quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 thats YOUR opinion. As a rational person i think that line was crossed a long time ago. Others will say that the line is nowhere close to being drawn. This happens to be your line. And now maybe you understand my frustration. Or perhaps not.

well, we disagree then. nothing new

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So the rights of business owners of over 19 establishments (private property) and individuals who frequent them are not as important as those who have their homes paid for mainly by the government? How so? Just because they are poor they should have more rights? I am fully against this measure btw. I am just trying to to find your reasoning behind why one set of people have more right over their private property than others.

"private property" is not the issue. my office is private property...why can't I smoke at my desk? a classroom? school? TTC bus/platform?

private property can still be a public place. your home is not. your home enjoys a legal status that public places, including places of business do not.

if you disagree with that distinction, that's your problem...but legally, it exists.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 that was the idea but even back then government employees were on record stating the difference between facebook and other things like MSN. An aside: BY THE WAY... HAVING WORKED FOR THE CITY AND WITH THE POLICE OVER THE SUMMER I CAN TELL YOU THAT POLICE DO MONITOR SITES LIKE FACEBOOK AND TRANCE ADDICT TO GATHER EVIDENCE. POLICE CAN GET A WARRANT TO SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE BASED ON "CHATTER" FROM SITES LIKE THIS SO IN THE FUTURE BE SMARTER ABOUT WHAT GETS POSTED ON HERE

the point is you should be doing your job...not surfing the net or chatting with friends. wtf is the difference between facebook and MSN? for the VAST majority of gov't employees, Facebook access does not have ANYTHING to do with them performing their job.

hell, employers and even universities check things like Facebook and MySpace when people apply for jobs/admission. People should indeed be careful what they post online. I know of one case where a girl (underage) was expelled from a private high school for what was found on Facebook (drinking/pot), as it contravened their 'code of conduct'.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 you have no idea who you are talking about. This is the public sector we are talking about here... To get any sort of exemption would require tonnes of paperwork and about 2 weeks processing. By then your need for the application is probably long gone anyways.

I work for a direct subsidiary of one the big banks. I'm quite aware of what it means to work in a giant bureaucracy with tens of thousands of employees, where every little change has to go through committees, or be signed off by a stupid # of people, and can take days/weeks/months to actually get done

individual users have unique login access to whatever systems they use, so it's not any more complicated to action an exemption process that grants or denies access when they are initially setup. If someone's job description requires access later on, it might take a bit of time, but such is life in any massive organization.

I'm skeptical that an employee can't do their job at all because it takes a few days to grant them access to fucking Facebook or whatever other bullshit has been banned.

get real, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze Why don't we just ban every asian from driving

Fixed.

___________________
Buying trance is a lot like buying a car. Don`t buy American.

quote:

Ontario backs off restrictions for young drivers Dec 08, 2008 05:11 PM Keith Leslie THE CANADIAN PRESS Ontario's Liberal government put the brakes on proposed passenger restrictions for teenage drivers today after an online protest grew to nearly 150,000 members in just over two weeks, prompting the New Democrats to declare the climb down "a victory for democracy." Last month, the province introduced legislation designed to reduce the number of accidents involving young drivers by limiting drivers 19 and under with a G2 graduated licence to having only one teen passenger in the vehicle. The bill also included measures such as automatic licence suspensions for young drivers caught speeding and a zero blood-alcohol limit for all motorists aged 21 and under – but it was the passenger restrictions that prompted the biggest public outcry, and a huge protest on Facebook. Teens said it could virtually eliminate car pooling and make it hard for them to be designated drivers for friends who may be partying a little too much. Many young people responded quickly Monday to the government's change of heart. "They're saying, `Hey look, we listened and dropped the passenger restriction, now we've compromised and you can't complain about the rest of it'," Ivan Joukov of Kitchener, Ont., posted on Facebook. "It's a good start, but the other two provisions are still discriminatory and excessive." NDP critic Gilles Bisson said those who joined the Facebook protest and others who pushed the government to back down should be proud. "This is how democracy should work, where citizens have an opportunity to voice their pleasure or displeasure with legislation," said Bisson. "In this case, not only youth but people across this province thought this was an unreasonable proposition, and the government backed down." Transportation Minister Jim Bradley had tried defending the legislation by saying it simply extended existing passenger restrictions for G2 licences – currently between midnight and five a.m. – to all day, but admitted Monday he would have to withdraw that measure. "There have been concerns raised by members of this house and members of the government caucus, and members reflecting what they are hearing in their communities," Bradley told the legislature. The minister said there had been a lot of feedback, ``particularly, from rural and northern areas of the province," where public transit is scarce and long drives to school, work, church and shopping are the norm. The Opposition was pleased that Bradley acknowledged the public's concerns about the passenger restrictions and moved quickly to remove the part of the legislation that most upset young people. "I think that's a good forward step to take something that was clearly unworkable and had not been thought about by the government in advance to withdraw that provision," said Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory. Bisson said the huge public outcry over the proposed passenger restrictions could have been avoided if the government had simply done its homework and consulted people before introducing the legislation. "I think if they had done their work ahead of time, they would have found in rural and northern Ontario this doesn't sell at all," said Bisson. "Even in Toronto it doesn't sell. I spoke to more high school and college students that are mad about this, who said sometimes the car is the only way to go to get to school or hockey practice." The NDP believes the zero blood-alcohol limit for drivers under age 22 discriminates against young people, and he wants a committee studying the bill to consider whether the .08 blood alcohol limit should be reduced to .05 – or even zero – for drivers of all ages.

Praise the liberals! praise the liberals! lol.

This is not over. They can still discriminate against adults 21 and under. You get a speeding ticket they will take away your car on the spot. The cop is judge jury and executioner. Also zero alcohol 21 and under?? Last i checked the drinking age here was 19. Unless this is a precursor for an increased drinking age? They should just throw the entire bill out the window.