PocketRocket

I agree that a 3rd party cannot (or should not) be held responsible for a person's actions. I have seen occasions where a bar owner calls a cab for one of his patrons, who then simply gets in the cab (as he's being watched by bar staff), pulls out of the parking lot, turn around, and come right back to the same parking lot where he gets out of the cab, and into his car, then drives away, unnoticed by the staff who think they have seen him off safely home. In a case such as the one cited in the thread opener, the guy who was at fault, and had no insurance, should be made to make large payments, not unlike child-support payments, for the rest of his life. Forced labour, if need be, to make sure he continues with these payments. This was a case of double stupidity. First, driving drunk. Second, without insurance. Both of these prove that he had no care whatsoever for the welfare of those he might endanger. Make the bugger pay in a big way for the rest of his life. :angry:

Couldn't she just get a kitten like a normal old lady???

With all due respects...... .....is not "quoting her". If they HAD quoted her, it would have looked like this....... I "bolded" the "quote", and italicized the three words I substituted to put the sentence in proper context. IOW, the article you cited did not quote her. It paraphrased her. Until a proper quote is provided, we don't know exactly what she said.

How do you know she used his name? Read the link: she asked military family members how they felt about the Harper government's decision to ban media from covering soldiers' coffins returning to Canada. That proves nothing. The link provided did not quote her directly. If she said "How do you feel about the decision to....", it could still be paraphrased as asking how they feel about the Harper Government's decision. No quotation marks in the article, therefore no solid evidence she used Harper's name. To quote from your own link....... ......so if she is C-in-C, how can she be taken to task for addreassing an issue concerning the military??? But still a molehill nonetheless.

I thought it was rather telling when Rummy would make some lame wisecrack in response to being called on one of his *ahem* misrepresentations, and his highly-partisan crowd would applaud him. And yet when McGovern would quote one of Rummy's statements from an earlier time, you could hear some of that same crowd heckling him, even though he was speaking in a very calm, lucid manner. Also somewhat disturbing is what you really DIDN'T see on-camera, when Rummy would be saying "Let him stay", obviously in response to security trying to usher McGovern out of the room. The guy was at a microphone, asking a question, and doing so in a civil manner. He was hardly causing a disturbance or a scene (other than calling on Rummy to explain himself). There seems to be a concious effort to stifle dissenting voices at these events.

Back to the original story; unless the kid was slopping food all over the place, then who cares what untensils he chooses to use??? Spoon, fork, chopsticks, wooden stick. Like this really matters??? I think that the only issue is whether or not the teacher truly acted in a demeaning manner toward to the child.

Consider that throughout Europe, and especially Britain, per-capita car ownership is far power than in North America. Bicycles are very prevalent. Walking moreso. Even a walk to the pub is still exercise. Over here some people will drive to a convenience store that is only 200 yards from their home. Pathetic, really.

WG: This explanation would hold water if it was an ongoing trend. But what is pointed out is a dramatic increase since 2000. I don't that the "environment" you describe would be changing so radically in such a short period, at least not enough to explain such a significant rise in the stats. Ay, there's the rub. How many bother to use them, even if free? This is a far more likely explanation.

The guys should be tarred-and-feathered. But not with eagle feathers.

On CBC radio last night, I heard that he showed "contempt" for the court throughout the trial, and upon delivery of the life sentence, jumped up shouting "The USA lost, I won", and continued taunting the prosecution on his way out of the courtroom. :angry: Hmmm. I wonder how long he'll last in prison when word gets out just who he is. Don't bend over to pick up the soap, Zack. You may find your dignity *ahem* compromised.

This thread is a classic example of making a mountain out of a molehill. Talk about a non-issue.

The GST doesn't bother me all that much. I'd rather have a surplus than a deficit. My opinion has always been that if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Birth control comes in varied forms, and is inexpensive. People who scream that they need more child-care money get no sympathy from me. Someone else responded that people on EI are entitled to iti because they paid into it. I agree. However, there are many habitual Welfare reecipients who are able-bodied and could easily hold down a job, but are simply too lazy to do so. The "Workfare" program was something I always agreed with. It should be strngly implemented. If someone is ABLE to work, they should be MADE to work for their bread and butter. If this means forcing welfare recipients to sweep sidewalks, or shovel driveways for elderly people, then so be it. If they are forced to do such menial labour for miniimum wage, it just may motivate them to find a REAL job, and some of the self-respect that comes with earning your own keep. I think the surplus should be partly banked, a "rainy day" fund if you will. A large portion of the remainder should go into paying down the national debt.

