Charles Anthony

the results of the poll makes for great biased journalism to convince people have taken Intro to MacroEconomics 101 and think they no anything about economics.

We should not be pointing fingers. Our Bill of Rights stops short at Legal Rights 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html At least the U.S. fourth amendment includes the caveat of requiring "probable cause" regardless of what the head of the CIA says.

The only answers that are provided are the ones that follow YOUR assumptions of what the right answers should be. People who do not agree with YOUR economic assumptions are not provided with choice. Now, let us look at democracy in action step by step: Natives have to pay the GST in certain situations and have exemptions in others. Also, what YOU identify as a "benefit" can also (or may not necessarily) be identified as a "benefit" by a person who is native too. Natives on and off reserves (assimilated or not assimilated) are not homogeneous in their political views, their knowledge of the most basic principles of economics and their understanding of the real effects of taxation. This is the biggest mistake in the poll: First, some people get GST rebates and others do not. Second, when I choose to increase the GST as a way of choosing how I would pay for something, what I am also insisting is "I want everybody else to pay for what I want and I will throw in a tiny fraction." --- the difference between that and a free-rider is very little. Third, the overall effect of an increase in tax (any tax) reduces the efficiency of an economy. The way that an economy will respond varies -- some sectors will vary disproportionately as well. It is possible that the decrease in efficiency negates (or does worse) the "benefit" people derive from such a scheme. That is exactly and exclusively what your choices mean. What about people who get GST rebates, what does their vote mean in YOUR poll? are they allowed to vote? One of the sad problems with taxation and its effect on an economy is due to the factor of time. Getting a rebate at the end of a year is not economically equivalent as being exempt from having to pay it at point of sale each time. No, it is NOT equivalent. That is a grave economic error. First, an economy can "benefit" (and some can suffer) if overall taxes decrease depending on the amount. In the case of a selective tax (or exemption of tax), a particular sector can "benefit" and even have spin-offs to other sectors. Second, the recipient of resource royalties will likely make use of the resource differently than if they were not a recipient. They will likely participate in making that resource productive. On the other hand, they may not do so but it is foolish to automatically assume that they will treat it the same. [We often distrust economists who analyze social policies. How easy it is for social engineers to abuse economics to support their social policies!] I wonder if the Trudeaumaniacal mentality of "increase tax = increase revenue; decrease tax = decrease revenue" will ever be shaken from the Canadian psyche..... The poll demonstrates that bias clearly. Only people who agree with you are provided a choice (and the choices only differ in degree). Funny how voting can work that way, is it not?

Dream on! A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports can crush the evil "New Communism" of China instantaneously. A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports will liberate the people of China from oppression and human rights abuse. A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports will bring fair and honest capitalism to the people of China. There is NOTHING that the Chinese government will be able to do to combat a boycott of Chinese exports. A world-wide boycott of Chinese exports will be a PEACEFUL overthrow of the evil "New Communism" that cowardly terrorizes its own population.

Nobody missed the point of your experiences because there is NO point in anything that you have written. There is NOTHING useful in anything that either of you have written. You identify problems and provide absolutely NO solutions to any of them. We understand COMPLETELY your experiences and the more you write, the more EVERYBODY understands your motives. Most people in Canada have either: - escaped tyrannical regimes - parents who escaped tyrannical regimes - close friends and neighbors who have escaped tyrannical regimes As a result, most people in Canada CAN NOT BE FOOLED by the propaganda and the misinformation and the continued harassment by tyrannical regimes.

I believe that every person who does commerce with China is responsible for the effects of the Chinese industry on the poor Chinese people and environment. I believe that every person who does commerce with China is financially supporting the "communist" government of China. I believe that every person who does commerce with China helps continue the oppression of the poor Chinese people. I believe that every person should boycott Chinese commerce. http://www.tibettruth.com/boycottchina.html http://www.buyhard.fsnet.co.uk/ http://www.boycottmadeinchina.org/ http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/oct96/china.html Many people say that it is close to impossible to boycott Chinese imports because the products are everywhere. It is precisely the opposite: since they are everywhere, it impossible to NOT be able to boycott them. All that we have to do is make a concerted effort to look at the labels and search for alternates. It is like being on a diet. Make a sacrifice for the people and the environment who are abused by the Chines commercial regime.

I strongly agree. Between: 1) more de-centralization and less federal waste 2) getting rid of the monarchy and becoming a republic Which would help Canada the most? I will go for #1) in a heart-beat and I would gladly kiss both the Queen's and her son Charles' and Camilla's asses every Victoria Day and twice on Canada Day for the rest of my life in exchange for more de-centralization.

I should be more precise. I make my statement based on a few major differences compared to the other situations from half a century ago that you identified. This American military presense in Iraq and in Afghanistan - does not have much international support; - motivated by very questionable (if not confusing) pretenses I believe that the American military was not justified in invading Afghanistan and Iraq and I believe that I am not alone in this belief. I would say low intensity war. I believe that it is specifically that presence which contributed to the animosity that provoked the various attacks upon Americans throughout the world culminating ultimately to the demolition of three buildings of the World Trade Center.

