PocketRocket

So your complaint in this little paragraph is that you're losing out on your education investment, and the big bad Liberals are the sole reason. Why then are the STUDENTS on strike??? If they are worried about getting an education, you would think they would be in the classroom while they have a chance. As for the teachers and janitorial staff, so you have any idea how much money a janitor makes??? When I found out, I almost browned my trousers, and not with shoe polish. Teachers likewise get great pay, and get about 12 weeks a year off. Yeah, the teachers bitch and whine about how hard their job is. Most of them have never worked any other profession, except perhaps summer jobs when they were kids. I guarantee, if these teachers spent six months doing a couple of the jobs I've had to work in my lifetime, first chance they got they'd scurry back to their comfortable little classroom, and never whimper about their workplace hardships again. Bloody teachers have no idea just how good they have it. As for being pissed off at the Liberals, well OF COURSE you're pissed off at the Liberals. Since there hasn't been another party in power in decades, you don't have anyone else to blame. If the Conservatives were in power for the past ten years, then it would all be their fault, and the picture wouldn't be mush different than the one you're looking at right now. But ask yourself this, with the amount of money Quebec gets from Ottawa, considerably more than comes out of her in taxes or any other income, then if Quebec DOES separate, who the hell is going to support the Quebec school system then??? I don't think separation would cause any improvement in your education system whatsoever. But it might actually teach the teachers that things could be far worse than they already are.

You mean like car insurance??? Why is it that a single (unmarried) man has to pay considerably more, in some case almost double, than a single woman to insure his vehicle??? Can you say "Shoe on the other foot"??? But then again, the vast majority of the time, on a night out, the man picks up the tab. Maybe that's why men aren't getting rich. I think the price for a "cut" vs the price for a "style" holds considerable disparancy. But, as has been pointed out already, have you ever gone into a barber shop (not salon) and asked for a brushcut??? Do so, and ask what you would be charged. Report back here with the result. TENHUT!!!! Variety??? I am not forcing you to buy "variety". Neither is anyone else. As for pricing, that depends where you shop, and how expensive your tastes are. Looking through Sears catalogues and the like, I don't see where women have to spend so much more than men. The women "must" change??? It seems to me that this is their own choice. Perhaps it's driven by vanity. Long ago I leaned that being a male has many disadvantages. The difference is we are expected to not whine about it. ______________________________________________ At which point the woman's divorce lawyer secures for her the children, the house, and the vast majority of the "wealth" the man has accumulated. In addition, support payments guarantee that she continues to acquire a fairly large portion of the man's income for many years following the divorce. Many seem to use the method I pointed out above. Then stand there and tell them you refuse to pay "ladies" price for "mens" shirts. If they object, say the shirt belongs to your husband. Write a letter to the papers. Take them to Small Claims Court. Rather than complaining, take action. Re: insurance, see my statement above. Re: buying a car, anyone can get ripped off. In ANY business you will find predatory practices. The trick with these kind of people is all a matter of appearances. There's a book, "Auto Repair for Dummies". Get it. Learn a few VERY basic things from the book. Then learn a bit of jargon. You'd be amazed what happens when you approach a mechanic, and rather than saying "It's broken", you say something like "It seems to be starved for fuel, perhaps the filter is clogged". Or "It's pulling to the left, I think it needs an alignment", or "A couple cylinders are missing, might just need plugs or wires". Virtually any sympton your vehicle displays can be found in this book in a matter of minutes (there's a table of symptoms/solutions in the back pages). By doing this, you can fool a mechanic into thinking you know what you're talking about. Eventually, you DO know. Un-educated consumers have no one to blame but themselves. Period. On the other hand, men don't have the leisure to say "I'll just make myself pretty, and marry someone rich so I don't have to work". Or better yet "I'll let some drunk, rich guy knock me up, then sue him for support". Aren't you contradicting yourself here??? As who holds the aces, we are all born with potential tools. How we choose to develop and use these tools varies with each individual. Women have a far wider range of choices available to them. Rather than repeatedly chanting your mantra about how oppressed women are, try developing and using some of the tools you have available to you. You might find more satisfaction that way.

