PocketRocket

Howdy, Leafless. The fact that someone "cannot handle" something that requires moderation is no one's fault, not even "the systems" (whatever that means). The fact that those individuals who cannot handle something refuse to recognize the fact that they cannot handle it is the problem. And the fault belongs to no one but themselves. Fortunately, there are organizations out there to help individuals with just about any addiction problem you can possibly name. If an individual refuses to take advantage of any of these, then he has no one to blame but himself. My beef is the that the government is recognizing an addiction as a long-term disability, and rewarding individuals for doing nothing to treat their addictions.

Can someone confirm that this is the case? Yup. I first heard of this a couple weeks ago on a local CBC radio broadcast. They were interviewing one of the lawyers on the case. The main point of the case was that addiction is recognized as a disability under the law, but not under the Disability Benefits Act (or whatever it is called). The tacic used by the lawyers for the addicted was to argue that these two men were being disciminated against. And, under Canadian law, no group may be denied benefits because of gender, age, race, or handicap. Evidently, because the law recognizes addiction as a disability, the argument was that the discrimination was based on the "handicaps" if these two men, ie; their alcoholism. They won, so we, the taxpayers, all lose. This is not short-term. This is full-blown, diability benefits. Cash for life. And you and I get to foot the bill. Isn't it a wonderful world??? Here, here. I agree in full measure. BTW, I Googled these words..."sudbury.....alcoholism.....disability"....and got several entries. I just grabbed one to post here. There are several others if you want to look into it further.

I would have no problem with the government funding rehabilitation of addicts. It would allow said addicts to turn their lives around and become useful citizens who actually contribute to society. This goes well beyond welfare. Disability benefits are about double what a welfare recipient would receive. Evidently not.

Well, it seems that our tax dollars going to SOME welfare recipients who are simply too lazy to work, or spend all their money on booze, is not enough. (Please note the capitalized word "some". I have no problem with welfare when it is given to someone who genuinely needs it) Now, Ontario Disability Benefits can be doled out on the basis of ADDICTION as a disability. This decision is truly disgusting. Two guys in Sudbury have won a case wherein they will be given Disability benefits. Their disability??? Alcoholism. Plain and simple. They are "unemployable" because of this "disability". http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n507/a07.html It has always been my impression that a "disability" is a physical or mental problem which cannot be corrected, and causes a person to be unable to work for a living. Well, I guess booze and/or drug addiction now falls under that category. This is a bad, not to mention stupid, precedent. So, I guess if I go to work smelling like booze, stumble all over the place, get fired, then fail several dozen job interviews because I show up for them drunk, I can eventually get on disability. Not a huge income, but hey, it's a living, with no work involved. Qeue up at the liquor store, folks. Get drunk and take an early retirement. :angry:

Yes, T-BAG. Always a pressure, um, pleasure. Yeah. Wanna make somethin' of it??? Huh??? Do ya??? LOL Nope. The meaning of life is Peppermint Schnapps with beer chasers. Yes. Fruit of the Loon(ies). All of it, given adequate time. Or QCW=wxT/(HW) (Whereas QCW=quantity of "chucked" wood, w= number of woodchucks, T=alotted time, HW=hardness of said wood) This is the reason commonly accepted by the scientific community. But we all know that in this, a political forum, science, facts, etc, have only a cursory place. So, the REAL reason the sky is blue is because if it was green, we wouldn't know when to stop mowing. Blue. Hmm. Which political party's colour is blue??? Must be that good old Conservative bias that a few of the members regularly insist is displayed here. This is, of course, only when a few other members are not complaining about the Liberal bias shown here.

Good question, but when the question is "why", the answer is usually "money".

I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch where a Romanian-English translation dictionary was deliberately filled with "errors" to get people in trouble. Our protagonist is in a shop, reading from the dictionary, saying things like "My hovercraft is full of eels", and "Drop you trousers Mrs Brown" while simply trying to order something from the shopkeep. Of course he ends up getting taken off by the police. Perhaps the Mayor was using such a book. Maybe he thought he was saying "You sister is like a transit bus; anyone can ride for a dollar". Or maybe "Your mother is like a pack of Wrigley's Gum; eight sticks for a buck". Good to see you back, MONTY.

I'm not quite sure where I stand on this particular issue as I have not given it all that much thought. But I did get a chuckle out of this line from Grand Chief Ron Evans...... "For thousands of years" Yeah. Right. An aboriginal hunter-gatherer culture with no technology to speak of implementing a "conservation system"??? IOW, they did not have the ABILITY to be a threat to the environment, or to any of the species which Evans praises First Nations Peoples for "conserving".

