Richards

Fair enough. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

As soon as they are willing to hold people from those neighborhoods responsible for their actions, instead of feeling sorry for them, and coming up with all kinds of excuses for their behaviour, and all kinds of weak laws that allow the thugs to feel untouchable we might see some change. For example, up here in Canuckistan, our new "law and order" prime minister who was voted in partly because of his stance on tougher sentencing, faced hostility (and potential lost votes) from special interest groups on his desire to actually hold thugs accountable for their actions. As a result he still passed a law (so he wouldn't get accused of flip-flopping), but he made it so weak that the mothers of thugs will not be turned off of voting for him. Basically the new law calls for a mandatory prison sentence (no specifics on how long that mandatory sentence must be) when a person is convictd of his 13th gun crime. 13th gun crime!!!! What, after 12 gun crimes we are not sure that jail might be the answer? All those thugmonkeys who were afraid that the party was over with the election of this guy are laughing again. They still own the street because he lacked the balls to take it back from them and hand it to real citizens, like he promised. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Sounds rough. Have you been working with his teachers regularly? Maybe constant communication and feedback between you and them might help. Also have you considered counselling? Sorry if you have already thought of this and my comments are redundant. Anyway, good luck. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Uhm....spraypainting your parents house is not minor. If this is not stopped now it will only get worse. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Why is it that I detect on this thread a sense of contempt/hostility toward christians? I personally don't care because I am one of those who are not sure about religion (I think we are called agnostics but I am not sure). If you don't beleive, then don't beleive. Why force non-beleif down the throats of beleivers, or try to frustrate them in thier beleifs (unless they are knocking on your door trying to shove their beleifs down your throat)? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

They know better than to bite the hand that feeds them. It would not break my heart if every-one of these street "gangstas" was found face down with a pool of blood around their heads. But seriously. Every one of these "lets disarm society" type politicians should be forced to take a route through a bad neighborhood every night (partly via transit and partly via walking), without any security. It would be interesting to see how long their high and mighty "no-one needs a gun" attitude will last. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I hate to generalise but when I see someone who lives in a really well-to-do neighbohood (like a politician) dictating to the rest of us who wish we could afford to live in a neighborhood as safe as his that we do not need guns because he can walk through his neighborhood without needing one it rather upsets me. Yes I know there are people in poorer neighborhoods who also are against gun ownership, but on average I find that people who live near reality tend to see reality a bit better than those who live in politician-ville, at least with respect to crime. Perhaps all the politicians who propose disarming citizens should show how safe they truly feel the world is and stop having security personell around them when they go in public. Maybe if the rest of these guys had to experience the teror of being helpless in he presence of a violent thugmonkey, they might not be so quick to dis-arm. They might also take a stronger stance on sentencing violent criminals (even at the risk of a few votes). My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

That is a fine sentiment, and it is in the best interest of all jumpers to reinforce that idea, but please do not make it mandatory. Allow adults to make decisions for themselves (particularly those who can barely afford to be in the sport and might be pushed out by the requirement of such an investment). My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

He used a poor choice of words, but I suspect he meant the preachy ones, not all reformed alcoholics. Like anything, people who have had a life changing experience can tend to preach about the subject. Ex smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics...etc. For example I find that people who hve been religious all their lives are usually OK, but often the ones who have lived an immoral life (what qualifies as immoral I don't know), and who then turn around an "find god" or become a "born again christian", sometimes never stop interjecting jesus into every second sentence. There is at least correlation even if it is unfair to smear the whole group. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

You know, I hadn't even thought about the issue, but I always did want a dog (I would have had him nuetered). But now that you have brought this to my attention I will take a look at the animal shelter instead of a breeder when I go for a pooch. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

...Because I'm not the type to do that anyway (I was just venting). I will however highly protect myself or property if threatened with equal or lesser force if endangered I agree with you on wanting to see this guy get whats coming to him and I completely respect your right to defend yourself. Unfortunately the law leans toward bad guys and many honest people who have acted in what appeared to be justifiable self defence have found themselves in front of a judge. Remember criminals are "misunderstood victims", and anyone who god-forbid uses force on a criminal to protect themselves, ends up being painted as the bad guy. That is why I am very carefull to not ever say anything that could come back to haunt me. Since I sympathised with your frustration at having had your home violated and your valuables taken, I just didn't want to see you end up also having to pay out a huge lawsuit to this scum because of sinple venting on a discussion board. If he breaks into your home and you react in genuine fear causing him bodily harm, a jury may then have to decide whether or not they felt you acted in fear or out of malice. You don't want a quote like that being brought up by his lawyer, since they might not beleive you were just venting. Best of luck, and maybe this guy will get plugged by some other home owner and save you the trouble. Cheers My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I'm not a lawyer but if you plan on Bernard Goetze-ing the guy, is it in your best interest to have a quote like "he will find them in his body next time" on a dicussion forum? Hard to say to a jury that it was not malisciously planned. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Fuck with the population of a predator and be overrun by their prey. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

