PocketRocket

I think you already did Sorry, but I won't be able to make it for 3 very good reasons: 1) I don't consider myself a conservative 2) I do not fall within the mandated age-span 3) I'm not willing to drive eight hours to be there Hopefully the re-scheduled event comes off okay for you. We need to see the Right become a credible and effective part of Canadian politics again.

Implementing this would have little or no effect on people's lives, but it would save some energy. To those who have argued it would not, simply because those very early risers will be turning on the lights an hour earlier have missed one thing; most people do not run their stereo or computer or tv etc etc etc in the morning. All of these things use considerably more power than a simple light bulb. Additionally, having an extra hour of daylight woul make going outside after work a bit more friendly.

Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, you name it, politics is a dirty game which involves dirty players. Many politicians get involved out of a "I can do some good for my country" mindset. But many (more???) others get into poltics as a way to set themselves up for life, and to line their own pockets. IMHO, all politicians, priests and lawyers are guilty until proven innocent.

There are 2 kinds of phone calls. 1) Urgent 2) Not urgent If it's not urgent, you can say "I'll call you back". If it IS urgent, how hard is it to pull over in a parking lot or an the shoulder of the road??? It should be a personal judgement call based on common sense. But, unfortunately, "common" sense is not too common.

You mean like most of the people running the USA??? I could care less who or what she is. She made rude, uninformed comments about Canada. I felt it behooved me to respond in a similar manner. I rather enjoyed it. I think I'll continue to do so when it seems appropriate.

LOL I saw it on the internet, so it must be true

LOL nicely put.

Good morning HAWK: Please allow me to address two of your comments....... Personally, I feel that the lower % of natives going on to post-secondary education is no one's fault but their own. The reason for this is simple; any Status-Indian in Canada is entitled to free education for as long as they may want to continue their schooling. All they have to do is sign up and take advantage. The reserves in Canada are somewhat different from those in the States. In Canada, the reserve is more like a safe retreat for those who would rather live within their native cultural setting. Natives in Canada are not confined to reserves, and are free to live wherever they please, limited only by their personal financial resources. Just like the rest of us. Many simply do not TRY. Many others get rich when they DO try, by taking advantage of tax loopholes not available to the rest of us, working off-reserve jobs, while maintaining a reserve mail-address for further tax advantages, etc. Now for a bit of shoe-on-the-other-foot. I've had some business dealings with a few reserves in Ontario. Most of these were with the Wikwemikong reserve on Manitoulin Island. Canada's largest unceded reserve. If you want to talk about racism, try spin a business deal with the folks there. They will gladly pay 3-4 times as much to a native-owned business, for inferior service, than pay a white-owned business who will do the job professionally and competently. When I asked one of them why, his reply boiled down to one word; "Appearances". Did a sound job there for the Three Fires Music Festival back in '99. Had to fight like hell to get the contract. I was bidding against a supposedly native-owned company that was nothing more than a cover-name for a major sound company from southern Ont. Big company hires 2 native kids to look like they're running things, and charges 3-4 times as much as they would for the same services contracted elsewhere. While doing sound at the show, a fellow named Derek Miller, one of the performers who was just completing a nation-wide tour called "Aboriginal Voices" along with several other native performers, told me it was by far the best sound they had worked with on the entire tour. When he learned of the company that had almost got the contract, he laughed, saying they were "absolutely useless". And yet, they almost got the job while charging 4x as much money. Would you also call this sort of behaviour racism??? Oh, BTW, we still got stiffed out of $4K on the gig, as did the headline band for the weekend, one of only two white groups on the bill. Don't know about the other white performer, never heard from him after the show, so he may have gotten stiffed, too. I don't know. But all the native performers got paid. Would you call THAT reverse racism??? It all goes both ways. The difference is when they do it, it's called "protecting our culture". I'm not sure exactly how having an untrained native behind a sound board, rather than a seasoned veteran who just happens to be white, is protecting culture.

