gc1765

I'm not a tax and spend socialist. I'm fairly conservative fiscally (though not as conservative as someone like yourself, and tend to me a little more progressive...perhaps a progressive conservative ). It is social policies where I am way out in left field I'm pretty sure that health care saves more lives per dollar than arming border guards (or the gun registry for that matter). EDIT: I guess you could sum up my views as someone who believes in smaller government

Can someone explain this to me... It costs $100 million per year to arm 4,000 border guards? That's $25,000 per year per guard. Why does it cost so much? I can't cost that much just for the gun & training? Administrative costs? I wonder how fiscal conservatives feel about this. Could this be the Conservatives' answer to the gun registry? I thought a lot of people were outraged about a program that costs billions and leaves us marginally safer?

The question is about religion. Even if you assume that God exists, religion still must have been invented or at least 'passed down'. If the bible, Quran etc. had never been written (and no oral history) there would be no religion the way we know it today. I'm not depressed that there's no God. A lot of others feel the same way. Is there evil? Yes. A devil? No.

I would say Yes because of the Butterfly Effect ... If there was no religion, there is a good chance I would not be alive today. (Though I could be someone else? but that would raise a lot more questions so I won't go into that).

Page 32 of the platform (which is page 17 in my adobe reader). Under the section Stand Up For Families, subsection Security For Seniors.

I think Layton meant the door is open, as in Harper has the opportunity to do something. Whether or not he does remains to be seen "The question is, is he really willing to move something forward?" Jack probably thinks the answer to that question is no, hence the lack of "urgency" and the possible no-confidence motion.

Yep, they did. It's in their platform: Stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them. Platform

According to Riverwind, the government is spending 200 thousand dollars to give families free housing in Vancouver. Perhaps it not so much a race thing as it is a needs thing. I would be more upset if white people (who I am assuming don't have money to pay for housing) didn't have an inhabitable place to live and the government didn't do anything about it. We give foreign aid to other countries, and that is not based on race. I suppose you could argue that third world countries need the money more, but if these people have no place to live I'd say there is a need there as well.

So, some posters here refer to Jack Layton as Taliban Jack because he wants to negotiate with the taliban. Now, Harper wants to negotiate with Taliban Jack...does that mean those posters will now have to call Harper "Taliban Harper" Just kidding.

Just when I thought you were starting to avoid stereotyping... In your previous post, you mentioned that moderate Muslims/Imams should not be blamed for the actions of others: No to both Now you are reverting back to stereotyping by saying that it "is an Imam-thing". Once again, I have never said that it's not a problem, I have acknowledged this problem several times. At first, I thought this was an innocent mistake on your part. But seeing as how I've said this several times now, I can only assume that you are intentionally making this strawman argument. The only thing I am trying to argue against here is your use of stereotypes, that is labelling the teaching of hate as "an Imam thing" when you yourself have admitted that not all Imams are teaching hate.

You don't know. You've made a big claim about Jews and Christian arbitration...and you're backing it up with, "I don't know." Oh well, then you've really got nothing to say. Thank you for being honest, though. Why don't you read and/or quote my entire paragraph and then you'll see what my point is. I did not make any "big claims" about Jewish & Christian aribration, except to say that they have been taking place in Ontario since 1991, which was from the link that YOU provided (I assumed you had read the link before posting it). My point is this, you do not have a single example of Jewish/Christian arbitration OR an example of Islamic arbitration (despite the fact that I asked you), yet you decide to start an entire thread on Islamic arbitration for which you do not have any specific examples. And then you harp on me for quoting something that was provided in YOUR link? Now, back to my original question. Based on your posts, I am guessing that you are opposed to Islamic arbitration (but if you're not opposed perhaps you can clarify your position for me) and your opposition comes without knowing any specific examples. Now, without being given any specific examples of Jewish & Christian arbitration, are you also opposed to them?

I suppose I'd have to know how much it would cost. It's hard to put an exact figure on what I'd be willing to pay. If it is only for homes that are uninhabitable, and only for people/families that could not otherwise afford housing, then I doubt it would cost too much money. I wouldn't be willing to put them up in nice new condos, but basic shelter in former military housing (which I am assuming would not otherwise be used) shouldn't be too expensive. It would be nice to see everyone in Canada have the basics of food, shelter and healthcare. This may sound idealistic, but if I had more money I would be happy to donate it for this cause (in the meantime I have to worry about my own shelter and food!). BUT this is my personal opinion. I also realize it's extremely unrealistic to expect others to do the same. However, I also see government money being 'wasted' in other areas. I would rather see that money go towards these priorities, or else not be spent at all. I could also see this open to abuse. It's one thing to pay for people who genuinely need it, but what to do with people who simply don't want to work? Maybe make sure that the food and shelter are basic enough to ensure survival but still provide motivation for people to do 'better' for themselves? What about guaranteed workfare? (I might be using the wrong term here, but basically I mean guaranteeing government-paid work for everyone, even if it means cleaning up garbage in the park for example)

Bernard Lord seems to be a pretty popular guy. I don't know much about him, but he seems alright based on the little that I know about him. He's young, he's experienced...I think he would have a good chance at winning if he was leader. What is he doing now that he lost the election? Jim Prentice might be a good choice for them too.

