PocketRocket

Must be a real drag. Try getting an answering machine and screening calls. Put a sign on the door; "No Visitors After 9pm", and then don't answer when they knock. Sounds like the woman has serious problems with her beliefs. Gee, ya think? I can see that woman and her ilk even now; "Oh-oh, the Minister is now a member of a union. I better not call him/her." Yeah, like the CAW is going to go to people's houses and tell them that the Minister does not accept calls between the hours of 5:30pm and 8:30am. Spiritual problems be damned, don't call during off-hours. Just another case of (A) a union wanting more people contributing to their coffers, and (B ) some people misguidedly thinking that a union is the solution to all their problems.

Well, my English/Grammar teachers all taught me that a PROPER noun is always spelt with first letter capitalized. Proper noun, of course, being a NAME of a person, place or thing. Toronto. Lethbridge. Rome. Paul. Michael. George. The Vatican. Maple Leaf Gardens. Even Montgomery Burns. You get the message. Perhaps this thread should go hand-in-hand with the thread detailing how Europe plans to change spelling of many words in the English language to make life easier for neophite Anglos. I guess the europeans have different ideas in their approach to religion, not to mention grammar. Just one of many reasons I'm happy to be in Canada, and not europe.

Actually, ARGUS, the girl CLAIMED to be 14. Remember, this was about an adult pretending to be a teenager who is "interested in sex". Is anyone really surprised??? I agree with ARGUS in this point. If a girl puts up a sign saying "I want sex", she will have no trouble finding someone to accomodate her wishes, no matter where she chooses to advertise. I would be interested in seeing the actual transcripts. I mean if the guys were actively trying to lead a kid on, knowing fully well she's 14, it's pretty disgusting. If they simply got on line and said "Hey, I'm young, pretty, and hot-to-trot, come and get me big boy", then it's still pretty sad, but it sure makes the outcome even more predictable. Either way, it's a sad commentary.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=74521 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=74988 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...indpost&p=74978 You were saying???

Not just Hollywood. The rich and famous everywhere are divorcing. Come to mention it, the poor and un-famous are doing it too. It's an epidemic. Maybe they'll develope a vaccine. Nicely put, and a statement I can get behind. Your last two words tell the tale. "Risk it". It's a gamble, and when you've got LOTS to lose, why take the chance??? Prenups are also quite regularly fought and, at least in part, overturned. I don't think anyone who marries Tom Cruise has to worry about being left a pauper in event of divorce. Well, probably a couple reasons; being human, people change, and in today's society, divorce is no longer frowned upon the way it used to be.

As per my post above, this could also be argued. If I'm filthy rich, the way for my prospective bride to show that she's in love with me, and not just my money, is to sign a pre-nup.

I would tend to disagree with this. In this day and age, more marriages end in divorce than not. In the case of someone like Cruise, who has a considerable fortune, why risk losing a very large sum in case of divorce. The same argument you are making could be made in reverse; by fighting the pre-nup, she is in effect saying that she thinks the marriage may well end in divorce, and wants to be able to go after Cruise's money when it does. Personally, if I was worth $20-million (or more, as is Cruise's case), I would have no problem saying in a pre-nup, "hey, if we divorce, you get $2-mil, no questions asked. If someone can't get by on that, too bad.

There are ways of getting fast-tracked into a green card. One of these is to have someone stateside hire you. They become a sort of "sponsor" as well as your employer. The downside is that the employer has to show that you and only you can do the job he needs you for, otherwise he has to hire American. The upside is that the employer can accomplish this fairly easily, if he wants to.

*chuckle* Arrrr, matey. Hoist up the Jolly Roger, we be settin' sail.

The main problem is that the government is run by politicians

1) At home, watching it on tv. 2) Amazed that pro-sovereigntists could not see the simple sense in the phrase "divided we fall". 3) Amazed that in a country with one of the highest lifestyles in the world, Quebec has invented a crisis where none exists. 4) That's tough to answer. It depends on how well each side spins. 5) Very much so. In Canada we have very little to complain about. Great lifestyle. Great availability of pretty well anything we need. A social safety-net. Everything that probably 90% of the world's countries aspire to. And yet people find crises where there are none. Canada is not perfect, but name a country that is. Dividing the nation could only serve to weaken both resulting countries in the long term, no matter whether it's Quebec or Alberta who may decide to leave. My 2c worth.

