PocketRocket

Does ANYONE have ANY idea what the hell THAT was all about????

I'd say this comment is bang on the money. Earlier in this thread someone joked about how Klein may be using reverse psychology. I'm not sure I'd call it that, but this simple little comment may be enough to make non-Con voters sit back and think a bit. Then again, it may not. Either way, three weeks from now no one will even remember it.

Here's my idea for dealing with gang violence. Open up a park for "gangsta's". This would be a place where gangs can go to work out their differences away from innocent civilians and residential areas. Have it tightly fenced in. Let them go there, give them real weapons, and let them blow themselves all away. This accomplishes two things; it gets the violence off the streets, and it eliminates a lot of the problem people. As an added benefit, several cameras aroung the park to broadcast the action may de-glamorize the whole "gangsta" mytstique among kids, especially when they see their respective heroes laying in a pool of mud and blood, gasping their last. If the shattered hero is using his last strength to try re-install his own intestines, so much the better. Nothing shatters a glamorous image like seeing someone try replace their own personal plumbing system. As a reality program, there could even be prizes awarded. For example, the first-place winner gets an all-expense paid relocation to inner-city Detroit, so they can REALLY live the gangsta lifestyle. No prizes for second place as there is no one left to collect. As for the myopic parents whose kids "would NEVER do anything like that", well, the answer to them is simple; "If your kid would never do anything like that, he wouldn't have been in the park in the first place. Now please sign this copy of your son's death certificate."

Hi again, RB: Sorry, but I cannot agree with your black-and-white stance on this. Perhaps some housewives are coerced into playing that role, but as I stated, many seem to relish it. My personal circle of friends includes several married couples where the wife has a career. The same circle of friends includes several couples with a stay-at-home housewife, and the one aforementioned stay-at-home house-husband. In each case, the stay-at-home partner chose that role for herself (or himself). In all cases, the stay-at-home partner is quite happy in that role. All are quite intelligent and informed. All use a lot of their spare time in staying informed, through reading, internet research, informative/education TV etc etc. As for your question about "who admires the housewife", well, I would say anyone who has had to play that role for even a short time. Anyone who has had to take care of the kids and clean the house and do the cooking and the laundry, for even a few short days, quite quickly comes to admire the common housewife. But to each his/her own. To you, being a housewife seems like a prison sentence. To others, it is a source of satisfaction, and a desirable vocation. And between these two black-and-white polar opposites lay every shade of gray.

I wouldn't go that far. At least metal had the pretense of being music. Rap is nothing more than bad, borderline-illiterate, urban poetry set to a beat. To top it off, the beat isn't even created by a drummer, but by a computer. Which poses the question, if there are no musicians, is it music???

Oh, give me a break. This is no different that when a few years ago the Conservative-types were trying to have Marilyn Manson brought down because some kid left a note about how Manson "inspired" him to commit suicide, and another had been listening to an Ozzy Osbourne album which had the song "Suicide Solution", and then blew himself away. I distinctly remember listening to the Lowell Green show and hearing people rant and rave about it all, and about how all such music should be banned. In fact, I called in on that show. Lowell hung up on me when I suggested that perhaps too much Tommy Dorsey was responsible for Hitler's rampage through Europe.

I have to at least partially agree with this. In addition, yesterday I heard on the news (CBC no less) about the whole issue with the pay-out to native residential school students. The thing that killed me most was that in addition to giving $10,000 immediately to each student, plus another $3,000/year that each student was in a residential school, the government was also going to foot half the legal bill for the natives pursuing the settlement. Isn't that kind of like you or I going into court and volunteering to pay half the legal cost of our opponent???

No more than 10 minutes ago I posted this in another thread wherein the proposed 50-Cent ban came into discussion, but it seems more suitable here..... So, IOW, while I strongly dislike 50-Cent and, for that matter, ALL rap, I can see no point in a ban either on concerts or published music as either route will simply attract more kids to his *ahem* "music".

That depends. Are you willing to say that you are responsible for the sponsorship scandal???

With the internet being what it is, even talking about banning any form of music is ludicrous. Kids will listen to whatever they want to hear, and if they can't get it in the stores, they will find it online. Likewise the artists; if the stores are not allowed to carry their music, the "artists" will simply put it online. Any sort of "ban" would simply play into their hands; "Look at this, they've banned my tunes, hear 'em here, at www.mygarbagetunes.whatever." Kids simply FLOCK to banned stuff. One way to virtually guarantee a new album release going platinum is to put one of those sticky "parental advisory" labels on the cover. A ban would work even better to guarantee sales. Best thing to do is ignore them and hope they'll go away. Better yet, if parents start listening to the same tunes in front of their kids, whilst dancing badly and saying stuff like "50 Cents is SO cool", most kids will immediately be turned off from listening to him. After all, what ostensibly rebellious kid wants to listen to the same stuff as his parents???

Hey, Eagle Eye, that's twice today that you act surprised at how unobservant we are. "Eagle Eye"??? Nicest thing I've been called all day. But then again, I just got up. BTW, where else did I say something about being surprised today (yesterday, whatever)??? Is there a right side??? You've been charged??? Coffee works for me. I haven't checked my odometer.

