meazza

Not here. The night life here is among the top in North America.

I have friends that are bartenders and usually, on a good weekend, a good looking girl in a club will take home about 600-800 in tip money. That's for working from 10-11PM to 3 AM serving drinks. Roughly 100$ an hour to serve drinks in a nightclub. After the chicks worked about 50 hours, she's paid off her boobjob and is making 4 times what I make without somewhat of a high school degree. And the way they talk, it's as if they're entitled to it. Obviously i try to stay within the norm since I like to get served my drinks but it's just ridiculous. In Europe, most places, it's included in the bill.

The American Public will never truly understand that they basically got to buy assets at a bargain. Of course will those profits be used to pay back the debt????????

So will Congress pay themselves nice bonuses

Delivery guy will usually get 3$ from me. Tipping at pickup = 0. If it's a trendy place I'll give between 2-3$ a round.

I think it's a good law because the average person doesn't seem to have the logic to concentrate on more than one thing at once. But answer this, driving with a handsfree device or with a phone in your hand. What is the difference. The problem is that people get deep into the conversation and forget that they're driving. That won't change if you're on speakerphone or if the phones glued to your ear.

Looks like Canada Russia Wednesday. Will be huge!!

I work in Hedge Fund Accounting and our clients with the best YTD performance are the managers dumping their assets in distressed debt. The payoff has been insane.

The new Mercedes GL 550 that my brother owns has the most complicated transmission I've ever seen. I have absolutely no clue how you would put it in neutral. That's why I drive a manual transmission. Less chance of it breaking down. The whole driving while talking on the cell phone is another ridiculous problem. I personally talk on the phone while driving but I maintain awareness around me. Other people zone out as if all of a sudden they're on another planet. The new law here says you have to be using a handsfree device. So tell me, if you're so stupid that you can't drive while holding a phone to your ear and remember that you're driving and have to be careful, WTF is handsfree going to change?

That make me wonder why people defend the criminal justice system. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100223/...n_killed_review Even if this guy was in a psychotic state, he clearly is not human. To me someone who could do this other people even in a screwed up state of mind were not meant to live in a normal society.

I didn't do any research so excuse my ignorance but if the accelerator is stuck... why wouldn't one just slap it in neutral and rip the hand brake?

You know I live in a country where Government controls everything and let me tell you, it's great. I pay over 40% of my income to taxes and that doesn't include 14.5% sales tax, tax on alcohol, tax on gas, tax on lap dances, everything. Take my word for it, the less the better. The only thing I believe all people should have access to is basic health care and education. Obviously this differs from the points of view of many on this board but that's just my opinion.

I'm a Canuck. All we watch is hockey and curling here.

Actually as I have already stated, I owned a Caravan and Neon, and now I own a 2000 Civic. So far, the amount of money I've had to drop on repairing those two pieces of junk before finally selling them off at a significant discount makes anything Toyota has done look like impeccable quality.

I used the incorrect wording. Obviously every car company has recalls. I must have missed it on the front page of ever major newspaper.

No but they did before. They went bankrupt remember? That more than shows what a terrible product they were putting out there. Clearly you don't see that the Detroit lobbyists are using this to get everyone to stop buying Toyota's. If all recalls were as publicized as this one, no one would ever drive a car. That's what I'm trying to make you realize.

Obviously they are at fault. I never said that they weren't. All I'm implying is that it is more than obvious that the US Gov't will use this to push their product, their product being the car companies they owned. What annoys me is that it is a double standard. If GM would have produced car needed for recall, it would have been swept under the rug.

How will you get proof of this? So because a company has a strong image and produces quality cars, you need to bring them down when something goes wrong??? Seriously, do you listen to yourself sometimes? All car companies have produced crap, whether it be Mercedes, Ferrari or any other car company. It's virtually impossible to produce a car and be able to 100% guarantee that there are no flaws or defects. There's only so much testing that can be done.

Stats wise, they are similar although one can argue that Luongo has a better team in front of him. Lifetime I'd say Roberto has been better though. See stats below. http://canucks.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8466141 http://sabres.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8468011

Brodeur already has a gold medal. Luongo might already want it more. Both though are elite goalies that would start for any country or any team. Therefore, might not make a big difference.

I read the same article a few days ago. I agree but I find that the judges are pretty consistent. I was watching Aerial Ski Jumping and the judges remained pretty consistent. If they were harsh, it was across the board and not necessarily against one jumper.

This is one of the biggest issues I have with the NHL. I don't understand how the NHL doesn't realize they are completely clueless on the handling of each case.

If that's not the argument, then you've been asleep the entire time. Yes I understand that it spins off into, "is anything sacred" with respect to jokes but the topic started because of that and your stupid comment.

No disrespect for Marty. Regardless, he has his medal. Time for the hometown boy to take the gold.

The argument isn't "should Palin be upset". The argument is, "does Palin have the right to be upset." See the difference? If you don't, then you have a long way to go before ever even knowing the definition of the word "enlighten".