shackwacky

It's not really terrorism, as much as the fear mongers would like to have you think so. More like vandalism on a grand scale.

Choke, do you have a link for that press release? Thanks.

That is a given and to be expected.... Really? What earlier times do you refer to? And what reactions do you mean? The post is kinda vague.

? So which of those things can you not live without? If not having cable tv leads to deprivation and crime, what does having Dad thrown in the slammer for stealing apples do? And August makes a very good point. Do we allow people the right to victimize the shop owner based on his/her economic situation? Who pays for the stolen goods once the thief has been apprehended and released on the basis of poverty?

The courts would have to look at whether the crime of stealing food was actually a necessity. To that end, you would have to justify any "unnecessary" expenditures made from funds available (be it welfare or handicapped assistance or w.h.y. ) to purchase food. ie: computer equipment, internet charges, cell phones, cable tv, video rentals, lottery tickets, soft drinks, tobacco or alcohol, entertainment, pet food, cosmetics, hairdressing and the list goes on and on. These are all things that you CAN live without. If you can afford a cell phone and an email address, you can not justify the theft of food as being a "necessity".

Thanks for that Playfull. To illustrate your point. Our nearest neighbours had a daughter who was overweight. They had the money and the resources, so they sent her to a clinic down in Calgary for eating disorders. She came back very thin, and with a self esteem to match. Last fall she took a whole bunch of sleeping pills and left a note that "she wasn't good enough". She was then 97 pounds. Too much emphasis somewhere. God help me from ever saddling my kids with that.

edited

Cartman, get control of your computer. That last post was way wacky. Proofread. this is an edited post please do not adjust your sets...this is what happens when one only looks at page one and two and has head up arse

Are you sure? Eligible employees are those who have: worked for the employer for at least 30 working days or shifts in the year before the general holiday, worked their last scheduled shift before, and the first scheduled shift after, the holiday (employees will remain eligible if they have the employer's permission to be absent for either or both of these shifts), and not refused to work on the general holiday when asked to do so. So, unless the worker was scheduled to work the shift before and the shift after, you still need to pay them for it. This is to ensure that some unscrupulous employers will not try to get out of paying the stat just because they are not open for business on Sundays and therefore are not scheduling a "shift" on those days. And, some of them will.

Argus, I think it's the thread title. I have trouble posting to the "whats so bad..." Someone help me with this. Recently (last 6-8 months?) there was a police officer (western canada) who was charged with soliciting. He tried to buy the affections of a 15 year old. His penalty was (I believe) loss of employment and probation. He got to stay in his home town. This is no penalty. Especially for a person with a duty of trust to others. I tell my kids, if I am not around, find a policeman. Maybe if the penalties were more severe? Good thing he didn't have pictures of 15 year olds!!

Yep. Okay. Was this a terrorist bilge dump?

LOL I find myself agreeing with Choke. I am from BC, now living in Alberta. Immigration to this province is pretty common. And if the "rest of Canada" (can I see where they elected you spokesman maplesap?) want to get rid of Alberta, I suggest they start looking around for another obscenely resource rich province to keep up the transfers to the have nots. Long live King Ralph

As a parent: I am lucky. I have four happy healthy kids. All my kids are active, we have an acreage and pets and limited tv and very little access to junk foods and sugars. We home cook 90% of our meals. Our kids walk and bike in the summer, sled and ski in the winter. (Yes, we do too, but not as much). I have cable tv for the months October to March, it is turned off regularily in the summer months. I coach baseball and soccer, and all my kids play on one team or another. Three of my kids are slim and fit. One is not. He does have access to junk food etc at the school, but this can not possibly explain the complete difference between him and the others. What do I do? I try really hard to make sure that he knows that he is okay anyway, and I try to promote healthy living. But I am not going to starve this kid to bring him in line with what researchers feel are healthy parameters. So I should be "investigated" as an irresponsible parent? Bring it on. I can remember obese kids when I was young, before McD's and TV took over, before everything was prepackaged and microwaves were the center of the kitchen. When Moms' stayed home and kids walked everywhere, there were always the overweights who got teased and picked on. The bigger problem now is obesity in adults. Ask the overweight adult, they will tell you.....I was fine till...I left home...I got a job...I had a baby...I got chronic fatigue syndrome (bleck). Stay off the parents backs.

