cannuck

So, your solution is to do nothing and allow our government to continue to roll out the welcome mat and facilitate ongoing funding of terrorism?

The idiots are essentially brain dead. It is not as if everyone is going to stop driving their cars, buying things made of plastic, flying airplanes, paving roads, etc. So, the oil is going to be shipped, somewhere. Instead of using pipelines with fantastic safety records, the oil will get tidewater in rail cars - a shipping method with a horrible statistical safety record.

CSIS is there to know WHO is hating, the RCMP are supposed to be there to stop them from carrying out the hateful acts that CSIS is supposed to predict. Reality is: take away the hate (or more to the point send it home) and you take away the mechanism that drives the act(s). Sunny Ways gets the latter part 100% backwards.

In fact there IS a risk to yourself or any other Canadian dying as either a direct target of hate crime or as collateral damage. Radical Islam is but one of many possible sources. If you want predictability, I suppose you could join the social media circles of radicalized muslims, skinheads, aboriginals, you-name-it. Fortunately, we pay RCMP and CSIS to do just that.

Yeah, and they kind of glossed over all of those French Catholics who came here before the slimey lymies.

Lord Selkirk was indeed from Scotland. Selkirk is in MB, where one can find Selkirk's fort and trading post, but the settlers spread downriver to St. Andrews, where that arm of my wife's family is buried. Under the rules of the Anglican Church of Canada, only three things qualify one as "Canadian" nationality - your paternal decendance being from a United Empire Loyalist, Red River Settler (Selkirk's lot) or being aboriginal. Obviously, the Church of England did not seem to be aware of the Jay Treaty.

Since my wife is a direct decendent of Selkirk settlers, and is also eligible for first nations status, I guess you are right. Would you please call up Jame Richardson and tell him to get his ass out of my building. BTW: using your logic, how many aboriginals today are 300 years old? Of course I was being fecetious about land registration. A society with no sophistication and no written language was really not going to do that. As others have pointed out, their respect for property rights and human life was that when they wanted to go someplace, but someone else was already there, they simply killed them. To that standard, they should be in everlasting state of gratitude we did not do what the yanks tried to do and simply wipe them out. The land DOES belong to them - as Canadian citizens they should share in all crown land and the benefits from same. The concept of having hundreds of "sovereign nations" within our country is ludicrous and unworkable.

"Theft" is only theft if you "own" something. Can you show me the registered title deed for what was "stolen"? If merely being somewhere is what it takes to own something, I was once standing at the corner of Portage and Main in Winnipeg, so I guess it's mine?

You are referring to a very small percentage of the population, who are of course supported by our taxes. It is the perfectly able bodied and minded who have no ambition other than to work at menial jobs and bitch about how those they envy are so "fortunate". Fortunate my ass! EVERYONE was able to benefit by the "help" of the clerks, barbers, teachers, etc. - it is just a matter of what you DID with what you learned or the services you received from them. AND, those weren't gifts, they were paid. I can guarantee you no school teach from pre-school to grad school puts in anywhere near the hours and efforts that any of the millenials I menition above do every day. Also worth noting that a teaching in ON schools can earn just shy of a hundred Gs. I am not grateful for their success. Nobody other than my wife gave it to them. They worked and continue to work extremely hard for it. Oh, and for the record: I have only had a "job" for two years since my teens, and in those two years I also opened two businesses. I left that job when I was not successful at getting the administrative staff in jail for skimming from our employer.

Can you spell taking the effort and cost to get an appropriate education, making the sacrifice to work you ass off and doing things that others don't have the balls to do? Three of my four millenials earn well into 6 figures but that means 4, 6 and 9 years at University and an average of over two jobs (4rth spent 12 years at U, but keeps only 3 part time jobs now as she wants to be home raising her kids). In that count are 5 jobs that would likely not want to and/or be able to do. The millenials I work with are all making that kind of money in their second year out of school, but will spend many, many days a long way from home working very long hours to earn it. You would simply dismiss them as ENTITLED!!...Well, I guess I have to agree with you. I feel they are very much entitled to both the money they earn and should be able to have the voting power to offset those who simply don't care to be bothered to earn the cash. You see, ANYONE can earn a hundred grand a year. You just have to be prepared to work for it. If you are not, you should have no right to bitch about those who do and sure as hell you should not be entitled to penalize them for their hard work and success by charging them tax at a higher rate. As I have clearly stated many times: I do NOT extend such support to money not earned, but merely re-distributed from speculative gains.

Correct question, which I thought I had made very clear above. Speculative gains are not money that was "earned", it is merely wealth being re-distributed. The shift to the Casino Capitalist economy has resulted in a flight of capital from investing on Main Street - where all wealth is created - to Wall Street. Worse yet, the free ride on the taxpayer's back (i.e. ability to inflate M1 from speculative gains) has promoted new schemes to skim and scam on a scale never before imagined or possible (think of the derrivatives game - nothing but a bet on a bet - but exposure of as much as 20x WORLD GDP from the top 5 houses in Manhattan alone). And, yes, taxing someone's income at a higher rate because they have done more or better work is indeed a penalty on success.