That is correct. There are alternative sources of energy in the same way as there are alternate sources of paper instead of trees. Whenever we run out of oil, we will NOT have a choice but to develop alternate energy. The stupid and unfortunate thing is that BEFORE oil becomes scarce we still have the capability to conduct the same research! Nothing is stopping us now. Ooooh... again the deceptive Right/Left or Liberal/Conservative distinction! A long time ago, Sir John A. MacDonald was accusing Sir Wilfrid Laurier of Americanism because the Liberals of the day promoted free-trade with our southern partners.... It all has to do with money. Follow the money and you will see the truth!

Sounds like Yugoslavia's dissolution after Tito died. For true democracy to come to Iraq, it may need to be divided into separate states... ? In the long run, any foreign presence will always breed a resistence. It may take a very long time, but the U.S. can not stay in Iraq (or any country for that matter) AND have peace in said country.

What is it exactly we are getting from you???? I forgot: we are getting highly researched social science! Thank you! We need your profound evaluations and judgments! Do not stop! Our salvation will only come from your illuminating research in Canada!

Thank you for your critical analysis! Canada needs more social science researchers of your style! Thank you! We are enlightened! Please continue!

The problem with that answer is that the reason is too broad. It is so broad that it includes everything. Thus, it really does not clarify the issue. Does that give the mother the right to kill the child before it is born? regardless of what that "impact" happens to be? I tend to think that every mother's life is "impacted" by her child (even the mother's who abort their children) to such a great extent that nobody can ever imagine. Mind you, I suppose it is possible for a particular mother to be so distanced emotionally from her child that her life is not impacted at all by motherhood. That would certainly be technically possible.

Excellent question: I, too, await somebody who can provide the answer.....

Thank you for educating us! We are so ignorant of our own selves! We need Chinese government spies to educate ourselves in our own country! We are so stupid without the Chinese government! We can not think for ourselves! We should close all Canadian schools! We should learn only from Chinese government professors! They know everything! We should only go to Chinese government schools! We can learn everything that we need to know from the Chinese government! Thank you Chinese government for coming to Canada to educate us! Thank you! Do you really think that there are ONLY TWO trolls mascarading behind these characters???

Please educate us!

Comprendo. I see now. However, I am even more disturbed. It sounds worse than I thought. If the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement (or any contract) can be over-turned by a court that means we have diminished value to our civil law system. It sounds like a contract can be torn up, does it not? I am starting to question whether that matters because people who are shacking-up can effectively claim pseudo-spousal support in the event of a break-up. Do we not have a blurred line between marriage/common-law/shack-up/civil-union/whatever already? I think your observation: is very accurate.

No. I disagree. If they told the truth (we are together presuming it is because of Loney being gay), we agree they would receive a backlash from the public -- a battle they can not win. They are cornered with respect to PR -- they are damned if they do and damned if they do not. That backlash is not fair because they do not have to be accountable to the public. It is the backlash against the private club that is the injustice and cowardice.

Now, I get it. Thanks for pointing it out. Personally, I really think that all of this can be resolved fairly by: first, eliminating marriage as a legal issue to be managed by the government; second, if people want government or state or "society" to protect them in the case of a divorce, they should create personal pre-nuptial agreements. Period. Like any other contract, if one party does not respect the terms of the pre-nup, they can resolve it in court. Why should marriage be treated any different from wills or last testaments? other than to create bureaucratic jobs.... maybe?

I believe you are most likely correct. Nevertheless, I believe they should have that right. They are not a public institution. They are not a public school and they are not a government service.

I think that there is a unique characteristic about Stephen Harper that makes all Canadians pay attention. He is not a rich politician. I do not know his personal financial situation at all but he does not present himself as an arrogant politician who is out to make money for himself and his cronies. Yes, yes, I recognize the recent cronyism. My observation is all relative to the last few decades of Canadian federal governments. Harper does come across as a humble little man who wants to govern for the sake of governing unlike the "little man from Shawinigan" who never really came across as humble at all and whose interests did seem selfish.

Trudeaumania is incredible, is it not?? It can produce generations of people who can (after AdScam and Shawinigate and Bombardier-handouts and SeaKing helicopters crashing from the sky) look at our Prime Minister attending a Stanley Cup final and say: I do not think it is the same old thing in the very least. I would rather take the hotels and golf courses in Shawinigan over a seat in the playoff finals!

We need more more MORE knowledge from the government of China! The government of China is an illuminating source of enlightenment! We should be grateful that Chinese government spies are in Canada so that Canadians can learn more about Canada! We should NOT listen to Canadians! We should NOT listen to generations and generations of Chinese people who have left (and continue to leave) China! They know nothing! We should ONLY listen to the employees of the Chinese government! They know everything about China and Canada! Continue! Continue educating Canadians! Such a noble and honorable job! In fact, Canadians should ONLY learn from the government of China for all knowledge. The employees of China can teach Canadians about China and about Canada and about the whole world. Continue! Do not stop! By the way, maybe this thread should be moved over to the IMMORAL & IRRELIGIOUS ISSUES category.

Please continue! Do not stop the Chinese government propaganda! We need more education from the Chinese government! Continue! Continue! Continue! We need more censorship from the Chinese government!

Could be an MP who sincerely believes in the cause and was elected with the promise of presenting the bill on behalf of his constituents.