They get fed up and say well, this universal system of health care is no longer working, let's bring in the American system. They don't think about why it's failing; they only know they're not receiving the medical attention they feel they should. The health care industry is chomping on the bit (they're already here in B.C. and Alberta--probably in more provinces as well). If we are ever to get the health care system back on track, it will require that everybody demand a fast turn-around from the dismal failure it now is. But you know that not everyone gives a damn. Again, it all comes down to how deep your pockets are--and if they're deep enough you don't have to worry about how much health care costs. It's the old tried and true adage, divide and conquer. The sickness-for-profit industry (including the doctors most of whom are over-paid as it is) are poised for a full frontal attack coming soon.

Well, it would be nice; however, I'll not be holding my breath for a change to come. If anything, I predict things are going to become far worse. The super rich believe in their heart of hearts that they can win the squeeze they have on us. And those few rich who've come forward to say they believe they should be taxed--that they should pay be paying their fair share. What do they take us for? Fools? Well, okay, they may have a point. But where have these guys been over these past many decades? Why they've been busying themselves with their accountants looking for-------yes, that's right----------every possible tax deduction loophole. But they are worried not about paying their fair share but about the world's 7 billion population and are working on "a fix" for that. All these excess people don't bode well for the environment and how can the super rich enjoy their lives to the fullest when the environment is under seige? Stay tuned.

Oh, too funny. Uncle Stevie not being served his din-din at the White House. This is meaty stuff to be sure. Notwithstanding what we may think of ourselves, in the scheme of things we're a blip on the U.S. radar screen--and the Yankee administration believes we should be damn grateful for that. So let us stop our whining and give thanks to the fairy god. If we ever had real autonomy from the U.S. I'd be surprised. But it's for damn sure, we don't have it now. When Obama wants Stevie, he reels him in and when he's done he removes the hook and pops the "little" guy back into to the water to swim home. Uncle Stevie is obviously unperturbed by this, so I'm guessing he's getting what he wants out of the relationship. And let's face it, isn't that what really counts? Just as Georgie had and has great disdain for the American plebes, Uncle Stevie thinks pretty much the same about us. Why, we're nothing but a bunch of orphans flailing about, giving our opinions and hoping that we will be heard. Gawd, we ARE a pitiful lot. Still this orphan Annie gots her priorities and I dunt give a whit about how Uncle Stevie gets treated south of the border. As for the border deal,the hackles on the back of my neck spike and I wince whenever government tells me that its latest agreement with the U.S. will be in this country's best interests. Ohgoodgawd, where does it all end. Trust me, we don't want to know!!

I'm with you, William. Of course, I'm a pritty gud spellir myself and I hav a convinshunal keybored, so I dunt have the same prublems that you do. Hell, I don't care how you spell, just so long as it's not so bad that I really don't understand what it is that you are saying. So far, so good. I'm getting the message. Keep up the good work, cuz I agrees with you.

Especially you, Boges. All those right of Centre require exposure to science and to the humanities. Knowing how bleach adversely affects the soil is important for you to know. And in my world, we pay to educate you. We would not take the easy way out and have you pay for damages. It is more important to us that you know why what you did was wrong--you were being injurious to the environment and by extension, injurious to yourself, me and everyone else. But then, too, under my type of administration, you would have learned all this by now so you wouldn't have poured bleach onto the grass in any event. You see we're very much into putting our monies into preventing problems; into researching where potential problems might lie; into helping people be the best that they can be--not the worst. You could do far worse than living in my world.

EXACTLY AND WELL PUT! Another voice of reason!!!!

Well, yeah, ooookay, let's go with that.......if you're talking about trashing. Guys on the left would never set out to trash anything. It's not in their nature. If you mean, that by pitching tents, the hidden grass was unable to avail itself of the light and thus expired or seemed to have expired, that's not trashing. I'm just happy the protesters had a "roof" over their heads. I'm not at all concerned about the grass. If the grass doesn't grow back, the weeds will take over. In any event, by the time spring rolls around, there'll be something for the groundskeeper to mow.

Ohmygawd, how could you even provide such a heinous supposition? Are you from the far right? Anyone from the left would never even think of anyone pouring bleach into the soil--they are sensitive to these things. Still, if we must let's go with your scenario............... If caught, you're going to be arrested and when you come before me (I be the judge), you will be required to research bleach and the harm it does to the environment. You are placed in custody until the assignment is completed. Bye Boges.

