Hydraboss

So, from a quality of life point of view working less is better. Agreed. So, from a financial standpoint working more is better. Agreed. So, if taxes don't encourage extra work, quality of life is better but financial success is not. I disagree. Money is required in this society to lease happiness (can't buy it, right?), so taxes need to be lowered to give incentive to work more and succeed.

Maybe my question wasn't clear enough. Taxes good? Taxes bad? Which one make people work more?

Not a bad idea. I hear China has some tanks that they haven't used in 20 years. Now if we only had a square.................

...and I want to feel rich, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. Everyone wants something. I would love to know if there are hard numbers that prove that immigration is financial benefit or detriment to Canada. Anyone?

You're not making sense benny. Either taxes encourage people to work, or they discourage them. Which is it?

BS. Harper does nothing to "secure western support". He still has it and will as long as he's not Liberal. The man is a turncoat to western Canada, but he will still receive the votes from here. I'd love to see him truly "throw Kwebek under a bus", but it won't happen.

No it's not. It's saying that Canada needs to decide what the penalty for murder is, and make convicted killers serve it. Faint hope is based on the fact that some killers are worthy of early release from their early release (25 years, etc). There should be absolutely no circumstances where someone who slaughtered someone else does not serve his sentence in full.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet on the subject.

No. Insanity (NCR) defenses are BS. It doesn't change the fact that someone slaughtered someone else. Who cares if the killer is crazy by any definition? A case could be made that, knowing the penalty, everyone who kills is crazy. The victim is still dead. I don't believe in sending the "crazy" convict to a mental institution. Serve your life sentance in prison just like other killers. Again, who cares if the sub-human is "fixed" or "rehabilitated"? They have no purpose left in their lives. Throw them away.

First degree murder indicates the most heinous of crimes in our society. Second degree is typically what is sought if the chance of a conviction on first degree is questionable. The fact that there are mandatory minimums before parole eligibility supports the fact that there should be absolutely no second guessing of whether or not the convicted killer should be detained for that minimum period of time. The faint hope clause flies in the face of that law. Typical of Canadians, we make a rule and then make another rule that contradicts the first.

Parole eligibility after 25 years indicated premeditated murder. We aren't talking about the accidental killing of someone, or "dying with dignity" affairs. Life in prison IS appropriate in ALL cases. Who the hell cares if the murderer says he's "cured"? They gave up their rights when they slaughtered another. No second chances for these "people". Discretion has no place in first degree murder convictions/penalties. 1 size DOES fit all.

Nah. It's a cut-n-paste that he keeps handy. Search his posts and you'll find it all over the place.

Actually, the fact that they were convicted of murder DOES give us the right to take away their life or rights forever. It's called a life sentance. Murder IS the reason to keep them in jail. Revenge is a feeling and/or a motive, but life without seeing the sun is not "excessive" punishment. It is appropriate under the Criminal Code of Canada.

The "action" subject to tax is income from working. Therefore, you state that tax is an incentive to avoid "working". Thus, a disincentive. While individual companies may become more productive by "lazy" workers being "taxed out" of the system (which I still don't understand in your terms), society in general is no further ahead as these same people will then be dependant on the social safety net. You seem to be making the case that taxes are detrimental to production in society.

...and this is where philosophies diverge. Convicted murderers have killed and should have exactly zero rights left, human or otherwise. Why would anyone have any concern for them? They are sub-human and should be treated as such. Want to give early parole to someone who robbed the local Fas Gas? Fine (I don't like parole, but okay). Someone who committed murder? Why????? Why should they get out early? Who gives a damn if they're rehabilitated? They should die in their cells (because YOU don't approve of capital punishment, which is a much better choice), not be allowed to get out regardless of whether they kill again or not. This isn't golf. They shouldn't get a mulligan.

Could you please explain how income tax is an incentive on any planet in this universe? Tax, by nature, is the taking of something from someone. While I don't dispute the need for some taxation, I fail to see how this could be the basis for incentive rather than something we have to live with (suffer through). Your statement has me intrigued.

According to Global News this evening, Corrections Canada's own numbers say that of the 97 granted parole 15 reoffended and were returned to prison. That's 15.5% of first degree murderers reoffended. But who cares? You haven't been killed by one of them so what's the problem, right?

After 25 years, the criminal is still on parole for the rest of his life. That would be why it's called a life sentance. So how exactly does it not allow for monitoring following release? Only a Liberal cheerleader like you could equate the program that allowed convicted murderers to be let out of prison early to kill again to being supportive of higher taxes and cuts in highways. Are you seriously trying to make the case that, because a murderer doesn't have a shot at 15 year release, that suddenly his cell is no longer available? Was it double-booked? Does Air Canada now run Corrections Canada? Since you have made the case that very few "first degree murderers" won't even be making use of the program, how exactly does that equal higher taxes? Man, if Iggy made a sudden stop, would your head smell like crap?

Geoff, you know the kid will never answer questions like this. And this is why.

You never got a date in school, did you?

Actually, EVERYONE ignores the 10 point policy pattern in order to ignore the Bush-Harper-KingIggy policy pattern.

Thanks for the suggestion. You are obviously very mature. Actually, I would like to be the part of the 51st state...not a bad idea at all.

I have no use at all for the CBC as they are simply Liberal-supporting hacks. They air junk, and suck on the public-money tit. Axe them altogether and save taxpayers a billion a year. That being said...how can you fault them for doing what they say they're going to do. No political ads. For anyone. Credit where credit is due. The CBC is bang-on correct and should be commended.

2) Increased military funding (just like Bush) 3) Increased drug war (just like Bush) 4) Increased national debt (just like Bush) 5) Republican style attack ads (just like Bush). 6) False, hypocritical claims of "fiscal conservatism" (like the Republicans). 7) Failed attempts at banishing party moderates (just like Cheney tried with Powell). 8) Let (CPP) CEO's keep huge bonuses while their corporation LOSES money (something Bush-like for sure). 9) No boosting of the social safety net (EI) during recession (like Bush). 10) Little or no plan for environment (just like Bush). See? We can ALL copy and paste our own posts. Anything you want to add, Mr. Highschool?

2) Increased military funding (just like Bush) 3) Increased drug war (just like Bush) 4) Increased national debt (just like Bush) 5) Republican style attack ads (just like Bush). 6) False, hypocritical claims of "fiscal conservatism" (like the Republicans). 7) Failed attempts at banishing party moderates (just like Cheney tried with Powell). 8) Let (CPP) CEO's keep huge bonuses while their corporation LOSES money (something Bush-like for sure). 9) No boosting of the social safety net (EI) during recession (like Bush). 10) Little or no plan for environment (just like Bush). If Layton or Iggy walk the same policy path as Commies they will be called Commies. Anything else you want to blither on about, child?