Bad math???? I'm quite surprised no one else here has spotted this. She says the taxes, which range between $120 and $360 per person will total $30 billion. But Canada's population is estimated at 32,389,712. Even if every Canadian got the full tax cut of $360, that would still total less than $12 billion. Now when you consider that some of these people are not even in the workforce (children and stay-at-home parents for example) and have no taxable income whatsoever, and many others will be getting the much lower figure of $120 deducted, that figure plummets. Even if we average every Canadian man, woman and child at a cut of $200, then the "savings" figure drops to less than $6.5 billion, quite a far cry from the $30 billion figure cited. I wonder where she got her calculator, because she should be bringing it back for a refund, tax included.

The key word is "confined". That means "locked up". Can't go when you want or where you want. Treatment center or prison. A rose by any other name..... Before pursuing such an end, why not look into the numbers, ie; what percentage of HIV+ people are having unprotected sex??? If that's not available, how many cases are there regarding this issue vs how many HIV+ people there are????

I think we're all getting agitated without good cause. Regarding this particular thread, if you look at the title. it says.... The answer is simply "no". Why??? Worst is an absolute. It means as bad as it can possibly get. Canada could easily get a lot worse that this.

I think you got that right. Checked out the link, and it held such informed, scientific hypotheses such as....... (Uh, let's see now, black man has larger penis, but how long is a black woman's gestation period??? 9 months??? Oh, well, I guess they CANNOT pop out kids faster after all.) However, he must LOVE Asians, who are reputed to be somewhat less well-endowed. (DISCLAIMER: please take note of the word "reputed") In fact, what would be his excuse for the population of China??? And then this little gem...... No prizes for guessing how well-hung this particular "intellectual" is. Other quotes from that link...... There was also a time in the not-too-distant past when we burned witches. And, of course, the ever delightful...... Call this civilization??? Bosnia??? Herzegovina??? Chechnya??? Detroit??? As far as "civilizations" go, the civilization created by white men is a johnny-come-lately. China's civilization goes back, WITH A WRITTEN HISTORY , for over 7,000 years. Japan's nearly as long. I won't even start in about the ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Incas, Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia etc etc etc, MOST of which were not societies founded by whites. Hell, we can't even decide whether or not there really was a king named Arthur only 1,000 years ago. In fact, up until only about 100 years ago, only a very small percentage of "white" population knew how to read and write. But that's okay, we're white, we live in a wealthy nation founded by a few visionaries and a lot of hard work and luck, and being their distant descendents, that makes us superior to all others. Reminds me of a member of another site I used to frequent, whose nickname ended in "nazi". Apparently, according to him, the holocaust never occured. If these supposed "intellectuals" were born and raised in a place like Bosnia, I wonder if they'd be quite so confident in the supremacy of the white race.

Well, even though you have not cited a source for this, I won't argue it as I know enough about you to know that when your mind is made up...... I would dispute this on a couple levels. "Housewife" is one of the oldest, most admirable professions. Who are you to pass judgement on a woman whose main "aim" is to see to her kids being raised right??? I see nothing wrong with a woman taking on this role, or a man. In fact, I think one of the problems with kids today is the fact that in many families, both parents are working, and don't have time for the kids' questions and emotional needs. As for the "fairy tales" comment, you are kidding, right??? It's a fairy tale that for untold millenia a woman's accepted role was to raise the kids while the man was the main breadwinner??? It's a fairy tale that many women STILL find this role not only desirable, but HONORABLE??? Sorry, but again you're painting large portions of the population with the same broad brush. There are billions of people out there, each individual different from all the others. You would pass judgement on someone simply because their lifestyle choice would be different from yours??? Staying at home does not preclude being educated. Who says "education" only happens in school??? Many of the most intelligent and well-informed people in the world never had any formal schooling, they simply read and absorb information. With the advent of the internet, every snippet of information you could ever want is there for the asking, simply search until you find it. As for the "better choices" you speak of; what constitutes "better" for YOU, may be anathema to many others. Well, as stated previously by another, I can't say I agree with the outfit, but then again it would certainly make ME happy coming home to such a sight But again, a person's level of intelligence cannot be judged by the vocation he or she has chosen to follow. Don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. Oh, and BTW, don't have to "sweep", we have "swiffer" now

LEAFLESS: How many people with HIV use a condom EVERY TIME they have sex??? Should these carefully considerate people be locked away for something that is not their fault, and that they are very careful about keeping to themselves??? How many of them simply don't have sex anymore??? Should they also be locked away, again, for an uncommitted crime??? Sorry, but for the ridiculously small percentage of HIV victims who actually do have unprotected sex, it would be ludicrous, not to mention needlessly draconian, to lock up ALL of these poor people who are already on a life-sentence of sorts. Now if you were to advocate putting a tattoo on their privates, something like "HIV+", well, this I wouldn't protest TOO loudly. But locking away people who have a disease which can ONLY be communicated by having sex, is way over the top.

Not likely. GM is too much a part of the American landscape, and one of those "beacons" of American capitalistic success. They'll probably get a massive infusion of government money (on both sides of the border) to help out, and they'll look at the marketplace and start producing realistic vehicles. At least IMHO.

