gc1765

Please explain how a few people paying for private health care in Canada, rather than going to the U.S., is going to cost 60% more...if that is indeed what you are trying to argue. All of this is assuming that people won't still have access to public health care. I'm not talking about private health care like in the U.S. (aside from medicare/medicaid). I'm saying people will have a choice. They can stay in the public system if they want. Sure, do you want to pay for the extra doctors? How about giving people the choice to pay more for more doctors or not. Actually, I wouldn't be so opposed to keeping health care private if there was better service (less wait times). That would cost a lot more money though, and I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it went to something important like health care (not sure how the rest of Canada feels about that). But with the current system we have, where people are suffering on waitlists, it is ridiculous to not allow them to pay for treatment.

Opposed to the $100 per month, or just to the daycare? If I can play devil's advocate: You pay for other people's children to go to school. But you went to school once too, so you are simply paying years later for something that you have already benefited from. Now, I realize many years ago when you were a child there was no $100 per month, but in 20+ years when these kids grow up they will pay taxes too to help pay for the next generation of kids.

Your argument against two-tier health care is that we already have two-tier health care? If we already have two-tier health care, then let me ask you, why would anyone be opposed to two-tier health care? Why would anyone be opposed to something we already have and can't prevent anyhow?

Well, no. It would cost more money, yes, but it wouldn't cost nearly twice as much. I would support a two-tier system. I think it's pretty ridiculous that you could be dying or ill and the government tells you you're not allowed to pay someone to cure you.

How so?

I have to agree. Canadian libs love to censor anyone that doesn't agree with their opinions. Just like a thrid world country. I say, let anyone say what they want as long as they aren't directly breaking the law (wich no one here has probably ever done). People are entitled to their opinions. But this is a place for debate, not insults and childish behaviour. I don't care if you're a communist, a facist or an anarchist, but you should be able to express your opinions/arguments in a relativly 'intelligent' and 'mature' manner. Even the house of commons gives 'time outs' to people who can't follow the rules. Besides, he doesn't seem to mind that he got banned.

I'll leave you alone when conservatives leave me alone to smoke pot, leave homosexuals alone to get married and leave women alone to choose what to do with their bodies. Deal?

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions: Show me specifically where it says that people who post at mapleleaf web under the nickname "Leafless" are allowed to marry? Show me where is says that people who pick their noses are allowed to marry? Show me where it says that anyone who has ever worn a blue shirt is allowed to marry? etc..... Should we deny rights to these people? Afterall, picking your nose is not specifically mentioned as a human right. What if the MAJORITY of society decided that the MORAL thing to do was to kick out of the country anyone who thinks homosexuality is perverted, immoral, or are opposed to SSM? What if society thinks that is "good". How would you feel about that? Would you start packing your bags? I guess if Leafless can not defend against an argument, he simply decides to ignore that argument.

Only cabinet... but they always vote together anyways. No, according to Michael Chong everyone in caucus was whipped. Edit: sorry, didn't see black dog's post.

In that case we should get a list of Iraqi casualties

Where would we put them? Most of Canada is forested (well the parts that can support forests) except for in cities & developed areas. I don't think it's going to matter much anyways. Even if all of Canada was forested, I doubt it would come close to removing as much CO2 as we produce.

A single project can cost billions. The twinning of the port-mann bridge for example is supposed to cost about a billion and a half. I imagine that, including all of BC, that would add up to quite a lot of money: Link

You think 61% of Venezuelan voters are illiterate? You can make a claim that Chavez voters are ignorant, and it's pretty hard to disprove. But I could just as easily say that most of Bush's supporters are ignorant too. It doesn't mean either one is true.

hahaha that is hilarious Soon everybody is going to want a Nation I wonder how Harper is going to deal with this....

Good question, I've wondered that myself. Maybe they keep track of how much fuel people fill up with and then assume it's consumed in the same province? I wonder if they keep track of CO2 that is exhaled? I guess not, though techincally I suppose one could figure out how much food people consume and calculate it from that. Just a guess though, I have no clue what I'm talking about. Gas taxes should also help pay for our maintaining our roads etc... I'd be curious to know how much revenue is generated by gas taxes and how much money is used to build roads etc.

As well as better public tramsit, more diesels and hybrids. What people drive is as important as how much they drive. Hey that's pretty much what I just said! Right below the line that you quoted: Hybrids will help a little, but I doubt they would help as much as public transit.

Fair enough. But if that's the case, you can't say that a carbon tax would unfairly hurt Albertans. Afterall, it's Ontario that's using the fuels, right? So if that's the case, they would be the ones paying in the end. Anyways, higher gas prices (ie higher gas tax or "carbon tax") might not discourage people from driving (though I think it would a little bit) but that money could be used to invest in other environmentally friendly energy sources.

I agree. Cars are the problem. But a car doesn't emit GHG unless you put gas in it. Someone who only drives their car once in a while is not contributing nearly as much to GHG emissions as someone who drives to work everyday. It would be nice if more people took public transit. The smartest move that Harper has made yet is the transit tax credit. I hope it will encourage more people to take public transit....then again maybe not, people are addicted to their cars. It doesn't help that certains areas have horrible bus service. I find this rather hard to believe. Not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see evidence. The link above implies that Alberta is the province which emits the most greenhouse gases (the CBC implied such in its reports). That's wrong however. The report only includes "large industrial facilities" or about one-third of Canada's entire GHG emissions. The rest of the emissions (two-thirds) are from everything else and probably follow the population. Since Ontario has the bulk of Canada's population (and almost three times Alberta's population), I'd say off hand that Ontario is the largest single emitter of GHGs. Are you sure? How about This one Where does it say that includes only "large industrial facilities"?

If you dont' like that source, Here's another one

I find this rather hard to believe. Not saying it's wrong but I'd like to see evidence. Sure, no problem: Here it is

Not true. Alberta produces more greenhouse gases than Ontario (despite it's much smaller population). This is largely due to the oil patch.

What if the MAJORITY of society decided that the MORAL thing to do was to kick out of the country anyone who thinks homosexuality is perverted, immoral, or are opposed to SSM? What if society thinks that is "good". How would you feel about that? Would you start packing your bags?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking geoffrey, he's an Albertan and I'm not. In terms of policies, I have no idea what would please Albertans and Torontonians at the same time. I would, however, as a start, take Howard Dean's advice and not concede any province or riding. The Liberals should certainly campaign hard in Alberta and ask Albertans for their vote. They may or may not get it, but I agree that it's a sign of respect to ask. If they don't even bother to put forth an effort to campaign in Alberta, it's no wonder they aren't going to vote Liberal. I imagine that doing otherwise would only make Albertans feel forgotten, like their vote doesn't matter....am I right?

Which policies would those be? Aside from being more conservative, which would alienate urban voters. Do you think Calgary could ever (in the foreseeable future) elect a leftie? Or Toronto electing a rightie? Perhaps there is a middle ground between the two, but it would be a very difficult balance. The Liberals will, and should, always be the center/center left chioce (what's the point in having the two biggest parties on the same side of the spectrum). That may not appeal to many Albertans, but just because they may never win a seat doesn't mean they can't still show Albertans respect.