sharkman

So you admit it, kind of. So since the latest GST reduction hasn't even occurred yet, and we have this deficit, that proves the tax cuts you called for you would now be against, since they would cause a possible deficit. I know, you voted FOR the tax cuts before you voted AGAINST them, right? Dobbin, stop channeling Kerry right now!

Everyone, take note: when the last Tory budget came out with tax cuts and another reduction on the GST, smarty pants here declared that there should have been deeper cuts for corporations. And here we have him being all concerned about a 'deficit' directly related to the tax cuts, or so he says. Here we have yet another case of liberal logic: arguing for more tax cuts, then raising the alarm about the result of the tax cuts. A classic case of wanting it both ways, now watch him spin it around and claim otherwise, but you heard the straight goods here. In truth, a temporary deficit in this context is a good thing, it means the government is not over taxing us as much as they used to. Hopefully smaller yearly surpluses will ensue.

This is the kind of liberal logic which the average Canadian starts to tune out after a while since it's so obviously flawed. I feel like leveling a pesky personal attack right now myself, but with liberals aiding the Tory cause like this, I'll just give the beast its head.

If I heard an advertisement in my head and discovered it was coming from a billboard, I would go and purchase one large hammer. Then I would return to the billboard and give it a 'message'.

Oleg, you quoted me, but I fail to see how your comments have anything to do with my comments.

I don't know if I made my point clear. North America was on the road to a European Union like zone with potentially one currency, the US dollar. Since 9/11, the American government now sees open borders as a bad thing. Terrorists are trying to sneak in to blow up Americans. So America tends to want closed, closely watched borders to keep out terrorists, and rightly so. However, this does not lend itself well to forming an European Union like zone in North America. The economies realized, and the economic clout realized, which would match the influence the EU now enjoys, are lost as the EU has sometimes a competitive advantage in commerce. In our trading with the EU, either side looks for an advantage to get a better deal with the other. If one side has more clout, such as with economies of scale that a larger union can enjoy, they can demand better deals, somewhat like what Walmart does with the companies it trades with. The EU is becoming like this. NA can not match this clout as a divided group of countries. A corporation here has extra expenses and red tape that come with restricted borders. This gives the EU a competitive advantage over NA. If Boeing bids for a Chinese contract, it faces a competitive disadvantage when compared to its counterpart in the EU bidding for the same contract. Therefore, the US and NA are losing, and will continue to lose, bargaining power when bidding for contracts with, say, China in the coming decades. August, you haven't mentioned if you understand why the US is erecting barriers. Do you disagree that it is partly a result of 9/11 and the enhanced need for security? Should the US open wide their borders?

I think yet more fallout from 9/11 is that North America will never become like the EU, which will keep North American countries from being able to compete with the economic might of the EU. This is a very bad thing and could be the final nail in the coffin as the US struggles to compete on an increasingly un-level playing field. Between the EU and China, America will be squeezed out. As the US keeps it's borders strong, perhaps the terrorists have won a victory they didn't see coming.

Clinton would have done better post 9/11 in these ways: There would have been days and weeks of navel gazing, receiving counsel from 'experts' on just why exactly the terrorists are so mad at America. Then a national Day Of Apology, when the American government apologized to terrorists the world over for everything the US has ever done. American flags would have been removed from American Embassies(as they were at some liberal schools of thought, aka universities) and at said universities various Muslim flags would have been raised to make a big show of being sensitive to the needs of ALL students. There would have been no invasion and toppling of the taliban government in Afghanistan. He would have lobbed cruise missiles as he did with previous attacks on American soil. Since this one was worse than US embassies, maybe 40 or 50 instead of a few missiles, mostly again hitting empty tents and Aspirin factories. Iraq? fugetaboudit. Saddam's mysterious WMD would not have disappeared, and by now, 4th and 5th generation improvements would have been made on their effectiveness. Next up Clinton would have taken another crack at solving the middle east, since he had done such a great job with 9/11. That's until the emboldened terrorist networks, still with their top generals and captains, would have made at least two more attacks on the continental US. Then Clinton would have woken up and realized you just can't pull a Neville Chamberlain on crazy fanatics. This, of course would actually add up to a dismal failure for Clinton. But it would have counted as wild success since the Main Stream Media would have crammed that bias down the public's throats.