SHOOP: What has me wondering is the word "cooks". It just kinda makes me go ???!!!???

Like a balloon. They can't help it with all the hot air they generate (Sorry, I couldn't resist. NOT trying to start an off-topic argument, just making a joke)

I think locking away all HIV-positive people is a bit much. However, if an HIV-carrier is, with full knowledge of his/her disease, having unprotected sex, then that person should be charged as though he/she were attacking someone with a deadly weapon.

A few weeks ago, on CBC radio, there was an interview. I don't recall what the guy's name was, but he was an economic professor with some university, and he has been specializing in a study of the auto industry for the past several years. His take on the current state of the auto industry is simple. The big 3 have geared themselves primarily towards sales of SUV's, Minivans, and pickup trucks. Apparently all 3 of these can be produced more cheaply, yet sold for far more money, than an ordinary sedan. They have also, through vigorous ad campaigns, pushed these type of products. Now, with escalating gas prices, people are once again looking for fuel-efficient alternatives. The Oriental car companies have continued to produce fine smaller cars, and the occasional small SUV (which is generally better on gas than its larger domestic counterpart). (The big 3, on the other hand, each have 1 small car. Chrysler=Neon=Toilet. GM=Cavalier=Trashcan. Ford=(Sorry, can't remember)=MoreTrash.) Also, if you look at some of the newer domestic cars, we're seeing a lot of new "muscle" cars. Nothing like the Shelby's of the 60's, but still pretty damn impressive powerhouses. Think of all the recent TV ads featuring lines like "300HP V-8 Engine", and stuff like that. It seems that most of the big 3's marketing campaign is aimed at upscale baby-boomers wanting to relive their collective adolesence. Unfortunately, in the real world, while most of us may WANT to drive one of those powerhouses, the vast majority of us cannot afford to, or, at the very least, would have to make financial sacrafices in other areas of our lives to be able to accomodate such a ride. In addition, companies like Toyota, Mazda etc have a reputation for producing excellent quality vehicles which hold up well for several years. One other thing he pointed out was the number of recalls we've heard about the past few years. The big 3 are recalling a vehicle pretty well every year. When was the last time you heard Mazda do a recall of any of their vehicles??? Or Toyota, or Hyundai or any of the Oriental companies??? When you consider that some of the most consistently best-selling auto companies (VW, Toyota, Mazda, etc...) have been producing essentially the same, fuel efficient small cars for decades, that should be a good indeicator for the big 3 as to where they should be setting their sights. Just as in the 70's during THAT energy crisis, the big 3 are going to have to re-invent themselves once again if they expect to stay competitive.

I'm still a bit curious about this line from the thread's title...... .....?????

Man, I went and read through this, and ASLAN, I have to congratulate you on the most preposterously laughable example of circular logic I've ever seen. My first clue was..... Which is repeating that same old nonsense about how peace protests here cause soldiers to get killed. That has been said time and again, but no one has ever pointed out any examples, or explained exactly HOW a protest here gets a soldier killed. Therefore, hyperbolic bunk. But then just a few short sentences later, you went on to say..... IOW, cast your vote for the representative of your choice, and then SHUT UP because that representative will make up your mind for you. Hmmmm. Two flaws in this. It makes the assumption that each representative knows EXACTLY what each of his/her constituents desire, and it is also based on the assumption that these representatives are provided accurate information on which to make their decisions. In light of everyone from CIA to FBI to high level brass saying that the information upon which the war was based was, *ahem* "bad intelligence" (we won't call it "lies"), then how can a "logical" decision be made when the "intelligence" is bad???? So I did indeed, as you suggested, "read and learn". But what I learned was NOT what you were trying to "teach". I learned that, just as the far-left has its share of whackos, the far right seems able to rationalize anything it sees fit under the guise of "logic", logic which is as bad as the "intelligence" upon which this war was based.

Ah, I see. The well is dry, so now it'll be personal attacks???Sorry, I'm trying to stay away from that kind of behaviour. But let's look at the only thing you said in this post that is relevant. You suggested I'd "vote for thieves". You have assumed that I would be voting Lib. You must have missed the point where I said I voted Reform several times. During those times, Reform was barely more than a fringe party, and had yet made no inroads in Ontario, where I live. I did so NOT thinking they would necessarily get in, or even that they would win any Ontario seats, but to send a message that "Hey guys, yet another person has voted for someone other than the traditional 3 (Lib, Con, NDP) parties". I will probably do so again, just have to figure out for whom. There's not exactly a huge list of viable alternatives out there. Happy now??? Oh, BTW, when I was pointing out the "charisma" thing, you'll notice, if you reread it, that I never said I voted for them, nor did I suggest they were the best people for the job. Go have another look. For the record, since it seems important to you, in the course of 28 years as a voter, I have voted for Libs, Cons, NDP (once, seemed like a good idea at the time) and, as previously stated, Reform. Each time, I took each leader at face value, and also considered the local MP who would be representing my area directly. Hopefully this clarifies things to your satisfaction. And, you'll notice, without any personal attacks about your "ethics" or "intelligence".