You ever travel through Northern Ontario?? You'll find more French than English. Once you get north of Parry Sound, the French language just sort of takes over in most communities. And, strangely enough, being an Anglophone living here, it doesn't bother me a bit that the majority of people are French. They don't seem to be too upset about me being English, either. Isn't it wierd, that we can all get along??? BTW. I want to separate, too. I find I don't get enough money from the government, in fact, thay have the nerve to make ME pay taxes, both on my income, and on my property. So, I want to take my house, and my yard, and separate. What do you all think sounds better, "Pocketland" or "Rocketland"

I understand that other companies get federal funding. Oil is a resource. We are definitely on the map already as a resource-exporting country. Cars made in Ontario are not seen as Canadian cars. We simply provide manufacturing sites for foreign companies. What I meant was simply that Bombardier is a Canadian-owned, Canadian-based company making something with a high-prestige profile. It was not meant as a slight to other businesses.

Naw. Vote Conservative, where angry hyperbole is King

T.T.S.: Thanks for the info. I haven't seen Farscape. I'll look for it.

Hey, Jay, welcome aboard. Which show were you the fan of ??? Next Gen?? DS-9?? Enterprise??? Voyager??? Hard to tell from your post. I used to be into the Trek thing in a fairly big way, but not as a really devoted fan or anything. About a year ago, a friend lent to me all five seasons of Babylon5 on DVD. Being a bit of a science buff, I found this show a lot more true to established science as we know it. I also found it to be a lot grittier, and the characters were more 3-dimensional. If you haven't checked it out yet, I suggest you do. Great series. Possibly the best sci-fi series to date.

I am not a MJ fan, although I do appreciate his vast talents. I also feel a sort of distant kinship with him, as I do for any musician who has sweated for so long in the business to achieve success. Also, I have some sympathy for the boy who never really had a childhood of his own. From age five onwards, MJ was forced to live a public life by his father, who was the main driving force behind the Jackson Five. All that being said, I hope they get to the bottom of the matter. It would be nice to finally see the real truth come out, although that may be too much to hope for. I don't claim to know if he's guilty or innocent, but, if guilty, I'd like to see him get what's coming to him. If he's innocent, then once and for all leave him alone. One thing I do find interesting is how the mother of the allegedly molested boy only launched this lawsuit after MJ refused to keep doling out cash to her, which he had apparently been doing for quite some time. If it ends up that he IS guilty of molestation in this case, would that mean the mother could be charged with pimping her son???

Western society has largely put sex on a pedestal, like it's something sacred. This is the reason for both the discomfort for some people, and the titllation in others, when speaking of sex. In many countries which are more open about sex, seeing a boob is not a big deal. Their kids are taught about sex, both in terms of the mechanics involved, and also from a pleasure standpoint, whereas over here, sex "education" teaches little more than how the plumbing works, and how to make a baby. If, in a classroom, a student brings up the pleasurable or erotic aspect, the discussion is turned back to the mechanics of achieving pregnancy. And so, when we are at the age where we start to take an interest in sex, we are taught, through silence or obfuscation, that it's something "bad" that "polite" people don't talk about. Is it any wonder that American media, and Canadian for that matter, is so hung up on sex??? Equally, is it any wonder that so many individuals have twisted or disfunctional notions about it???

Is it??? There is some ambiguity here, DIGBY. With all due respects, one of the commandments says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour". But if my wife (ex, now) says to me "Does this dress make me look fat???". If I reply "No", knowing full well that the dress in question makes her look like she just gained 25 pounds, is that a sin??? If someone asks me if I farted, and I deny it, even though I did indeed pass gas, is that a sin??? My take is that a lie is a sin, if that lie is casting aspersions on someone else. If it's a simple denial of truth, which causes no one any harm, then under the commandment cited above, it would not be sinful. On the other hand, being brutally truthful at all times can be hurtful, ie; "That dress makes you look 8 months pregnant". That may be a truthful statement, but it would also cause considerable emotional distress. When my mother was on her deathbed, I would come in her room to visit, and usually say something like "Good morning, gorgeous", which she certainly was not. I would say things like, "Look at you, all dolled up, you going out dancing tonight???", when she did, in fact, look like hell. Still, it put a smile on her face. But was it a sin??? It was, after all, a lie, but how could such a lie be sinful???

