Charles Anthony

Do you have a link for that interpretation?The prime minister did not get a word in at all. Why? because of how the Liberals shouted him down in the House of Commons.

Why is this: a problem? I do not know who this quoted policy analyst Joseph Berger is -- he may even be just as unbiased as me! -- but he is skipping over the most obvious: we can accept educated immigrants. In light of that, it is disengenuous to imply that one Canadian (for example, me) should subsidize the education of an other Canadian (for example, any student) because, personally, I do not care where you are born.

What I find interesting is that all of the Liberals were very quick to eliminate the prime minister's ability to talk. They all seemed to know the connection between Bains' in-laws and the RCMP. I have a recommendation for the next advertizing campaign: Liberals: your government in waiting??? (WMV file -- high video speed) Liberals: your government in waiting??? (WMV file -- low video speed) [you have do not want to wait, go to the last 2 minutes of the clip to see the government in waiting] I would probably create a montage with Stephane Dion saying how easy it is to set priorities or something like that...

How would YOU administer or enforce hard caps in emissions over a long-term time frame?

Just like I described in post #24 above. What more could you want? I genuinely do not understand your questions. Please rephrase them. It is only a "legal maze" because people made it so. Sounds like a fun ride! Weeeee! Nobody needs to "invent a new kind of law" at all to deal with those issues. They just need to mind their own business. For example, you could use the same "new kind of law" that was invented to settle the vast majority of divorces: negotiation with the risk of going public. With the strong arm of the state, you can make anything a crime.

Exactly. I believe most retailers will do the same. Getting rid of the penny is not a consumer problem. In fact, maybe retailers will start quoting $xx.95 for their prices more and more. Just a guess.

-- gimmick or not, what would YOU do if you were a retailer and the penny disappeared?

Then, why do you think people quote prices at XX.X9?

I can not say for sure but I believe it IS a Quebec-only issue. I wonder if Quebeckers receive immigrants differently from the rest-of-Canadians. How are Quebeckers bending?

All kidding aside, with the "to the best of my ability" clause, it would not be very onerous and at the same time, it would eliminate whining from the people who want PR and whateveR. I have no idea what purpose it serves. My guess is that the majority of Canadians do not know either. I read this: ...and I would like to make a recommendation to you (for which I expect a huge backlash from everybody): why do you need Canada? You can separate from Canada and organize your bureacracy the way you want. [CAVEAT: Do not take this personally against the Atlantic region. I feel this way about every province.]

-- not if you refuse to pay it. Our beer and popcorn are sold on a market. That means, if you are unhappy paying the extra 4 cents to round up the price, you are providing an incentive to a competitor to gain your business by rounding down. Answer this: why the hell does everybody post prices with $X-insert-digits-here-X.99 instead of using round numbers??? It does not follow your logic.

which amounted to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra#SentencingIt would have been cheaper to fire him.

I do not see how a person ca truly represent a riding with ANY number of votes. However, here is a suggestion to your dilemma: make them sign a job contract that says "I will truly represent everybody in my riding yadda yadda yadda whether they voted for me or not yadda yadda yadda to the best of my ability." and I would not care if they bought every single vote. What do you mean by power sharing?

ADQ areas? I have not looked at any recent maps that are based on the most recent polls in Quebec. Nevertheless, outside of Montreal, what could a Quebecois in an "ADQ area" possibly want that a Quebecois in a "non-ADQ area" could NOT want? People may be stupid but they usually still know what they want. The baker does not need a smart butcher to figure out how to trade with him. I believe the safest bet for any outsider politician is to assume that people want security and maybe some control. Relative to the perceived choices, the separatist movement is probably not convincing. For Stephen Harper to be accepted AT ALL in Quebec is monumental. I believe it is a grave mistake to suggest that the Quebecois want to see a Quebecois leader. In the past, that made sense. Now, it does not. By choosing Stephane Dion for a leader, I wonder if the federal Liberals were thinking the same way as you do.