Heard an interview with the mayor of Gimli last night. Apparently the major concern is flora and fauna from Devil's Lake getting into Lake Winnipeg(??? I think that's the one) Anyhow, the bigwig in charge of the project stateside has proposed putting a huge filter in place that will strain out anything larger than 2 mm diameter. Gimli's mayor said "It's a start in the right direction". Further talks to ensue.

Well, 99 seats hardly accounts for all the straight, non-abortion types, so most of them are obviously voting for someone else. Teacher always said "Sit up straight, keep your shoelaces tied, and check your spelling" Oh well, at least I keep my shoes tied

It reminds me more of some of the ultra-right-wing types in the States, who scream "traitor" every time someone speaks out against the war in Iraq. You see, we have this thing called "freedom of speech". It means that you're allowed to say anything you want. If the public feels her comments are inappropriate, they'll let her know next election.

And the rest don't check for typos when they post Sorry, that was meant in fun. Well, let's see now, that still leaves half the population who are NOT gay or abortion supporters. So who are THEY voting for??? Sorry, CC, your "reason" doesn't wash.

Complete and utter historical obscurity.

I have two things to say in this thread: 1) The website, being strictly anti-Muslim (just check out some of the links on the main page to prove this) holds no more credence for me than do those nazi web pages which "prove" there was no holocaust, that Einstein was a fake, etc. 2) Being that the thread was started by a "New Member" who chose to simply post the link with no comment, I will not feed the troll. Ain't goin' fishin'......have a nice day

No question about this. Absolutely right. But I'm not speaking of the wingnuts. I'm talking about intelligent people who post some great ideas, but either get dragged down, or drag down others into common, playground-level name calling. I haven't been on line as much lately, but it seems to me that the situation is actually improving somewhat in the past couple weeks since I started this thread. I don't know if this thread had anything to do with it, or maybe it's just the hot weather, but either way, it's nice to see.

Oh. Well. That's alright, then.

I haven't decided yet where I stand on the main question, but here's a scenario which I'm going to preface with a set-up... It has been discussed that something like an education obtained during the marriage continues to appreciate in value after the divorce, so if a man gets a job with a phenomenally high income AS A RESULT OF THIS EDUCATION, then he should have to share a greater portion of this income with his ex. So, what if a man gets lucky, wins a lottery, should he then have to pay higher support payments??? Same scene, part two; what if that lottery ticket was bought for him by his new girlfriend??? Should he then still have to pay higher support??? After all, the lottery winning were in no way related to any education or other benefit acquired during the marriage. Thoughts, please. Another scenario, one which I know of firsthand.... Let's say the man buys a house, during the marriage. The marriage has been on the rocks for quite some time, and the man does not want to buy a house as he thinks that if they do divorce, he may end up with 25 years of mortgage payments an a house he can't live in. Wife is desperate to get out of an apartment and into a house, and so agrees both verbally and in writing that the house shall be sole property of the man. The wife enjoys amateur carpentry and renovations. Wife starts several projects, finishes none of them. Divorce happens. House has been de-valued by about $30,000.00 because it's now in a state of complete and utter disrepair throughout the interior. Who keeps the house??? If the man gets to keep it, who is on the hook for the loss of value??? And yet another, which again, I know of firsthand.... Couple divorces. Man pays support for 2 children, one his, the other from the woman's previous marriage, which she is already receiving support for from the genetic father. Woman want to move to Ottawa to be with her parents. Judge tells her she must stay in Sudbury so father can have visiting rights. Mother moves anyway. Man is told by judge when he appeals, to basically shut up. Same case, same friend..... During divorce proceedings, mother does not want friend to be able to see kids. She starts accusing friend of sexually abusing the children. Kids deny it. Friends deny it. Character witnesses deny it. Child psychologists brought in, one of which says "It never happed", the other swears "The kids have been abused but they're repressing it". Conflicting opinions, both by "experts". Later, woman is found to be lying in this, and in many other instances with different accusations against father, all of which end up being false, by HER OWN ADMISSION. Meanwhile, man has nearly gone bankrupt defending himself, while woman's millionaire father is footing her legal bill. She still gets custody. She still moves to Ottawa, against the court's ruling. Moves in with her folks. Man STILL pays support. Man goes to Ottawa to visit kids, is denied access BY HER PARENTS. Files for injunction. Gets it. Goes to Ottawa again. SAME THING HAPPENS AGAIN No charges are pressed against the mother, or her parents, AT ANY TIME. Woman not charged with perjury for false accusations. Not charged for taking the kids out of town. Not charged for denying access to visit. Not so much as given a dirty look by the judge. When she finally admitted to lying about the "abuse", the judge said "I see". And that was the sum total of the chastisement she received. Thoughts on this as well, please. (Finally, after SEVEN drives to Ottawa (takes about 8 hours from Sudbury), he got to visit the kids. But not at his convenience, not by a long shot. He often had to wait in a hotel room for as long as 2 full days before they would say "Oh, I guess you can come over and visit for an hour" What a fair deal) But, being that this happened to my best friend, the house scenario happened to me, and the lottery scenario happened to another close friend. For now I'll keep secret who kept the house I bought, and what happened with the lottery winnings, at least until we have some replies or speculation on this. Personally, when it comes to divorce and/or anything to do with sexual harrassment/assault/etc, men are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and even after being exonerated, the stench of suspicion still remains. If any such case becomes public, he may as well change his name and move to a new city because as soon as teh word "abuse" goes out, he is pre-judged in the court of public opinion, and may as well kiss a normal life goodbye from that point onward. Sorry, long rant, but I've seen a few of my closest friends have their lives totally shattered by scenarios like these, and it makes me bloody sick.