It's not so much about saving him from himself, but saving other people from him. But where does that stop? Do you have to stop serving everyone who is over the limit regardless of whether or not you know they are driving? You would have to stop everyone who has drunk enough to be over .08 (about 2-3 drinks), since they might be driving. I tend to agree that a bar owner (or server) should have no legal responsibility for a drunk driver, but they do have somewhat of a moral responsibility. Continuing to serve drinks to someone who is obviously drunk, just so that you can put more $$ in your pocket, is aiding in whatever the drunk person may end up doing. Alcohol is a pretty strong mind-altering drug, so after a certain point a person starts having less and less control over what they are doing. Yes, the person who is drinking should know better than to ever get to that point. But the server who continues to offer and bring more and more drinks is aiding in or even encouraging this behavior. Yes and no. Again if the person is so severely intoxicated where you clearly think that this person does not even have a clue who or where he is, then yes a moral responsibility does exist, but legal responsibility is questionable. Again the guy who is severely drunk may be walking home or taking a cab. If I was cut off every time I was drunk I would never waste the effort of going to bars. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

OK. If someone who is falling over drunk walks into a bar and states "I intend to drive drunk tonight but I am still sober enough where I might not cause an accident, so keep serving up tequila shooters until we know for a fact that I am going to kill someone", and the bartender follows those orders knowing the mans intent then fine. Most bartenders are not aware of the intentions of a patron nor are they aware of whether or not they are even driving. Walk into any bar and at least half of the patrons are over the limit. Most nightclubs have their patrons leaving in a state of complete inebriation. That's a lot of lawsuits. Expecting the bartender to stop him after he has passed the .08 blood alcohol limit (about 2 drinks?) on the presumption that he will go out and drive, would be like a gun store owner looking at a man trying to buy 45 caliber rounds in the same apparent mental state and under the same conditions as at least 50% of all other customers, and going " Gosh, maybe this guys wife just slept around, and he is enraged and going to go shoot her and the boyfreind so I better not sell him any ammo" and then refusing the sale. Again though, most patrons in a bar are not in any position to drive (you may feel OK but you are probably over the limit if you have had even a few drinks). The bartender cannot do his/her job and simultaneously keep tabs on the transportation intentions of his/her patrons. As for inebriation, I have never in my life felt that alcohol impaired my ability to differentiate between right and wrong. It impaired my level of inhibition, my reaction time and my ability to interpret my surroundings but I have never in my life been too drunk to realize that I was in no state to drive. I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the drunk's responsibility, but only in rare circumstances could I hold the bartender responsible. While the patron is drunk you do not know he intends to drive. If you see him pull up almost causing an accident, see him pile out of his vehicle barely able to stand and reeking of alcohol, and stating to a freind " no-one tells me I'm too drunk to drive" then yes you probably have clear reason to beleive that with more drinks in him he will still drive and should not be serving up lines of shooters. But again since most patrons in any bar are a bit over the limit and many are simply boozed-up, a bartender cannot normally play babysitter. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I have never understood the rational of legal obligation to "save him from himself". It makes no sense that a bar owner should be responsible for a drunk driver. Nor does it make sense that if I throw a party at my house I should be responsible for someone driving drunk. Our society would function much smoother if reponsibility was limitted to wrongdoers. I will go out on a limb and suggest that maybe, just maybe people might develop a sense of personal responibility and think for themselves if by some miracle the courts stopped the buck at the wrongdoer rather than perpetuating our culture of victimhood by holding the entire world responsible for every darwin nominee. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I am not sure what to think. If Iraq falls to complete shit, then it is not Bush that pays the ultimate price, so I hope that the UN's reaction to this will be based on the situation rather than a desire to see Bush eat crow. Let the history books feed him crow, rather than further humanitarian disaster if it is at all avoidable. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Clap clap clap. Let me know when you finish reading the book. Always a pleasure to engage in intellectually stimulating conversation with interesting individuals like yourself who provide such compelling counterarguments. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

