Charles Anthony

You are defining "government legitimacy" by how much choice is offered in its perceived selection by its electorate. Is that correct?

Welcome, DC, to the forum. That certainly sounds ironic. Exactly who is doing what again?

Without a clear definition of "legitimate government" or "democracy" anything can be decided to have a place or to NOT have a place. Define your terms.Allow me. legitimate government: a system of rule whereby anyone may do as he pleases provided that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the body of any other person except for in self-defense. democracy: an attractive compromise on legitimate government that depends periodically on arithmetic.

Prove it. What do you think happens the day before a business closes? Are the employers still making profit? Yes, I have ALL examples. They can all be summarized thusly: the fact that it must be made illegal to pay people below a certain wage proves that there are people who would accept a lower wage. Behold again: people are already willing to work for less than $10 an hour now. The bitter truth is that you are right. The legitimacy of minimum wage is the same as the legitimacy of all "government" action. Why will you not believe it? I agree. It makes me warm and fuzzy to know that my vote is equal to the vote of each contributor. According to some of the logic presented, we should raise the minimum wage to $100 or $1000 or even $10,000 an hour.

I believe the responsibility over the issue of homophobia is more likely a two-way street between the candidates and the media. CAVEAT: My opinion is derived from casual observation of the news. Today, the issue was brought up again by a radio host (Corus network) who interviewed some McCutcheon guy, a Quebec gay-group representative and they discussed the issue on an on. A federal Liberal MP was asked his opinion on the matter and he wish-washed away from commenting on the original provocative statement. The host went on and on about that too. I realize this is anecdotal from a few hours on one network but my point is that the media are feeding the homophobia-sympathy issue too. Do you honestly think it will make much of a difference? Meanwhile, in other news, an other Quebec union turns down a contract offer and the employer, Verreault Navigation, announces it will close shop.

You have never heard of a business going out-of-business before. Comments like this: are devoid of reality. Indeed it is and your perspective on the matter is exceedingly myopic. You are not being serious in this discussion.

When and where? I may be misinterpreting that last statement but the innuendo behind "without being asked" may be interpreted that Boisclair is making it an election issue. He is not. Boislcair is NOT prancing around blaming people for being homophobic. The issue is being explicitly and repeatedly raised by members of the press. The media are making it an election issue.

Why?? because your share of the "subsidy" is tiny and you can force everybody else to pay the difference. Sounds like a great deal to me! Loans?!? Why would you distort the market for borrowing money??

No. It is a very important issue because your logic makes no sense. You suggested that if there is no minimum wage, employees throughout the economy would be forced to accept lower wages. The existence of people making more than minimum wage proves that your logic is completely wrong. Employees get paid what they demand and what employers can supply. That is the question I am asking YOU. That question disproves your logic. You are suggesting that without minimum wage every employer will offer only lower wages. Do you not see your contradiction? Check out this thread: Using the [ Quote ] Feature

reported

reported

reported

By following references and foot-notes of BDog's links above -- ignore for the moment that they all link to the same website -- this is what we get: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.htmlAn accurate cross-section of the general population??? But, we also get this: Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States What does this last quote mean???? ALL women who did not use contraceptives are at risk of pregnancy.

Well, I must say, you have got me. Please, whether you grew up in a shoe box or I grew up in the hall-way makes ZERO difference in the determination of economic policy. What makes me more sick is when people impose economic policy when they know ZERO economics. -- irrelevent. You are making suggestions for imposing economic policy and you can not defend them. Can you provide ONE SINGLE reference to a school of economic thought (raging socialist and Marxist theorists included) that support your belief???

Thanks for the interesting statistics, BadDog, but please explain how they demonstrate "that women that have received abortions are an accurate cross section of the general population" because according to you, it would seem that 52% of U.S. women are younger than 25 years and black women out-number every other race by 4 times. No?

Fortunately for the people who are not so deluded by non-existent economics, "nothing" is not the only choice. Can your delusional economic theory explain why people exist in Canada earning more than minimum wage?!?!?!? Welcome to Canada. Leave your crockonomics at the door.

I know exactly where he stands: he wants power. Point final. Just say anything on the campaign trail that will make the electorate happy! The GazetteDoes they ADQ really have a plan to govern a province? or is this a "worry about that when we get there" game? It really does not look good for a leader to announce grand plans without informing his underlings.

I refuse to accept the dichotomy or argument of "Melting Pot" versus "Multi-culturalism" because I do not believe either of them truly exist as distinct concepts. We have permitted ourselves to be fooled by the dramatic stories portrayed by actors on an international stage. Saying "we have multi-culturalism" and "they have a melting pot" is more vacuous than identifying the differences in our democratic systems or our tax policies.

Would you raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour if you had the power? And YOU would put their employees out of work. Twisted. The reason why we should get rid of the minimum wage is because some people are willing to work for less. Why would it?? What right do you have to force that on everybody??? Easy. Large sweatshop corporations would never come to Canada. They would go to some other part of the world. Your worries are unfounded.

Nothing. As they should. Would you rather work for an employer that is successful or one that is on the brink of going bankrupt? You are just picking winners and losers.

Not all employers make a lot of profit. That is the problem.

How about you raise minimum wage to $100 dollars an hour?? Everybody will have to work 10 times less than at $10 hour, right???? -- and when businesses do not make YOUR extra profit, then what happens??? Your minimum wage would put people out of work. Some people have a dream-like vision of business that should never leave the covers of a Karl Marx comic book. You may be sarcastic but your comment is silly. I challenge the lazy socialists to ask an employer of people at minimum wage how a forced rise will affect their ability to hire MORE employees or to maintain the SAME hours for their existing employees.

Hein? Impunity?? You mean the government of Quebec has nowhere else to go -- except creating and flogging a chimeric fiscal imbalance story. The government of Quebec may tax with impunity but certainly they face the wrath of their electorate more directly than does a rest-of-Canadian politician.

I second the motion! However: ...and a lot less responsibility in an economy. Individuals have a MORE important role to play in the economy.

Three cheers for patent protection! Hip hip hooray!