I think it's a bit early to say Harper is "blowing it". I'm not crazy about the guy, and I made that plain in many of my posts before the election, but the Liberals had to go. I have been a Liberal voter in most of the elections over the past 28 years, but this time around they needed to be shown the door simply because there had been far too many Liberal gaffes in recent times. The Libs needed to be given notice that they ARE accountable, and that the country WILL vote them out if they screw up too much. I believe they had lost touch with that simple reality. I have no doubt that they will be back in power again before too long. How long??? No one can say with certainty. But as for Harper and his party, I don't see any major problems with anything they've done so far. I don't buy into the "Harper=Bush" rhetoric that so many have parrotted. I'm not sure that I agree with the press being banned from the homecoming of the troops killed in combat, but then again I don't see that as being a major issue. As for the softwood lumber settlement, at least there has been an agreement put in place. Perhaps it could have been a better deal, but from the way things had been dragging on for years with no settlement previously in sight, this seems like a hell of a lot better deal than no deal at all. Hopefully the USA will live up to her agreement this time around. I don't want to see Harper "blow it", either. While I'm not crazy about him, as I previously stated, I would far rather see him be a fine leader (and prove some of my earlier statements about him wrong) than see him be responsible for some boondoggle which will hurt the country simply so I can say "told you so".

"Jose, can you see........"

Regarding The Oreo Incident; I have seen the veracity of the story debated fiecely for quite some time now, and have thus far chosen to not get involved for a simple reason; I was not there, and only know of the incident through heresay. At this point, however, after seeing it consume nearly two full pages of yet another thread, I am forced to ask a simple question.... Why are there no photos??? You would think that at a major campaign debate of this type there would be at least one person with a camera. You can also bet that anyone having pictures of the "incident" would have tried to make some extra $$$ by selling the pics to a newspaper or some other sort of publication. The simple fact that there seem to be no photos or film footage whatsoever of the event casts a shadow of doubt on the entire story. That being said, IF the story is falsified, then who is worse; the person who makes racist comments, or the person fabricates stories of such comments for political gain???

Cool. Here goes. Why is the sky blue????

We could simply make the flagpoles twice as high, but fly the flag at the same height as usual, that way it says at half-mast all the time, and everyone is happy

I remember you telling us once that the reason you don't drink and drive is because you drink expensive liquor [Crown Royal ... (same as TB, btw)] and worry you might spill some. If THAT'S what you remember, then whatever you're smoking is a hell of a lot better than anything I've ever tried. But I do like Crown Royal. One of the beauties of weed, and one in which it differs from alcohol, is that with weed, when you're buzzed, you know you're buzzed. When you're wrecked, you KNOW you're wrecked. With alcohol, not only does your personal judgement regarding your own impairment level go out the window, you also tend to become a lot less likely to agree with anyone who may sugeest you're overly-drunk. Can't say as I blame you. Actually, from what I understand, he does little, if any, flying anymore. At least not in a plane

I guess you didn't note that I specified "years ago". I also mentioned a difference between a buzz, and being wrecked. Hopefully this allays your fears somewhat. You probably wouldn't be comforted, however, if I told you stories of an acquaintance who enjoys flying his Cessna 132 after smoking a joint. LOL. But don't quit your day job "Impaired driving" does not require any test. It as a judgement call on the part of the officer on the scene. People have been charged for impaired driving without the benefit of a breathalyzer test. I know a fellow who was once charged for impaired driving because he was over-tired. In another incident about 30 years ago, I was in the passenger seat when we were pulled over. The cop took a good look at the driver, and told us to switch seats so I could drive. The driver had been behind the wheel for 14 hours straight. I had slept a large part of that time. Substances had no part in it, the guy was simply overly tired. "Impaired" does not always mean "under the influence". However, in yet another incident, a friend who had been smoking pot was pulled over. The cop talked to him, had him get out of the car and walk around, and charged him with impaired driving. Just as a man who has had 1 beer is probably not impaired, likewise a man who has had 1 or 2 hits off a joint of low-grade weed is also probably not impaired. In the final analysis, it's always a judgement call on the part of the cop on the scene.

Actually, it is indeed quite a lot different, which you would know if had ever tried weed. True, but how does the impairment manifest itself??? With drunkenness, your judgement typically goes right out the window. You grow more careless. Your reflexes are slowed. Vision blurs. With pot, a person typically becomes more "careful" as some paranoia sets in, usually proportional to the level of a person's high. Years ago, on road trips, my wife would often tell me to "pull over and smoke a joint" when she felt I was driving too fast. You see, when I had a buzz on, my tendency was to drive slower, and more carefully. These days I seldom, if ever, smoke outside my own home, and never when I expect to be going out. In all honesty, I would never get in a car with a drunk driver, but would have no little getting in that same car if the driver was buzzed on weed, Unless, of course, he was totally whacked out. There is a big difference between "buzzed" and totally wrecked. Fortunately, it is not difficult to distinguish between these two states. This brings me back to my late teens, when I and several freinds would go down to a local field and play touch football. Straight, I was useless. After a few tokes, my skills improved dramatically. I noticed the same trend in shooting pool, and in video games. To this day I play a far better game of chess after smoking. I think the major difference between weed and alcohol is that booze reduces one's ability to focus, while weed enhances that ability in several ways. I am not advocating stoned driving here, simply pointing out that given the choice between the two, and no third alternative, I'll take the stoned driver, thank you.

