PocketRocket

Try get a government job without being able to speak French fluently, even if you live in a primarily English-speaking community. Even if the job does not require you to deal with the public on a daily basis. "Biligual", the job posts say. But try tell them you speak English and Italian or German or any other language. Forget it.

Good Morning, HAWK. I can see we're going to get along well. We don't agree on some things, but we seem to have enough respect to address each other in a dignified fashion. Here we go..... Oh, I don't think the example was all that bad. The element of doubt is so small as to be infinitismal. Motivation, however, can be a factor when determining guilt or innocence, ie; was it self defense??? In the case of desertion, we have to consider a man's concience. This has been established since, and possibly before, Viet Nam. Personally, if I had been in the American military, I would have had no problem going to Afghanistan. I went on record in many forums supporting that war. Iraq is a different kettle of fish entirely. I have heard Hintzman and his attorny making his case on radio, and found myself in agreement with him. Young, idealistic people who want to serve "in defense of" their country are to be admired for joining the forces. But in what way was the invasion of Iraq serving the defense needs of the USA??? I agree with you that a soldier should be prepared to fight and die for his country, as should we all. But in the case of Iraq, the line was blurred beyond recognition. They were told "Go over there. Fight. Die". For no apparent reason. Iraq was hardly a threat to the USA. See reply above. Conciencious objector is still a title/label that holds some water. In Canada, we have given refuge to conciencious objectors in the past. I have no problem with doing so now. (Did I spell "conciencious" correctly???) For the record, I do not think that taking out Saddam was a bad thing. On the contrary. My beef is with the fact that GWB chose to do it uniliaterally, using the UN sanctions as a reason/excuse, even though he turned a blind eye to the UN's wishes to NOT invaded. Hypocrisy. If the USA would have waited it out a bit, the UN would have come around. Even the UN would only have taken so much of Saddam's B.S. Be that as it may, the "majority" of US citizens who agree with the war MAY be 51%. Hardly a concensus. Keep in mind also, a lot of people will believe whatever the hell they are told by whoever is in power. GWB's propaganda machine did a good job in painting Iraq as a potential, or even imminent, threat. I'm not sure what you mean by "coalition" in this context. A military coalition??? Like a bunch of countries would get together and attack the US??? Or do you mean several nations getting together to lay legal charges??? Either way, the USA is such a military/economic powerhouse, that she can throw her weight around with impunity if she so chooses. Most nations will go so far as to expres extreme disapproval, but for the sake of diplomacy, probably do not want to push things quite so far. Who knows??? But in terms of "legality" under international law, what really credible justification was given for the invasion??? Was the USA attacked by Iraq??? No. Was she about to be attacked by Iraq??? I haven't heard of any imminent attacks.... In my opinion, truer words were never spoke. Regarding the definition of "Traitor" you provided, I notice it's source was a thesaurus. Good thinking there. I checked a dictionary before my last response, and while the word "deserter" was included in the definition, it was way down the list, below "turncoat", "betrayer" etc. I chose not to use it simply to avoid throwing more fuel on the fire. Nice work, though. I am against war. I would, however, gladly fight in defense of my country. It takes at least two countries to fight a war, but it only takes one to start it. As I mentioned earlier, many young people have a romantic notion about defending their country, and sign up for that reason. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, Iraq does not fall under that category. Oh good. Now we can be friends. Seriously, I don't understand how someone can take the oath of Parliament, when their party's stated objective is to split from the country. The war IS over, the ruling government was taken out of power and now all that left there is civil unreset. That does not constitute as war, therefore he didn't lie as the war is actually over... now is just the cleanup and stopping of insurrection. Well, NOW it SEEMS to be over. Let's hope it is. But after GWB spoke those words, it seemed that the fighting actually escalated beyond what it had been prior to that little speech. Fair enough. Hmm. Very cool. I like your style, my friend. A & 1) I agree that some of the statements made by members of parliament were childish. But that seems to have become the norm. This statement is not meant to excuse such behaviour. I can't even watch question period anymore without getting thoroughtly disgusted. The behaviour of our representatives in Parliament is shockingly childish. 2) Aid in what regard??? From what I recall, we sent a couple small ships that basically sat around doing nothing. But her, isn't that moral support?? But again, if you are NOT in support of a war, why send anything??? It's not like the USA needs our help to supply their forces, far from it. 3) I wasn't aware he "led them along". He may have been "considering" the plan. Nonetheless, if I say I will buy a car, and the, when I get to the carlot, the car will not run, then I do not feel obliged to fulfill my "promise", as it was made under the pecept that the car was working. The BMD has yet to pass a single test. Would you have us buy a non-functional car??? I did as you asked and skimmed over the previous posts, I also used the search function in my browser to find references to harper on page 1 and 2 and found not a single one... please quote it if it truly does exist. Until then my point remains. Damn, I can't find it either. It may have been in another forum site, I was in a hurry when responding yesterday. I'll try to locate it and post a link. My apologies for causing you to search for nothing. Saddam was an ass. Agreed. He needed to go. Agreed. But again, why didn't GWB and his crew simply say "We're fed up with Saddam, we're gonna take him out". That, I could respect. But this "the ends justify the means" mentality is scary. Now please be clear that I am NOT comparing GWB to Hitler, that's not my style, but consider that Hitler's stated goal, raising the Aryan race to prominence, was an admirable one. His means, on the other hand, were tragically deplorable. 9/11 is another example of such. The ends cannot justify the means. That road leads straight to hell. Yeah, but my way is more fun. Seriously, if it was something he/she had done in that single post, no problem. But I recently noticed that the person in question had several posts out there, all peppered liberally with "pinko". And I REALLY mean liberally. I choose to attack the word, as I do ANY derogatory and insulting word that is overused. In other posts, I have adressed them as a group. It made no difference. Now, I choose to address them humorously. Anyway, I gotta get dressed and get to work. Thanks for your replies, it's nice exchanging thoughts with you. As I stated earlier, we may disagree, but we manage to keep it civil and respectful, and I can respect that. Have a good day.