The purpose of the tax code should not be to penalize one's success and reward someone else's lack of ambition, skill or even luck. Were we to use a bit of common sense and intelligent planning, taxation that rewards productive endeavour can increase total income to government to deliver social services. The tax code SHOULD be used to stop predatory speculative activity, but if that drives investment into the productive economy and one is then punished for creating wealth, we are no better off.

To be in power at the very top level within government, you need to have earned your way up through the Communist Party. Provinces and even cities have tremendous amounts of autonomy between planning periods, and that is where business is more likely to have some influence. Those relationships are extremely complex and well outside of the scope of the thread, so I'll just leave them (I have had offices there since mid '90s and even after 20 years, much of it is still a mystery to me). BUT, to your point: our system of government is so different from China, we could never get into quite that peculiar form of government (although if you recall, the PM on either side of Joe Clark was a card carrying Communist bent on doing just that to Canada). When it comes to proportional representation, as I have proposed give one vote to everyone at birth, and let their parents cast it until the child is no longer dependent. BUT: pay significantly more into the system, and give some increments of something in single digit multiples based on earnings. Now, THAT is where the tax system needs to step in. Flat tax is anything but unreasonable - it is the 100% fair way to tax income EARNED by productive endeavor (to note your point - many people move to small business to seek some tax fairness - and corporate tax is essentially flat tax). Where I differ with the status quo dramatically is that people who have merely benefited from wealth re-distribution deserve no such treatment. If that means a dependent adult living of the largess of the state, cap their voting authority. By the same token, people who's income (or the proportion of income) that comes from speculative gain should be subject to extreme taxation, graduated similar to 99% day one, 95% year one and tapering off over time at 5% a year until reaching the nominal (flat) tax rate for income. Bay Street (and Wall Street) income is almost totally derived from nothing but speculation, and casino capitalism is what will destroy our economy (and what left the hole wide open for China to pour the products into our market). To summarize, give extra vote based on tax at some incremental levels of just off the cuff $30k tax (at each level, fed and prov) up to maybe 5x votes at $150k - of EARNED income (from creating wealth) or I suppose even to include post tax speculative income. Basic annual income? You are going to think because my political beliefs are somewhere right of Genghis Khan I would be vehemently opposed - and you would be wrong (I am being presumptious here, so forgive me if that is not the case). There is simply so such thing as government without some kind of social programmes, and we really need to take a hard look at what those are and how they should be delivered. As it stands, we build an elaborate network of bureaucrats as gatekeepers to dispense privilege of access to the public purse. That is not IMHO in any way fair - or efficient. #1 is to get out of the way the simple concept that medicine is a social service and NOT a business. At least medical insurance, and to some extent service delivery. Much of the rest of social services could be eliminated by simply firing 99% of the bureaucrats and choosing a basic annual income level and cutting that cheque to EVERY Canadian. No more treaty BS, no more UIC, no more worker's comp, no more welfare no need for pensions. After that, flat tax EVERY dollar and balance EVERY budget (so flat tax out of every working person's pocket directly relfects what the current government is doing). You don't need a wage cap (and really don't want one) as the capital gains tax would fix the casino capitalist economy and drive almost all investment into productive business - that actually creates wealth.

I know a fair number of "high net worth" individuals, and the thought of "low and middle classes" revolting has never been part of any conversation. Revolutions happen when people can't eat or be free, not when they are simply envious of people who are more fortunate or more capable. The "low class" in Canada would be aristocracy in much of this world. You don't have China right at all. It is not wealthy people who rule the country, it is many people who rule the country that have become wealthy by abusing their power and granting themselves the privilege of skimming from the companies - most of which are partly or wholly owned by the government or from private companies who need to "cough up". Wealthy business people are only friends of government if they are paying their bribes as required. Considering that the rank and file of China were starving to death a few decades ago, and just entered the real world of working for businesses they seem to be enjoying a level of wealth, freedom and liesure unthinkable under the Maoist version of communism. The didn't get to be the second largest economy in the world and the largest automobile market in under 30 years from nothing by being too poor to buy things. You did get the "progressive" taxation thing right, though. It is the penalty for success - and one of the things that stunts the economic growth of the nation. That said: I can guarantee you NOBODY in this country wants to have a low paying job to avoid paying more tax. Taxation IS by far the most powerful influence on human FINANCIAL behaviour, but that simply does not translate into demanding to work for less to pay less.