Agreed. And furthermore, the paper gets all crinkly and scratches if you try to wipe with it, so that counts it out of category #2. I guess we'll just have to keep it around for reading purposes.

I have mixed feelings about Bomardier. On the one hand, it's nice to have at least one major-league company in Canada who builds and markets big-ticket items like airliners. On the other hand, it would be nice if they could manage their resources to the point where we only have to bail them out once every couple of years, instead of pouring money into them on what seems like a daily basis. I think they've gotten spoiled, like an only child with doting parents. Now, when someone else gets a bit of attention, they throw a tantrum.

Do you think if Alberta did support the gun registry, that this guy would have actually registered his firearms?? Do you think he would have locked them away safely??? Do you think it would have made him less inclined to shoot??? A psycho is a psycho is a psycho. No law or registry will change that fact. I hadn't heard of any really recent complaints filed against him in this regard. I did hear reports that he pulled some stupid stunts in the past, including weapons charges and violent crimes, but if there were no recent complaints, the police would have no reason to be checking him out. Regardless of this, if the cops don't know that you have a weapon, they can't take it from you. And, as observed earlier, it is unlikely that someone of this nature would be in any hurry to register a weapon.

I disagree. Tell that to my friends Jack Russel, who seems to be passionately in love with my leg, or rather legs. He doesn't discriminate. Left leg, right leg, to him it's all good. Perhaps he not a monogamist. But then monogamy is just a metaphysical concept. I choose to disagree with this. But since choice doesn't exist, I cannot be held responsible. Responsibility would also fall under the metaphysical umbrella, would it not??? Please do not agree, for that would make the statement suddenly cease to exist. AHA. You can see a word. You can read it. You can touch it, especially when it's in 20-foot high letters that say HOLLYWOOD. HOLLYWOOD itself may be nothing more than a concept, but please don't tell Keanu Reeves. What do you mean by that??? This conclusion infers that you agree with HUGO. Therefore, by your own words, this statement, being agreement, is a metaphysical concept, and so does not exist. Damn. I've been typing non-existant replies to a non-existant post. That was fun

I thought that this dance had been danced to death, but okay.... Who armed Saddam Hussein in the 80's??? To use your own phrase, who was "in bed" with the Bin Laden family in the 90's??? How many other tin-pot dictators were set up by US foreign policy in the past 50 years or so??? Being the toughest kid on the block, both economically and militarily, allows the US to play fast and loose with the rules, and she continues to do so when and how she sees fit, international opinion, UN resolutions, and WTF rulings notwithstanding. America chooses who it acknowledges and who it ignores selectively, according to the agenda of the day. If Canada was trumpeting the benefits of BMD, you can bet your a$$et$ that the USA would be holding forth such an endorsement as a shining example of her ability to co-operate with other countries. But I think that they would do well to actually show us at least ONE succesful test of the BMD system. Unfortunately, all the tests to date have been miserable failures. Not only are they asking us to buy a horse that is unproven, that asking us to buy a horse that has shown a complete and total inability to run. Personally, I think the last thing we need is a bunch of anti-missile-missiles that are completely unpredictable. Show me a working system and you might convince me to change my view.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for over five pages, and a couple months. Bottom line is this, it's GREG'S backyard, it's his ball and bat, and he makes the rules. GREG seems to give fair warning before banning someone. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can get their point across within the rules GREG has made clear. And let's not forget that we are not talking about verbal debate here, where a swear-word can "accidentally" slip off the tongue. You actually have to sit, think, and type in your comments. There is even an "EDIT" option available, so if you enter something in the heat of the moment, it's not to tough to read it over and delete/change anything that may get you in trouble. If, after repeated warnings, someone chooses to continue to step over the line, then I for one feel no sympathy whatsoever. MS did just that. It matters not whether we agree with the reason for his/her ban. S/he was warned repeatedly, and chose to go on doing the same thing. I don't agree with some laws, but I accept the fact that I can be convicted if I am caught breaking them. The same thing goes here. The difference is that GREG always seems to give a couple warnings. That something you don't get in the legal system. If you have a problem with the fact that this forum does not belong to you, and is not being run the way you like, then you a perfectly free to start up your own forum website. If you choose to do so, let me know. I'll gladly join in.

