kraychik

Exactly. It's as if it just fell from the sky.

That's all spin. You can't just legislate goods and services into existence. It is virtually a law of nature that governmental encroachment on an economy drives up costs. Providing insurance in Massachusetts to the previously uninsured via Romneycare could not possibly have not driven up costs, meaning either deferred taxation by driving up the deficit and/or debt without raising taxes (stupidity), or costing more and taxing more concurrently (also stupid). You can't just create goods and services out of thin air without paying for it.

You should try having a conversation with a Tea Party person one day, it'll dispel the myths you subscribe to after watching thirty-second CBC commentary clips with false allegations of overt racism and extreme religiosity. This legislator lady doesn't represent the Tea Party, and perhaps she was lying in some pathetic attempt to insulate her from criticism she felt would come her way.

He is demonstrating the ignorance of the left, where they think they can cut pieces of an economy out from the whole and examine it accurately without looking at the broader context. The economic ignorance of the left prevents them from understand that economies are like ecosystems, where all moving parts affect one another directly or indirectly. This economic ignorance of the left, however, is not to be underestimated. It is massive and results in political parties like the NDP.

No, it has nothing to do with economies of scale. Especially considering the industries that serve both Canada and America are largely unified/harmonized. You think Costco magically pays more money to bring something to Canada as opposed to the USA? What about WalMart? Maybe Best Buy? What about automobile dealerships who charge ten to twenty percent more for the same vehicle in Canada as opposed to America? What about Amazon.com downloads being cheaper than Amazon.ca download? Considering many of these industries are unified, we should be contributing to the economies of scale considering we buy from the same retailers and manufacturers. Of course that isn't what happens. Canadians earn less, pay more taxes, and pay more for goods and services directly as a consequence of the single-payer healthcare system (there's more to it than that, but this is a primary cause). Again, thank you for displaying the ignorance of the left towards basic economics.

The overwhelming majority of the Tea Party is far more well-verses in American legalities than you are. The assertion that the Tea Party as a movement was blindsided by this consequence of the educational funding reform is a lie.

I don't think bleeding heart can make it through one post without referring to his ideological detractors as stupid. It's the standard (misplaced and ironic) arrogance of the left. They think they're complex, nuanced, and layered whereas conservatives are simplistic brutes. It's funny, and unfortunately for them, I'm now on this board.

I'm familiar with Glenn Beck, and I like him. He's improved a lot since his earlier years of fame. Yes, he engages in hyperbole, and is overly dramatic, but I find the thrust of his leanings agreeable. I'm quite certain I've watched and listened to him far more than you. His new website is also fantastic, as is GBTV. You want to mock Ayn Rand, while the father of your ideology is Karl Marx, and its real-life implementers are Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Guevara, Mao, Hitler, and Kim Il-Sung. Your slander doesn't work so well when the tables are turned. You seem to talk a lot about how dumb these people are, or how stupid those people are, I suppose you fancy yourself as intelligent and educated?

So you think I need a leftist like yourself telling who is an isn't a leftist? Regardless of what you think about Argus, he just parroted the leftist slander of the Tea Party. It was 100% untrue, and I called him on it. All one needs to do is go to the various Tea Party websites, watch Tea Party videos online, or, heaven forbid, actually speak with some Tea Partiers to realize that his narrative (which is all parroted) is completely false. As far as Christians in America feeling as if their religion is under assault, they have just cause to feel that way. This very thread demonstrates the vitriol of the left, where the subtle Christian element of the Tea Party is falsely described as the primary force of the movement by Argus, who then compares them (and by extension contemporary American Christian denominations) to the Taliban. It's was so hilarious and stupid that I am now using it in my signature as the first in what will eventually be a long list of moronic statements from the left on this board. I'm starting a collection.

There is a constitutional obstacle here in the form of the Establishment Clause. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Unfortunately, there are some unique elements to Islam which make is disconcerting. Its scope of ambition and control over people's lives and its anti-democratic nature justifiably concern those that don't want to fund religious Muslim schools. Now, of course Islam isn't monolithic and not all religious Muslim schools are the same, but there is good reason to be concerned with the consequences of this reform to the funding of education considering that Islam is a religion unlike any other.

Depends on the Canadian, of course. You're absolutely right for the most part.

Thank you for exposing the economic ignorance of the left. You obviously don't realise that life in Canada is significantly more expensive than in America directly as a consequence of our universal healthcare system. Americans earn about ten percent more on average, pay less taxes on average, while the cost of their goods and services is also substantially cheaper. Perhaps one could argue that this is balanced out with their nearly twice-as-expensive healthcare costs. At least I'm not ignoring the entire context, however, which is what you are doing. Since this thread is somewhat relevant to education, your post above also serves as a reminded of how the public school system is failing our children in the sense that average Canadians have a very weak grasp of basic economics. We really need to improve education in public schools on this subject, again, evidenced by the economic ignorance you've illustrated with your post above.

