Figleaf

Okay, thanks. Of course, that makes this a regressive measure too, as persons in higher brackets benefit more. That was the original description. I corrected my error. ??? I don't know what correction you mean. You still are calling it a credit, right? and yet giving a description that amounts to a deduction. Actually, I'm just trying to get the facts straight. ??Childish how? Simply discussing something with you, without even disagreeing, is 'trolling'!? You mystify me. What could you possibly have told Greg? No, you've decided you won't answer simple queries.

Yes. Please refer to post #140 of this thread. Please stop wasting time. Post 140 is not where you first made your claim.

Grow up. You're so ... precious. People who are employed. How defined? And is it $1000 for everyone who qualifies? It is a credit. Yet your description is of a deduction. What gives? I decide when my probing is finished. Sorry to your tender ears.

Cut the sh1t, Ricki. 1. Who qualifies? 2. Did your previous claim specify employed people? 3. Is it a tax credit or a tax deduction? I haven't attempted that yet. As I mentioned, I'm probing your claims to determine whether I should agree with you.

A contract is merely the expression of a voluntary and mutually beneficial trade between two individuals - accent on the word "individual".When it comes right down to it, if you want to promote the "common interest", then it must show up as a benefit to some individuals. I don't think any reasonable person would advocate a policy that made everyone worse off. The notion of a group or common interest arrises ina different way than you imply. An example. If the government were to print up new hundred dollar bills and send everyone in Canada one of them, each of us as individuals might feel better off. Of course, we wouldn't be and indeed we'd probably be worse off. To understand why, you have to view the suggestion from the perspective of the group. Going back through this thread briefly, this caught my eye: Figleaf, if you find social conservatism nonsensical, then you should feel quite comfortable with Libertarianism - or some variant of it. 1. Earlier I defined the concept of common interests as being an interest held by each of multiple individuals. Unless there's bad faith, in the example of a contract, each party has an interest in the contract -- thus there's a common interest. 2. My opposition to social conservativism is explained by my classical liberalism.

I think it is not the only distinguishing feature. But do you see it as an operative one? With respect, that sounds nonsensical to me. Refusal to acknowledge 'common' is merely an ideological slogan used to deny reality. If libertarianism admits contracts, then it implicitly acknowledges a common interest.

Long term objective: Creation of a super-wealthy, ecologically sustainable eudaimonic society of free, politically equal citizens. Interim steps: 1. Attain optimal education quality and universal access; early childhood thru post-2dy, plus life-long career mobility ed. 2. Institute key democratic reforms to improve gov. responsiveness and accountability. 3. Deploy an integrated industrial strategy to maximize Cdn. economic opportunities. 4. Eliminate bio-survival hardship anywhere in Canada -- no-one goes hungry or cold or ill-without-treatment. 5. Establish a uniformed peace corps.

Your taxes payable are a percentage your taxable income. So if taxable income goes down your taxes payable go down. Yes, I know. I'm asking if you've got the right name for this program because you describe a tax deduction, but you're calling it a credit. Okay. Who qualifies? I mean I am still probing your claims to assess whether to accept or challenge them. Somebody who works? Did you specify that before?

Ah, yes. I see. It's still regressive though, in that the increase applies to a higher % of a lower income. Wait, don't tax 'credits' generally reduce taxes payable, rather than taxable income? I don't understand this step. Where is the -69.78 coming from? This material would'nt fully prove your claim even if it proves correct.

Not sure what he means but I'd call you an ideological nitwit. Can't make an argument, so out comes the name-calling. I've reported your post to the Admin.

Speaking of Garth Turner, did the tories ever back up their slander about breaching confidentiality? Or should we just chalk that one up as yet another CPC fiction-of-convenience?

Wow. Could these two parties find a more bizarre, desperate and ultimately self-destructive course!? It's perfect -- Dion in '07!