First part was irrelevant to the discussion so I will ignore it. The man is labelled as a criminal because deserting the army is a crime, in fact a century ago he would be shot on sight for doing just that so yeah I would say it is safe to assume he is a criminal. If you need a judge and jury to contrive that then perhaps you should invest in some independant thought. And a man holding a smoking gun while standing over a body with a bullet hole is obviously a murderer. Why is it then that in some such scenarios, a man in that position has been found innocent??? He'll be a criminal when he is tried and convicted. And that proves what? You failed to address the point, reread it for real this time. I would think that my point was obvious. He's far from being the first. That part of my previous antagonist's post was irrelevant. It is not a crime to join the army to get an education, he was trying to make it sound like it is a crime. Argue away, there is no proof and therefore it is not a valid point. There was not enough proof to prove Iraq was an illegal war, never did the USA agree to be run by the UN and therefore it doesn't need the permission of the UN to ensure its national security. That is why the USA 'elects' officials for the USA's interests, not the UN's. Not everyone wants a global ruling elite, and I dont mean the USA I mean the UN. Oh, this is rich. Hintzman is a criminal without the benefit of his day in court, according to yourself and a few others. But the US is not engaged in an illegal war because there is "not enough proof", even though many nations, and UN members, and, in fact, many American citizens, seem to think so. Should the USA be put on trial??? Secondly, if the USA is using the UN resolutions as a justification to attack Iraq, then it must mean the UN is somehow relevant. But Bush said the UN is NOT relevant. Which is it??? Can't have it both ways. Thats true he didn't lie to Canadian Immigration, but then again he is a traitor to his own country... why would you want a traitor to join your ranks? I personally dont want any turncoats in Canada, we have enough of those already. "Traitor"??? Strong word. "Traitor" implies betrayal or treason. "Deserter" would be more accurate. When you consider he tried to object to his assignment in Iraq through the legal military channels, and was soundly ignored, IMO that mitigates matters somewhat. As for your statements about having turncoats in Canada, I agree. The Bloc Quebecois, for example. Sworn in to Parliament, and yet their stated agenda is to tear away part of the country. "The war is over". How long ago did he say that??? Okay, so it was one of cabinet. Don't make me spend hours searching to simply re-hash an issue that has been hashed over so many times before. I'd rather concede the bloody point as it's not all that relevant to this thread. 4 points here. Military: I agree, it's in bad shape. Needs money, equipment and manpower. Economy: It's been worse. It actually seems to be on the upswing. Government: Embarassment on the world stage??? Exactly how??? Canada-US relations: They've been better, They've been worse. Aside from our stance on Iraq, what has Canada done to worsen relations??? Please do expound on this, since you seem to think Harper is such a threat to Canada... how do you reason this? Have you seen him in power? Have you noticed scandals at his hands? What exactly has Harper done that makes you believe him to be so damaging if elected? I wouldn't go so far as to say "threat". The implication I made was regarding how "reasonable" harper is. There's a thread in this forum about some comments Harper made a while back. Go read the thread, then tell me how reasonable you think he is. Obviously there were many reasons. I'd like to hear what they are. Unfortunately, we've been given so many "valid reasons" already, the truth will probably unrecognizable if and when it ever comes out. In it's original context, I don't think it was any such thing. It was just another "damn pinko" blather, which was totally unnecessary. That's because it's the 3rd, 4th and 5th times (s)he's used the word in a single post. Call it a mission. I'll be doing the same to anyone who starts repeatedly spouting lines like "chickenhawks" or "neo-cons" or "nazis". As for being "pathetic", if one cannot debate without stooping to base insults, then one should go back to the schoolyard with all the other children who just want to stand around calling each other names. The valid points were addressed with respect, the insults were treated with contempt. Thats true he/she isn't, but he/she does have the right to express his/her frustration with the obvious ignorance of a great number of Canadians. Dependance on the CBC for 'unbiased' newcasting has left a generation of Canadians that would rather be emotionally devoid of facts rather than face the truth. He/she can express his/her frustration in a civil fashion. "Get the hell out of my country" is hardly an example of civil discourse.Your CBC comment is irrelevant to this conversation. They are hardly the only news source in teh country. You are welcome to watch CTV or Global or any of the American network news channels if you so desire.