Of 'Eastern european' countries that sent troops into Iraq, the list is: Ukraine.Mind you, the Balkans may be considered 'eastern', which would include Romania and Bulgaria. Keep in mind that the secrecy was to prevent 'terrorist retaliation'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> G'day, 'LONIOUS: *chuckle* "terrorist retaliation". Like they're going to attack a highly-guarded prison camp in a foreign country. Hardly the MO of all the terrorists we've come to know. But hey, "security" is always a good buzzword to keep the masses pacified.

Howdy, CRAZYMF: I have to take issue with at least part of this statement. McCarthyism??? Reacting to a situation that made perfect sense at the time??? Are you aware of McCarthy's role in trying to have comic books banned??? You see, it was a "proven fact" that comics turned kids into murderers and, worse yet, communists. I can't really see the "perfect sense" there. I would agree with your statement if it included the phrase "would have made perfect sense to a paranoia-stricken person at the time". Some people always fear the worst, and when there is no worst, they invent one.

'Mornin', AUGUST. I hope you don't mind if I reply to your reply. Absolutely correct. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning here. It may be the way you worded this statement. However..... I don't think you'll find anywhere that I argued against free trade. Outsourcing is inevitable in a global market. I simply pointed out that while it can help the country getting the jobs, it does indeed cause some hardship for those LOSING the jobs. I agree that many of these will move on to "something else". But quite often, that something else is not as lucrative as the job they have grown accustomed to doing, is some cases over many years. But it happens, and will continue to happen. The global market landscape is rapidly changing, and this is a considerable threat to what we have come to know as "job security" over the past several decades. I would argue not against free trade, but against the idea that "job security" ever truly existed in the first place. The same unions which fought to gain job security often threaten it by being too rigid in their demands when their employer-company is in poor financial straits. Other issues come into play as well, but for sake of brevity, I'll leave it at that. Outsourcing is simply, as I said, a two-edged sword.

Well, I read the entire link, and noticed one glaring fact; no concrete sources were cited for any of the information in the article. Also, the indefinite "an Eastern European country" descriptive plants further seeds of doubt. I don't find it hard to believe that there are indeed some shady things happening under the blanket of "security" the CIA enjoys, and probably some of the information in this article is factual, but due to the lack of concrete information given, I have to take it with a grain of salt.

Of course it has, and quite predictably. Many of these countries serve as sources of cheap labour for large-scale manufacturing and many other businesses. The labour costs, although seeming very low by our standards, is still a boon to many/most of these countries and their inhabitants, effectively providing a living for people who may otherwise have little or no income at all. Additionally, a lot of these countries have previously un-exploited resources. Globalization effectively spreads the wealth around. But there is a downside, which we already are feeling here in Canada and the USA. Outsourcing of jobs has been a hot issue for quite some time now, and will likely continue to be for a while yet. As long as a major corporation can get labour provided overseas for a fraction of what they pay employees here, outsourcing will continue to be a problem here at home. Globalization, in this regard, is a two-edged sword.

Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing. Trailer Park Boys is a hilarious show.

Call me an optomist. I keep trying to engage in rational debate. But I'm beginning to think you're right.

1) Exactly what I said. First time around you removed the "military threat" from my quote. 2) Yes. Read the article you cited in your first post. Read the entire paragraph you quoted from my post. So much for a free and democratic exchange of ideas. I guess that's only for people you approve of, ie; Bush supporters. Try working on your comprehension skills. As for the rest, can't be bothered, more trolling.

Hey, PR, we can go to the Oscar after party together!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi there, MEL..... that's the most sensible thing I've seen in this thread as of yet. Black tie????