Evidence? You're killin' me. I'm playing a numbers game here--a game of probabilities. The far right is rarely if ever responsible for doing good--for anyone but themselves. Responsibility for doing bad? Heaps of examples, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite chapter and verse. Instead, I suggest that you turn off your tv set; grab your reading glasses and read; observe what's going on around the world; think; then connect the dots. oil procurement through war, environment devastation, deregulation of necessary resources, torture for flawed info, killing, maiming, stealing, lying--everything that is the antithesis of being a good public representative resides on the right of Atilla the Hun. Mind you, the political boundaries these days have become hazy, indeed, but among the public at large, those on the left and far left are far more benign than those on the right and the far right. It is written, you know.

Oh, puhleeese. I'm looking at probabilities here and the political far right are rarely responsible for good. So don't bug me.

Hear. Hear

Hear. Hear.

I say the little fiffis are to blame--and yes those little buggers do have toxic urine. So you can take that point. Hobos could do some damage, but hey, they shouldn't be there in the first place. They should be safely in their homes they do not have. I'll take that point. But me thinks you also think they should have homes. As for the ruinous Ultimate players. Never. They're the good guys. Can we share a point here?

Poor baby, you need to rearrange your priorities. Besides, I bet it's not the protesters doing damage but rather a bunch of paid hooligans masquarading as protesters who're the culprits. Well, it wouldn't be the first time. Just be aware that I have my eye on you.

Doubt all you want. I'm glad you like weeds. I'm learning to like them myself--a whole lot actually. It costs money to maintain grass, so dang, if the protesters didn't do us another favour if you're right that weeds will take over. But Jacee is also correct. If they're gung ho on keeping their grass, get the grass seed out and scatter. Either way, I don't care. Just keep this movement growing--t' hell with the grass.

Pittance. Harper paid gawdknowshowmuch to build a lake to impress those he hobnobs with these days -- So spare me. These great "upstarts" are worth the price. So, you Torontonians, grab your chequebooks!

Arrived home in the wee small hours the other morning thinking I could squeeze in one more activity and respond to your post, Jacee. What was I thinking? No sooner had I logged in and readied myself for action, I found my eyes losing their focus and my normally nimble fingers slacking off shamelessly. The brain was quickly shutting down and fighting its loss of stamina due to the years I had packed on to it was not an option. So I hied myself off to bed. But now I'm back at the starting line. Jacee, many thanks for your very kind words and welcome. Seems that we are in synch on the various issues you raise. Certainly the points you make are worth remembering. I was particularly touched by your insights on poverty in this land of plenty. It seems that in any kind of financial crunch, the already disenfranchised are made to be the first to suffer the harsh effects. As if that weren't bad enough, they become the inevitable scapegoats of the problem. Were it not such a heartless, boldface lie, it would be effing funny. And I agree, too, that the Wallstreet movement belongs in the public arena and that we should be exceedingly grateful to those who are putting their very beings on the line for the rest of us who can't or won't participate. However, if the Movement participants are successful, the rest of us will gladly benefit. And now, Jacee, I'm about to indulge myself in something many will find outrageous— especially in light of just how far out I am going. But here we go just the same. Caveat: It's just a surmise nonetheless. Given that violent crime rates are decreasing what could be motivating Harper to build more prisons? You can say anything about dear Stephen except that he's stupid and ill informed. He knows full well what the stats are on crime. So, could it be............is it at all possible................probable even...................that he needs places in which to incarcerate dissenters? Aware of just what additional legislation he plans to bring in and aware that the vast majority will take umbrage, and anticipating the growth of the WS movement, he brings in legislation that will see more prisons built. Think everyone, since 911, a lot of things have come to pass that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. As you should know, the U.S. Constitution has all but been canabalized; the media is now in the hands of a few; there is little independent reporting going on and being presented in mainstream media; the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have been without proven public cause; and now we're hitting on Iran. Canada's anthem is not O Canada but “I Will Follow You” and it does follow the dictates of the U.S. Either covertly or openly. Now, throw in this rather nasty business of submitting to the indignities of being zapped or groped at airports. Are they kidding me? That I should attend an airport to be groped, zapped or both? Not on your life. I will pay the price by eliminating all trips which must of necessity involve airports. Yes, folks, I, in my own small way, am standing firm and wish to hell others would follow suit. But invoking and practicing principles is not my only gig. I can also practice pragmatism which I do now by granting exceptions to those who must use air travel as part of their jobs. For all others who refuse to follow my example, I ask as a bare minimum that you acknowledge the fact that you allow yourselves to be herded like so much cattle and sheep. This crap is unheard of in a democratic society. And yet, people are buying into it on one level or another. Great stuff, cuz there's more to come. And the flavour will be the same. As for the new prisons, for now I'm just surmizing that Harper is preparing for something quite nefarious—something we refuse to even contemplate. I don't look at things that way. I prepare myself for the worst but hope like hell for the best. I can't for the life of me think that building more prisons has anything to do with incarcerating the run of the mill criminal but rather it's about warehousing political “criminals.” So one and all, bite me for such an outrageous, highly improbable, silly notion. Ready your incisors and attack at will. But catch me if you can cuz I'm outta here.