I have been criticizing Chretien's governement for not keeping their word in repealing the GST since shortly after they came to power. Incidently, I voted for the Libs after the Mulrony government crumbled, but have not repeated that mistake since then. But, the Liberals didn't need to use the GST, or anything else anything to oust Mulrony, he did it to himself. I have two major regrets with that. Firstly, he took the entire Conservative party down with him, and they may never recover. We needed the PC's to keep the Liberals in check, and vise-versa. Second, by doing so, and then handing over the reins of power shortly before an election, he ruined the career of what's-her-name. Oh yeah, Kim Campbell??? Was that her name??? She had brains (and looks), and had a future as a contender in the political arena. Mulrony screwed her career totally. Now, instead of being a might-have-been, she's been consigned to the back pages of political history as a never-was. Our first female Prime Minister. Given a chance, she may have been a GREAT pm. Now, we'll never know, simply because Mulrony didn't have the guts to stay where he was and take the spanking he so richly deserved. He jumped overboard like a rat off a sinking ship. Thank you Mr Mulrony.

Okay, fair warning. From now on, when I see someone, ANYONE, spouting derogatory, trite, hackneyed, overused derogatory words or phrases, I will use them as free license to take silly potshots. I believe I've already started, but now it's a mission..... You really seem to have a fixation with the colour pink. Did your mother dress you up in pink as a child perhaps???? BTW, what exactly is a "pinko"?? Because of who??? And which mess do you speak of??? There are so many messes out there in our political landscape. I have long maintained that farmers, being the people who actually feed us, should be treated well. In fact, I think farmers should get far more subsidies than any other kind of business. Bombadier may make great planes, but you can't eat a plane. What's the trademark??? You still haven't told me what a pinko is. And you need to answer the question I posed as to why you're so bloody enamoured with the colour pink. Did your mom make you wear pink underwear to school perhaps??? Yeah, just like every other politician who rises beyond the municiple level. "Pinko government". Are they the ones that wear the pink ballet tights??? Wait a minute, you said "the past 12 years". Do you mean the Liberals??? Oh my. I've never seen any of THEM in pink. Oh well, Let's look at what they've done. In 1987 I had to pay 17% interest on a bank loan. Now I can get the same loan at about 6 1/2%. Other than that, not much seems to have changed. There's been a crisis in the hospital system for as long as I can remember. 15 years ago I went to an emergency room and waited 3 hours. Taxes are comparable. Kids STILL don't learn how to spell in school, and that's been happening for about 25 years or so. Yup. no really MAJOR changes in the past 15 years. Just more people pointing fingers and calling names. Do I care about what??? Write a post making serious statements and asking serious questions without calling names like a schoolyard kid, and I'll respond in kind. Do I care whether or not you like the colour pink??? No. Right back atcha, buddy.

Good Morning, RB: Yes, I know you are still here. I don't believe that I wrote anything rude or offensive in my post regarding your method of response. And yes, I for one am analyzing what you post. I analyze EVERY post that I read, for content, for grammatical accuracy, for style, for intelligence, and so much more. And yes, when discussing something point-by-point, I expect a response in kind. Let's put it this way, if you make an argument using several points to back up your stance, then I try to address each of those points in turn. Quite often I end up writing posts that agree with several points, then disagree with others. If I disagree with a particular point, I give the reasons rationalizing my disagreement. I then expect you to defend those same points to back up your original premise. By doing so, you may change my mind on some or all of them. By simply leaving those disputed points alone, and moving on to secondary and tertiary arguments, and sometimes veering completely off-topic, you give the impression that you cannot back up those points which are being disputed. This leaves the apparent impression that none of your original arguments held any water to begin with, and certainly weakens your stance. When you then swamp us with information which is not relevant to the thread, but is simply more anti-male hoo-hoo, it leave the impression that you have no point at all, and are simply male-bashing. In making sweeping "Men are responsible for...." type statements, you actually weaken your position, not to mention antagonizing any men that might agree with you. Not ALL men are responsible for holding women back. I agree that many men still have a very chauvinistic outlook. But by characterizing ALL men in this way, you prove yourself to be no better than those men you are refering to. I have said to you before that I believe you to be very intelligent, and you do have a lot of valid concerns. But in bringing these concerns to a forum, wherein they WILL be debated, you must be prepared to back them up. Self contradictory statements do not help your position. Nor do sweeping, blanket statements. Does that make our expectations a bit more clear??? Sorry if any offense was cause, certainly none was intended. Have a fine day.

