CPCFTW

Profitability is efficiency. I'm not sure what you're talking about.. Can you provide an example of inefficiency in the name of profit?

It's pretty simple why the cuts started now. The conservatives now have a majority and do not have to worry about being forced into an election.

Ftfy

Another trivial and boring thread courtesy of cybercomaweb.com

Not when the number of iterations of that individual's vote represents the number of constituencies in which the voters, for the most part, voted for that individual.

It makes sense for universities to charge more for employable degrees. It also makes sense for governments to subsidize those degrees more (and to stop subsidizing unemployable degrees in basket-weaving).

Poor you. We can't all make as compelling an argument as the genius known as Moonbox. Or perhaps your simple, infantile mind was unable to comprehend that the salient point of my analogy was breaking the law to obtain discretion, not the crime involved. The point is that you can't break the law for "discretion". But of course the genius known as Moonbox already knew that.

No you usually don't respond to me because you decided I was a "troll" for having a completely different opinion than you and expressing that opinion in a compelling, albeit frequently rude manner. I won't bother responding to your strawman arguments in this case anymore. We both know I never condoned violence against women, but you need to attack this "opinion" of mine to distract from your obvious hate-on for anything the cpc does. If anything, you are condoning violence against women by wanting to let criminals continue to be able to import women to be exploited. I didn't make that argument because my position can actually be defended without resorting to strawmans.

Weak. Prostitutes and strippers who want to break the law to maintain "discretion" are no longer victims. If I was convicted of rape then lied on a job application asking if I was ever convicted of a felony, I'm not a victim for lying to maintain "discretion". There's a stigma attached to working in those industries. If the women are not comfortable with that stigma, then they should look elsewhere for employment, not break the law and "work underground". But of course, women are always the victim in your eyes.

He's saying that strippers (the "victims") being here without work visas will be criminalized. Yes it will be illegal to come to Canada to strip. The women who still choose to accept being illegally smuggled into Canada so that they can illegally strip, are not victims. They made a decision to illegally break intto our country to take off their clothes for money. The victims here would be the women coming to legally strip and then being exploited for sex. Since there would no longer be a means to come to Canada legally to strip, there would be no more victims. Only women who chose a life of crime and got in too deep. A better analogy might be a cocaine dealer who came from Columbia to Canada to illegally sell cocaine because the profit margins are higher. They may be more likely to be a "victim" of violent crime in Canada with drugs being criminalized, but that isn't a reason to make cocaine legal and hand out work visas to columbian drug dealers. Logically, Columbian drug dealers do not seek out employment in illegal drug trade within Canada because they are much more likely to be caught than in Columbia.

Ftfy (american abbrev. for "fixed that for you" on america's internet). Come on BC, you're breaking character!

Oh no, what have we done!?!?

So they will have to break the law to get them into the country now. I don't see how you can say that making it harder for them to exploit women is bad. Actually they were doing that since it was legal and much easier than smuggling them in illegally. This thread really separates the idealogues who hate on anything the cpc does, from the rational minds. Good on you madmax!

Commented on it? He was Quebec's "sustainable-development minister" and he didn't comment on it. The lack of comment is all that needs to be said.

Ask a vague answer and get a vague response. There is no line in the sand breaking point. I offered some modifications to the current public service system which would make me believe services are more cost-effectively delivered. Then the next step is cutting unnecessary services, and there are a lot of them. I'm not about to go through every government service and analyze which ones are worth keeping for you.

The breaking point is when we get to services that we can't (not don't want to) cut and when underqualified public service workers aren't getting gold-plated pensions and bankable sick days for working less than their private sector benefactors. Other than moving to a DC pension plan, I'd start with getting rid of the PSAC and giving department executives bonuses for delivering services effectively while reducing costs. There is a culture of waste and laziness in the public sector that is fostered by PSAC. Heads will need to roll to eliminate that culture.

Jump to conclusions much? I think that taxes should be minimized to provide essential services. I think we're getting a lot more than essential services at this time, and the services that we are getting are not exactly delivered cost-effectively. ie. cuts until budget balanced, then keep lowering taxes.

Yawn. Canadian taxpayers aren't the lower class' ATM machine.

Who would have thought balancing the budget would require cuts?!?

Sweet dodge. I think I'll stick to masturbation, it's slightly more intellectual than your idea of "honest debate".

Oh gee that is a tough one. Well I suppose I could start by asking you to actually read the links provided by Waldo in the post that has caused this discussion. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of Harper's words in those links, but I did find reference to an affadavit signed by an oilsands critic quoting a PMO official, and a reference to "the feds" comments, and something oliver said. Sorry, little defensively partisan old me couldn't find any of harpers own words in the links you claim prove that Harper thinks those who disagree with energy policy are terrorists and enemies of the state. I'm on a phone though, so I may have missed it.

Yes of course everyone agrees with you or they are shivering little sycophants. Whatever helps you sleep at night champ!

What exactly did you want to debate? Your uncontroversial opinion that only a shivering little sycophant could argue against? You know, that uncontroversial position that you based on a mischaracterization of Harper's arguments? You'll have to excuse Tilter for not engaging in your idea of "honest debate".

Of course they haven't... The suspect isn't black or a woman!

I don't think government is directing any anger towards the protesters. Democratic governments are generally reactionary and government response is almost always a reaction to public sentiment. Doubt it.