I gotta go with ARGUS on this one, in two respects. First, eye-for-an-eye justice, while satisfying to the more bloodthirsty side of our nature, has not proven to significantly reduce capital crimes in the areas where capital punishment is practised. Combined with the fact that a wrongful conviction becomes ultimately irreversible, this, to me, casts the death sentence in a negative light. Second, our prisons are turning into holiday camps, cable or sattelite tv, pool tables, video games, etc etc etc. Prison is suppose to have 2 purpposes; punish, and (if possible) rehabilitate. Convicted criminals in prison should have to work a full 8-hr (or more) day. This work should be geared towards some sort of profitable production which would help to subsidize the prison system. If run properly, it could even cover the costs of the prison, and possibly even turn a profit. Violent offenders who have been sentenced to life should be given the crappiest and most diffucult jobs. Those "lesser" offenders who have been incarcerated for non-violent crimes such as theft, fraud, etc, could actually attain marketable trade skills whic would put them in a better position to make a decent living outside of jail. Along with education, such training could serve to increase the self-respect of previously uneducated or untrained criminals, and ultimately turn them into productive members of society. Along with giving these people marketable skills, a reward system for excellence of work and behaviour could be instituted, thus teaching these people that good behaviour fosters favorable consequences, and a matching system of penalties for bad behaviour would likewise discourage unfavorable actions. Hell, Pavlov proved that even a dog can learn behavioural consequences. But prison as it stands currently is barely a deterrent to those who have already served time.

As I recall, my earliest political "education" was my grade-4 teacher answering the question "what is the difference between liberal and conservative?". Her reply was short, sweet, and quite literal, not at all related to party lines. It was simply this "Conservative means doing things the way they've always been done, Liberal means you're willing to try new things". To a grade-4 level mind, this was actually quite a good answer. By that simplistic definition, I would consider myself to be Liberal. However, from a more realistic political standpoint, it's much more difficult to say. Fiscally, I would consider myself to be quite Conservative. Yes, we need to have welfare (there's the Liberal in me), but we need to crack down strongly on those who are actually fit and able to work, and simply collect welfare out of laziness (there's the Conservative side). I consider funding for the "arts", to be going way too far. I know of several musicians who make a great living collecting government grants for their "cultural" contributions. These contributions are lyrics written in French to songs that will never see the light of day. Other such examples abound. Yesterday I heard about a court case which may set a very dangerous precedent; two men are appealing their claims for disability benefits which were previously denied. Their "disability" is alcoholism. They claim that because they are alcoholics, they cannot get jobs. True enough, I suppose, but by my definition, a "disability" is not something which is self-inflicted via substance abuse. I was in a near rage when I heard about it. I agree with government-funded healthcare, although the system in Canada needs to be re-built from the ground up. I believe in reducing the size of government. I do NOT believe in trying to solve a problem by throwing money at it until it goes away. I could go on for quite some time in this way, but will spare you. I guess in most ways I'm middle of the road.

Who said anything about "disliking" the post??? Your part was well-written, and there were many truths contained therein. The only thing I really didn't like about it was comments like.... ....the sort of sweeping "Anyone who votes (fill in the blank) is an idiot" sort of statements I've always abhorred, and have always tended to speak out against. Your post was almost immediately followed by that of GEOFFREY, which I also addressed, which was simply a trolling post at best. What I pointed out in addressing your post was simply a collection of more truths showing the other side of the Mulroney coin. He was indeed a fine Prime Minister, but simply not a perfect saint that some people paint him to be. You will also notice that in my post I did not cast any insults either at you personally, or at Conservative voters as a group. Yet your response, although well crafted, stooped to that level with........ If we're to speak of "maturity and enlightenment", then who better shows those qualities; one who can speak his piece without casting aspersions, or one who feels the need to try belittle the intelligence of those who may disagree with him??? Just a few little things to think about. Even though this comment, following hot on the heels of the immediately preceding quote as it was, was meant as yet another insult, I will accept it as a sincere wish for my future wellbeing, and respond as such; best of luck to you as well.

But....but....I thought that the Kyoto accord was a farce and that global warming is a pile of B.S., so why should he have bothered??? T.Ball: Evidently millions of Canadians disagreed with your apprisal of Mulroney's "greatness", or else his party would have been voted back in. You forgot to mention in your list of his accomplishments that he was largely, if not solely, responsible for the demise of the Progressive Conservative Party. I do agree, however, that he is intelligent. He had the brains to retire from the party just before the election that brought them down, and so not go on record as suffering a dismal defeat. Unfortunately Kim Campbell, a politician with immense potential, got caught in the backlash. Too bad. She could have had an amazing career in politics.

Unfortunately we will likely continue to see people like Savage, so called "pundits", on both sides of the spectrum. People who spew venom which is lapped up by the more radical elements on their own side of the political fence. It's kind of like Jerry Springer; appeal to the lowest common denominator to get ratings. Personally, I can't be bothered with any of them, left or right.