EUREKA, seeing as my post went up only 2 minutes before yours, I am assuming it was directed at IKNOWBEST's previous post. (IKNOWBEST. Now that nickname is an oxymoron if ever I've read one)

I agree that Canada's farmers should be getting more help. As for all the rest of the "pinko" rhetoric....

You really like that word "pinko" don't you??? Something in your past, perhaps??? Were you bitten by a pink poodle as a child??? Interesting how you label the man as a criminal, when he hasn't even been tried, let alone convicted, yet. Have you now been appointed judge and jury??? Like so many others before him. When you consider that the UN and many MANY nations consider Iraq to be an illegal war under international law, the it could be argued that Bush broke international law and violated this man's trust in ordering him to fight in an illegal war. And exactly how did he lie to Canadian Immigration??? He said he wanted to come here to avoid fighting in Iraq. Where is the lie??? Do you think he actually wanted to come here simply to enjoy the sub-zero temperatures??? Seeing the frequency of your use of the colour pink, I am inclined to say the same thing. I have to agree that the removal of Saddam is a good thing. My beef with Bush is over his hypocrisy. His premise for starting the war was WMD's, then it changed to Saddam being a "threat" to the US. Later, we were told that it was a war of liberation. Which is it?? When you tell the truth, you don't have to come up with a better story when your lies have been shot down. Bush has changed his story more often than you change your underwear, at least 3 times in the past 2 years. Uh-huh. Yup. Just like Bush told you to believe. Just like he knew "exactly" where they would be found when he invaded. Yup. You are SO right. You really DO have a fixation with that colour, don't you?? Well, rejoice, my friend. Easter is only 2 days away. Maybe you'll get some nice pink Easter eggs. Maybe a basket of chocolates with a pink ribbon. Hopefully, that will make you feel a bit less angry. :angry: As is your reasoning. Pot, meet kettle. And our esteemed leader of the Right, Mr Harper, is so much more reasonable and resolute. To stop a madman who was invading neighbouring countries with no justification. I fail to see the parallel to the current situation. Was Saddam invading anyone??? The only invasion that occured was initiated by Bush, and the reasons he gave for the invasion changed several times. What was his real motivation in invading Iraq??? I'm sure we'll never know, but I am equally sure that it's none of the reasons he gave us. And this relates to the topic of this thread how??? Oh well, it gives you a chance to say "pinko" again, and I guess that's all the justification you need. Hey, there's that "pinko" word again. You know, it's a scientifically proven fact that the colour pink is mentally soothing. Maybe you should consider re-doing your home in pink. It might help you with your anger-management. I must be missing something here. I had no idea that Canada was now your sole property. Remind me again exactly how you came to be our sovereign ruler???

And Hintzman's claim was denied. Hopefully, that makes you happy. Well, he's here with his family, has secured a residence, and a job. It seems that he's supporting himself, so that invalidates your point about "ripping off the taxpayer". Please explain how he is a threat to his neighbours, or the country. As for him being a criminal, answer me this; is the war in Iraq legal, or illegal??? Who decides whether it's legal or illegal??? If it is illegal, then is a soldier who agrees to go over there culpable in the crime committed in waging an illegal war??? Ah yes. A good, constructive way to open up a dialogue is to start throwing names around. Well done. I applaud your wordsmanship. It all seems so clear to me now. And I always thought the Star was black and white and read all over, not pink. Maybe I need new glasses. And how can you say it supports criminals??? I never once read anything in the Star supporting GWB and his little pet invasion. Go buy some gravol. It might help with your nausea. Hey, it just occured to me, Gravol pills are pink too, so you probably won't be wanting them. Oh well, try some mint tea. Who was it that said "Don't feed the Trolls"???

This is really rather offensive and, sadly, detracts from your otherwise valid points. I'm sorry you see it that way. In its original context, it was meant as a humorously unreasonable way to address what I thought was an unreasonable point. My antagonist makes sweeping assertations accusing all men of being responsible for taking advantage of women at the cash counter. When a valid point was brought up refuting some of her statements, she completely ignored the point. I addressed that point, and, indirectly, her refusal to acknowledge that point, in what I saw as a joking fashion. But I apologize if I caused offense. My personal bitching and moaning is never meant to offend anyone My breath, on the other hand.... What you seem to have missed is comments like this.... Which she contradicts about two paragraphs later by saying.... And then there's this..... I mean, come on now. This thread is supposed to be about gender biased pricing. However, if you contradict RB on her points, she will regularly throw something back at you which is completely unrelated. "Thrusting of missiles"??? What are they supposed to do??? Just sit there on the launch pad??? Fat lot of good that would do. Perhaps they should fly out of their silos, and go nurture the enemy??? I don't think that's their purpose. But because they are cylindrical, streamlined shape, they are automatically equated with the phallus, and just another way for RB to take a potshot at men. If you read back, you will see several posts refuting RB's statements point by point, which she totally ignores except to throw more "sexist" rhetoric around. If she wants a dedicated battle-of-the-sexes thread, then fine, she can open one up. But this thread is about gender pricing, not about Freudian imagery as it relates to bullets, missiles et al. When I am debated in a logical and sensible manner, I will respond in kind. When I make a valid point, and it is responded to with misdirection and obfuscation, then I will poke fun, rather than start a flame war. I-MISS-TRUDEAU (I do too, BTW), I hope that clears things up a bit regarding that little comment. I'll quit bitching now. I have some serious moaning to do.