I wonder how much it will cost, per person, to fix this housing for Natives? Can't be more than 200K can it?

Preferrably the latter... If someone, anyone (and no, I'm not trying to single you out here Ricki, this comment is for everyone) uses insults or is trolling, best to ignore their posts. Whoever does this will come off looking more mature anyhow. Best not to feed the trolls, it takes at least two people to have an annoying exchange of useless, off-topic & occasionally insulting comments.

Approximately how much of that 200K is the government subsidizing, and how much will they get back from rent/sales?

Condos in Vancouver start at around $250,000-300,000. I don't know how much they cost to fix, but if a family can not live in those condos because of health concerns, and they can not afford to buy/rent a new place, I would also be happy to pay the few extra cents to make sure they have a cheap place to live. Not something that costs 300 thousand, but enough to give them shelter.

If you were living in a poor, unhealthy building, I would be happy to pay a few extra cents in taxes to have it fixed

Then can you give us an example you've heard of? I can only imagine that if its an issue, it's probably on the internet somewhere and that way I can get more information (just give me some keywords and I'll look it up..."democrats rig election" didn't give me any interesting results). The internet is probably the best way to share information on a forum like this.

The Bloc won't necessarily loose seats, as they could potentially benefit from a split federalist vote. I don't really see why a few seats matters to the bloc anyways, seeing as how they will never form a government. The best they could hope for is to hold the balance of power. But that balance will only matter if they can get something out of this government. If the conservatives make good on their promise to address the fiscal imbalance, the bloc will continue to support the conservatives. This is probably the best case scenario for the bloc. If they don't get anything, they may take their chances bringing down the government in the hopes that a future government will address the fiscal imbalance or else loose the support of the bloc. But who knows how long this could go on for. Eventually, quebecers may get sick of elections and stop voting for the bloc, but who knows. So the bloc may have to settle for a government that does nothing for the fiscal imblance if no parties are willing to do so. Of course the bloc's policies are probably more in line with the liberals (depending on the leader), for example foreign policy, so they may be more likely to prop up a minority liberal government than a conservative minority, but who knows. As for the liberals, a lot of it will depend on who they choose as their leader. With Rae or Iggy, a majority is possible but probably not likely in my opinion. With dion or kennedy, I doubt the conservatives would get a majority, and the liberals would probably even win the election.

Do you have any links to support that?

Fraud could go either way. So why would it matter which party a person votes for when it comes to eliminating fraud? Unless you think only republicans are capable of fraud?

I don't know, you were the one that posted the link about faith-based arbitration! All I know is that it's apparently been going on in Ontario since 1991, but no one has mentioned it or started a thread about it yet. This is from the link YOU provided. I can't give you a specific example of when this happened, but then again that didn't stop you from starting a new thread about Islamic faith based arbitration without a specfic example.

Apologizing is one more step than Mackay. I'm not saying Mackay should necessarily be forced to resign. I mean it would be nice if we could hold all politicians to that standard, and boot out any politician that lies. But apparently that is not the case. If I lived in Mackay's riding, I would however think twice about voting for him, just as I would think twice about voting for Fry. I think it's important for Canadians, especially those who happen to live in Mackays riding to know the truth so that they can make an informed decision at the polls. So I think it is a pretty important story, as I think Canadians should know that the person they are potentially voting for was caught lying. Sure, I suppose it's possible she actually thought she had received a letter that she never received. I supposed it's equally possible that Peter MacKay thought that the MP across the floor had actually stolen his canine. I mean, anything's possible. I was actually half joking here. Anyways, I wouldn't put it past fry to make a mistake like that. Mackay, on the other hand, I thought was smarter than that....but I could be wrong... Didn't she get re-elected a couple of times after she did that? Just wondering. Yes, I believe she did. It just goes to show that a lot of people vote for the lesser of the three evils. I dont' think fry got votes for the fact that she is a brilliant politician so much as because the residents of Vancouver would choose a liar over the conservatives or NDP. I do wonder how she keeps winning the nomination though? That may be true for some people. Personally, a person's integrity plays an important role in who I vote for. Of course, if there is no other viable option, I may have to hold my nose and vote for a liar. Or vote for an independent or fourth/fifth party even though I know I would be pretty much wasting my vote.

Please. Do an internet search and you will find tons of examples of moderate Muslims speaking out. This is much more than I would expect from a group that is not guilty of any crimes. A muslim should not be expected to speak out against violence, hate or terrorism any more than you or I. They are not guilty of any crimes and should not be lumped in with others who preach hate just because they both happen to call themselves Muslim. Obviously their views & beliefs are much different than the extremists, just as our views are also much different than the extremists.