Figleaf

"Suffer"??? We have to pay more for products because we must pay inflated wages to everyone that works here. But don't you all EARN higher wages then too? I think you need to bone up on economics. Your 'suffering' is the kind of trouble other places would gladly trade you for. Besides, you sound like some kind of commie ... if the market is driving high labor prices, that's just capitalism at work. Do you mean unemployment insurance, or simply the status of being unemployed? If the former, be advised that employees and employers pay premiums for the coverage, and that's how come benefits are available. Also note, the system is fully funded from premiums. The formula works the same for all provinces. If Alberta were in economic difficulty it would receive equalization payments. It sounds to me like some Alberta employers are just not willing to pay the going rate. They'd rather blame the government for their problems than bid for services in the competitive labor market.

It's considerably more coercive than provincial governments, you are correct. No, read carefully ... we disagree. You have an imaginary notion that one government is less coercive than the other, but there's no basis for that view. Sez who? The Constitution Act, 1867. Health care, education, social welfare, policing... all provincial responsibilities... yet most of our tax dollars go to Ottawa. What up? I'm quite familiar with the Constitution, thanks (and fyi, policing is not listed in s. 92). If you read the division of powers sections, you will see that the federal government has a longer list, and many rather sweeping areas of responsibility. You glibly assert that the feds should be doing less, but you clearly have no idea what the truth is. The purpose of the Federal government is to get re-elected. I'm talking about the government, not the party that happens to be in government. Do you really believe that the purpose of the federal government is to harm the provinces? Provincial politicians are exactly that, provincial. They serve the narrow interests of the local power-cliques. If it weren't for the federal government, the Canadian colonies would still be corrupt backward satrapies they were in the 1950's.

"Suffer"??? If they could get a decent wage, rather than 45K for 50/hour weeks, maybe they'd come on their own, instead of your suggestion of shipping them like cattle to your labor camps.

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.

No wonder there's a labor shortage in Alberta. 45K for 50h weeks!? $10-11/hr in restaurants and retail!? Advisory for businesses in Alberta ... instead of complaining about shortages, you could try competitively effective remuneration.

Really? Which social club is this? I find it really sad that just because people are atheist or agnostic that they refuse to recognize the benefits that organized religion can bring to our society. I find it really sad that some people's urge to oppose others makes them refuse to deal with what they actually say instead of making straw men. I did not say that no churches do charitable things. I said that those who use their 'charitable' donations primarily for themselves are not really charitable.

And does this supposedly clear grasp of ME history include the fact that from Day 1 Israel has been subjected to war and terror? I'm sure it does. But where it differs is that it acknowledges that all this war and terror come from the dispossession and oppression of an innocent population of Palestinians on whom the world foisted an unwanted interloper-state. Based on that comment, I guess some of Israel's apologists can't grasp the notion that resorting to irrelevant arguments merely reveals that they don't have valid ones. Would you guarantee its safety with your life? Absurd question. We're not discussing 'safety', we're discussing survival.

"Sentient" or "Sapient"? For the latter, we need the capacity to create shared meaning and common understanding.

Letting people choose on an individual basis how much or which taxes to pay will quickly result in chaos. The Federal government is no less coercive than provincial governments. Sez who? Do you really believe the purpose of the federal government is to harm the provinces? Paranoia strikes deep, in the heartland. Define "progress". No way. It's the provincial governments that are too strong, too self-interested, and too susceptible to crony corruption.

I am telling you the exact facts. Equalization money comes from general Federal funds which are raised by taxes paid by all Canadians. However, it is paid out differentially to provincial governments based on their wealth. Go ahead and complain about the program if you wish, but you should complain about it correctly at least. Can't you just argue about the issue, without having to resort to falsehoods about the people you are discussing with?

Let's say someone inexperienced or uninformed proposes to do something with inherent risks and massive potential for harm to many. Let's say he says that the risks are worth it, because he's convinced a positive outcome will follow. Now let's say more experienced and informed people are united in warning him that it's utter folly, that the dangers are bigger than he realizes, and that the chances for success are virtually non-existent. So the inexperienced guy responds: all you experts are dummies and jerks. And he goes ahead and does it, and it turns out just as the experts said. Is the inexperienced guy merely mistaken, or does the character of his mistake and his treatment of the warnings make his action ethically worse than a mistake?