I couldn't access the link provided. Requires a login password. Can you post some of the article???

Okay, RB. I agree the issue needs to be addressed. Never denied that My problemn was with the sweeping generalizations implicating all men as trying to victimize women at the cash counter. But now you've expanded the problem into the courts saying women are underrepresented. There may be fewer women judges than men, but this started out about gender pricing. Now you're expanding it into the arena of law??? As an FYI, I don't think the legal system is responsible for price structures becoming what they are today. Also, I don't think too many male judges rule against women simply for being female. In fact, if a particular judge is going to be swayed by the gender of the litigants, I think the opposite would hold true.

Well, it's your constitutional right to believe whatever you like. But let me ask you this, are there any businesses, owned and operated by women, who charge higher rates to women than they do to men??? Personally, I know of at least one salon (a friend works there) that is owned and operated exclusively by women. They make no bones about the fact that a woman's cut and style costs about twice what a man would pay for the same treatment. I hate using it as an example because i cannot provide a link to prove my assertations, but I'm sure you wouldn't have to look to hard to find a similar example in your locality. In that isolated case, how would you justify your wide-sweeping claim that men are responsible for the gender bias in pricing, when in fact many businesses owned by women are perpetuating the practice??? Could it be that even women have been infected by that most common of human frailties, greed??? Even to the point where they will victimize their own gender??? Could it be that most women do not, in fact, care so much about the gender pricing, but care more about the prestige implied by name brands??? Examples of this include women not patronizing "SuperCuts", or buying the $80.00 t-shirt instead of the $5.00 t-shirt. I am sure there are plethora of further examples of women being trodden on by other women, I just can't be bothered spending that much time searching for them. It doesn't seem to be an easy search to find female-owned retail businesses, complete with pricing lists online. But, as I stated earlier in this thread, if a woman is paying more because she is buying a "prestige" version, identical except for name brand, than she is not being victimized by gender pricing, but by her own vanity. I do not disagree that gender-bias pricing exists. I do disagree with your implication that it is a plot against women, by men. Markets are driven by consumption. It's called supply and demand. If all women stop buying a certain, expensive product, even for a week, then demand drops off, and the price of that product will plummet. Instead of bitching here about how unfair it all is, why don't you try organizing rotating boycotts of products and services that you feel are victimizing women in this way??? You'd be amazed at what a single week of low profits will do to motivate a major company to change their marketing strategy.

The subtitle of this thread "Moral bankruptcy of the left - in photos", is also a misnomer, and a sweeping generalization. Does one extreme right wing idiot who shoots and kills an abortion doctor, while other right-wing idiots celebrate such a murder, mean that everyone on the right is "morally bankrupt"??? I think not. It's simply an example of someone with extreme views. Some of those marching in this protest also have extreme views, and they may well be idiots, but hey, at least they don't seem to have shot anyone yet. But their views are not indicative of the views of all liberals. I would put forth as an idea that those on either side who take examples like these, and then use them to label everyone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, are in a way as extreme as those people they are deriding.

Well, I finally took the time to look the link over. I was not particularly impressed. I don't give too much credence to any "journalistic" endeavour in which there are spelling and/or grammatical errors, and this page had several. A typo or two is one thing, this page was full of mistakes that a grade-four student would be ashamed to make. The author, or narrator, or editor, whatever you want to call him/her, certainly didn't have a neutral view of things, either. In one pic, a young man was holding a sign which simply asked the question "Who would Jesus bomb?". The caption below that pic gave the reply; "As a Jew from Nazareth he'd probably start with Iran." And this is a pro-Jewish website??? Gee. Good unbiased reporting there. Can't help but respect the cool detachment. Another pic, showing Che Guevera, followed by the caption "Lots of support for Cuban dictators." Hey, and I wasn't even aware that Guevera was a dictator. It's amazing how he managed to become a dictator without ever ruling anything. Other direct quotes include "Lots of commies as usual." and "The average IQ of the people who show up to these things is quite low and they need some kind of crude entertainment." Judging from the juvenile attempts at irony peppered throughout this article, that last quote also describes the author of the page quite nicely.

