gc1765

It doesn't matter who you apply the tax to, either way the end user pays. If you tax the producer that will just result in higher prices which are paid by the user.

Don't forget Mulroney.

By the way, here's an update: Link

The media seems to be focusing on Outremont as a failure of the Liberals. I'm not so sure about that, I'd be more concerned about the other ridings. As you said, the Liberals dropped only 6% out of 35%, or about 1/6th of their vote. The Conservatives lost 4% of 12%, or 1/3rd of their vote. The bloc lost over half their vote. The NDP won because they had a star candidate, and they took votes mainly from the Bloc, and only a relatively small amount from the Liberals. In the other ridings though, the Liberals fell quite a bit, but the worst news for the Liberals is that the Conservatives gained votes and even won a seat.

Perhaps - I don't know, I'd have to see the price of food. But let's just say that food is too expensive in Canada, and it's unrealistic to start your own business. The great thing about the market is that chances are someone will. If Safeway is charging ridiculous prices for food, what is to stop IGA or A & P from charging less? If they charge less, more people will buy from them and they will make more money. But let's say, just for the sake of argument that Safeway is the only store in town, and you can't grow your own food. Basically, without Safeway, you would starve to death. Well....aren't you just glad that Safeway is there to sell you food?

If you are talking about food, shelter or medicine, and you can't afford these things, then you might have a point. However, mikedavid was complaining about the prices at Ikea. That's not what I would call essential.

I've never understood why people complain about high prices. If a store is charging too much money for a product, the solution is simple - Don't buy that product.

Instead of complaining about high prices, why don't you open your own business and sell that sofa for cheaper? And if not you, then someone else will - that's how the free market works.

I agree with Canuck E Stan on Kennedy. I vote for Kennedy, even though it's not in your poll. He was less than 100 votes away from becoming the leader...

What do you think that agenda would be? I'd say the Conservatives need to come up with a policy that is right-wing enough to force the opposition to defeat them, while not too right-wing as to scare away voters in the election. Any suggestions for what that policy could be?

I'll add two more: - a guy who has been teased for having a small penis wants to have his penis enhancement paid for - a guy who has been teased for driving an old 1980's stationwagon wants the government to buy him a new car Where do we draw the line? Now, that being said, if it is for non-cosmetic purposes, as this case appears to be, that is a different story.

I don't know the exact answer to that question, however I would argue that most of the University's resources go towards research. Most professors teach only one or two courses per year, and spend most of their time doing research. They also get startup funds when the begin (upwards of a million dollars). Walk into any science building (not so sure about the arts) and you will find perhaps a few lecture halls/teaching labs, with the majority of the building dedicated to research labs. Perhaps a better way to answer that question is to look at how much a student pays in tuition for each course. Multiply that by the number of students in the course (200?), and then subtract how much it actually costs to run the course: how many hours it takes for the professor/instructor to teach and prepare for the course times a reasonable pay per hour (less for sessional instructors, and even less for PhD candidates), renting the lecture hall, paying the teaching assistants to mark tests etc. You'd also have to throw in a few miscellaneous expenses, such as the cost of running the libraries (although most of the libraries around here were built with money from donations, and the libraries are also used for research). I'd bet that students are paying for most of (if not all or more of) their education. I am currently paying tuition fees, and I haven't taken a course in years!

And these people are running in the next election??

I must have missed something. Who in Canada is insisting that women veil themselves?

That makes absolutely no sense, and the rest of your post has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Someday, what we now consider "minorities" may become the majority. If and when that happens, should we conform to the culture of this new majority?

So if the "masses" decide that wearing a turban or worshiping allah are part of Canada's culture, you think we should all conform to that?

I would argue that students are already paying the full costs of their education. The question is, why should students subsidize research?

Aside from speaking the same language, what do you think Canadian culture should be?

Can you please define what "Canadian culture" is? Thanks.

Yeah, I'm sure you didn't notice the race or religion of the following people : Example of mikedavid's multiculturalism Example #2 of mikedavid's multiculturalism Example #3 of mikedavid's multiculturalsim Example #4 of mikedavid's multiculturalism I could go on...but you get the point... I think what mikedavid is trying to say here is that he doesn't care what colour your skin is, or what your religion is...as long as you think and act like a "white Christian".

I don't see what the problem is: Seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me. It ensures that there is no voting fraud while respecting the wishes of some female Muslims. What's the problem with that?

It's not a contradiction at all. I'm sure many leftists would love to have God (rather than the state) distribute wealth more evenly. However, they also realize that no amount of praying will get rid of poverty. They do think, rightly or wrongly, that the state does have the power to do so.

exactly

Please tell me this is another example of your sarcasm