Like I pointed out earlier in this same thread, the guy you cite in your link in the opening post does exactly the same thing by saying "If the American left and its media sympathizers want someone to blame for our combat losses, they should begin with themselves." Accusing the left of "exploiting the dead", while doing the same thing, IN THE SAME ARTICLE. How hypocritical can you get??? Get over it, MONTY. Both sides use the dead as political currency. One side by saying they should still be alive. The other side accusing the first of being responsible simply because of their disagreement with the war. Pot, kettle.

Gee, PocketRocket must be sweating bullets by now. Not really, but hey, thanks for thinking about me. Heh heh. Don't quit your day job.

Oh but there was. Saddam ran a terrorist haven, he was linked with Al Qaeda, he sponsored international terrorism, and he might have been involved in 9-11 (he allowed Al Qaeda to use a passenger jet for training purposes at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp). Clinton-appointed federal judge Harold Bear apparently thought so, as he awarded two 9-11 families a $109 million judgement against the state of Iraq for their complicity in the terrorist attack that killed 3000 Americans. You might not have known about Baer's ruling because the liberal media - typically - has put a blackout on the story. You went to a lot of effort to refute my comment, but only after carefully taking it out of context. The full comment read "There was no threat to America from Iraq, at least not from the Iraq military". More obfuscation??? Does that tell you anything? Well, yes; that several nations within the UN disapprove of the methods of the current adminiistrations of USA and Britain. Here's the Reuters link for you to read before you state whether the comparison of Bush and Blair to Adolph Hitler - is "justifiable". Thanks for the link. After reading it, I actually agree that Mugabe was out of line, and over the top in his comments. He could better have got his message across without the "Hitler" rhetoric. Good grief. You think that Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Mohammar Khaddafi, Syria's Assad, Yassir Arafat (from the fictious nation called "Palestine"), etal, should be given a platform at world events?! Let me guess, you think they should not be allowed to speak at all??? By letting them speak, they can either justify their actions, or, by putting their collective feet in their collective mouths, make asses of themselves. Mugabe freely made an ass of himself with this speech, and did so for all the world to see. I think this tends to make America's case better than all of Bush's speeches. That int'l body has helped move towards peace by doing nothing in Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, etc. That int'l body allows states like Libya, Syria, China, Cuba to sit, and even chair that int'l body's Human Rights Commission. That int'l body passed 12 years of resolutions against Iraq was virtually toothless when it came to enforcing its own resolutions. There was one reason for this. The billions of dollars that the UN illegally made in the Oil For Food Program. Like Russia, China, France, Germany, Canada, etc, it was all about their insatiable greed for money. Typical socialists--leeching off the blood of the Iraqi people. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And speaking of over-the-top rhetoric...

Resolution 1441 (the 17th one) warned of serious consequences. What in the world do you think that meant--another (18th) UN Resolution against Iraq--perhaps a sternly written letter? Even the pacifist Hans Blix admitted - in his book - that that was diplospeak for war. What UN Resolution was passed that vioded the previous 17? It is clear that the only reason why Russia, France, China, Germany, and Canada wanted to keep Saddam in power because of their oil and arms deals with him. That doesn't change the fact that Bush declared the UN "irrelevant", but not until after using part of their rulings to walk around other parts. Is the UN relevant or not??? Either way, it's a losing argument to use the UN's resolutions as justification for Iraq. You changed the subject, but were you complaining when Halliburton got bid-free contracts for Bosnia during the Clinton administration? The fact is that Halliburton is the best at what they do, and have the best capibilities when it comes to responding to emergencies. Besides, they've made a paltry profit out of Iraq. You deride someone else for changing subject??? Perhaps you should read back over some of your own posts. As for Haliburton/Clinton/Bosnia, I was not really following politics at the time and so was unaware of that deal. If that's the way it went down, then it was no better then than this is now. Congratulations on winning the Understatement Of The Day™ award. Well thank you. And I'd like to thank my producer, and the academy, and..... Militarily? No. But things have changed in the post 9-11 world. I wish you could understand that. I understand that very well. Things always change. That's the only constant. One of the things that's changed is that according to Mr Bush, we're either with him or against him. Hmmm. I don't recall any president in the past who has been so determined to polarize the entire world into two opposing camps.

Man, that's the longest-winded trolling attempt I've seen in ages.