gc1765

Doctors need to provide medical support for their patients, period. If that conflicts with someones' religious beliefs, they can choose another profession.

I see, good point. In that case, you should try to get more states on board...including New York

As long as they obey the law, I don't care. Heck, we could use all that extra revenue to police the area, with stiff penalties, like locking anyone who breaks the law in the same cell. Or, you guys in the U.S. could vote to legalize as well, since that will likely be where the tourists are coming from.

Surely they can relate to the common man without looking like hypocrites on the environment?

So, 67 + 45 + 22 = 134% ?? I guess that means the Conservatives are at negative 34%??

Very true. We should take a poll to decide which is the most frivolous poll...

If the Liberals only got half of what the NDP received, the numbers don't add up. Where did you get these numbers from?

And as a volunteer, you were told that paid staffers are not allowed to post messages on the internet (even though you are not a paid staffer)? Or did one of your paid staffer friends tell you? Who in the party told your friend this? And when/why did this friend tell you this kind of thing was frowned upon? I don't mean to pry, I'm just curious how you know that people are not allowed to be paid to post messages.

Can you define "active"?

How do you know this?

They are talking about the reform party...which, as far as Canadian politics goes, was about as Conservative as it gets.

No, I don't think it's a good idea because of the waste it produces. From wikipedia: "As of 2003, the United States had accumulated about 49,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors. Underground storage at Yucca Mountain in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety." (link) I'd rather see us use less energy all together. Solar, wind, hydro & geothermal are all options that we should be thinking about.

Just thought of another potential paid poster...

I wonder who the two people you are think of are...especially the "non-Conservative". There is one Conservative that obviously comes to mind, but he has denied it and I believe him. I think I can guess who the "non political" person is based on your hints, especially the name one...but I could be wrong.

We don't need saturated fats in our diet because we can make them ourselves (from carbohydrates or protein), so they are not essential. We can't make polyunsaturated fats though, so we need them in our diet.

Precisely why, even if you don't believe in global warming, people should be driving less. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

Exactly.

Well, I suppose I'm just playing devil's advocate here...but if rat poison was causing a problem in food, people would know about it. It would be in the news (of course reporting the story would be in the best interest of the media, by making them more profit) as much, if not more than trans fats are. I'm surprised that there is anyone in Canada who doesn't know that trans fats (or for that matter rat poison) are bad for you given how much they are talked about in the media. Or as geoffrey pointed out, if people still aren't getting it, the government could, in theory, come up with an ad campaign to ensure that everyone knows trans fats are bad. Of course, at that point, it's probably easier just to ban them. Like I said, I'm not opposed to banning trans fats...I guess I'm just surprised at people that it has come to the government having to regulate this. If people paid a little more attention to what they ate, this ban wouldn't even be necessary.

It's one thing to want to ensure that you continue to get a good deal for your tax money, and another to say that you are not getting your money's worth when up until now you have been getting a pretty sweet deal and are way ahead in terms of money spent vs. services received.

aaaahhh, but if the ingredients list "rat poison" as an ingredient, how many people would buy it? and if no one would buy it, what's the point in regulating it? But as I said, if we did ban rat poison, I wouldn't be too upset about it. I also forgot to mention that if we aren't going to ban trans-fats we should at least tax them to pay for the associated health care...I believe this was the topic of another thread.

"OTTAWA — Health Canada will delay regulation of trans fats in Canadian food products for at least two years, calling instead for industry to voluntarily limit use of the heart-clogging compounds. Critics blame the delay on opposition from the U.S. government, whose food industry would face complications exporting to Canada if Ottawa introduced binding limits." Link As much as I am opposed to unhealthy eating, I think people need to make responsible choices. Read the ingredients on the food you buy, and if the food doesn't list the ingredients, boycott it and buy foods that do list them. If enough people did this, the industry would have to listen. Then again, I'm not sure I see anything good coming from trans fats, so maybe banning it is not such a bad thing? I was a bit surprised at this though: "Mr. Clement conceded that the trade issue had been raised by the U.S. food industry and their lobbying played a role in his decision to call for voluntary compliance." Why are U.S. lobbyists playing a role in this decision?

You've had 20-some odd years of free health care, free education, free protection under the law, free use of roads, parks, and many other services...and you've only been paying taxes for two years at $1800 per month...so, let's see, that's about $2000 per year that have received all that free stuff. I think you'll have a right to complain in another 20 years or so

You think the fact that the Conservatives are sponsoring a race car will encourage more people to get out and vote? I guess I can kind of see your point, I just don't think too many people are going to rush out and vote just because they saw the Conservative logo on a race car...which brings me to the next point: Probably at least as many (if not more) than will get out to vote just because they saw the Conservative logo on a race car. Any gains in votes will probably be canceled out by people who will see this as hypocritical on the environment issue. Anyways, what happens if the Conservative car doesn't do well? If people who like NASCAR like it a lot, I wonder how they would react to a last place finish?

No, apparently you are the only one who knows what the effect of a carbon tax will be: Apparently you know more about the effect on the economy than an economist.

The latest... "OTTAWA — An internal report prepared for the Conservative government reveals a carbon tax as high as $50 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions would cause little economic damage and would actually provide a small boost down the road" "The Green Party is focusing on the impact of a $50 tax as that is the key part of the party's platform – which also calls for the tax revenue to fund separate tax cuts." Link