Again, I point to this thread, exhibit A, a clear evidence of the smug anti-Americanism that is endemic to the Canadian left. The reality is that America guarantees a much greater degree of individual sovereignty and protection from governmental discrimination than in Canada. Bush_cheney2004 accurately points out the hypocrisy given the discrimination that is enshrined in some of Canada's laws, although I think this is now primarily at the provincial level. There's a lot more institutionalized racism, sexism, and other unjustifiable discriminations codified into law in Canada, but we can address that later. Canada does not have the moral high ground compared to the USA when it comes to protections from religious, racial, or other unjustifiable discriminations practised by the government. So the smugness from the Canadian left here is quite rich. Alright, so the Louisiana Republican state legislator was silly not to realise that this change to the funding mechanism of education would also fund religious Muslim schools. Somehow this translates to American "public institutions being taken over by religious and private interests"? Talk about hysteria.

Assuming the Koch brothers have funded the Tea Party in one form or another, how does that do anything to support your false narrative of the Tea Party being an overtly religious gang of morons serving the interests of the rich (as if the interests of the rich are contrary to those of everyone else, which is a socialist narrative)? You even suggested that the Tea Party is similar to the Taliban, which pretty much tells us everything we need to know about your ideological point of departure when it comes to political discourse.

Tea Party folks that I've spoken to seem to be far more knowledgeable about politics, economics, and their relevant history than you. It's also rich for an average-at-best individual like yourself to snicker and sneer at Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who I have no doubt are far more intelligent, educated, and accomplished than you'll ever be. Your condescension of "they haven't even read Ayn Rand" implies that you have, I suppose? Am I to assume that one cannot understand communism without having read the communist manifesto, according to what you're clearly implying? If I have't read "Atlas Shrugged", can I not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy? Don't worry about answering those two questions, they're simply rhetorical.

There's a Christian element to the Tea Party, but it's a mild undercurrent. It's also completely understandable given the blatantly anti-Christian sentiment of the contemporary left. It's a reactionary to what they accurately perceive as an assault on their religious values.

This is a complete mischaracterization of the Tea Party. Thank you for your post, however, because it serves to illustrate the typical ignorance of the leftist Canadian regarding the primary theme of the Tea Party movement. Everyone should take a moment to read this nonsense and realize that this is the narrative describing the Tea Party manufactured by most of the leftist Canadian media outlets. Leftist friends of mine who I spoke to about this over the years told me about how "racist" an "bigoted" and "religious" the Tea Party was, surprise surprise, they all read and watch CBC. It is also a grassroots movement, contrary to your myth of it being an artificial construct of the evil greedy rich elite. You want to see artificial movements? Go take a look as many leftist protests with paid "demonstrators" (who often don't speak English and have names like Miguel or Rosita).

It's a manufactured narrative designed to appeal to leftists, which is exactly why The National Post picked up on it. I agree with capricorn, it's sensationalism. There is no "bullying" from Harper going on. It's another irrelevant periodical (which has virtually nothing to do with economics, ironically) struggling to maintain a readership.

Exactly, add another to the long list of examples of terrible journalism from The National Post. To describe is as "mostly right-leaning" is either a blatant lie, or, more likely, a twenty-something "journalist" who went to Wikipedia for a couple of seconds before submitting his article to his editor five minutes before its deadline to find out about a newspaper he'd never heard of. Hilariously, The Economist is also described as "influential". Considering that The National Post is a Canadian newspaper targeting a Canadian audience, how they choose to define The Economist as "influential" in the Canadian context boggles the mind. I also find it rich that a know-nothing "journalist", presumably from the UK, will be so pretentious as to tell us Canadians what does or doesn't work well for Harper. Bottom line? This is a fluff piece masquerading as something more substantial, where the fake intelligentsia can give themselves a bravo and job well done for reading something "intellectual" about a country they know nothing about.

None of that makes any sense, because providing insurance to the uninsured will automatically affect the entire market, including those who are currently insured. This is true for both Romneycare and Obamacare. The assertion that Romneycare somehow does this for free where Obamacare does it through raising taxes is laughable. Both increased costs on taxpayers, because there's no such thing as a free lunch. Even if Romney didn't raise taxes, he's increasing the debt. And debt is essentially deferred taxation. Romney didn't magically create free care whereas Obama didn't. They both cost money.

Elizabeth May is a socialist politician that panders to the worst elements of human nature: jealousy and resentment. She employs the most despicable rhetoric playing the class-warfare card, the phony "environmentalist" card, and the "anti-war" (appeasement of enemies) card. She should be condemned and demeaned at every possible opportunity.

I would also like to see an articulation of the differences. Romney's biggest liability is... Romneycare.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't oppose the spending of money towards political objectives simply because it comes from abroad. I oppose legal restrictions on how people can spend their money towards expressing their views or supporting those they agree with. I can criticize their ideas without attacking the fact that they spend money on advancing them. It's clear you want to completely ignore the substance of my post and split hairs and argue over semantics.

This is the standard refrain of leftists across the internet, "show me a website with a 'study' or I won't believe it". Leftists have such self-loathing that they can't advance or accept argumentation without an "expert" confirming it. This is the essence of hit-and-run posters who just spam links without even reading past the headlines.

So you think such broad subject matter can be presented in a "study" where the methodology would be accepted by a leftist like yourself? Interesting. It's not like you'd ever read such a research paper that articulated such a thing, anyways, so why are you even asking for it?