blueblood

That is implied by each and every one of your pearls of wisdom So basically your wasting your time.

Trudeaus social experiment continuing to bear fruit. Using the power of democracy when it suits you best... Until they take their money and do their business elsewhere, resulting in a poorer Canada. If you think wealthy business people like being gouged 44% at tax time, plus corporate taxes all in the name of being a good Canadian you need to get out more because we know that wealthy people don't get the same benefit out of gov't services as poor people per tax dollar spent. Same goes for Alberta and its equalization payments. Why you guys want to cook the golden goose is beyond me? I don't think I'm among the minority in Alberta...

Oh, I wasn't clear enough. There's charging (throwing in all charges that apply), and then the sentancing. Sure there may be many charges brought forth in court, but sometimes the sentancing doesn't match the charges brought forth (i.e. plea bargaining, judges discretion, etc.). The purpose is to make an example out of people in the public eye. I'm quite sure there are a number of celebrities that have a sense of entitlement and disregard for the law, and this was an opportunity to display that some people are not above it. Priors or not.

Sure Not to mention the "tax hike" of raiding EI and CPP while we're at it. That oil is worthless if it can't be exploited, ask Danny Williams. Alberta is kept from making more money. Instead of Albertans getting billions in tax breaks, they hand out money elsewhere. That's madness Not as good as Alberta, because the way Quebecers spend money they'd be in much worse shape if the price of oil drops. In other words those provinces that succeed are still hindered. That few billion could be used for tax cuts and (shudder) services, but somebody has their hands in the pocket. Judging by your posts I beg to differ. As for people not agreeing with Alberta, that's obvious. Albertan's don't care if people don't agree with them, Albertan's don't feel the need to meddle in other provinces coffers, however some provinces do. Those that don't agree with the monetary policy of Alberta yet have their hands out are hypocrites. Whether Ontario recovers or not is not my problem. I believe if they do recover, they should be entitled to keep their money, and should as it would be incentive for them to quit meddling in the west's affairs (I.e. CWB, and gun control to name a few) Not powerful enough (i.e. equalization) Provinces can learn from people. Nice double standard.

For the purposes of this exercise, they are. NAFTA check. That would be PEI, and what was Alberta in the 1870's, nothing. I'd say PEI was better off than the landmass that would be Alberta was. Some enjoy benefits at the cost of other's success, that's not equalization that's boderline theft. Yet Alberta stays out of debt. Some economists have been saying for years that Quebec manages things worse. Alberta paid the piper in the 80's and 90's. Quebec hasn't. One province is mired in debt, one isn't. Sounds like sound financial management to me. And because of that, those provinces that succeed are hindered because of it. And I'm tired of your type of attitude that everything west of manitoba has a duty to be subordinate to central canada and has to pay the price because it manages its natural, financial, and labour resources better than the rest of Canada. Why shouldn't the West make up for Ontario's slack? Why should the west not be allowed to overtake central canada as the economic powerhouse of the country? And the bickering stops when the hands come out of the pocket and an acceptance is assured that regions are different. We as people accept that there are many different ethnic groups of Canadians and we don't go and raid each other's bank accounts, why should regions be any different?

My take on it is, I could care less who was drunk driving with cocaine. Charge with full extent of the law. The fact that he is a celebrity should garner an even higher sentance because he knowingly broke the law while campaigning under tough on crime (if the police reports are true) and to set an example. I view people like this as cancer. Jaffer has become a cancer to the CPC with this incident. he should have been thrown under the bus the second it happened. It would be one hell of a deterrant to other party MP's to not screw around. Metaphorically speaking, if there is cancer, there needs to be chemotherapy...

Why not? It's a collective of jurisdictions, just as Canada is. The fact that we're comparing provinces to countries is a wash when we're looking at them as pieces of a larger entity. Thanks to Mulroney's economic policies, if only he didnt piss around with the charter and screwed winnipeg out of that F-18 factory. That province that is Red Dirt was a far wealthier place than Alberta was in the early days of Confederation. It's not like these places were poor forever. Then the province that's sitting on Red Dirt should know it can't afford to provide services that others can. Albertan's aren't entitled to cheap lobster and potatoes the same as PEIers aren't entitled to cheap gas and cheap steak. Every Canadian born starts out the same, just because some piss away their chance doesn't mean others have to pitch in, and before you bring up the fact that poor people need rich people's money to get by, there are many immigrants that came to Canada and worked their buts off so they weren't poor anymore. As I've always said, you want people to become equal, i say people start out equal. Funny, there are other places that sit on oil and other "gold mines" and they're dirt poor. Welcome to management. When the oil prices dropped Klien was blowing up hospitals and Quebec was going deeper into debt. Alberta properly manages the resources it has, central canada does not. Boo hoo. What expense would that be, so other provinces can't spend money on things they can't afford? That's weak. Allowing wealthier people to keep more of what they own is of a greater help to an economy than snatching it away to bring people to a common denominator. Society as a whole suffers because of this. Would you support taking your family's life savings and pumping it into a relative's failing business? Because that is what your clearly advocating with equalization. He said the west was going to have a bigger piece of the pie, he didn't say the east was going down the tubes. You clearly don't want the west to have a bigger stake in the Canadian economy than the east why?

