Figleaf

One challenge to debating immigratrion policy is the inaccuracy some people insist on bringing to the discussion. Case in point: First, boiler-plate stories would not be successful. The Board would quickly detect and reject them. Second, a lawyer making up a story for a client to tell a tribunal would be suborning perjury. Lawyers have no reason to do that. They win some, they lose some -- why risk their career and reputation to minimally change their ratio? They are not. Acceptance as a regfugee means you are entitled to apply for Landed status from within Canada and to have it granted unless you're in an excluded group (e.g,. terrorists). If landed, refugees are allowed to apply for citizenship in due course just like other immigrants.

So what? That doesn't mean doing yoga as a stretching excercise is promoting any of the spiritual beliefs associated with it. It may pique an interest in a particular religion among a small portion of students nonetheless. Is even this small possibility permissible in a system premised on impartial secularism?

As I've already said, the definition is around the precedence given to individual rights and freedoms in libetarianism. Along with that comes the presumption that the individual is responsible for his own well-being, success or failure. I'm sorry, I thought we had already found that that formula doesn't take us anywhere. That is, it seemed no-one was able to provide an outline of how the formula allows a decisionmaker to choose between alternatives in any what that is distinctly Libertarian as opposed to, on the one hand classical liberalism, or on the other hand situational self-interest.

"No fist is big enough to hide the sky." -African Proverb "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Actually, this is a tricky situation. Yoga on its own can be as simple as a set of physical exercises. On the other hand, if some precocious youngster asks 'where does yoga come from', any sort of complete answer, and any research the youngster does, will in fact lead to learning about a 'religion' of a sort. As unusual as this is, I'm inclined to think the Christian parents have a point on this one. There are other exercise regimes available which have no spiritualist connotations, and perhaps schools should confine themselves to those.

That much I agree with. I don't think I cracked a smile through the whole episode. But then, how funny can you expect terrorism scares, racial profiling, sex-segregation, and bankrupt churches to be? The show is obviously done inexpensively (not in itself a bad thing) and it may somehow find its comedic legs. But the theme has limited scope in a comedic environment. There are not that many story hooks to explore that don't slop over into distinctly unfunny areas. We can expect several weeks of pablum wherein the two clergymen heroically convince their respective bucolic herds to live in liberal harmony on one after another superficially rendered hot-button issue. The only interesting character, in terms of creative risk-taking, is Yasser, an ethically expedient but essentially harmless small-businessman. If the series were redirected to put Yasser at the forefront, it might hope to be edgy and interesting. Instead, I expect the program will highlight the insufferable Imam and his love-interest, Whateverhernameis. We'll know the series is dead-on-arrival if they make the Christian padre into a benevolent charicature of Father Canada every episode. :puke: One more prediction: one theme we'll see is the two prejudiced characters, the former Imam and the right-wing radio host, sharing the same ideas. Might be good for one or two episodes as an idea.

No, no, no. The recognition phrases this week are: -'Long is the road that leads from home. ' and the reply is-- -'The cows reap what the farmer sows.' How is SSM supposed to actually accomplish that? Is SSM supposed to be stamped and approved by Christianity and mainstream Canadian society or is SSM actually an assault on heterosexuals and Christianity in an effort to promote a Godless pagan society, all part of the liberals master plan? Just answer the question: how do you contend that SSM will "destroy heterosexual society"? What measures will be utilized? What mechanism will produce that result? What reality is there to your nonsense?

Dead from what? Bullets? Starvation? Disease? Do you include Stalin's toll under nationalism or communism? Do you include aboriginal people killed in colonial settlement? ...

Are you also anti-marxist? 'Nationalism' has killed FAR more people in history than religion ever has. Are anti-patriotism too? If not, why the double standard? 1. I am a classical liberal and oppose totalitarianism of any stripe -- no double standards. 2. I'm not so sure about nationalism beating religion. It would depend on your method of calculating.

I would distinguish between the concepts of economics and economists. Economics is a powerful explicative science, but a difficult one to apply. Economists are people who practice or study economics and their views differ and some are right, some not. It is important to note (given the tenor of this thread so far) that economists are not all neo-conservatives. Neo-conservative economists tend to ignore the interests, motivations, incentives, challenges and aspirations of the poor. They do quietly take note of the importance for them of the poor in sustaining a particular economic paradigm. Economics as a science is 'concerned' with poverty in the sense of a phenomenon to be explained, and in a normative context, ameliorated. General speaking, yes. Not really, but I don't think the full potential of advanced economics has yet been felt. I think there is a lot of potential for improving management decisionmaking (public or private sector) through improved application of economics in policymaking.