The last terrorist action in Canada was...... Number 5 on a list allegedly put together by Al Q. After pretty much every member of the coalition of the willing. Has me considering putting a bomb shelter in beside the root cellar.

Perhaps Argus, he was referring to the fact that we haven't been threatened?

This outrage was absent on the part of Americans as well. I have been trying to find indications of American sympathy or examples of their willingness to get involved in the Iraqui plight prior to GW. It is not easy. Maybe I will look up American intervention in the Iran-Iraq difficulties instead.

I have trouble with the no real objections. Perhaps they believed the US about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. After all, there was proof and graphs and charts and recordings and confessions and 8x10 glossies of mobile chemical weaponry labsand satellite pictures... I am not trying to say that the US can or should just leave Iraq tomorrow. I am not saying that the Iraquis were better off under Saddam. I agree with Tawasakm on that. But I am sure I am not the only person who gets tired of this defense of the indefensible. For whatever reason, the US decided they had to invade Iraq. They needed proof of WMD to do that, so they fabricated evidence. They went in with their shock and awe tactics and killed far too many innocents in their hunt for saddam...er, weapons.....er, terrorists.....er, insurgents. I am afraid the next target is civilians-turned-insurgents. It is a boondoggle. And to try to return to the original thread. Post 911, Canada was snubbed by Mr. Bush because we were not willing to jump into bed with him on this. (You mentioned earlier that perhaps he needed three years to schedule a thank you call....do you really think so?) Interesting that now when he once again wants something from us, he is willing to schedule time to do the best neighbours thank you so much speech. No, I don't trust GW. When the dog has bitten once...

No-one else was willing to go to war without a threat of WMD??!! Oh those pesky world agreements. Never mind, we'll just pretend that they do have the WMD's and we can still invade them. Wink wink nudge nudge.

Not sure. But according to CBC Newsworld earlier tonite they "do not suspect criminal activity"??? Spontaneous combustion maybe....

Sure, you can take the 6 Albertans who'd go for that. Please don't give away the Albertans. Who would make up for the shortfall in transfer payments?

Of course not, Saddam was not a terribly nice guy and no one would wish for his continued rule. But at least he didn't come to Canada and ask us to legitimize his atrocities by helping fold ballots for his puppet election. Have you ever heard the saying that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease?

Let me get this straight. The US was among those imposing sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions were killing people in Iraq. Ending the rule of Saddam was the only way to stop the sanctions. Saddam was captured a year ago (thus effectively ending the rule....). The death toll last month was among the highest since major operations ended... boy I bet the Iraquis are glad those sanctions are gone.

Sweal, how can it be that the real offense was not thanking us back in 2001...but that it's okay to do it now three years later?!! And only because he wants something?

Exactly. Then, another superpower comes in with shock and awe, and kills the starving Germans and turns their cities to rubble. Oh, and removes Hitler in the process.

Newfie, if our prime minister, even in his first days, publicly admitted that he did not know the name of his biggest trading partner - that's not funny. That shows how little regard this man has for our country. The BSE issue is a one-liner for Bush. He joked that "last night I ate some Alberta beef. I am still standing". He made the BSE issue, which is a huge and disastrous issue to farmers in this country, into a joke. His quotes from King were ridiculous as they were taken completely out of context. One of his spin doctors obviously did a google search of positive canada leader invade etc etc. King was referring to Germany, which was a superpower at the time who unilaterally decided to take another country by force regardless of its citizenry. Oops, sounds like someone else we know. I know where the elephant analogy come from. But to be reminded that you are sleeping beside the elephant, at the same time as you are politely being asked to commit to troops in iraq and troops in afghanistan and missile defence...threatening but in a "charming" way. And no one expects the softwood issue to go away soon. So a reasonable response from Bush .... oh, say one that let Canadians know what a hardship it was and how the new charming bush felt deeply for the hundreds of unemployed loggers affected by US Protectionism...that might have taken wings. Instead he made silly jokes about it! You must not be a logger or you would have felt this one a bit deeper.