White Doors

I think the majority of this one billion was to aid one industry towns make the transition away from these dying areas. If the liberals were in power, they would be trying to re-open them. An important distinction.

Most of the 3rd world countries are either socialist or are recovering socialists.. OOps!

I like it!

Whatever dude. Do you even remember the last time you did not frame some information through you partisan retina? eyeball indeed.

Um, you can countersue for damages and court costs.... Can you at the HRC? I don't know, but I doubt it - seeing as it's not a court of law.. The HRC's record? ALL, as in 100%, as in EVERY SINGLE complaint in regards to offensive speech brought before them has been settled in the complaintant's favour. Will you seriously still sit there and type with a straight face and tell me that the 'process' at the HRC is the proper place for these types of complaints to go? You cannot stop frivilous lawsuits, no. But when the complaintant's kangaroo court costs are covereed by the tax payers, it doesn't discourage them now, does it? Also, almost 50% of all of the offensive speech cases (you know the one's with the 100% 'conviction rate') were brought to the HRC from ONE MAN. Guess who this one man's former employer is? That's right, the HRC. Still not convinced that this 'process' is a farce? If you are not, what WOULD convince you that these tribunals monitoring free speech ARE a farce? What would it take?

Don't like guns, don't buy one. there. feel better? Also, do you need to be so crude in gettinbg across your 'point'? also sexist.

Harper better get on the phone and tell Karzai that this isn't kosher. I am a supporter of our mission there, but if this is the outcome maybe we should at least threaten to pull out. this is nuts.

Your assertions, while almost making me cry and feel ashamed, are simply not true - poverty has seen real, significant improvement in the last 10 years.

The proper legal system costs the complaintant money in civil cases. This case would never have been brought to court anyways. There is no law broken here. This is the whole issue FTA that you cannot seem to grasp.

Please explain the mysterious correlation you make between loosened gun regulation and higher crime rates. ie: PROVE IT

I'm very happy thank you very much.

Shouldn't you retitle the thread to read: 'Why capitalism doesn't work for me?"

1) Canada is more urbanized that the US. 2) Switzerland has fully automatic weapons in all homes with males over 18 years old. What does that tell you? That automatic guns are safe? You really need to stop making such desperate attempts to link your anti-gun sentiment with your anti-americanism. if you did, you would really have nothing to say. Please try.

due process...

The Mujahadeen and the Taliban aren;t one in the same. example: Harmid Karzai (the president) was a Mujahadeen, but he definitely is NOT a member of the Taliban, nor was he ever. The more appropriate generalization is that the Mujahadeen became the Northern Alliance. You must look beyond the cover of a book to actually say you read the book.

Quoted for truth

The Human 'rights' tribunals.

fighting a fire and fighting a war are in no way similar you nit-wit.

A big mistake that people make when looking at 'low income earners' and 'wealthy' people in statistics, from year to year, is to assume that each bracket are the same people from year to year. I used to be a low income earner, middle income and now my family is high income salaried earners. Stats Can has caught me in nearly all the tax brackets from time to time but they present it as if I was still in the low income I was 15 years ago. You make less when you first enter the workforce, as you should. I believe in a flat tax with a high initial exemption. Or even two tax brackets, much like this proposal. It would go a LONG way to improving Canada's competitive edge. It is coming too, it's just a matter of time. The competition in the years to come will be over talent, not resources. the countries that make it as easy as possible to get ahead financially will win. We all want to be free and being financialy independent goes a along way in gaining personal freedom in the society we live. A worthy goal in my opinion.

Yes, I know RRSP's are not taxed until you take them out. What happens if you move your RRSP's to a dividend portfolio and try to live off of that? You would be taking away seniors incomes by increasing the taxes on dividend income. Look, if you think that the taxes on salaried employees are so terrible compared to those of business owener, start your own business if you think it's such a great deal. Simple really. Wealthy people are entitled to a certain level of wealth and Pat Coughlin will be right along once he deems what that certain level is. Sounds like a place I would like to live....

Exactly why he has eroded so much of his support in the republican party. He was pretty left wing in his spending on social programs.

cite?

More importantly, why the need to make this a 'law'? what's wrong with letting individual gas station operators decide what is best for them? unreal.

Do you not invest in RRSP's? those tax rates affect your retirement income much more than anything else. You seem to be a centrist in thought, but your capital gains and dividend tax ideas are straight out of the left field Pat. What is wrong with wealthy people being able to keep their wealth? If they couldn't keep it, do you think more or less people would strive to become wealthy? The wealthiest 10% of Canada already pay more than 50% of the taxes and you want them to pay more. Exctly how much more should they be expected to pay? politics based on envy is never good politics. Why don't people quit worrying about what their neighbour has in compared to themselves and just worry about their own needs. You have no idea what people go through to get where they are so stop judging people by the car in their driveway and take care of yourself.

Liberalism IS fundamentally more dangerous than traditional Conservatism for the following simple reason: Liberals and the left are much more likely to believe in a big, central, strong government. Conservatives are ideologically more entranced around the individual. People, as groups, commit much more evil and harm than do individuals would as a whole. That is a valid point and one of the main reasons why I have always advocated for a small government that enabled individuals to succeed. Not a large government that 'enabled' the citizens itself and thus becoming part of the group.