Reported. If posters can't call Stephen Lewis a 'jerk', I don't think Argus should be calling whole populations 'thieves'. Your continued outrage that I express opinions you find distasteful merely marks how out of tune you really are with basic human freedoms. Buddy, there are rules on this forum about abusing others, even people who don't post here. Calling whole gropus of people 'thieves' is not just bigoted, it must fall outside of forum rules. If you don't like MY opinion about YOUR opinion, GFY. Don't forget classical liberals like me.

If you read the media the Arabs are exposed to, you would understand. Or maybe you wouldn't, given your blind self-hatred of the West. Is there some club rule for Rightwhiners that requires y'all to make ludicrous and false imputations about all your interlocutors?

Dear MD00, Are you like Stephen Colbert? A parody of rightist absurdity? 'Cause man-o-man, the stuff you write is just wildly out in the reaches of FauxNews unbalance. For me, I don't care if all children join hands, though it would be nice if they could all be fed and free of violence. Your comments on Mr. Arar are obviously designed to be inflamatory, so I'll give you a tip ... if you really want to inflame, it would be better to say things a little less stupid, so people will not simply shrug it off as the rantings of a simpleton. If you hope to succeed in achieving true outrage, when you make any future vicious and unwarranted attacks, be a little more realistic.

Does Bush lack respect for Afro-Americans? Is Bush against science? Bush's record on the environment is mixed at best. While its true... however... And how many children will he leave behind? [source: http://www.answers.com/topic/domestic-poli...-administration ] So, the picture that emerges of Bush foolishness and incompetence is not confined to his criminal blunders on the world stage. He's quite capable of blowing things badly at home too. Next time Americans are tempted to elect someone because of his low intelligence and simplistic views, I sure hope they remember this administration and spare themselves some real trouble.

.

I suppose part of the reason is that you share a land mass with the Arabs and we don't. That puts Continental Europeans in a more dangerous position.... I think it's more likely because Europeans have a clearer grasp of middle east history and more honest media. Israel is in no existential danger now, and has faced only two really dangerous trials: 1948 and 1973.

For you to even ask the question shows your comments have no credibility. As usual you twist everything around to your hatred of Israel defending itself or existing. Its tiresome. I'll tell you what's tiresome... Israel's apologists who try to stifle any criticism by resorting to personal slights and blatant spin-doctoring. Did you read the thread? The main complaint made here about the UNHRC is that it has the temerity to criticize Israel. They did? What did they say? When? Don't blame the UN, blame the members.

Reported. If posters can't call Stephen Lewis a 'jerk', I don't think Argus should be calling whole populations 'thieves'.

Of course in ARRGus's view it's out of the question that ignorant brown foreigners with funny names could possibly have independently formed an opinion that Zionism has inflicted a grievious harm on the Palestinians and that Israel (as a supposed creation of the UN) should actually abide by UN rules. No, no, Argus will tell you, such subhumans as Zambia always and only act out of purely venal urges. :puke:

Thank you, cybercoma, for a truly excellent post.

So the Fed's will ask Alberta: "Hey, we know you are violating the Canada Health Act (something Quebec and BC do without consequence mind you), do you mind giving up your health transfers?' I somehow doubt it. Health spending (more consitutionally, hospital care) is completely a provincial area of responsibility. The Federal government shouldn't have such coercive force over the provinces in that area. Within each province, health care is exclusively provincial jurisdiction. Because of that, a province is free to agree to accept federal money with strings attached, or not. It's both ridiculous and childish for provincialists to pretend some terrible federal oppression is involved.

On reflection, I must remark, Lee's major source of fame itself, leading the Confederacy, doesn't really conform with the idea of the underlying objective being worthwhile.

Interesting that the feds spend nearly $200 billion on two programs- health and education- that are largely the responsibilities of the provinces. Yes, I know much of that is kicked back to the provinces, but it does raise the question of why the feds are involved so deeply. A one-word working theory would be: 'control'. Try 'need' and 'capability' instead. Naturally the feds want to 'control' how federal money is spent, but they don't 'control' the provinces without their consent.

Wrong. The homeless shelter only provides to it's followers, the homeless. That's a silly hing to say. The money going to the homeless doesn't come from the homeless. Other people donate it. Like a social club.