And now, back to the whimsical.... KIMMY: Nowadays they have programs where you can do both at the same time! And so many do. Over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum..... Perhaps because it's not expensive enough. It leaves nothing to bitch and moan about. BOO! BOOO!! I honestly don't know if this is one of the funniest things I've ever read here, or one of the most rancid! I can't decide whether to laugh or throw rotting vegetables. If it's the former, then higher praise, I could not ask for. If it's the latter, please make the veggies fresh, I want to do a stir fry tonight. Seriously, this was a silly comment addressing a sillier one. Missiles are shaped the way they are because it makes them aerodynamic. No other reason. Scientists certainly did not sit around discussing how to make a missile resemble a penis when developing missiles. But hey, I certainly don't need to tell YOU that, READS-ABOUT-PLANES . (I bet you thought I forgot that nickname. Heh heh heh. You're stuck with it now, Kimmy) And regarding your UTILITY vs FUNCTIONALITY post, as others have said before me, good job. ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRIBLE SWEAL: (what is a "sweal" anyway???) Re: your use of the word "hole" instead of "whole". Was this a typo, a Freudian slip, or part of the pun??? Either way, LOL. Yeah, but if another, conventional, phallic-shaped missile whistles at them, they complain about being harrassed. ------------------------------------------------------------ RB: Wow. High aspirations indeed!!! Best of luck with that climb. Be careful, and return safe. (I wonder if you can see my house from up there???)

Well, the QUOTE button doesn't seem to be working for me today, so, I'll take it backwards. RB: This last post is incomprehensible, or else I'm losing it. I don't think I understand a single sentence. Could you perhaps rewrite it in plain english??? But to address the general tenor, if a certain blouse, of a certain colour, and a certain fit, can be purchased for $10.00, without a name-brand label, but another, near-identical blouse costs $200.00, then who is to blame if s/he takes the $200.00 blouse??? Some people complain about products being too expensive, other people thrive on it. "Oh my gawd, I had to spend, like, $200.00, just to buy a t-shirt. Like, isn't it totally, like, outrageous??? I had to buy, like, four of them. Like, gag me with a Gucci handbag" Basically, as long as consumers continue to spend money on overpriced items, rather than on their less-expensive, generic counterparts, then market forces will keep the heavy pricetags out there. As long as some women keep on supporting these overpriced name brands, then other, more sensible women will have to put up with the same old crap. But on a more serious note, part of the problem is that some women want "freedom", "equality", "equity" etc etc etc. Some other women want to keep working the system, quite happy to be the "pampered princesses". In other words, there is no concensus among women about what they want from society. You can't have it both ways. You can't say "Hey, I'm just one of the boys, and I want to be treated like one of the boys", and then in the same breath say "Hold my chair for me when I sit, and hold the door for me when I enter". This may be one of the largest impediments to credibility in the whole womens' movement, the fact that many women like things as they are, and play the system that way.

And, just to balance the scales a bit, the radical right also has it's share. One example that leaps to mind is the anti-abortion movement. Clinics trashed, and doctors killed. Not too many left wingers involved in that particular dance.

TAWASAKM: A good suggestion, I agree. But, being less experienced than most with internet forums, I sometimes do not recognize a troll at first sight. Additionally, if there's a point I feel I can address, I will usually address it, regardless of the source. But, if it's any comfort, generally once I've done that I get the hell out.

