gc1765

Thanks Charles, that's exactly what I was looking for. Don't know how I missed that one myself

Perfect. Much clearer.

Not really. Insulting, yes. Sexist, no. Sorry, I'm still a little confused. Could you retype what you meant to say (or perhaps edit your original post)? I still don't understand what you meant when you said "Sexist and hypocritical is the only way the describe the following quote..."

Like I said, it's really not a big deal at all, I just wanted to clarify for anyone else reading the thread.

Thanks. That's what I usually do as well, it's just a pain when there's up to 20 pages in a thread.

"Sexist and hypocritical is the only way the describe the following quote...." I think there is a typo in your original post, which is misleading. Perhaps you meant to say "sexist and hypocritical is the only way they would describe the following quote" or perhaps you meant to say "sexist and hypocritical is the only way to describe the following quote", which is calling it sexist. I interpreted the latter. Perhaps you could clarify what you meant (either thread is fine).

When I search for a keyword using the "search" function, the results I get is a list of threads, but no indication of where on that thread the keyword that I'm looking for is. Sometimes the thread is 10+ pages long and it takes time to skim through the thread looking for a specific keyword or post. Is there an easier way to do this? It would be nice if you could click on the actual post where the keyword is, rather than only being able to click on the thread.

Continued from This thread : and my original question: Here's your chance. If you think the Ambrose comment was sexist, do you think Mackay's comment was sexist?

I thought I already answered that question, are YOU reading the posts you reply to? To repeat "I didn't cry sexism when mackay called stronach a dog, and I'm not crying sexism now". Why would I respond to something that I believe is a non-issue? I didn't comment on the sexism of mackays comment either, and I didn't really get involed in that debate until he lied about it. You never asked me why I avoided that topic either. But the answer is the same, I don't respond to every thread, just those that I think are important. This, like the "dog" comment, is relatively unimportant. P.S. It's really not a big deal at all but when you emphasize a word like "Fine you didn't *say*..." (emphasis on *say*) you seem to be insinuating that I implied it was sexist, or that there is something more to it. So, it's only fair that I state for the record that I not only did not imply the comment was sexist, I specifically said that the comment was not a big deal. Will do.

I've been consistent in my positions. I didn't cry sexism when mackay called stronach a dog, and I'm not crying sexism now. Show me where I cried sexism, here I'll help you out: Now, the question is, are you consistent in your positions? Since you've called this most recent comment about Ambrose sexist, and even started a new thread about it, will you also acknowledge that you think mackays "dog" comment was sexist??

No I didn't. The question is, did you think the "dog" comment was sexist?

Sure - but it is the gov't that decides what compensation is appropriate. In most cases of this means the owners can get fair market value for the property but that may be much less that what the property is worth to them. It is impossible to offer 'fair market value' for lands that natives claim because the cost would be too huge - so the gov't either offers symbolic compensation or argues that there is no legal claim. I agree. I think that Natives should be compensated whatever the government decides is "fair". In most cases of expropriation, the owner would get the market value. I don't know what that would add up to for Native claims, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was quite large. Giving market value may be impossible (depending on what the actual value is, again I don't know the exact figure) but I don't see a problem with giving money that the government deems is 'fair'. Obviously that opens up a whole different argument about what is "fair", but I won't get myself involved in such an argument because it would be almost impossible for me to give an exact dollar amount.

Under expropriation, aren't they compensated for their losses?

Did you think mackays "dog" comment was sexist?

What if the majority of people decide that a piece of land owned privately by an individual doesn't belong to them anymore?

per capita??

How about mandatory castration instead....I'm only half joking.

Here's the latest: Link

I agree. If the EU wants to have a discussion on global warming, let's have a discussion on global warming AND afghanistan. On the issue of afghanistan, Harper should really "stand up for Canada".....hmmm now why does that sound familiar?

Good call. That's as good of a reason as any for him to go.

Yes, I agree. That's precisely why I said I would change my mind if it turned out that the government borrows at rates (say 3%, which is probably about what a bond would get) the same as (or lower than) what I can get in return. The 7% figure is what threw me off, your comments below were informative though:

That's fine, people will always have debt. That doesn't mean that I personally have to have debt. I don't need debt. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have debt. Or to use your children's books analogy, people can have all of the children's books they want, but that doesn't mean I have to read them. Having a national debt means that, as a taxpayer, I am forced to read children's books against my will. The essence of government is to spend other people's money for services used by other people. How fair is it that I should have to pay for teachers because someone else has children? That's fine. If you believe the government should not pay teacher's salary, that would be a very conservative point of view to take. Of course, you'd have to consider the fact that you were once a child and presumably your schooling was also paid for by the government. If you believe that education should only be private, that's fine, but that is a very conservative point of view. Is that true? If it is, my mind might be changed on the subject. However, given these tables: Link It seems that we paid 34 billion dollars interest in 2004-2005 on a debt of 500 billion. That's almost 7%. I'd like to know where I can get a (safe) return of 7%. Of course, I'll have to double check those numbers when I get more time, for some reason it doesn't seem to make sense that it would be that high. I'll double check later.

But if it was my personal debt, I would do everything I can to pay it off and avoid the interest. So, in effect, as a taxpayer I am forced to pay interest charges that I would rather not pay. Too bad I can't pay off my 'portion' of the debt and have my taxes lowered. Oh well. P.S. How are equity of taxation and fairness of taxation not equivalent in this case. I mean, what arguments are there for equity of taxation other to say that it is more "fair".

Why not? Care to elaborate? I thought conservatives believed in "fairness" of taxation. In other words, from a conservative point of view, how is it fair that someone should have to pay interest because someone else has debt? I could understand the argument against paying down the debt from a liberal, but not from a conservative.

Hey geoffrey, I think you'll like Gerard Kennedy even more with this: Link