This does not surprise me in the least. However, do you have a link or reference? I want to find out more. No one except people that wanted excuses to hate Jews would have gone to see him and they would overlook his short comings.I believe you are very wrong: more people would face him. Here is my proof: he wore a construction hat. Even if you are right (and we could dismiss his construction hat as a fashion statement), I do not see it to be anybody's right to use the Almighty Power Of The State to stop it. Furthermore, outing those "people that wanted excuses to hate Jews" would be an interesting thing to observe -- as a volley of cream pies welcomed their smug faces. Are you suggesting that the criminal prosecution simply enouraged him to continue? I would agree with that - he fed off he publicity and likely would have disappeared without the prosecution.No, that is not my suggestion but I believe your prediction would be correct. If Zundel was an online internet conspiracy theorist, the same principle might apply too. That wrinkle, of which I was not aware, changes my POV on him to some extent. While I believe that someone has the right to publicly assert a stupid or even odious opinion, one does not have similar rights with regard to teaching. My view is that the (U.S.) First Amendment does not, in general, apply to school situations, and I would favor prosecution for hate teaching as opposed to hate speech.That does not change my stance because believe people should have the freedom to fire their employees. Whatever makes it "impossible to get rid of him from that job" is the troublesome par -- however, the inherent troublesome nature of the State is a topic for a different thread. I would suggest that my recommendations in post #24 would be more swift. Permit me to provide some of my anecdotal expertise: if teachers quit their jobs today due to the pressures of dealing with parents and rowdy students, your concern about "impossible to get rid of him from that job" takes very few of the active agents into account. I think the first big deal is that the President of Iran is not a submitizen of under our Almighty State. I think you give conspiracy theorists a lot more credit than they deserve. If Zundel was posting on this forum, would you feed him? You never know: he might join us one day. People do call for overt violence and racism. Racial violence occurs all of the time throughout the world. One nutbar speaking does not trouble me in the least. I honestly believe that the court of public opinion and ostracism is more fair and powerful to stamp out racists. Racist nutbars should be publicly humiliated. No. He devoted himself to spreading lies. That makes him a great BAD man. That would be a good example of how the court of public opinion would be more effective.

Why is this a Quebec-only issue?

I have a better idea: forget about deciding for people HOW their money should be spent and cut their taxes. Unfortunately, the problem with vote-buying schemes is that voters want to be bought.

This guy is first introduced here.

I disagree. I disagree. I agree. I agree. I disagree. This is the way I see things: I would rather we let people say what they want. Zundel should have done a speaking tour and faced the crowds. People would have seen him for what he truly was: that there was nothing noble inside or underneath that stupid hard hat. He would have been mocked and his mission in life would have quickly sunk. Nobody would hire him in Canada and he would have gone bankrupt. If he was independently wealthy, people should have made public announcements to ostracize him and refuse to do business with him. His mug should have been plastered everywhere throughout the country with the words HOLOCAUST DENIER written underneath. People should refuse to serve him in restaurants or coffee shops. Any famous Canadian businessman or politician could have stood up and said: "We cherish our freedom soooooooo much in Canada, that we will show you, Zundel, what it is like to taste your own medicine. We will exercise OUR freedom and deny you service." His life in Canada could have been quickly demolished or made a living hell to the point where he would have ASKED for imprisonment. Now, he is a martyr for evil people. I think part of the problem is that people do not want freedom.

extracted from Earnst Zundel -- 14 counts of incitement for Holocaust denial Ernst Zundel is not a hero. His mission in life is demeaning and has nothing to do with promoting freedom of speech nor to promote freedom. From the very beginning of his shenanigans to now, my sense is that he wants notoriety. The inordinate amount of effort and the most predictable outcome of his efforts leads me to the following supposition: he either has a severe mental problem or he is possessed by an evil spirit. CAVEAT: 1) the preceding is just my cheap opinion, I have no interest in researching anything to support it 2) this does not truly fit "The Fickle Finger of Fate" because I believe this man deliberately chooses his fate

No. You will have to understand exactly what the axes measure. Your analogy is inappropriate. Answer these questions: What does increasing (or decreasing) values along the "Economic" axis represent? What does increasing (or decreasing) values along the "Authoritarian" axis represent? There should only be on axis in this test. I say the "Authoritarian" one because your "Economic" behavior -- as questioned in this test -- is a manifestation of authoritarianism.

GeofFrey, two things: 1) your political strategy is superficial; my mother would call that "taking people for stupid" 2) point of order: should I go back and delete my post #28 since you re-copied it in its entirety?

GeofFrey, your strategy is about a quarter century too old in style and in effectiveness. I have a better idea: they should stick with Stephen Harper and focus on governing.

In principle, this is a poor criticism. An economist can do all of the things you ask by working with a climatologist. A climatologist could not possibly "estimate the costs" without economics.

Geo, I realize that this does not change the essence of the debate but you just defined moral relativism there.