Oh, tiffle, run along and play and be damned thankful that we have people who are willing and able to literally put their lives on the line in order to bring attention to a number of critical issues that plague us today. I bet you're one of those who when anything financially goes wrong with the country point to the welfare people as the problem. Yep, thought so. You must be very young indeed not to have figured out that the real welfare beneficiaries reside at the top of the pyramid--politicians and all those individuals, corporations and banks who are exorbitantly monied and/or supremely connected are the enemy. Your beloved Harper government bailed out the Canadian Chartered Banks to the tune of 75 billion dollars--per capita, the exact same amount as did the U.S. Fun stuff, eh wot? Funnier still is that Harper denies it. Yep, your boy is a real straight shooter--to your balls. And just how many strings do you think were attached to the bailout? Dunt know? Exactly the same number as in the States. ZERO..............cuz the peoples who fill the public troughs with their hard earned money duzn't have the right to know how their monies will be spent by the bankers. Little wonder that those who go into politics will lie, cheat, steal, throw their mothers to the wolves, whatever it takes to get elected. Whatever for? Well, naturally, they are doing it all for YOU. They luvs ya. They cares for ya. They wants t' help. It's not about them; it's about you. Uh-huh. Sad to say, I could never relate to just how noble they wanted me to see them as. Oh, there are a few good ones, but by the time they are suitably indoctrinated by the incumbents, they soon smarten up. Nothing like peer pressure to keep you in your place. And then after awhile, the vast majority of the few good ones simply settle in and have a right good old time of it. And we who the politicians declare they wants t' help gets to pick up the tab for anything government wants to do. Such a deal. You get democracy now every four years; in the interim, you are persona non grata and not worth a pinch of you know what. If I had had more than an ounce of larceny in me and could enjoy honing the art of lying, I might just have thrown my hat into the ring. It's one helluva gig. One can only dream of hunkering down with your counterparts in the HoC to set your own salary and benefits package. Then there're the connections you make as you are being courted by all and sundry--certainly nothing to scoff at; besides which that translates into megabucks after you leave government cuz whilst you were there, well, ya done yer duty--in a manner of speaking. And this silly business of answering your critics whilst in office, sheeeesh, I don't think so. Well, not if you're Harper or a member of HIS Cabinet. Ya just tell the press (the guys and gals who speak for the people--Christ, I'm actually choking on this one--to bugger off. The thrill of power must be exhilarating--ya do what you please and bugger the people. YES! Datsa your boy, Boges. Well, I ain't got no religion and I ain't gots the stomach for skullduggery; and I ain't into hangin' or fillin' up prisons; got no will to send young men and women to fight in unjust, criminal wars so the guys at the top can makes plenty of bucks outfittin' the war; dunt feel creative enough to build bogus lakes for other well heeled World leaders to appreciate on your dime; I dun't want to see the Canadian Health Care system tank out of deliberate mismanagement; I just don't got the right stuff. That's why I'm at the bottom of the heap, which is where you are, Boges, but you don't know it yet. Or maybe yer connected. Oooooh, now there's a thought. Either way, you're on the wrong side of the argument. I know these things. As for your retort to Rick--Come, come, is that all you've got?