Higgly

Yeah that would work. Just like they did in Lebanon. .

Cause I look great in heels? Let me change that then. I don't know how it has gotten away with it for so long.

OK. Have it your way. It's in Asia then.

You misunderstood me. But then given your other remarks on things financial, it is not surpising that you would. D'oh. The only ones who will really be in a position to enjoy this gift will be the wealthy who could afford to have one spouse stay home. The average middle class family will retire on two income streams, and the benefit of splitting will be small. It is the middle class who look most to investment vehicles like this to generate income. These are people who have carried a very heavy tax burden all their lives, have lived productive lives, raised children, what have you. You apparently would have them run with their noses to the grindstone right to the grave. Good luck with that.

Well of course the Palestinians might say that it's hard to negotiate with someone who calls you a cockroach. The title of the Thread is "Israel, Palestine and Canada". Where did Lebanon come into this? Israel has shown almost no inclination to give up land for peace, starting from Ben Gurion and proceeding through Meir, Shamir, Netanyahu, Sharon, etc... In fact, Israeli intransigence on the subject of land has been one of the major reasons for the failure to negotiate a settlement. The only Prime Minister who agreed to give up land for peace (Oslo) was Rabin who was assassinated by an ultra-right Jewish religious fanatic who had been energized by Binyamin Netanyahu's anti-Oslo rhetoric. Rabin's widow refused to shake Netanyahu's hand when he came to offer his sympathies. In the following elections, Netanyahu campaigned on the platform that he would not implement Oslo and would continue to build settlements. He was elected and the settlement building accelerated. Israel has consistently persued an expansionist policy while throwing up a "why do they hate us" smokescreen of mythinformation. Palestinian terrorist activity has been, and continues to be, a terribly misguided reponse to an impossible situation and is very wrong on many levels. However, Israel has its own terrorist baggage.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Section III: Occupied Territories, Article 49 (last sentence). Check it for yourself.

Yeah that's something I would do. Confuse Israel with Egypt.

Look at who's going to be retiring then. Largely the boomers, most of whom are living a double-income life. The husband works. The wife works. How does income splitting help them? I don't buy the Finance figures.

I'd say your applause for Harper has more to do with your use of the word 'gutless' to describe the Liberals than it does with your ideas on principled government.

Yes you can indeed debate what is and what is not Africa. Wherever you might situate it, Israel is a long way from here. Here is what I mean by being neutral... Under Paul Martin's watch, a suicide bomber killed a Canadian Israeli who was living in a West Bank Settlement. The Canadian Jewish community put heavy pressure on the Canadian government to send a diplomatic representative to visit the family of the victim in their West Bank home. The government refused because Canada has agreed with the UN Resolution and Geneva Convention that make the settlements illegal. I have no doubt Harper would have sent someone. Israel and the Canadian Jewish community have tried to pressure the Canadian government to move its embassy to Jerusalem. Even the US government has refused to do this because Jerusalem is occupied territory. Under Harper, they might just get their wish. I Agree with Jerry J. Fortin that taking sides just makes things worse.

No Canada has always taken pains to remain neutral, although Israel has received generous treatment from Canada - including a free trade agreement, which is remarkable given the fact that this is a small country in North Africa which has steadfastly refused to participate in agreements accepted by the world community - for example, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement, and to abide by widely accepted protocols - for example, The Geneva Conventions. I guess it comes down to how you are defining the term 'pro-Israel'.

No offense but would it really be wise to appoint a moderator who openly declares allegiance to a particular party?

The trust index is down 10%. That's where the real blood is being spilled. I wonder if the Americans have woken up to this yet?

You can put a pretty hat on a pig, but at the end of the day it is still a pig. Here we have a party who ran on a platform of accountability, made a campaign promise to leave income trusts alone, and then sandbagged the voters who believed them, without so much as a whisper of warning. What kind of buying opportunity do you have when you have lost your shirt?

The problem I have with Harper announcing that Canada is now pro-Israel is that it runs counter to the wishes of the majority of Canadians who have shown a preference for a neutral stance in successive polls. I believe that we can do the most good by not taking sides. MLW Members who routinely refer to previous governments as being apologists for terrorists or supporters of terrorists are being dishonest - it was the previous government who put Hamas and Hezbollah on the terrorist list. I am reporting Argus for bigotry. He routinely slags entire groups of people; I don't know how he has gotten away with it for so long.

You made assumptions about somebody you don't know. Stuff your apology.

There were enough to make the Liberals back down when they tried the same stunt.

Well, no. You say something like "We are investigating the matter and are expecting to come to a decision over the next few months...". What Flaherty did instead (on the occasion of Bell Canada announcing it would go to a trust structure) was to say "No comment". So yes. I am serious. And I appear to know more about how markets work than you do, newbie.

The income trust index is down 10% right now after opening down about 15%. The financial, energy and dividend indexes are down as well. I think it might go beyond partisanship. If you are a senior who has been counting on the income these things produce, you are watching your living standard drop.

Not only investment decisions, but voting decisions. Hard to believe that, with an election right around the corner, the voter will have trouble remembering.

The Harper government put income splitting for seniors into the same package as the income trust sandbagging.

I wonder what benefit income splitting is really going to provide. The middle class lives in a largely double income world. The rich can afford to have one partner at home and the poor may see little benefit anyways. My thinking is that the people most likely to put their money into income trusts - the middle class, will see little benefit from income splitting, and certainly not enough to compensate them for the huge haircut they are goin to take from this sandbagging.

The tax savings for seniors is a pittance compared to the income many of them have been generating from income trusts. If they had to do something, then their campaign promise obliges them to at the very least to signal a warning. This was sandbagging, pure and simple. There is also the question of whether this was the right thing to do. The idea of income trusts in the first place was to give small companies a leg up. They appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

D'oh! Well 'honest' Jim Flaherty is at it again isn't he? This is the guy who delivered a rigged (sorry, 'balanced') budget before he and the Conservatives were kicked out of office in Ontario and then whined about the Liberals not keeping their promises. It's like Dalton McGuinty said recently... 'Remember those guys who used to run the Ontario government? Well they're back and they're running the federal government.' Dropping this like a bomb out of the blue after having promised not to do so, is a stab in the back not only to the corporate world but to an entire class of investors. The Globe and Mail describes this as breaking a major campaign promise. Nice timing guys.

You must be referring to Rush Limburger.