Back to the initial spirit of the thread, Rest in Peace, Captain Goddard. Thank you for your service to Canada, and the supreme sacrafice you have made.

T-Bag: Thank you so much for the grammar lesson. I appreciate it from the heart of my bottom, er, sorry, I mean the bottom of my heart

You know, it's the last word in this tirade that gives it away. Methinks we have a troll with an agenda.

Good article, MONTY, and welcome back. It's always much less interesting (and infuriating lol) around here without you. This reminds me of when they disbanded the AIRBORNE regiment. Canada's best, dismantled because of the actions of a very few, and the scandal that ensued. I've been pissed off about that since it happened. One of the few things about Canada of which I am ashamed is the treatment of our military personel by over-sensitive, bleeding-heart, tut-tutting, finger-wagging, chair-warmers, none of whom have contributed anything to the betterment of our country, let alone ever had the guts to enlist and volunteer to defend Canada. I said this at the time of the Airborne incident; "Unless you have the guts to put on a uniform and put yourself in harm's way to defend your country, you have no right to judge those who do." Castigating fine soldiers for the sake of political expediency. Feh. Parasites :angry:

I loved this line..... We need that like an impacted wisdom tooth.

He can claim that he was given "bad intelligence" to try cover his tracks. But if he didn't lie then, he obviously lied when he denied saying "we know where they are". Either way, he's a liar, and worse yet, he's been seen to have lied to the Amercian public. Unfortunately there are those on both sides of the political spectrum that will stick by their partisan views and not be shaken by facts.

Whatever

True. Because she can. That's still a good way off. I don't make predictions when the election is upon us, let alone years away. Hard to say. Maybe she'll end up crossing the floor again. Maybe the Cons will pull some gaffe and end up being ousted. It's politics. Anything can happen. Considering that the private sector for Belinda is Daddy, she can go back to that at any time. As a "high-ranking" politician, she's in the spotlight. If that's all she wants, she's got it. If she wants more, then she has to stick around to get it. For her, it's all win-win. She can pack it in any time she chooses, and still have a great income.

All partisan slights aside, Belinda won her riding fairly handily in the last election. If she performs well as an opposition member, there's no reason why she wouldn't run again next election. Considering that her riding stuck with her after she crossed the floor, and through all the foofoorah which ensued, there's no reason to believe they'll change their views on her abilities.

Well, personally I don't want to pedal a bike 15 miles to work every day, especially considering that 10 miles of that is on the trans-Canada highway. Not particularly safe. Gas prices are more than high enough, thank you.

GerryHatrick: I've made it perfectly clear over the past couple years that I am not, and never have been, a fan of GWB. So, I enjoyed the video you posted here. What I DO NOT agree with is the simple fact that you seem to be re-hashing stuff simply because you may have run out of fuel for your anti-Bush fire. You already started a thread with this same video here...... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...ndpost&p=111749 Make all the anti-Bush noises you want. Odds are that I'll end up agreeing with a lot, if not most, of them. But please, don't start multiple threads on the exact same topic. We have enough trouble with multiple same-topic threads simply because people haven't checked to see what other people have posted. We don't need to exacerbate the problem with this sort of behaviour.

Afghanistan, IMHO, is a morass. Russia, with all its might at the time, could not subdue Afghanistan. Can anyone seriously believe we can get it under control??? While I do agree we are there for the right reasons, and that the USA was as well, now that the Taliban is out, the country needs to learn to get itself under control. Unfortunately, with the Pashtin tribes as widespread as they are, it is unlikely that ANYONE can get the country sorted out long-term. As for Darfur, we are seeing all the recurring genocidal madness of recent times being played out yet again. Eventually, someone will go in there, but for those killed an the meantime, too little too late.

Good thing we don't have some of the southern States as part of Canada, or they'd be singing "....land of our FOUR fathers...."

Exactly how many is umpteen??? Obviously it's more than 12, or it wouldn't be a "teen". Equally obvious that it's ledd than 20, for the same reason. Other than that, what is it??? 14 1/2??? 17 2/3??? Some arcane, bizarre multiplication of PI??? Perhaps the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin???

"I am am the eggman, I am the whinger, I'm the decider, Goo-goo-ga-choo" What the hell, if the Beatles could make up words..... I wonder if Bush will eventually come out and say he's "bigger than Jesus".

Well, I don't know if I'd go THAT far....

Calcium deficiency, anyone???