That's a load of bull. The single most discriminated-against group in Canada today, is the white anglo adult male. You've been crying this same song for many MANY posts here, but have only shown peripheral evidence to back up any of these claims. Men and women are born with different genitalia, and that's about it. If we were living in Afghanistan, the situation would be otherwise. But in Canada, the claims you are making are largely a crock. I personally am acquainted with at least one of each of the following famale professionals: heavy-equipment operator, surgeon, dentist, lawyer, mining-explosives expert, airline pilot. Hey, I even know a couple female hair-stylists. And here's the funny thing, they charge their female clients more than they charge men. Isn't that peculiar. Women, operating their own salon, and yet they charge their "sexual sisters" more than they charge men. Perhaps women are doing it to themselves??? But the fact remains, in today's society, a woman can bitch and moan about how put-upon they are, or they can go out and get an education and a career. Unfortunately, you seem to prefer the former. My assessment of women who claim to have their rights trampled is usually shaped by the feeble evidence they present, and the deception and twisting of words that I have observed. Let's examine this statement. If something "negates" the "needs" of women, that logically means that the women affected no longer "need" anything. Cool. I wish I could be so lucky. Unfortunately, I "need" to work for a living, to pay my mortgage, the hydro, heat, insurance, etc etc etc. My ex, however, did NOT have to work for any of these things, and when we separated, she felt she "needed" to keep my house, while I would still be paying the mortgage and all other expenses. Fortunately, we were able to convince her that she "needed" no such thing. As for rights, women all have the "right" to get men dragged through the mud simply by evoking the words "harrassment" or "abuse". It's done all to often. "Abuse" comes in so many forms. Touching a woman's shoulder has been construed as "sexual harrassment" and "abuse". There are two sides to this coin, RB. But it seems to me that more and more, our society is pandering to women at the expense of men. And I am fed up with the line you personally continue to give; "Oh, I am so put upon and unfortunate to have been born female in a world wherein men all seek to keep me down. Oh, woe is me, WOE IS ME". Gimme a break, RB. It is obvious that you are intelligent. But something obviously has turned you into a man-hater. Either that, or you've come under the thumb of some latter-day militant feminist group. When I look at the war in Iraq, it conjures up images of an smiling ass who disguises himself under the umbrella of an elephant. As for your war-related "phallic imagery" rhetoric, last I heard, they were trying to develop a vagina-shaped missile. Unfortunately it just wasn't very aerodynamic, and it tended to scoop up a lot of birds while in flight Don't quit your day job. Psychology is not your strong point, at least not if this is the best you can come up with. Although relating all this imagery does say something about your own mind. What that is, I do not know. I never claimed to be Freud. You would be wise to follow that example. So, in this statement lies your true agenda. You do not seek "equality" for women, but rather "dominance" over men. Why didn't you just say that about 100 posts ago, and we could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth??? From what I hear, there a several underground clubs that accomodate such dominance fantasies. Buy yourself a leather suit and some handcuffs and go check them out. You'll probably have a great time 14$ for males 45$ for females You were told, AT A BARBERSHOP, that a brushcut for a man is $14, and for a woman is $45??? Did you specify "brushcut"??? Did you even really go to a barbershop??? If so, did you ask why the difference??? Sorry, RB. I'm calling you on this one. Interestingly enough, for a couple years my ex-wife went for the brushcut look. It was really cute on her. We went to the same place, were charged the same price. $10 at the time. Maybe the men are smarter in their buying habits, Wait a minute. In an earlier comment you said... When it comes to getting wealthy, how you spend is as important as how you earn. So first you say you don't want to hear men say they are smart. Shortly after, you say that men are "smarter in their buying habits". So by your own admission men become more affluent than women because they manage their money more intelligently by spending it more intelligently. If you want to be taken seriously, RB, you really have got to stop contradicting yourself. Please post a link to somewhere that I can order custom shirts for $12.00. It seems pretty unbelieveable, but if you can give me the link, I caould use the source of cheap shirts. Fashionable = Pandering to one's own vanity. Expectation (of variety). This is imposed by whom??? Handsome rewards for dressing the part??? In other words, they are dressing up with an ulterior motive, not because they are forced to do so. Not because that terrible "male dominated" society forces them to do so. But because they are hoping to score something. Just seems to me like another example of the "mating display" we see in nature. Putting on a display to get what you want. Either that, or more vanity. The statistics don't paint the picture of divorce or single women with custody of the child being rich. They bearly survive and are mostly poor. But, one of the characteristics of women as was Eve is well just being vindictive and cunning. But, women also pay alimony to men even when they have the child - the law is fair. Firstly, you didn't recognize the fact that my statement above was simply an unreasonable response to an unreasonable post. That's okay, because you simply responded to it with another unreasonable post.You are making sweeping generalizations that all men are getting rich by trodding all women underfoot. So, I am responding with sweeping generalizations that all women are cunning and use their wiles to ensnare, entrap, and take advantage of men, which many, but by no means the majority, do. But as a specific response to your statement, in a divorce settlement, a man is required to supply the woman with a lifestyle similar to that which she grew accustomed during the marriage. In other words, if the guy is rich, the woman, will continue to live a rich lifestyle after the divorce. If the guy is middle class, she will get support accordingly. If the guy is poor, well, she's not going to get as much. But from the guy's end, what they peel off of his paycheck is often enough to leave him near-destitute while working 40+ hrs/week. Meanwhile, she can sit at home and collect more than half of HIS paycheck. More if there are kids involved. As for your last statement, "the law is fair", when was the last time a man got away with claiming sexual abuse, and ended up getting the kids, the house, and a restraining order against his ex wife??? All a woman has to do is suggest abuse, and she effectively makes the guy a pariah in his own community. Guilty until proven innocent. Next. As a disclaimer, RB, I want to make clear that I hold women in general in the highest regard. I simply have little stomach for people who constantly come up with reasons that "society" is to blame for their plight, and then, in trying to justify their claims, contradict themselves. As a person, and as a woman, I respect you and your place in society, WHATEVER YOU MAKE THAT PLACE TO BE THROUGH YOUR OWN EFFORTS. I have, however, little respect for your men-bashing views.

