Charles Anthony

Correct. However, there is no need for debit cards.

Therein lies the problem. Why not? Are there more important things upon which we should waste money? Dream on. Nightmare over.

Simple: in your scenario 2, there will develop the obvious reputation that this particular street is dangerous. I have a follow-up question for you: why should your street be left unguarded or unattended at 3AM?

Thank you. I am bumping this to maintain a cross-link with its continuation: Constitution, Charter, Meech Lake & All That -- Night of the Long Knives

JBG, I will second that motion!

Today, I do not believe Quebeckers or anybody who speaks French are as welcome throughout this country as other people. Granted. However, it all started as spin.As an aside, this makes me think of French Canadians replying with "Bienvenue!" after you say "Thank you!" Appalling.

I am very serious. I would rather they just put the coins in my palm FIRST and then put the paper on top. It is not like I am asking for much of an extra effort. They must give both of them to me anyway. I can manipulate both the coins and paper with my one hand that way as I walk away with my merchandise. Your suggestion forces me to stay in line and hold up the flow at the check-out counter. Are YOU serious? Are you saying that you would rather float a slip-sliding stack of coins on top of paper bills??? I should use two hands instead of one??? I forgot to also mention that I only have two hands. Furthermore, nobody else is going to carry my merchandise for me. Thus, my other hand is usually ahead of the game and has already cleared my merchandise off the counter. Should we all hold up the flow at the check-out counter? As an aside, this reminds me of something else: cashiers should hand back your plastic card immediately after they swipe it instead of waiting until everything ELSE is done. That way, you can put it into your wallet, grab your merchandise and walk away with your receipt. Again, the alternative is to have the customer wait and wait and wait until everything that the cashier must do is completed and then hold up the queue while putting the card away.

It was worse than racist commentary. It was the reality that French Canadians had to live in their own damn country. Now, rest-o-Canadians (sell-out Quebec federalists included in that bunch) are re-interpreting and re-hashing and re-packaging current affairs under the guise of reporting news. I will repeat: your stale cake is a spin.

This sort of goes against the "final arbitrator" justification for state monopolized justice.

???? You know less about Quebec than I thought you did.

That is a sound-bite spin that was baked and served for people who can only Speak White. That stale cake is not very palatable to people who eat pea soup.

Sure. The answer is simple: whoever owns the road can dictate anything he wants. With a free market in property rights, the road owner can do exactly what we have now (i.e., let people use their cells and get into more accidents) or outlaw cell phone use entirely (i.e., catch people who use their cells) or develop a jamming technology. Whoever does not like the rules on a particular road, will not be forced to drive on it. Thus, my views really do not tell you much. The choice of a road owner will likely be a function of how bad the drivers seem to be. Ultimately, a road owner does not want a collision. Conversely, tow-truck companies and auto mechanics might want collisions -- statists should be very very scared of these latter two growing in size and subverting road safety. I would also say that individual automobile insurance companies do not want a collision either and thus, they will probably be the first ones to dictate cell phone use for their clients. The insurance companies may even team up with automobile manufacturers who can install jamming or monitoring technology in cars. The insurance company may only offer coverage for automobiles with specific added monitors. With a coercively monopolized road service economy, it does not really matter since tax-payers foot most of the bill. The best solution will depend on how best each of the various agents (drivers, cleaners, police, insurance companies) can off-load their hidden costs onto somebody else.

No. The consumer should. The results will be faster if the consumer sees a price associated with their choices. Unfortunately, if somebody puts nothing out on garbage day, they will still pay through "taxes". I would suggest that those two tiers be subdivided further and there be no lower limit covered exclusively by "taxes" at all. Every single thing you put on the curb will have a visible and higher price.

No, I like to call it -- let me remind you, in case you have forgotten -- throwing pearls before swine. Simply, I came to that conclusion by being partially awake during the last few years. Sure. Before I do, I will say this: this is tooooo easy. Anyway, I will entertain your request. Here is one that I have always liked: Maclean's Big deal. This is an easy one too. I will now kill a few more birds with one stone. Your question is valid but you do not realize one thing: Dumont may not even have a real plan at all. Here we see rest-o-Canadians trying to debug and interpret Dumont's "economic plan" when Quebeckers have already figured it out long before the election. Here is my reference, previously posted by aout91 in a different thread whereby Dumont's "economic plan" is clearly and concisely summarized in two words. That video is very revealing. In case you have trouble finding Dumont's Economic Plan In A Nutshell, I will give you a hint: one of the words is a pronoun. This exemplifies "the comfortable misconception held by Rest-o-Canadians of Quebec politics" upon which I am convinced exists. Correct. However, it seems like some people are still trying to read too much into it.Now, please excuse me while I compile references to support my latest opinion: the sky is blue.

Who cares about plastic shopping bags per se??? We should be more concerned about all sorts of packaging and garbage in general. I think it would wiser for municipalities to charge residents for the garbage they dispose. For example, $1 a pound of garbage and maybe gradually increase it over time. That way, individuals will have an incentive to change their purchasing habits so that they throw out less packaging and wrappers.

In that case, I am 100% convinced of your unsupported statement in post #10 up above. Absolutely convinced. Translation: "First prove my unsupported statement is false otherwise it is true." I get it.

I do not think Newfoundland should have more than two seats in the House of Commons because their population is sooooo small.

Are tax cuts the best way to reduce the size of the Quebec government?

Do you have an alibi for the last few years?

There are not much more than half a million people in ALL of Newfoundland and Labrador. Two seats in the House of Commons is more than enough. I doubt it. I think it will back-fire.

For example, the myopic misconception that a Quebecker associates the ills of big government primarily with high taxes. Here is some proof: the difference between that Rest-o-Canadians and Quebeckers had with the Liberal Party of Canada's sponsorship program.

Possibly. A separate Quebec could have a government that is even bigger than the Canadian federal government.What cake is that?

Forgive me but what is the point of this post? This seems like a violation of the forum rules:

You could have at least earned interest on the money that was refunded over-taxed . That lost interest is not much different than an extra tax on your refund. How about this: The government eliminates all income tax but witholds ALL of your money -- bureaucrats deciding when and how much to refund without your consent.

Funny, you should mention. This thread is following a recent pattern of excitement.