What advantages? There you go again. You know nothing about me yet presume to lump me in with protectionists fearfull of competition simply because I dare have an opinion that differs from yours. I have argued against protectionist policies that prevent skilled immigrants from making a relatively seamless transition into their feild upon moving here as this mitigates any gains to be had by skilled immigration. I am also not anti-immigrant yet you presume to imply that I am simply because I make the distinction between legal vs illegal immigrants. I believe immigration laws should be adhered to and will not apologise for that, nor will I be put on the defensive by those who will play the race card just because I do not blindly accept something that is wrong in the name of political corectness. Again this is a weak straw man argument based on hysteria rather than sound reason. I am not sure where you are getting this. When you are working illegally you are not paying taxes, you are undercutting the labour market, and utilizing social services which you are not paying for (since you are not paying taxes). Even most pro-immigration economists acknowledge this fact. But if more people are using it than are paying taxes then there is a net loss. This is compounded by the fact that they displace domestic workers who then add to the problem by utilizing services at a higher rate (while not paying taxes since they are unemployed). Enormous? So enormous that we can't even afford minimum wage and thus require illegal labour? Doesn't sound like enormous demand. Not very often. I do not like TV. Again I think we are looking at starkly different studies. In Canada (which I suspect is rather similar to America economically speaking), with the exception of the oilsands in Alberta where they require a large influx of labour, all of our expected growth is in high tech, communications etc. This is reflected in the fact that so many youth simply have no choice but to seek post secondary education lest they face intermitent employment at low wage the rest of their lives. Hell even an undergrad degree is often not enough these days. Again you have not backed this up with an argument as to why you say this. How is our policy racist (be specific)? I realise that if I wanted to paint my face and go on a rent-a-crowd protest screaming something for dramatic effect your comment would sound very cool but it is unstantiated. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I agree and disagree with your disagreement with his disagreement. Yes there may be a requirement to adapt the pace to the class, sometimes and therefore remedial will be required. That said there still is a requirement to meet a certain standard by the end of the semester and therefore in grade 11 math you cannot spend the entire year reviewing grade 9 and 10 without really getting into any grade 11 math material (and sometimes you can face a class where that appears to be required). If you do that then you clearly will not be teaching them much math 11 and therefore should not be giving them a credit in math 11 since that would mean passing them (and the problem you inherited from the prior instructor) onto the math 12 teacher for him to either fail them or hold them to a lower standard. I do agree that apathetic teachers should be shown the door, but sometimes students are missing too much critical background to manage the pace of a specific course. Offer remedial yes but at some point you have to test at the required standard. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Thank you, Cheers My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

what happens when protest is outlawed? Then it is outlawed. For the time being it is not outlawed. We do not live under a tyranical regime, so as with any democracy we have to accept that we may not always be happy with the laws, but we have to abide by them. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Wrong, and wrong. First the distinction is not arbitrary. One category have applied through the legal channels and met the criteria to immigrate by demonstrating they have the skillsets to complement the US job market with a positive net effect. The other for some reason or another have elected to skip applying through the appropriate channels, which begs the question about their suitability for immigration in the first place. Therefore it is of the utmost relevance to the discussion. You are refering to an era that had no economic similarity to now. During America's formative years there was uncharted plains to be traveled and mapped, arable land to be farmed, trapping etc, and general grunt labour work that required a small mind without education. We needed people who could work lumber, farmhands, railway workers, cattle runners, builders, gunsmiths, fishermen, blacksmiths...etc. The skillsets required then did not include any real education, therefore there was no real need for a criteria. It would make sense that there was no real distinction then. We also did not have a large social service/welfare system at the time so those who did come would have a plan to make it on their own without using up resources, or find their way back home if things did not pan out here. This is not the case today. Today we need human intellectual capital, not old labour skills. The argument that they will do the work that americans will not do does not hold water, because I (and many people I know) have done many of those jobs that apparently us soft lazy americans/canadians refuse to do. These guys simply have a lower reservation wage (by a wide margin). If the output of such jobs (say manufacturing) do not justify paying at least minimum wage then the argument one of efficiency. By utilizing large amounts illegal labour to do jobs that are not worth paying american workers, outdated processes are kept alive longer than industrial evolution would dictate because firms have little or no incentive to invest in R&D to find better ways of doing things with fewer people, thus holding us back so we remain a labour intensive economy rather than evolving into a capital based economy. Do you just say this stuff because it sounds inflamatory? How on earth can seeking to ensure that immigration policies are adhered to make one anti-immigrant? Or is that simply the generic straw-man response to anyone who criticizes the current state of affairs? You argument makes no sense. Making a polarized argument like that, stating that anyone who does not blindly submit to one side of an agenda clearly must be on the other side reminds me of that public figure who stated back in 2001 that anyone who did not jump on board with his agenda was clearly "with the terrorists". It blindly ignores any other grey areas, and simplifies things into good vs bad. I'm all ears. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I find it really irritating when they do that camera trick where the action scene is reversed and replayed 3-4 times in rapid succession. If what they are showing is really that exciting they don't need to do funny camera tricks. At the very least let it play once through and save the camera tricks for replays. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.