Lets look at the EU for example. We have Sweden and we have Ireland. Two opposites, yet they are both functioning members of the EU, they mind their own business they do their own thing, but stand united when it comes to the EU. By your logic, the EU should have failed because each of those countries belonging to a massive organization is so different and looks after their own self interests. You sir need to catch up on your readings of the Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien governments and the policies they enacted. Who benefitted the most out of those policies at the expense of the other? Your idea of equalness is taking from somebody and giving it to somebody else. You believe everyone should end up equal. I on the other hand believe we start of equal and some people end up further ahead than others. Quebec has your attitude and is one of the most indebted jurisictions in the free world, Alberta has the opposite attitude and is debt free. And there has been lots of help from Alberta so Quebec can have its house of cards. Tax rebates aren't "help", they are allowing companies to keep more of the money they earn, not by having other provinces fork out dollars to fund things. I'll put this to you again... So because the west will have economic relevance, Toronto and Montreal would crumble? You plainly said yourself you didn't want the west making up most of our economy. Why? Why isn't the west allowed to succeed in your eyes? Why must we be a subordinate to central Canada?

So because the west will have economic relevance, Toronto and Montreal would crumble? You plainly said yourself you didn't want the west making up most of our economy. Why? Why isn't the west allowed to succeed in your eyes? Why must we be a subordinate to central Canada? Your devotion to the equalization program, and your collectivist mentallity. Central Canada has long been protected by policies that have favored central canada to western canada. the high tariffs for the greater part of the 20th century protecting their industries, to the supply management system that is bogging down WTO negotiations. Then we have the CRTC and their ludicrous cell phone regulations. The large taxes and large gov't expenditures. The truth is had Western Canada had the same advantages Central Canada had in the 20th century, there would be more parity between the two regions. The proof is in the pudding with this economic shock, western Canada is faring far better than central canada because our economy is more self sufficient than central canada's. So? Some would argue that power has gone to central Canada's heads. The sooner people realize that the regions of Canada are different and have their own interests, the sooner we will have a federal gov't enacting policy that reflects that, which would be helpful for national unity instead of hindering it.

Why do you think us westerners should be impoverished? Do you think we should be always going to Ottawa hat in hand? Do you think that other people owe you services and money? Central Canada built their economy from the time of confederation until now on a house of cards, and its only a matter of time until it comes crashing down...

I think that would depend on the circumstances. If somebody pantsed him, then I'm pretty sure he gets away. However if he decided to expose himself because he wanted to for whatever reason, he could be in hot water. The parade would be more of a grey area because you could possibly defend yourself by saying your fitting in with the atmosphere. If you crossed the lewd threshold there (god knows what that would be), you could be in hotwater.

Of course the officer isn't going to arrest him. It would likely cause a shitstorm if he did. He'd rather have the guy rolling around nude, rather than have a shitstorm. The guy rolling around on the scooter wasn't out of line as far as that event goes. It's not the rolling around naked part that concerns me, its the stuff that could potentially occur because of rolling around naked, intoxicated, and hormones going like crazy. And that's why mr. cop is there. I have no problem with the parade taking place, by all means they have the right and went through the proper channels. I don't think any parade should be getting public funding though because you shouldn't have the gov't playing favorites as far as this thing goes. Also I don't think funding should occur for essentially taking a nightclub out on the street. If MDancer says Prideweek gets funding and the parade doesn't, that seems fair. Although I don't like gov't funding for any event in the first place, if one gets it, they all get it.

Possibly, I don't know if there is a correlation b/w booze, possible drug use, scantily clad people, and hormones flying all over the place. It seems like the ingredients for unfortunate events like that to go down. I agree, and I think sex in public is a no no in the eyes of the law. In all fairness though the same thing happens in bars all over the country, but last time I checked I don't think bars are publically funded.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall during the Liberal Senate caucus meeting because of this Liberal Senator... My link

I think he's worried about the sex in public and a possible greater incentive for rape.

I don't think that will happen for a while. My link The NHL is gaining attendance, while the NBA is losing. Interesting to note, the NHL fills its rinks to higher levels of percentage of capacity My link Then we have the ratings for the US-Canada Gold medal hockey game. 27.6 million viewers watched the hockey game. My link My link My link 18.8 Canadian viewers and 27.6 million American viewers. Wow! Looks like Bettman's USA experiment is going to continue.

Shhhh! Adults are talking

Holy crap he hasn't been into the communion wine yet!

A screw, in his case we have to pluarize to screws. I'm surprised it took you so long to join the bash Mr. Canada club, it's the Canadian thing to do.