You tried something like that in 1812, you lost. The US Constitution and Joe Kennedy.,

Sorry I had not read your post before I commented based on one several pages back. The way the 2nd amendment was meant to work was exactly as you said - as the citizen army could realistically posses and equivalent infantry firepower to a government of the day. If those same militia were to resemble a modern force, it would artillary, air resources, a navy - all things that could NOT be secreted away and would be easy targets for an invader or totalitarian dictator. I have a business in WY run by one of my closest friends of many decades. The largest ante-room in his homes are inevitably the loading room. He is also the state and often regional senior trap champ, but is hardly an outlier. We have clients all over the US, and West of the Miss up to the Rocks is near 100% 2nd amendment country in my experience. I also am involved with two businesses in NY, one in the city and one up in Westchester County. BOTH are run by patriotic Americans, but none of our executives own a firearm in spite of one being deeply involved with DoD. Even up here in socialist Canuckistan, one of my sons-in-law has quite an arsenal and loads (infantry officer) handgun and long guns for himself and my daughter. I think I have two points to make. First, is the attitudes to gun control and gun registry in the US are not that much different North of 49 - inasmuch as they are very much demographic in distribution. Rural areas one way, urban exactly the opposite. The wild card is US urbanites who come from a far more militaristic upbringing cling to the second amendment, waving the flag strictly to suit their personal adherence to a cultural construct. One that IMHO, is no longer valid. The second is just that: the idea of a citizen militia being able to overpower a state sponsored force armed with much greater firepower and with virtually unlimited resources is strategically and tactically naive. Then again, look at Afgan, Iraq, etc. where the ragtag band of citizen armies have been able to resist the US and UN forces for more than 15 years - something neither Germany or Japan were able to manage in the last century. I guess the answer is you need to either scrap the second - or arm the citizens with equivalent weapons. One option would be to have a totally separate reserve force who's command is only given to national forces at the will of the regional commands - who would answer only to the local citizens. However, to your statement: there would still be a United States without guns. It would simply adapt and get on with life.

Now I know you live about 50 minutes outside of town. I find it sad that Canadians cannot appreciate that the second amendment was perfectly reasonable when militia may have been needed to protect the people from their own or other governments. I also find it sad that it has been rigidly interpreted today to suit the gun lobby. I see nothing wrong with demanding some pretty strong background checks before granting some kind of licence to procure - but I also realize that gives the government some kind of record as to WHO is potentially armed - defeating the purpose of the second altogether. Since everything on the interwebs has to be about Hitler: I believe one of the things he did was have all private weapons seized at some point. All above considered: I think prohibitions on ownership could be expanded without compromising the intent of the amendment. I also reject the "criminals" argument as a red herring, as it is true, but not terribly relevant. The second amendment is not about protecting citizens from other citizens, it is about protecting the country from government.

Dividends and capital gains are the opposite of each other in so many ways. A capital gain adds no value, creates no wealth. All it does if to force an immediate or latent inflationary increase to the money supply. Money taken through capital gains are no different from welfare - except one hell of a lot more damaging. Since the money supply is a liability to EVERY citizen, the cost of a capital gain is thus passed directly back to every citizen. A dividend should be distributed from the net after tax profits of any company without any further taxation. That part many governments get right. To stop those dividends from being paid on speculative gain, you just tax the shit out of capital gains. Without the free ride of Wall Street/Bay Street on the taxpayers' backs, investment is then going to go to Main Street where it can be productive and add value. "Progressive" taxation is a penalty on success. IF you fix the capital gains BS, and the way to earn money is to add value, create wealth, not merely re-distribute it. I believe that the bottom of the income spectrum should be tax free (and vote free) for something that represents "the poverty line" and then pay a flat tax for every penny thereafter, earn their right to vote. Start earning and paying tax on a considerably larger income - (remember: no tax on dividends and very unlikely much intentional tax from speculative gains) and then you can earn a right to another vote for let's say every $50k in tax paid. Now: add to that the end of deficit financing (flat tax rate determined by annual budget) and you could fix the problems of almost any economy overnight - and give "equitable democracy" to those carrying the load.

Income tax - that kids flipping burgers do not pay. As I said: when they are no longer dependents - THAT is when they should be able to vote their own number of votes (based on tax paid).

I think part of the problem with the liberal media and Trump is they all dream of sleeping with a porn star - Trump actually did/does it. They don't seem to understand that every time they parade her double Ds in front of the camera, every redneck in the country is thinking "The Donald is The Man". I can see a second term coming along nicely.

Climate Barbie and the wonderful sunny days team want to codify "indigenous knowledge:?????????????? Yeah, when the Vikings, then French and finally English got here, they found all of these universities, libraries, technological centers, etc. - this vast store of "indigenous knowledge". The aboriginal population has given so much knowledge to the world. Next thing you know Ralph Goodale will be proposing a bill to recognize that Plato, Euclid, Pythagoras, Davinci, Tessla, Einstein and Hawking will be officially declared Swamp Cree.

I can easily get on board with taxation determining voting count, but first one would have to radically overhaul how we do taxation. Stop the free ride for speculative gain - in fact tax the crap out of it - and give a flat rate to wealth that is created from productive activity. THEN you could apply tax contribution to value of a vote. regarding the quesiton of age: instead of giving a fixed age as the point of transition, simply give custodial parents the vote when a child is borne. Transfer it to them when their tax status is no longer dependant.

I have another word for him, but I can guarantee that would get me banned.

Being fully aware of his part in jailing Andy McMechan for something that was not a crime, I move him to one notch above the very bottom of the barrel of the worst of all Canadians, PET of course below that.