Because they can get away with it, and no one will stop them.

Well, let's see now. You're saying that America..... 1) Invented AIDS 2) Held nuclear test blasts and actually cause the tsunamis 3) Used small nukes in Iraq 4) Is running labs using living people as guinea pigs to test these "mini-nukes", all under the guise of medical lab testing 5) Created Bin Laden I am a pretty skeptical guy, but even I have a hard time buying into some of this "World Weekly News" quality tripe. While it can be reasonably argued that the USA gave Bin Laden support and some credibility in the 80's, they can hardly be said to have "created" him. Bin Laden already had the resources and the contacts to find support from other sources. It just so happened that the USA stepped up to the plate with what seemed like a good idea at the time. What alarms me more than anything you've pointed out, is the fact that the USA seems not to learn the lessons of history. It seems that every time they "help out" with a country's internal affairs by supporting one faction or another in some conflict, then the party they've supported turns around and bites them in the tail a few years later, or at the very least, turns into a worse menace than they were set up to displace.

IKNOWBEST: You seem to think that an incoming nuke would be detonated by an interceptor missile. Wrong. Nukes are very different from conventional explosives. An interceptor missile would simply knock the nuke out of the sky. It may even blow up the nuke, but in the same way a conventional missile might blow up an airplane. It would not cause the warhead to go fissile, so there would be no nuclear blast. So, worst case scenario of a nuke being shot down over our soil is some scrap metal landing in the middle of a city. Casualties??? Probably, but not in the thousands, or even the hundreds. Best case scenario, and likeliest, given the huge percentage of unoccupied land of which our country is comprised, is that a pile of hot, scrap metal lands in the forest somewhere. On the other hand, if we are known to have missle silos containing BMD rockets, they may become first-strike targets, then we WOULD have nuclear blasts on our hands.

No. At least not with all laws. We would only do so when it's a stupid law, which was based on misinformation, ignorance, and outright lies. Do a search on the history of HOW pot came to be made illegal and you'll see what I mean. Other examples include some sex laws. The are some states where anal sex, even with your own wife, is illegal. I'm sure lots of people break that law. Are they criminals??? Is it criminal to break a law, when doing so causes no harm to anyone else, or even to yourself??? Most people speaking against legalization of pot have never tried it, and simply spout anecdotes about "friends" who are "zombies" from smoking too much. Same can be said of heavy boozers, and a lot worse. There's also a law still on the boks in some parts of Canada, wherein an "innkeeper" has to provide food and lodging for the horse(s) of any guests staying the night. Do you think if I pull in to a Ramada Inn tomorrow on a horse, that they'll provide it with such amenities??? No?? Why not??? If they don't they're breaking the law, aren't they??? That's the kind of thing I mean. Stupid or outdated laws. In large part, I agree with this statement. Which streets??? In my town, I feel perfectly safe on the streets any time of day or night, alone, or with company. I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, if I know for a fact, having seen with my own eyes, someone commit a murder, then I'm all for frying him. But our court system has made mistakes. Look at Guy Paul Moran, or David Milgard. Both these men convicted, and put behind bars for years, even decades, but eventually being exonerated as new evidence arose. Given a death penalty, both of these men would have fried. As it is, they've had half their lives stolen from them. You can't exactly pick up where you left off in society after being locked away for 20 years. If our legal system executes even one inoocent man, then how does that make the system better than the criminals it is trying??? Agreed. In addition, convicts of this nature should be made to do assembly-line work or something similar to pay the expenses for the facility they're in. I resent having my tax money paying for a private resort so that these guys can have satellite tv, and a billiards room, etc etc. I agree in part. It's a good idea to have firearms registered, but that will not keep weapons out of criminal hands. Guns are simply too abundant and easily moved. The registry, as it was conceived and set up, is a waste of resources, and has done little good. Is there ever anyone home there??? Maybe they all went out because they were afraid of being buglarized.