Judging by your economic opinions I'd call you an orange tory. I have a better idea, you go join the Christian Heritage Party and pound sand while the adults talk.

x3. why does my side get stuck with Mr. Canada? :angry:

And the gov't tried and tried and tried, but could not get the country out of it. Europe is one of the most regulated places on the planet, they still managed to get into a deep recession. From what I've seen, regulation prolongs the inevitable and makes the bath a lot worse. I think you underestimate the resilience of the American economy. Sure the US takes baths from time to time, but they dry off rather quickly. The USSR took a bath and drowned. If you would look at crime stats from the 50's when the gov't was a bunch of cheapskates, the crime rate was lower than it was today. I'd say it's a sense of entitlement that leads to a turn to crime, that attitude wasn't as big back then as it is now. My link The EU, is one of the biggest luddites at the WTO. They dump their products into countries and will not import, and if they do it's tariff time. Their agriculture philosophy is a house of cards. I would argue that the chickens came home to roost in the EU because partly because of the largesse of their gov't spending. Canada which is more reliant on the US as far as growth is concerned is faring far better, partly due to keeping tight on gov't spending. And the low US dollar won't do anything? The USSR provided the biggest social service of all - gov't employment for everyone. I look at Socialism as a scale, with the USSR being at one end, and Ireland/USA at the other, Europe is inching closer and closer to the USSR as far as how involved their gov't is in their economy. And lets not get started about Venezuela. But people are rational, they want things for as cheap as possible. If people don't have something they will buy it, if its too expensive they won't. I look at markets as a two way street, sometimes you can do well, sometimes you can do very poorly. The market can be very generous or very cruel. Most people do not like the cruel aspect of the markets and will naturally vote for gov'ts that will bring in policies that try and lessen the blow; the problem is, that "lessening the blow" ends up pushing the problem down the line, until it goes pop. The CRA is a prime example of this, as was communism. For example using the medical liscences for 1K per pop, the market would be flooded with doctors, however, people would catch on to what the good doctors are and what the bad doctors are, and the doctors get forced out of business. This process takes a while, and is risky, and cruel. Gov't has essentially done the same thing much more quickly by imposing standards, but those standards cost a lot of money to implement, money that can be used elsewhere and society pays through their wallet rather than the consequences of a shotty doctor. Both achieve the same result, but both have much different costs. Now ideally a person wants a balance of the two, but where the balance is at is up for debate. It's not the feasibility, it's the ability of a society to cope with risk and rewards. Some people cope better than others. By imposing regulations, you take out the risk, but pay in terms of rewards reaped. The question obviously is whether or not regulations should take place, but how much? The party that can convince the most people of that often wins the gov't. That's fine, and judging by urban Ontario voting patterns, your fellow citizens agree with you. Out west however that is not the case. What works in urban ontario doesn't necessarily work elsewhere.

Oh God, Mr. Canada at the Gay Pride parade... From what I've seen, the Gay Pride parade is a masterpiece in marketing. They have managed to turn a protest into a massive party. From what I've seen it's pretty much Mardi Gras. Mr. Canada wants to try and outmarket the Gay Pride Parade. Have fun trying to convince people not to have fun. The only objection that I have with lewd behavior in public is the possibility in the increase in rape to occur which is not good. The ultimate Irony is that while Mr. Canada spews vile and contempt at gay people, they at the parade will not only allow him to do so, but it will be accepted because Mr. Canada has his right to say whatever nonsense comes to his mind. Maybe then he will get egg on his face and get it...

The irony is, had there been no act (which is regulation in the first place), the bankers being the cheapskates they are would tell the poor people looking for a house they couldn't afford to go pound sand. Quebec and Europe are on the trolley tracks. Next stop socialism. Which is why I advocate a low flat tax. We keep emergency services, but say bye bye to things like the CBC, CRTC, welfare, union perks for the civil servants arts, foreign aid and other things like that to name a few. The way the Europeans spend money, I should hope the Euro Economy should be bigger, by the way how is that working out relative to the US? Looks like the good ol' stars and stripes have the EU licked again! US companies horribly inefficient? Walmart anyone? The huge amount of social services make our bureaucracy inefficient, we all know how that experiment with huge amounts of social services worked out in commie land. The companies in Michigan are cutting bait on the Canadian factories as well. The unions cooked their own goose. But you are one in the same, you guys want gov't involved heavily in the economy, regulations out the wazoo, you guys want people like me to make less money, and for people like me to fork over money to poor people, which results in chaos. This is why Jack Layton can't crack 21% of the vote come election time. You guys think government knows how to spend my money better than I do. good thing the US's rock bottom taxes cover that. Then there's that darn health insurance I'm paying for. Why would I be paying a premium and not getting the benefits of health insurance? Then I'm investing in that company on top of that. And society has to provide incentive for the people that contribute to society more than others, such as Alberta. The flat provincial tax covers anybody that uses their services and at the same time doesn't gouge those that go the extra mile. No pay no play is a two way street, and that's what the left doesn't get. The Russkies didn't get it either. By keeping up with our stone age taxation, more and more rich people will leave the country and we are poorer because of it. And there's no tiny colleges in Canada?

Oh really, shall we have a discussion on Walmart, and anything else business related?