Figleaf

You clearly didn't read my post. I assure you I did. You said you'd crunched through those numbers, and so, I want to know what you found. What's the problem? What did you find out, specifically? As we all know, I provided numerous links proving you'd revealed your deep ignorance on that topic. If you wish to revisit it, please go ahead. But ... but.... you said you had already put out the effort and reached a conclusion. Why not just share your efforts with us. Unless .... unless ... you're ... full of crap???

Harper haters will always hate Harper. How deeply troubling! Maybe Harper should extend them some gesture and see if they would change their views.

"Always"? Alberta has only existed for a little over a hundred years!

Working lots of hours is not a privilege. Two weeks holiday is miniscule. The permissiuon to contribute 4% to a plan (esp. when likely you can't afford to) is not a meaningful benefit. And employers supplying safety and work gear should be a requirement. The point is that its ludicrous for supposely capitalist industries to complain they can't get workers when their solution is obvious to anyone with a shred of understanding of capitalist economics: bid higher. My point here has nothing to do with it being in Alberta. I fail to see what is inflamatory about my comments here. If you become inflamed simply by the opinions of those you differ with, perhaps for your own comfort you should leave the forum.

Reported.

Proves your point??? The fact that Newfies are leaving Newfoundland to seek work disproves your point. Did you read this thread before commenting? 'Cause the other poster is complaining that there's not enogh Newfies in Alberta. You mean the idiot-sons of millionaires?

When you say 'we' are hypocrites, I don't understand. I don't think Canada has any particular obligation to help Africa, so I don't see any hypocrisy in failing to help Africa.

Yeah, sure. What did you discover? (With details, please.)

Idealism. Economics. You should study it sometime, it's very informative. Your ideology is preventing you from paying attention to relevant information. If ability to pay becomes the criterion for obtaining health care, the price will go up, and the number of people serviced will decline. This would be even more funny if your benightedness ran in a less harmful direction.

It's your very liberal idealisms that got us in this mess. If by "mess", you mean the fact that unlimited demand (peoples' wish for top-flight health care) cannot be matched by limited resources, I assure you, liberal ideas did not create that problem. But that's a fantasy. If the resource is finite, private services will merely reallocate the resource to those who will bid higher. It will do nothing to alleviate the overall demand. It's difficult to have an intelligent discussion if you cannot separate the drastically different concepts of liberal and Liberal. Hooey. Who? You Rightwingers and your sillly assumptions! I'm not a Liberal, and I believe our immigration policies need to be reformed. I'll go head to head with you on those points any time.

What have I said that is either arrogant or reveals ignorance? Please be precise. Nonsense is right, since no such tax exists. Advisory, taxing UNsuccess produces very little revenue. I am skeptical. What program are you refering to?

They do have difference desires and responses to incentives... it's been created over the years by a Federal government that has taken the completely wrong approach to Atlantic Canada development. There it is again... the assumption that Easterners are degenerates. Geoffrey, which would YOU prefer: A-responsible employment for decent wages; or B-empty days and a puny government cheque? I'll bet you'd choose A, but you won't grasp that so would the vast majority of other people in other parts of the country. Your ignorance and self-righteousness are breathtaking. Is there anything untruthful about that statement, or do you just not like it? The whole statement is untruthful.

You're right, it's not Alberta that's the 'problem'. The problem is that rather than competing for employees with better remuneration, some seem to want statist intervention to provide cheap labor for their personal benefit. And they outted the parties that did these things because it came at a cost to their welfare systems. No. Parties are not responsible. Or that Newfies get too much in seasonal EI. "Too much" as compared to the pitance some industries are willing to pay for actual work? It's an insurance system for which premiums are paid, not a Victorian workhouse. Actually, if it were that ungenerous, much of the economic advantages would be lost. Except for those who abuse it, EI dramatically improves labor mobility and therefore the economy as a whole. Where are these jobs? Your imagination must be quite something if you think it's a good deal to travel to another province for the privilege of working fifty hour weeks for 45k and sleeping in your car.

I suppose that would depend on an unbiased assessment of the quality of the people giving advice, and the likelihood they were speaking honestly, or simply out of venal self-interest. Yes. But within the hypothetical, I'm assuming that's not an issue.

Figleaf enjoys twisting intolerance and free speech to propagate and accommodate his or her intellectual or political views or perspectives, while crucifying and destroying someone else's, who has the SAME identical rights Figleaf has. Strange comment. I can't imagine how it's even possible for me to impact someone's rights over a web forum. I'm sorry, Leafless, if the clarity and force of my views ends up being 'destructive' to views which oppose mine, but isn't that the whole point of discussion and persuasion? I've discussed this with you before (though you had no intelligible response). Mr. Arar has no need at all to 'prove' his innocence, since our laws provide that he is innocent unless proven guilty. Mr. Arar has no way (or reason) to bring himself to court, and the appropriate authorities evidently have no basis on which to do so either. Your persistence in the ludicrous view that he has something to prove just shows either a profound civic ignorance, or a nasty disingenuousness.

