Pliny

Very creative. Hilarious!

I would like to dispel the myth that the Chief Electoral Officer was appointed by Harper. He was not.

But there is no evidence of their culture....gulp...could it be......cultural "you know what"?

A deft slight of hand. He was not appointed by Harper. I hate it when something is presented as a fact and it isn't. I liked OB and C's post. In my view, it is probably close to the truth, and the real issue in this particular case IS partisan politics. betsy, calls the shot pretty close on people who continually bring up the race or religion card. Because this issue is on the surface about "religion" it is used by the self-righteous to excuse themselves and paint someone else as "hateful". Keeping the pot stirred.

I hope we can look back at this period in Canada's history and wonder at people's enchantment with socialism the same way we today look at people's enchantment with socialism in the thirties. Trudeau was always a champion of the State even when it wasn't popular during, and for a decade or two, after the war. How soon we forget.

Ahh....the real issue. Partisan politics.

I think Posit is failing to answer you because you have misinterpreted what he said. He didn't call Mikedavid a "hypocrite". He called him a "hyocite" which is similar to a "trilobite", only without the "tri" and the "b". Just making it up as I go along.

If this is true then the inhabitants coming across the Bering Strait, and aboriginal DNA being associated with Asian DNA must have stole the land from the people of the south and in the process, since we have no other evidence of them, committed ...gasp..."genocide" of the people from the south!!! How can they be compensated? Maybe a memorial? There could be a wake held. Another occasion to part-ay! Y-yess! Just making it up as I go along.

Yes. Forestry scientists have devised this nefarious plan despite regulations against it. As usual, making it up as you go along. Guess what the certain toxins linked to diabetes is? Sugar and carbohydrates. Too much partying I would say. Partying all the time takes its toll on one's health. By the way, big party coming up to celebrate the continuation of the big party. I think there is a statute that says one has the right to food, clothing and shelter so he can concentrate on partying?

More regulation or more enforcement of regulation? I think a law that says no dumping of toxic waste in watersheds is a regulation. What more regulation can be added? Make it in capital letters? Say, "That means you!"? How many corporations do this? 4? 10? 100? All of them? None? There IS a regulation against it, you know? I wouldn't like a mega pig farm in my backyard unless I was a mega pig farmer. No one could put a mega pig farm in my back yard. I think it is still considered private property, even in Canada. They could put one adjacent to my property if they owned that property but no worry there are regulations about that too. Cities usually have bylaws about owning farm animals within city limits. Should the federal government or the municipality decide land usage? How come you ask questions you already know the answer to? So no one can trip you up on them?

Photo ID is required for a lot of things. Wearing Burkas is not permissible when you make application for photo ID. I don't sign my credit cards anymore I request them to ask for ID - they recognize my hoodie right away.

It is a tempest in a teapot. If I do not have my voting card or two pieces of ID then I cannot vote. Anyone else that cannot identify themselves similarly at a polling station cannot vote. I believe the whole uproar is a political ploy designed for political gain. We only have to look at who is painted in a bad light to see the origin but the CBC would definitely promote the demagoguery.

The profits on an income trust had no capital taxes. The profits to the individual shareholders were thus larger. The tax they paid on their earnings were smaller than the gains they made being an income trust. I could be wrong on that as I haven't perused the pros and cons but that is how I understand its advantage.

Good post, mikedavid00

Only when you can say, "White men? What white men?" Can you truly consider yourself free from prejudice.

So if government were not around corporations would be,,what?.... dumping toxic waste into the environment? Seems we are wasting our money on government.

Lookup what a special interest group is. It is a group that lobbies for special privilege or consideration above the interests of others. Women were not lobbying for special privilege or consideration they were lobbying for equality under the law. Not until they wanted special laws for themselves could they be considered a special interest group. Lobbying for equal treatment under the law is different than lobbying for privilege, largesse and/or special consideration. I don't know when natives got the vote. Was it 1958 they were recognized as persons, equal under the law, and became subjects of the Queen and citizens of Canada? Well, they certainly are a special interest group now.

yes. that is the law even if there are no handicapped individuals in a wheelchair for a hundred miles. that is the law. Yes. You can be told what to do with your private property. That is the law. There is no justice. There is only catering to special interests, minorities and/or the underdog who will then vote for you. People without a vested interest or special status aren't interested enough to vote and are generally ignored or told they will get a tax break that amounts to $50 a year per person and adds up to a billion dollars the big-hearted government will sacrifice for you. If equality means that, then anyone can crash in my spare bedroom whenever they like. You are way too sloppy in your statements to be taken seriously in a legal sense or any sense. Gosh I will have to get a lobby group together and lobby to have my inherent barriers removed. I am rapidly becoming disadvantaged. Tthe government, for instance, only hires visible minorities these days. Where will it end?

They were not a special interest group before they got the vote because they did not have the vote no politicians had any obligations to listen to them on any issues. They had no rights. So they were not a special interest group. No laws had to be changed to accommodate women. They were considered persons and equal under the law. What further laws needed changing? Society had to adjust to the new recognition. Of course, feminists wanted to force the issue and in the sixties started to heavily lobby as a special interest group for privilege.

How come we have so much government and we have so much "toxic waste"? If we have more government won't we have more toxic waste? Seems that way to me.

The government can peg the dollar, yes. Deifenbaker did that in the sixties and, if anything, that demonstrates that political influence can be exercised. Economically, letting the dollar float and just adjusting with the usual tools of money supply, interest rates and credit availability is found to be more effective economically. The Liberals kept the dollar low in relation to the US dollar intentionally, probably to bolster Canadian manufacturing sales. Great business for Ontario. It also didn't help the American domestic manufacturing sector sort of a nice snub from Liberals. I am not wishing for anything I will regret later. I am saying that the damage has already been done by governments interfering in economies and markets. Most of that damage occurred in the nineteen thirties and continued on from there but there were practices, mostly related to banking, that should have been outlawed in the eighteen hundreds that were allowed. Heavy regulation was supposed to be the cure instead of the correct course of action that of eliminating faulty practices.

Actually, women prior to being recognized as "persons" had no political rights whatsoever. They did not have the right to vote so were not a special interest in elections to be catered to by politicians. They fought for the right to be persons and to be treated "equally under the law" and thus be granted the right to vote. It did not mean they wanted special treatment above men or that they should lobby for privilege once they won the right to be called "persons equal under the law". I note there is a federal portfolio for the status of women but not one for the status of men. Must be an oversight.

Sounds like government - Creating an uproar when there is no problem. You can bet they will be busier than we here on this forum discussing this in the legislature.

The only thing that needs to be considered is if someone is using force against you. The government, through legislation, is the sole agency, appointed or not, licensed to use or delegate the use of force. When it uses force unjustly by making laws that cater to special interests, be they corporations, aboriginals, women, gays, religions, races, cultures, the disabled, the enabled, the rich, the poor, the smart, the dumb, the tall, the short, the fat, the thin...whoever, if a law favors anyone over another it is unjust and unfair and unequal treatment under the law. A federal government, especially, must refrain from catering to special interests as it is the ultimate arbiter in justice and cannot be seen to give privilege or favour to anyone, especially to themselves as they often do. In that light, I must respectfully disagree with using the law to conscript others to allow benefit to someone else. Communities and municipalities having smaller realms of influence and being more on top of local needs and concerns can make those kinds of laws but they must relinquish involvement in justice issues if they do.

That is a revelation, if true! It would explain the origin of the conflict.