ClearWest

Read the rest here. Is this a tragedy for Canada's national interests? What is to blame for this loss: lack of government interference or too much of it?

And I agree that no one should be compelled to divulge personal information. However, a business would have to weigh the secrecy versus the demand of the consumer to know product details and decide what is best for business. In cases where consumers continue to buy a product without having the details in front of them, they obviously aren't that concerned - why should a gov't dictate what's best for the people? This is a relatively small issue, but still, I'd rather not have big brother watching out for me. They get into that attitude and it's hard to stop them.

Fellas, one word: Vouchers. That way, the money is attached to the child, and they aren't just given a one-size-fits-all-public-school solution. And that way we aren't subsidizing religious schools. We are giving children a ticket to education and letting them decide where they want to use it. If we must fund education at all, it should be in this way.

I think we should be wary of this "There ought to be a law" mentality. Those that are really concerned about where their food comes from can look into it. And if people really cared that much about that information, the companies would be informed about it and the market would respond accordingly. Obviously it isn't that big of a deal if people continue to buy the product. I find it interesting how Margrace doesn't even use said products, yet she feels she can dictate to others what their food should be like.

Hot topic, eh? (Pun intended:)

I haven't agreed to anything. And I'd prefer it if people didn't assume that I'm part of their 'society' just because I was born into it. You can't impose law upon people because you feel like it. They should have to agree to the conditions of agreement, or dispute the conditions and come to a different agreement, or have no agreement. Okay, let's move on to a document which you might find more fitting: Pierre's Charter. Section 15, Equality Rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law...". If we are all equal before and under the law, who makes the law? I question the authority of another human being (my equal) to impose a law upon me (an equal) without consent. Unless they claim a higher authority over my life than I have? I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me stupid. I'm trying to discuss an issue with you, and so far I haven't referred to anyone in this conversation as being stupid. I would dispute the claim that you say he 'randomly shouts out legalese'. If anything it appears that he has done his homework and is attempting to decipher much of the legalese that governments use against us. It was my understanding that I was an individual with rights and I am free to speak out against government agencies if I so choose. My choices are not between conforming or leaving - I can also challenge the powers that be and question their imposing influence over my life. I haven't broken any law - however, I am suggesting that the government has broken a fundamental constitutional right by imposing its laws upon me without my consent.

We are all equal before the law... so who has the power to put demands and obligations upon me without my agreeing to it? That would make someone else superior to me before the law. According to the Canadian Bill of Rights, that shouldn't be happening.

But I was born in Canada - does that mean I was born into slavery? Born into an obligation that I had no say about? Shouldn't I have a choice as to whether or not I want to be a part of their agreement? If I don't get a say, that's tyranny.

Thank goodness for global warming then! I'd be buying up real estate now while it's still cold.

Not in government. See below... Here's the big difference. In shopping, you 'vote' for which products you want, and you get those products. In government, you vote for which leader you want to represent you and... well, you get whatever the majority decides. (Or the biggest minority in many cases) What if when you were shopping your only choice of food was between the Conservative Fun Pack or the Liberal Party Mix. And no matter what you chose, you would get whatever the greatest number of people supported. Sure, sometimes we have it both ways by having an opposition government and so on. But regionally if 5,000 people vote for one group, it doesn't matter in the end because 5,100 people voted for the other group. We're all stuck with the Conservative Fun Pack... A lot of people wanted it, but a lot more people are stuck with the choice made by the largest minority. So, what am I saying? I'm saying that there exists a system in which people are rewarded for benefitting others - and then there's politics, the bloodsport which people weirdly seem to enjoy at their own expense by letting tax dollars and freedoms fly out the window in the process.

LOL! Brilliant.

I've heard of single-issue parties before... It may be too soon to judge, but based on the name I'd say we've found a single-issue poster.

If the Liberals are so weak (maybe they are) then why does the CPC feel the need to bash them in a TV ad every few weeks?

Exactly what I was thinking, I think the problem is that they are rewarded for this behaviour. We need to reform the system so that the only way to "win" is to benefit the largest number of citizens. How we would do that....I don't know. I'm digging this up - I thought I'd suggest a thought. We need a system where people are rewarded for benefiting the largest number of citizens, right? Free Market Capitalism is the answer. When you provide a good or service, people will trade with you. They benefit, and you are rewarded for it. John Stossel mentions this in his speech seen here. When you go to a grocery store and buy a jug of milk, you have this weird 'thank you thank you' moment. You say thank you because you want the milk more than you want your dollar, and the clerk says thank you because they want your dollar more than they want their milk. Free Market in action. Is that not a system in which people can only benefit if they reward the greatest number of people? Could it be that this is the answer? This is the answer that has been screaming out to me ever since began forming my current political opinions. I'm wondering if any of you see it this way.

I say it's a circus. The Party is a powerful thing, and it exists to gain more power. It's bothersome to me to see the lengths that they will go to to gain power. Especially since once they have it - they can use it against us to their own benefit. All we have to defend ourselves is a single 1 out of 20 million vote. Well, that and our rights to free speech, arms, and protesting that they have not yet managed to take away from us yet (but you know they're working on it).