ToadMan

;) 5/10 for lens flare.

I only get clockwise...

Well there are certainly benign ways to end up with questionable material. While running a summer kids camp, doing a google image search (with safe search on) for "Sponge Bob" there was a picture of a topless girl who had sponge bob painted on her chest, on the first page. Though I doubt the ability of a children's site to accidentally link you to porn...

Doubtful

Schadenfreude and it's not an english word ;)

Saskatoon was rush, but printed seat numbers on the ticket. They meant nothing!

I'm still kicking around the idea of driving down to Regina to catch that show... I'll let you know if I am.

Is Saskatoon on the way from Dunnville to Guelph? ;)

Based on Matt's blog, I'm not so sure I would be proud of that.

It's only take 3 years for this bored to inherit that story. Thank you

Yes, yes you should. But this bored did go though a stage of rampant douchbaggery, so I don't blame you for being silent.

;) :angry: You know I hope that the employee sues the police if/when they are exonerated of the crime.

It's kinda fraudulent isn't it... I think that's the Rodchester Kings, so not really that related to MGB.

Oh crap, our position has been made! Though based on your join date, I would assume you have been reading for quite some time. I've got nothing else.

No, that's old news... the fucker didn't even bring a ring, what kind of proposal is that ;) (If you are a member, please note sarcasm),

Well that was interesting. I think that it's kinda glib on a few things, and also assumes a black and white solution. Though this may sound like sort of a flip flop: I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that either system is perfect. I would in fact like to see partial free market. In my experience Sask Health won't cover whatever I want, and my insurance has varying coverage on prescription drugs. When I need antibiotics my doctor gave my a choice between a generic drug (50% covered) with a 2 week treatment duration, or a new drug (which was 10% covered) with a 4 day treatment. As a micro example I think this isn't all bad. If you want the ritz you pay, if you just want the soup, it's affordable.

I don't know about earlier, but when I arrived it was hardly a protest. Just a few old guys sitting at some tables glaring at us.

So I have diligently waited for the fellow NF's that attended the Saskatoon show to start a thread. But the Winnipeg thread has arrived an we got missed. With all the church related controversy I would have expected more talk...

He's lying on account of the fact that the logical converse of "Everything I say is a lie" isn't "Everything I say is true" but rather "Some of the things I say are a lie". Hence the contradiction this calls on, that if he is lying then the converse cannot be true either is mitigated, and both statements are correct. That's my theory anyway.

or won even ;)

Well what a ball of wax. Did you know that Canadians had not guaranteed rights until 1982? all rights where merely extended by the state and could be revoked at anytime. I would love to have a debate about 'Right to entitlement' and other such topics, but this is hardly the place ;)

In preparing to post this I have completely reviewed your input to this thread, and realized that in some respects I have misinterpreted you. I do however think we differ on the same grounds. If you would care to review the post you were responding to, you will notice that I didn't use the work 'moral' until my statement 'I believe it is immoral'. Hence my rebuke to the fact you immediately accused me of it. I'm glad that we can agree that the dictionary is the only tool for defining words. However in this case, the dictionary definition is congruent with my understanding of the concept. I believe you are trying to make the point that taxation shouldn't include funding of social programs. But those social programs are provided as services of the government, and are therefor (by definition) part of taxation. So as promised. I unfortunately cannot find any numbers to answer this question. I would assert that given the cost of any major surgery in the US is on the order of $2-$3 thousand dollars (http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/factbk9/factbk9e.htm), and you will most likely need one of these surgeries in your life, then yes there is proportionality. Now it is not equal, but Americans pay taxes too, so all it has to be is proportional to the amount of your takes which are used to fund socialized health care. I can however see your point, which is (if I am correct) "Why should I pay into a fund I might not use, but somebody else might use a lot. Why don't we all just pay for our own bills." To which I can only offer, that such a system would leave people without care. I would like to apologize here, I had misinterpreted your example. I still don't agree on the basis that I don't think there is a strong parallel between a larger collection of money for basic care, vs you asking someone to take on the costs of what would be considered extended care. I think the response here would be linked to my previous. The grounds being that I won't pay for something that is elective, where as in the case of socialized health care, I am only paying for basic care. The assertion is that I care enough that everybody should get care, but not so much that everybody should get a free ride. Invariably socialized health care helps everybody equally, they don't ask for your income tax return before they tell you your bill. I'm not going to take time to re-read this monster, but I hope that I've been clear. I also hope that I've managed to tap into your view point, and that we are now addressing each other on a level of intelligence. My apologies again for not taking the time to clearly understand you earlier.

And at this point your argument lost all power. 1) I wasn't directly responding to you, nor did I at any point ridicule your use of the word moral 2) My rebuke to 'dental' is that it is irrelevant to the real issue that socialized health care is meant for 3) Third in an academic sense dictionary definitions are not valid citations. But to respond, I'm not interesting in what you are paying, I'm interested in you backing up the idea that your money is being used for something you don't agree with. That being that you must either prove that socialized health care is paying something you don't agree with, or admit that you don't agree with providing basic care to all people.

It strikes me that the grass is always greener. Further to that, please stop citing none sensical examples http://www.health.gov.sk.ca/services-not-covered, and http://hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/200...soinsbk4_e.html. FYI dental isn't covered in my province. I pay for additional coverage which covers costs such as vision, dental, prescription drugs not given in a hospital, and specialty health practitioners. Socialized health care isn't a free ride. It provides basic care to all people, nothing more. This means that if you are in a car accident, you will be treated; if you cut off your finger at work, you will be treated. It doesn't mean that everybody is going to see and physio for any ache or pain on the government ticket. So you can argue about 'moral' all you want. Fact is, I tend to believe it is immoral to deny basic care to anybody (rich, poor, yellow, or green). That is all socialized health care is about. If you want to present anymore ranting about what people are getting that you are paying for, which isn't basic care, then you better be willing to back it up with some kind of reputable citable source. And if you do think that only the wealthy deserve guaranteed basic care, then you should take a long hard look at yourself.

Ah, a Neo-Classical Liberal argument vs a Welfare Liberal argument. In terms of wait time: USA average wait time 3.7 hours (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44453.php) Canada average wait time ~51 minutes (http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_14sep2005_e) Though the data doesn't lend well to comparison. I'm a huge fan of socialized health care. It would suck if you got told that they won't treat you because your HMO doesn't cover xyz.