NO /world/sou

Your answer is the equivalent of the someone asking when you stopped beating your wife. There is no answer that is satisfactory. I find your response one that provokes needless controversy. I see it bearing no significance to this discussion and find it reeks of innuendo. Your defense of what you said is the man is guilty until proven innocent. It sucks. Your argument sucks and it is what I'd expect of a troll. You wouldn't accept this from anyone else and I certainly didn't expect it from you. Your claim that he won a certain part of the vote based on this innuendo lacks any basis in fact. Your assessment of his personal life is equally irrelevant as well as odious. Quite simply, I have no idea why you would even bring up this subject except to be inflammatory. Well said, Dobbin! August is just showing the depths to which some sovereigntist are willing to sink to revenge themselves on Trudeau's reputation. The wife-beater vote!? Who's polls fraction-out that segment? Like I said -- scurrilous.

Oh yeah. How so? Easy to say, harder to demonstrate. "Mistake"??? The Minister made a typo, I suppose?

Which poster is that? 'Cause no-one seems to have done that on this thread. And what do you mean by that?

If he means Hamas but says Hezbolah, one must question his level of knowledge on the subject. I'm not ignoring any point. If we're talking Hamas, then I've already answered the point -- Hamas continued its struggle after Israel pulled ground forces out of part of occupied Palestine. Obviously, a merely partial pullou t is insufficient to resolve the conflict.

That's impossible. Every gov't has done something good. The CPC more than any other new gov't in 11 months. If you can't admit to the good things they have done, you're just being biased and partisan. The 1% GST cut was a good thing. Everyone agrees. No that I've heard. We're not talking about me. It's a hypothetical voter. You're really something.

Reports of election events in Ohio constitute the evidence. (But, fyi, what I've said wouldn't be libel anyway 'cause, though Bush benefitted, I didn't say he carried it out.)

I'll answer in the abstract then. Thanks! Well, we may be off on a tangent from the OP here, but it might also prove fruitful. You appear to acknowledge that people can choose to use government if it is wise to do so. To that degree, libertarianism and liberalism are agreed. Your comments suggest divergence, however, around the issue of implicit vs. explicit consent. Do you think it is on that axis that libertarianism should be distinguished/defined?

What Israel did was a huge sacrifice for its citizens in an effort for peace. "Huge sacrifice"? Hardly. Hezbolah's activities had little to nothing to do with Gaza. As to who 'started' what, you seem to draw rather arbitrary lines.

Sure, but how could you? I mean by attorning one's individual choice to the collective wisdom I'd justify that depending on the method of aquisition. If we're talking rule of capture I found a deer in my bathroom so it's mine, that's a little tough to justify. If we're talking about my paycheque, I earned it and you did not. You explanation doesn't solve the issue because it just references an preceding property relationship that itself needs to be justified. How is it 'your' bathroom? Who do you earn your wage from and why do they start with the dough?

Good question! Well, I wouldn't want to eliminate road maintenance - but I would like for the service to be done by a non-governmental entity, and I would like for it to be paid for in a manner which is not contributing to our large tax bill. (So basically I want it eliminated from gov't jurisdiction). I think most things can be privatized, and that's where most of the 'pruning' occurs. The CBC would be one of the first to be privatized on my list, I think. There is no logical reason for it being subsidized by the taxpayers. And there are many other services which can, and perhaps should, be out of the gov't's hands, and in the hands of individuals. ... The only unifying concept I can see there is a desire to reduce taxes. I still have no idea what principle tells you to keep one service or turf another. As to taxes, if collective purchasing in a given thing is cheaper, why not obtain it that way? Markets don't necessarily provide everything efficiently (or at all).

1. WHICH Christian doctrine? Certainly substantial elements of the Old Testament type seems to endorse some pretty wicked stuff. 2. If it is the case that religion has been a tool of warmongers rather than a cause of war, how great is that? It's nature is why it's been so used. 3. Stalin misused the ideology of Marxism. Atheism was incidentally part of Marxism, not instrumental. Hitler was a neo-pagan romantic, not an atheist. Accordingly, your critIcism of athiesm is misplaced.

I refer to Bush; court-appointed the first time, elected thru fraud the next.