You may be right, but I have doubts. The incredible involvement of the media puts everything going on over there under a microscope. I also believe Bush would use the pull-out as another opportunity to trumpet his "success", so I think we'd hear about it. I mentioned the possibility of another attack. It would be stupid to expect it to take the same form as 9/11, and I never said or implied that it would do so. So I guess we agree here. I agree this scenario is dubious, but there are many forms an attack could take. Conventional explosives being one of the most likely. But almost anything can be turned into a weapon. Consider a fuel-tanker transport truck driven at high speed into any heavily-populated area. Now picture about 20 of them doing the same thing simultaneously in different cities. Messy. And deadly. You seem to misinterpret my thoughts. I would not be blaming such an attack on a USA pull-out, but rather on Osama et al, and their attempts to manipulate the US administration via well-timed tactical strikes. According to his own words, Osama WANTS the USA to be involved in war, and wants them to STAY involved in war untl the country is bankrupt. That's a hell of a lot of war, but with Bush at the helm, well, connect the dots. To clarify further, I do not blame 9/11 on the USA. The blame rests solely with those who organized and perpetrated the attack. But it is entirely possible that the USA gave them the motive for the attack through the US policies regarding the ME in general, and involvement with Israel more in particular.

This is not a good precedent.

Osama was quoted as saying that the USA would be led by the nose into war after war until they have bled their economy dry on military expenditures. When you look at the incredible rise in the American deficit since this war began, it makes me think that Osama and his merry band of hoodlums are patting each other on the back in a congratulatory fashion because things seem to being going according to their plan. Now, it looks like the same plan is being implemented against Great Britain. A few more attacks and the Brits will be riled up and ready to commit more troops and bucks. As a personal prediction, I believe that as soon as it starts looking like the USA is going to pull out of Iraq, there'll be another major attack on American soil.

Everyone except Swedish people. They're simply pale

"We will fight evil, wherever it may found, day and night, as long as it doesn't stay up past 9:30 PM." Hilarious. Obviously their moral superiority does not extend into the late evening.

Thanks 'REKA. I don't make a habit of it, but it seemed like the thing to do at the time.

I was just about to make the same observation. When I see "writing" of this caliber, it makes me take everything the writer is saying with a really REALLY big grain of salt.

Given the fact the Iran has not been playing fast and loose with dis-armament orders from the UN, which means the USA doesn't have a legitimate reason for invading, an invasion of Iran would not play well in ANY international circles, and so is highly unlikely. Oh, sorry. I forgot. For a moment there I was thinking that Bush et al actually CARED about international opinion, and about having "legitimacy" on their side.