Excuse me??? "Handed" the children??? Let's be a little more accurate in your statement. How about this "Women are burdened with the helplessness of having (in most cases) a husband to take care of the financial worries, and then, through separation litigation, rips the children away from their father, often without leaving him recourse to be able to see them". Get down off the high horse, RB, guys don't "hand" the kids to their exes. Generally there is some sort of custody battle. But in divorce court, men are seen as guilty until proven innocent.. And then there are the all-to-common bitches who play the "abuse" card. Lying about imaginary "physical abuses" doled out by the husband, either towards herself or the kids. This is another case wherein men are presumed guilty until proven innocent. (As a side note, a friend of mine who went through a divorce recently pulled a great trick. When his ex threatened to testify that he had abused both her and the kids, he arranged a meeting alone with her. He brought along a little voice-activated cassette recorder that fit neatly in the chest-pocket of his coat. At one point he said something along the lines of "I've never raised a hand towards you or the kids, and I've never touched the kids sexually, so why would you want to accuse me of those things in court". Her reply was something like "Because if I do accuse you, then I won't have to share custody, and they'll serve you a restraining order, so you won't even be able to come around". When she did make such a claim in court, he brought out the tape. Of course her lawyer asked to have this evidence thrown out, but for once there was a judge with some common sense. She was conditionally charged with perjury and contempt. In addition, she was told that any further such contempt would cost her custody of the kids, and some jail time.) And now, just to address a couple sweeping generalities which you seem to have quite a penchant for writing.... Okay. Average marriage dissolved withing 3 years. But we "saddle" you with "greater" than 3 kids. All I can say is there are a lot of women out there with sore uterii. "Greater" than 3 kids in 3 years. That's quite a feat.

Trudeau's vision was for a Canada where French and English alike could get along with each other. Where both groups would have equal opportunity. Where both groups would respect each other. That doesn't seem like such a bad vision to me. Are you sure??? It seems almost like we give that much to Bombardier every year. In other words, you want over 1/5 of our surplus to be given to Quebec??? Hmm, let's see, 10 provinces, plus the territories, but 1/5 goes to Quebec. Yeah, that really seems fair to me IMHO, the vast majority of the surplus should be used to pay down the deficit. The country as a whole is in debt. Debts will always, sooner or later, turn around and bite you on the bum. Personally, if I'm going to have teeth-marks on my butt, that's NOT the way I want them to get there. Sp the original statement meant that the rest of Canada would be part of the USA??? Sorry. I didn't get that from the context. But that aside, I don't see how you can make that assumption.

I can see why. Be careful of the word "worst". We have all seen "worse", but no one in Canada has seen "worst", except perhaps some of the veterans who survived WWII. As for the PQ winning, they'd simply botch it again, just like last time. Too much in-fightin, and too many members of the party trying to turn it towards their own private agendas. That's the first good thing I've heard said of Mulrony in a long time. But I agree, there need to be changes made. To the rest of Canada, it already seems like Quebec is applying more pressure than any other province. That aside, the THREAT of becoming sovereign is pressure, actually committing the deed, I'm not so sure. If Quebec splits off, becomes sovereign, then what guarantee does Canada have that she won't take what we have to offer, then simply tip her hat and say "adieu"??? Right now, Canada mollycoddles Quebec as much as she can afford to, both in financial and political capital. If Quebec DOES go sovereign, do you think all the other provinces won't raise hell any time the Canadian government tries to hand over a dollar??? Right now some of the other provinces are raising hell over the amount of money and consideration given to Quebec. And you're still part of Canada, as a full fledged province. Imagine the broohaha if you decide on sovereignty, and Canada tries to help out. We'd have provinces lining up to kick Ottawa butt, or to show themselves to the sovereign door. Canada is not perfect, no country is, but living in ANY province in Canada is better than living in probably 99% of the other nations of the world. We have one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world, where no matter what your race, language, colour or creed, you are welcome, and your rights are respected. No other country on this globe can claim the sheer numbers of different racial groups, nor how well they have been accepted and thrived here. We've all gotten spoiled, and we all whine and cry (myself included, I must admit) about little bullshit details, all the while losing sight of the big picture, and that's this; we live in the best country in the world. Not the biggest, not the strongest, not the most populated, not the richest, but THE BEST. In my opinion, one of the things that contributes to making Canada such a great nation, is Quebec. She is part of our heart, our soul. A loved and respected member of a great family. Unfortunately, like in any family, sometimes siblings bicker.

Yeah, right. Boy-oh-boy, I can sure see Bush and his pals bending over backwards to help accomodate the continued proliferation of the French language and culture of Quebec. As for student protests, well, under the American government I imagine they would not be allowed to go quite as far. Remember Kent State University??? Quebec as a state would see the Francophone community reduced to a mere shadow of its former self, and you can bet there would not be any government funding for French-speaking-only schools. But that wouldn't bother the USA. They'd be quite happy with their new sources of hydro, if they managed to get their hands on them. Quebec joining the USA as a state would be cultural suicide of an unprecedented scope.