Fantastical falsehoods are not going to improve things. First, the imposition of Israel was done before Hamas even existed. Second, the destruction of Israel is obviously not the 'sole purpose' of Hamas, and the evidence of that is their extensive social support efforts in the occupied territories. Third, it's totally mistaken to conclude that Palestinians voted for Hamas hoping it would destroy Israel (which would obviously be a pipe-dream). Two-state, of course.

You're missing the words 'by using' before the word 'adolescent'. You're being ridiculous. All my positions are based on the classical liberal views of individualism, freedom, and rationality. And if you wish to prove you're anything but full of crap, please indicate where I have displayed hatred for anyone.

Actually, most legal constitutional experts (and the way things work in Canada) is that this part of s. 92 is observed as giving provincial governments power over enforcement of Federal law: 14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts. 'Most' constitutional experts, eh? So when did you conduct this poll? Please, try to find one that disagrees. I've taken many courses in such matters. Policing is a provincial responsibility generally handled through contracts with the RCMP. If policing wasn't provincial, then how are municipalities and provinces able to establish their forces like the OPP and say Calgary Police Service? Your not only arguing against probably one of the stronger areas of the consitution but against reality as well here. Policing is clearly and definitively a provincial jurisdiction. Your many courses have not served you very well. S.92 says nothing about policing, and s.91 gives general residual powers to the federal level. If anything, the provinces have no jurisdiction to create or authorize police forces.

Or the middle east, or the senate, or Quebec nationalism, or the wheat board.

Choice creates competition which creates both efficiency and quality. I think that's the only valid argument in favor of private-paid care. Efficiency-improving competition could be included even in single-payer systems. The advocates that suggest private paid care will alleviate pressure on the public system, however, are gravely mistaken, as it would really simply reallocate the available resource along the lines of ability to pay rather than need.

You make it sound like there is some special tax or charges applied in Alberta/Ontario. There is not. I don't understand why those of you who don't like the program can't just criticise it for what it actually is, rather than trying to twist the facts around. I am criticising what it is. The dollars are transfered from Alberta and Ontario taxpayers to those in other provinces. It encourages the poorer provinces to stay that way... they fight deseperately to keep their equalisation. It's ridiculous for you to imagine that people are trying to stay poor just so they can qualify for a pittance, rather than being rich all on their own. Your view of other people seems to assume that they have totally different desires and responses to incentives than you; i.e. that they are degenerate rather than disadvantaged. Your ignorance and self-righteousness are breathtaking.

Not when it's artifically created by policies that create and sustain unemployment. But you said there's no unemployment in Alberta. Face facts, you have no real valid complaint. The fact that Alberta did not end up receiving equalization through its 'recession', is clear evidence that it was never really that bad. If some soft-headed people decided to off themselves when the good times stopped rolling, that hardly indicates broad economic pain, certainly compared to what Canadians in poorer parts of the country live with on a regular basis. In the last 10 years things have been improving in the Maritimes. The going rate in Alberta is much higher than elsewhere, it's shown by our average income which is 10-20% higher than Ontario depending on the salary survey. If the market was working, we'd see Newfies who are technically not earning any money moving out here to work. But the market isn't working because the government often makes it more profitable to just stay on welfare and kick back and relax. If Alberta industries can't outbid Newfie welfare benefits, then I think that proves my point about them not being willing to pay competitive wages.

... No one wants authority over their life given to someone that thinks completely different then themselves. I'm sure you and other Ontarians would hate to have me with authority over your life, and I don't blame you. I'd rather have a remote authority providing good government than a local potentate governing badly. Your fallacy lies in the expectation that local is necessarily better. But it's not necessarily so, and there are plenty of examples. Consider Afghanistan ... if you're a girl living in Kandahar, do you want the rules of the Kabul government that says you get to go to school or the local warlord who says you don't? Actually, most legal constitutional experts (and the way things work in Canada) is that this part of s. 92 is observed as giving provincial governments power over enforcement of Federal law: 14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts. 'Most' constitutional experts, eh? So when did you conduct this poll? That's a nice quaint opinion. First, the NEP did not 'tax Albertans'. Second, we have a constitution and the rule of law which confine governments to constitutional measures only. Too much faith in central government. Nah, just a knowledge of history.

I find it fascinating that conservatives are willing to be so publicly blatant in their campaign to make health care a privilege of the wealthy. Do you think the 70% of people who will be harmed by a privatization policy can't see it for what it is? I wish private health proponents would explain why they think its better to have to pay premium prices privately rather than lower costs through taxes. Like those freeloading babies and children. That's "devastated" and "Somalis".

???? You're right. Some discussions rapidly become pointless, especially when you inject incomprehensible non sequiturs.