gc1765

No, but it does kinda take the wind out of the whole "Obama is an elitist" argument.

Exactly what I have been saying all along. Now the million dollar question, how is that any different than before this fixed election date bill?

In other words, the fixed election date law means that the PM can't call an early election...unless the PM wants to call an election, and can rationalize it in some way. Like I said, nothing has changed.

I guess that whole "fixed election dates" thing was meaningless...

I had wondered whether it was that other people looked more attractive after drinking, or whether people just don't care that the other person is ugly. I guess it's a bit of both.

Whether or not the first one saved lives is debatable, but I don't think that they should have dropped the second one...at least not 3 days after.

What's your point? If diesel cars are as efficient as you say, then you are putting less fuel into your tank and therefore are saving more money. Where's the problem in that?

I agree. However, I would rather the government tax some fuels rather than none. I also think that Harper knows a carbon tax is a good idea, but is opposed to the idea because he thinks it is political suicide.

In that case, let's double the carbon tax! 20 cents per litre on gasoline, 14 cents for diesel, giving a difference of 6 cents. Your incentive just doubled! Not to mention you would get twice the reduction in income taxes. Maybe you should write your MP and suggest that the carbon tax is not high enough.

I guess that depends on whether you think income tax cuts are a good thing or a bad thing...

What does being impeached have to do with being empathic?

Personally, I think it should be the other way around.

"But Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of church's founder, Fred Phelps, said a small group of protesters was stopped at the Canada-U.S. border on Thursday afternoon. "They won't let us in, but we have a group that will cross in another spot," she said. "They'll have to strip search everyone who crosses that border or they won't know who we are. They'll have to see the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church) tattoo on our butts." Tattoos on their butts? Is this for real? almost forgot the link

If the carbon tax is coupled to an equal reduction in corporate taxes, then I don't see why businesses will move away. Businesses who pollute more than average will be worse off, but those who pollute less than average will be better off and therefore more likely to stay in the country, so it should even out.

The thing is, what makes riding on a bus any more likely for something like this to happen? It could just as easily have happened when the guy was walking down the sidewalk, in a classroom, etc...

Well said.

Hey August, when I clicked on the link I get the following message "This image or video has been moved or deleted". Is it just me?

True. Like I said, if you emit more (even indirectly though the purchase of goods and services) then you pay more. But for every cent in price increase, that is a cent less in other taxes, so if you emit less than the average person you will be better off. I agree that this is one of the biggest problems with a carbon tax, that people need to heat their homes and they don't often have a choice on which method to do so. However, I still think that if you are not "wasting" energy you will still be using less than average and will be better off. Besides, some things just cost more depending on where you live. If you live in the north it will cost more to heat your home, should the government subsidize energy for those people? I live in Vancouver where housing is more expensive, should the government subsidize housing here?

I agree. I've always said that it doesn't matter how much the government taxes, it is how much it spends. For example, if Alberta wants to spend 2 billion on carbon capture without a carbon tax, that means they have to generate 2 billion more in revenue through higher income taxes.

I think you are right. The more you emit, the more you pay. The less you emit, the less you pay. Anyone who emits less will be better off than they would be if they emitted more.

Well, we agree on that much. Like I've said before, I'd rather see the people paying for polluting rather than for making money.

I assume this is a joke...but with you it's hard to tell. You do realize the difference between "us" and "U.S." right? Ok, just checking...

In other words, you don't think women are capable of making this decision for themselves, so you want the state to make it for them.

Exactly. What is so special about the queen anyways? Her DNA?

I'm saying let the woman decide. She can wear whatever she wants, and she can leave any man who tells her otherwise. Unless somehow the husband is forcefully preventing her from leaving (see the thread on slavery)...in which case that is a very different story. It's funny how you talk about women's rights, but you won't even give her the right to wear what she wants.