Actually, I'd prefer not to pursue an irrelevant non sequitur at this time. Where is the harm in assisting private organizations to wade through the bureaucracy and get available funds? It's government money and time dedicated to helping specificly FaiTh-oriented activity. Ergo, it's unconstitutional. I see no advantage and some disadvantage in recruiting faith into government services. The advocates and fellow-travelers of creeping theocracy would like us to think that separation of church and state is an optional condition for a free democracy. They are wrong; it is fundamental.

Don't forget the Mulphoney Conservatives. About the only thing that can explain most of what they did is a secret intention of selling Canada to Uncle Sam.

My short answer is no. The need for explicit consent doesn't define libertarianism. It is simply a mechanism to ensure that when an individual gives up his liberties, he truly means to do so. Hmm. Okay then, do you think libertarianism has a response to the challenge that it lacks definition and theoretical coherence? If so, what is it?

Please explain your question more clearly. In light of the challenge that Libertarianism lacks definition and theoretical coherence, do you think a response is to be found in a characteristically Libertarian stance on implicit vs. explicit consent?

So "common interests" (I notice you add the plural) means the interests of individuals. Well, you read my definition -- note the part about interests held by 'each of multiple'. Also, individuals can hold purely individual interests and conflicting interests as well. Individuals gain benefits by participation in society. Yes, I think that's sort of what I am getting at. Aptly said. Frankly Figleaf, I think you are terribly confused by 21st century politics. You are a Newtonian physicist faced with the Michelson/Morley results. I think that's a strange and surprising comment. And not very informative. I thought I just agreed with you, so I don't get what I'm not getting.

duplicate deleted

I am reluctant to let important Canadian companies disappear into foreign corporate empires. I prefer to see it go the other way. We need more Manulifes, not Incos. I can't see why any Canadian would object to this goal -- the question is what measures are reasonable in that regard. Prohibiting all foreign investment would hamper growth and destroy substantial wealth in our stock markets. However, I believe there is some merit in limits on foriegn corporate control. Also, government should have so strategic flexibility to support domestic corporations.

Thanks. It's an odd structure -- why not just give a straight non-refundable credit of $152 instead of starting at $1000 and multiplying, I wonder. (p.s. Ricki: Yes, it does appear your description of this, however hard to follow, was not incorrect.)

Riverwind, would you possibly explain how this thing works? (I don't want to tax any single brain unduly.)

That is not how it works. The benefit is a non-refundable tax credit which gives everyone exactly the same dollar reduction in taxes. Well, then it's different than Ricki described. Are you saying it's a straight credit against tax payable? Is it a flat $1000 less tax, or something else?

I see what your saying. Really, that's playing with some numbers. This credit doesn't come from your upper bracket earnings, and it doesn't reduce your net income. They essientially raise your minimum deduction. So if you don't pay tax on the first $10k of income, now you don't pay tax on the first $11k of income. So really the savings are the same for everyone, like you said about $155 dollars. If you earned $99,000, the benefit reduces taxable income to $98000, and you therfore pay $430 less taxes.

Okay, thanks. Of course, that makes this a regressive measure too, as persons in higher brackets benefit more. Not at all, can you explain your logic there? Sure. If the $1000 yields a $152 benefit at the lowest level, the same $1000 deduction will yield a $430 benefit at the top marginal tax rate.

So do no Bushites have any reply to the OP of this thread ... Bush's Faith-based initiatives are an unconstitutional program to prosletyze with tax dollars.

Are you still upset about being made to look like a fool over "destruction of wealth"? Ricki, the subject here is whether your claim about tax policies is a valid one. You referred to post 140, but that's not your original claim. Why would you choose now to bring up an old thread where you got yourself into hot water? Why not just deal with the present matter? Yeah, whatever. Take what to PMs? We're discussing public tax issues on the public forum, aren't we? I'm very sorry it bothers you, but I have nothing private to discuss with you.