gc1765

You are the one who didn't reply with any argument. Tell me why we should not be paying for other people to own a Mercedes, and I will tell you why we should not be paying people $20,000 for winning a gold medal.

How many kids would like a brand new Mercedes-Benz but can't afford it? We should buy one for anyone who wants one. No one should be denied the chance to own a new Mercedes-Benz.

Sounds like a waste of money to me. Why should someone get money just because they can run fast, or make it down a hill fast? If I'm good at videogames, should the government give me $20,000? We have another thread about poverty in Canada, so I'll ask: Who is more deserving of money, someone who does not have shelter and needs that money to put a roof over their head, or someone who can run fast?

Good one!

I've never been able to understand this argument. We ALL benefit from industrialization, so why shouldn't Natives benefit too?

At my university, the library closes at about 10pm and they kick everyone out. It would be hard to stay there after hours without getting kicked out. Otherwise, people could steal whatever they wanted. ATM places also usually require a bank card to get in. Why not? Why shouldn't we give people a reasonable level of comfort. Not a house, or a nice apartment, but a roof over their head. I'm in favour of giving people help who genuinely need it. People who can't work because of disability, people who just got laid off and can't find work. I think that's reasonable. Anyone could lose their job. Now, give them a reasonable amount of time to find a job if they are able to work. If they still can't find a job, after a reasonable amount of time, then sure put them to work for the money. I think I've argued something like this before. As long as they are working for the money, there will be an incentive to find other work. Would you agree to something like that?

There is evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. And as for if you will live another week, we know that the average life expectancy is roughly 80 years old, so there is a very good probability that you will live another week (assuming your not over 80). I can't prove that the roulette wheel will land on black, but if someone offers me 10:1 odds, I'd be a fool not to take it. I think you are talking about "strong atheists" here, ie people who believe that God does not exist. There is obviously no way to prove that God does not exist. The weak atheist, which I'm guessing is what most atheists are in fact, would say that there is no proof either way. There is as much evidence for God as there is for the flying spaghetti monster. Would you consider yourself an atheist with respect to the flying spaghetti monster? Because that's how many atheists feel about God...

Such as?

What about shelter? Is that not necessary? Shelter is not cheap...especially here in Vancouver

What are you talking about? I said the decision rests in the hands of the minister of justice. That's what the court ruled. Are you disagreeing with that?

I assume "they" refers to the minister of justice, who is the person who will decide whether Schreiber will stay or not...

Funny, because the judges said the exact opposite... Link

Last week, the Conservatives were polling above 40%. This week they are around 32-35%. If you want to argue that is within in the margin of error, then I'll leave you with this... Also, the fact that there seems to be a trend in the polls this week also lowers the margin of error...but you already knew that... "Quite a bit" means going from, say, 42% down to, say 32-35%

I don't know what you mean by 'committed'...I voted for the Liberals last election, and if nothing changes, will probably vote for them again in the next election, but I still think Harper had nothing to do with the Airbus affair. That was before his time. Whether there was a 'cover-up', I have no idea, but I don't think Harper was actually involved in any scandal. I'm surprised that 19% of the country thinks so. How so? The polls seem to indicate that this has hurt the Conservatives quite a bit.

What was conveniently left out of that same poll... Interesting how the person who accuses others of deliberately misrepresenting things would conveniently leave out this piece of information...

See my post in this thread

What? It was revealed in 2003 that Mulroney accepted money from Schreiber (after having testified under oath that he never had any dealings with him). And in 2006 it was revealed that the money he accepted was connected to Airbus. If he wanted to clear his name, why didn't he do it then?

And why didn't Mulroney call for an inquiry back in 2003, or 2006? Why did he wait until an inquiry was already likely imminent before calling for one himself?

Unless he wants you to think he's innocent

In other words, who is most likely to lose the general election Thompson, Romney and Tancredo seem pretty conservative. I think Giuliani is the only one who can actually win...well, maybe Colbert

You are still not understanding what I am saying. Let me break it down for you as simple as possible: Let's say the Conservatives want to cut the GST ($5 billion), as well as cut income taxes say $1 billion. For the same price, without the GST cut, income taxes could be cut $1 billion + $5 billion = $6 billion dollars. So, a $1 billion dollar reduction in income taxes is relatively small compared to a $6 billion dollar reduction in income taxes. If the Conservatives decided to cut the GST and income taxes by $5 billion, that means for the same price, income taxes could be reduced by $5 billion + $5 billion = $10. So, a $5 billion dollar reduction in income taxes is relatively small compared to a $10 billion dollar reduction in income taxes. Does that make more sense now? Care to show me where it was refuted??

The Liberals prefer to cut income & business taxes instead. I agree with them.

Relatively small means $5 billion per year LESS in income tax reductions than what could be acheived, for the same price, if the GST cut is implemented. I'd like to see a poll too. Most people I have talked to agree that an income tax cut would be better, and the un-scientific poll from the globe and mail also shows the vast majority agree, but who knows... Who says I haven't? I have given some good arguments in this thread as to why an income tax reduction is better. No one has been able to refute them.

There isn't unanimity that a GST cut and a relatively small income tax cut is preferred over a large income tax cut.

See post #52 of this thread.