This thread should be in US Politics, or the Morals section, has nothing to do with Canada or Harper or Britian. Why did you use the BBC link. Might as well have gone with the Spain Tribune or something. Funny how little outcry you hear from the left on capital punishment in Muslim countries. If Canada is going back in time, what the hell is Sharia Law?

Hmm, Bush or Clinton... Clinton's administration had a very good run, there is no doubt. But he served while the good times were rolling. Iraq had been beaten into submission, North Korea had been solved in his first term (hah), and the dot com bubble didn't burst until around March 2000. What was Clinton's biggest problem during his two terms? His groin, plain and simple. He alone caused the embarrassment that nearly had him impeached, and left a stain on his record. He served during a time of ease, but shot himself in the foot. Bush, on the other hand, served during a time of great adversity. There hadn't been a recovery from the dot com bubble burst when 9/11 hit, and the economy went into the toilet. The stock market went from 11000 to around 7500, and billions were lost. Threats on American soil persist to this day, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost 100s of billions. A stark difference between the two terms to be sure. One served his country with a clear conscience, and one simply served himself.

Are you saying Gore is an environmental hypocrite? NEVER!!! I guess conserving energy is only for the little people.

I disagree. Studies can be full of crap merely by the bias inserted. So what does that prove, everything is crap? Stick your fingers in your ears and sing, "La la la la la la, I can't hear you!" every time you hear something that doesn't line up with your own bias? It's common knowledge that the Hindu and Muslim cultures treat women as property, not people. This story, and Mikedavid's examples, are certainly not precedents, but just more typical behaviour. Marcinmoka, you hold yourself up as proof immigrant families never treat their children as property to be abused, but you don't mention what religion your family is, so your point is inconclusive.

Well after all it was Gore not Bush who invented the internet.

I heard that reference, but it wasn't Bush, but someone else. Maybe it's one of those punchlines the left uses and inserts whichever conservative they are trying to demean. On the Clinton thing, Slick Willy is treated like a star up here. He tours at least once a year with rapt lefties paying handsomely towards his retirement fund. I think it's much the same with Hilary and her leftwing politics. Anything leftwing is swallowed whole without chewing up here.

The argument set forth in this article sounds flawed. The reporter is comparing the tax burden of the rich in Canada vs the States, but Americans have a higher percentage of rich people than we do. So it makes sense that they would pay a higher percentage of the tax burden. Their government also provides fewer services than ours so their taxes are indeed less than ours. This is common knowledge. Nurses, doctors and other professionals move south to work because of the more friendly tax system.

This aras guy talks out his ass way too much. I never thought I'd see the day, a muslim talking smack.

So this aras kid hates Jews, eh? Unlike Buffycat or others, though, he can't at least provide arguments with some semblance of thought. Naming a thread like this one is only name calling and troll baiting, and it's useless to respond to the non reasoning IMO.

Gee, how silly can you get. Uh, Canada has no nukes and has managed to elude the clutches of the evil darth vader empire to the south for over 200 years! And how many non nuke oil producing countries have yet to be attacked?

That's a laugher. Dion's not trying for a collision with the Tories, but with the NDP who is swaying left votes away from the Libs in droves. If nothing else, a strategy and press release that have two possible benefits, a first for Dion.

I hadn't heard he was gay so it was news to me.

More off topic, what the deuce, Rick Mercer is gay?

I'm not sure what the phrase, "...contributing to the idiots called society" means, but it doesn't sound particularly kind.

Yes, once again Higgly is comparing apples and oran... more like rocks. On one side you have State sanctioned murder and torture(whippings and worse) and on the other side you have none.

No, Dion is on the wrong side, or the high polling on GW issues would bleed into support for the party leader who drapes himself in a Kyoto flag. Harper's more sensible approach is not unreasonable since scientists disagree on GW, since the worldwide warming trend peaked in '98, and since following Kyoto would have put Canada in the poor house. So do you still contend that the Tories are opposed to reducing emissions?

Come come dobbin, you commented above on using falsehoods to attack scientists who support GW, now YOU are using falsehoods. Isn't that hypocritical? The Tories clearly laid out their plans to reduce emissions when they punted Kyoto, so your claim is at best wildly inaccurate. And we've already seen with Dion's approach how high Canadians rate Global Warming issues. If this issue was as important to Canadians as it is to you, Dion would be polling in the 50s.