gc1765

I guess you're right, normanchateau, we presented the facts and now he's confused

It's not "sputtering nonsense", it's a FACT. Don't confuse him with facts.

It's not "sputtering nonsense", it's a FACT.

I don't know whether it influenced the election or not, but there was definately bias from some of the media. For example, The Globe And Mail

I should also note that the grades given at University do not change much...but I guess that depends on the department. Some courses have a set range of averages (usually around 63-67% or something like that) that the average must fall within, or else it is scaled. Other courses have a set failure rate (around 30% or so) and scale the grades to make sure that approximately the same number of people fail. Again, that probably depends on the Course/Department.

What about cutting all subsidies? The only argument I can think for subsidizing businesses is to prevent job losses if the company goes under. I imagine it's probably cheaper to pay a company which employs people than it is to pay them EI. Is there any threat of people loosing jobs if the government stops subsidizing the oil & gas industry (I'm not sure how much if any they do subsidize it, I'll have to read more up on that)? Don't get me wrong, this isn't taking a shot at Alberta, I realize you give a lot in transfer payments. How would you feel if oil and gas subsidies were removed along with transfer payments?

At UBC, there has been an increase in the average of students coming in. When I applied, the average student entering University had maybe an 80-85% average, now I hear it's at least 90%.

This is all speculation. You may or may not be right, but one could just as easily speculate about Harper. The point is, if many Canadians are willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt that he has moved to the centre, why wouldn't those same Canadians be willing to give Rae the benefit of the doubt? Harper has spent billions in new spending as well. It's not so much a difference in spending as it is a difference in priorities. In the 2006 election, Martin promised similar spending to what Rae is proposing and yet my taxes were lower under Martin's government.

From Bob's website: Link

How do you know that Rae will raise taxes?

I wonder how many Canadians know about his complete 180 degree turn on the issue of health care & the Canada health act, or donations to political parties.

You don't think that second hand smoke is harmful? Wow, now that's denial!

I see we can both agree that it would depend on circumstances. If war is inevitable, then it's inevitable. All I'm trying to say is to avoid war as much as possible. Even if war did break out, there are other options than fighting.

Well that's one way to avoid a question... I guess you can't defend your contradiction. Oh well

"Dion weighs in" on recognizing Quebec as a nation: Link

Betsy, I must say I am a bit surprised by you. I thought you were a Christian who is pro-life (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I read that in another thread, and my apologies if I'm being presumptuous)? Yet you go on and on about parents being free to choose whether to smoke or not in their homes. Why do parents have the right to choose whether or not they kill their kids through second hand smoke, but they shouldn't have the choice to decide if they want an abortion? Now, I really didn't want to bring up the abortion issue, but I just can't get my head around this contradiction. Sure, second hand smoke isn't guaranteed to kill someone they way abortion would, but it's certainly a huge step in the direction of death.

They also drive smart cars & motorcycles, which are much better for the environment.

I would disagree with you there, as would most doctors & scientists. But there is enough information out there already on the dangers of second hand smoke, so I won't bother debating it.

Your explanation made assumptions as to why the country could be invaded and how you might respond. You presume. I was giving my opinion on one scenario. Each scenario would be different. I can't go through all of the almost infinite number of possible scenarios and tell you whether I would risk my life to defend against it. I am suggesting that anything can happen, nothing more and that making assumptions about anything is a mugs game. What you or I would rather happen could easily have no relationship to what does happen. Again, you presume a lot. If a Province gets a mandate from its people to separate are you going to go to war to get the answers that satisfy you before they leave? Again, there are an almost limitless number of scenarios we could go through. All I am saying is that I believe Canada should avoid a civil war as much as possible. It's hard to envision many scenarios that would be worse than a civil war. I don't know the answer to that question but if they feel much more strongly about their country than you, it is possible that many could. It has happened many times before in other countries. How do you feel about it personally? I've already asked this before, but I will repeat it: Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

Yes, and I already explained why. Ok, so now you're suggesting that Canada could separate along regional lines rather than provincial lines? Of course that's not an ideal situation. A better question to ask would be, would you rather each region of the country fighting eachother in war or would you rather each region become independent? Presumably, these are questions that would have to be answered before secession. I'd rather be poor than dead. , not so much. I don't see how you can compare Afghanistan to civil war in Canada. I have great respect for our troops in Afghanistan who are doing great things for the Afgahn people. How would those same troops feel about killing innocent people of their own country (or former country)? Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

You don't have an opinion on the subject?

Sure, if you want to play the *scary* card like the liberals did with the conservatives. There is probably a lot more in Harper's past that would turn Canadians off than there is in Rae's past. Harper has managed to convince a significant number of people that he has changed and become more moderate, why can't Rae do the same? I don't believe that Rae is the best candidate, but I do believe that a person can change, especially when they have learned from their mistakes. I think most Canadians, who are interested in politics enough to get out and vote, already know Rae's record. Like I said, it is a bit of a surprise to me that most people don't think of his past as a negative thing, but according to this poll, that is reality.

Be sure to send us the link...

Would the same apply to defending Canada from another country that threatened it's existance? What if the choice was neither but that of another country imposed upon you by force? If it was from a different country, that would be a completely different situation. Presumably, for a country to invade Canada, they must be doing so to impose very different beliefs on this country (for example facism). In that case, it would be worth the risk to preserve our freedom & way of life. The views of British Columbians are not that different from Canada as a whole. It's not likely that my life would change in such a drastic way as to justify risking my life.

Quite the opposite, actually. What is best for Canadians is that they do not loose their lives. When I use the term "Canadians" I am obviously referring to the people living in this territory we now call Canada. Those people will still be here if Canada separates....so long as they don't loose their lives preserving the unity of the country. They might not be called "Canadians" but at least they will be alive. Yes. Once again, I'm more concerned about being alive than whether I'm called a "Canadian" or a "British Columbian".