gc1765

And yet you have no problem with the fixation on Chretien...in fact you even join in: Is it really so hard to agree that they were both corrupt?

Some things are more expensive in rural areas. However, some things, namely housing, is MUCH cheaper in rural areas than urban areas. I would be happy to subsidize services like phone & mail, just as soon as those in rural areas offer to subsidize me purchasing a house.

Speaking of drivers...how about drivers who stop at a stop sign or red light halfway through the crosswalk so that pedestrians have to walk around their car. Or drivers who make RIGHT turns at red lights while looking LEFT for oncoming traffic. In other words, they are not looking where they are going. Meanwhile there are pedestrians who have the walk signal and the right of way, but the drivers are looking in the wrong direction and don't see these pedestrians. Combine these two things and you have drivers stopping halfway through the crosswalk at a red light before making a right-hand turn but are looking left, so that the pedestrians who have the right of way have to walk around the car into the intersection, and just as they are in front of the car, the driver starts driving while looking in the opposite direction!! I've almost been hit several times that way. Also: People who piss on toilet seats Bubble gum Sniffing/snorting People who stand on escalators/moving sidewalks & block other people from passing - as if the fact that the ground below you is moving is an excuse to stop walking. People who don't cover their mouth when they cough

Not really. If other races looked exactly like us, I doubt you could tell them apart.

A crime? naaaah Stupid, yes...but not a crime.

I didn't realize people from India were getting millions of dollars out of this

Here in Canada alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean you can buy it from any vending machine...

What the heck happened to Giuliani? 3%??

Couldn't have said it any better myself...

An interesting statement for a thread about tin foil hats...

Either your math is off, or mine is...because I count at least 11 seats in Alberta that the CPC would lose if they lost 23 points and it all went to the second place finisher...

I never said that the responding is not appreciated...I'm just curious why someone who thinks that a topic is not worth discussing would continue to respond over and over...

Interesting. First I was questioning it: Then I was dismissing it: And now I'm not doing anything with it: My point is, and has always been, that we shouldn't assume that just because the number of deaths is decreasing means that it is due to the troop surge. If you don't think that was worth commenting on, then I wonder why you bother to keep responding to me...

Please show me where I dismissed the idea that the surge is working... By the way, was that a "yes" or a "no" to my question?

Are you saying that we shouldn't question it? That we should just accept it as fact?

I don't know...nor do I presume to know.

Well, if my cartoon analogy was too complicated, I'll put it another way...just because two things are correlated does not necessarily mean that one is causing the other.

No, I have never contested the fact that deaths have dropped...and Lisa never contested the fact that the number of bears decreased after the creation of the Bear Patrol.

I'd like to share with you all an important parable: Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm! Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, dad. Homer: Why thank you, honey. Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Hmm. How does it work? Lisa:It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock! Homer:Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Did the Conservatives ever admit that they made a mistake by promising not to tax income trusts?

First off, let me just say thank you for answering my question. Which brings me to the answer of your question: "Do you deny that you have been willfully downplaying the full effect of the Conservative tax cuts?" No, I don't think I have been downplaying the Conservative tax cuts. The fact is the economy is doing quite well, resulting in huge surpluses. As you agree, that money had to be spent on something. Asssuming that spending doesn't increase, that money would either have to go to paying down the debt, or to decreasing taxes. If that extra $10 billion per year went to paying down the debt, that would be a good thing, IMO. If it went to income tax cuts, that would also be a good thing, IMO. But if it goes to a GST cut, that is not the best use of that money. Seems the vast majority of economists agree with me on that. True. However, they never should have made such a promise in the first place. Harper obviously thought a GST cut would be politically popular (he's an economist, he should know that it isn't the best policy) so he made a stupid promise. Just like the Liberals were stupid to promise to get rid of the GST. That being said, as much as I hate lying politicians, I would rather admit that they made a mistake and go with the best policy rather than try to keep their promises. Kind of like with the income trust situation, I think it was a good thing that Harper went back on his word in that situation. Sure he broke a promise, but at least he went with the better policy. That's what he should have done here.

I don't know, are you saying there is any party which can undo the damage of the sponsorship scandal? If not, why complain about something that can never be put back into place by anyone?

Already answered it here: Link Care to answer my question yet? Or is it that you know I'm right and don't want to admit it?

Answer my question and I'll gladly answer yours.

Sadly, there are certain posters here who seem to actually believe that...