And whats to say they won't be replaced by Crack houses and meth labs? Yet another perennial argument. Here's one reason; most regular users of pot recognize the fact that it's a lot less harmful than alcohol. And LOTS less harmful than crack, meth, heroin, cocaine, opium etc etc etc. So, many people use the "it'll lead to harder drugs" argument. Have you ever considered that if pot were legalized, then a large number of people might opt for the "safe" drug vs the illegal "dangerous" drugs??? Also, kids are a lot smarter than they were in times past. They are smart enough to realize they are being lied to about pot. Many take this into consideration, and their reasoning goes along the lines of "They're lying to us about pot being harmful, what reason do we have to believe crack is harmful" and so on. "The boy who cried wolf" syndrome, only the government is the boy who no one believes. Sure, some people would try replace grow-ops with other sources of illegal revenue. But to make money, you need buyers. Educate the public, rather than lie to them. BTW, the Canadian Farmers Almanac lists Amanita Muscaria as a deadly-poisonous mushroom. (Amanita Nervosa is deadly). More propaganda. If it was that toxic, I and several friends would have been dead in the late 70's. It's simply a very mild form of "magic" mushroom. I have eaten up to 1/4 lb in a single sitting. Toxic??? Not at all. Perhaps the goverment simply perpetuates this myth because, unlike the far more rare psilocybin mushroom, amanita muscaria can be found growing almost anywhere. Can't have the public knowing that the mushroom they just walked past can get them stoned now, can we??? Educate people, rather than giving them hogwash, then they can make intelligent choices based on real information, rather than ill choices based on incomplete knowledge fueled by falsified statements.

Bollocks. Parents always have say. If they have raised the kid well, then only in the rarest of cases will the kid turn into the kind of rabid freak that you seem to think society will degenerate into. Kids have been having intercourse at 14 and younger for millenia untold. Just a couple hundred years back, a girl of fifteen would be considered an "older" bride. Back in those days, a single woman of 20 would have slim hope of ever finding a husband. She'd be looked upon as a spinster. When the biological clock clicks on, then the sexual urges take over, and the hormones start singing. Legislating laws on sex, excepting rape laws, are as stupid a thing as man has ever considered. Do a Google search on sex laws, and you'll see what I mean.

*sigh* One of the things I enjoyed most when I first came to this website was the minimal left vs right partisan bickering. Issues were debated. Legitimacy of political allegiance was not. Flaming and petty name-calling was rare. It was a refreshing change from the American political forums I had frequented the past few years. Alas, but it seems this forum too is slowly sliding into nonsenicle, partisan one-upmanship. Fortunately, a few, but only a very few, have actually contributed something of value to this thread. The rest has been partisan childishness. I've stayed out up until now because I had nothing of value to add. Now I do..... Get a life, people. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal. There's nothing wrong with being non-affiliated. If all you want to do is sit around saying "you suck because you're (fill in party name here)", then go back to the playground because it all just sounds like a bunch of bratty kids.

Men and women both have biological instincts, as much as we may like to think we are creatures of logic. When you consider that the social order, vis-a-vis men and women, went virtually unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, and that any significant changes have only begun to take place in this past century or two, I'd say we're doing pretty good. Rome wasn't burned in a day, but several brassieres were

The preceding three posts are the most sensible things I've seen in this thread. 'DOG and SHAKEY, good job. As I inferred in my first post in this thread, there doesn't exist in North America a single, truly, completely unbiased source of news. IMHO the CBC is worse than few, and better than most. I've seen and heard them totally slam the Liberal government. I've heard CBC radio give extensive air time to Conservatives of various stripes, and conduct these interviews fairly and respectfully. Editorial and opinion pieces aside, I think their news REPORTING is at least as good, and as balanced, as that of any other source.