Moonlight Graham

Here come the typical rightwingers here to defend the status quo for which they have been ideologically brainwashed by the wealthy to be seen as "just" based on "liberty" and the that wonderful and always fair & perfect "invisible hand" of the market. I love it. It's wonderful to get a better education. But when you pay over 20k for a typical degree, plus the increasing need for a masters degree (so spending 2-3 more years and school plus the money/debt for it) for which you are required to get if you want a half-decent job these days, this requirement for more education and more money/years spent in school would mean that it would be nice if people's income actually increased a bit to compensate for this upgraded skill/knowledge over a 30 year period of profits that both the business owners and workers have worked together to produce. But no, the investors & business owners etc. have kept virtually all of the profits (minus some increased tax-hikes on the rich) even though the 99% have done 99% of the work. Innovative business owners deserve to be rich, to be well compensated because they are well-arguably the most valuable workers to the economy on a per-head basis. My argument is that the 99% deserve at a bit better share of the increase in profits that would not be had without their labour and innovation as well. Virtually a 0% profit share is BS. Typical rightwing attitude. Blame "laziness" on the exploitation & greed of the wealthy their political allies. Please explain how laziness has caused this increased income inequality with statistics or some legit sources. Oh ok, so you reckon yourself as one who makes over $150k or whatever was used in the study to denote the 1% cut-off. That's great that you have a business. Yes, investors & business owners help spur the economy. But so do consumers, the vast majority of which are statistically the 99%. If consumers didn't buy your goods/services, you would be out of business. If you didn't build your business, consumers wouldn't have your services/goods. If you didn't have any employees, your profits would be much smaller if non-existant. It's a 2-way street. One connot exist without the other, yet only one group has been compensated inincreased income based on the profits all parties have helped create the last 30 years. Why don't you pay your employees more money? Because you can. That's how the system works, which needs to be tinkered with to create more income equality.

It's US buyers fault for not doing enough homework and taking on mortgages they couldn't afford It's the banks/lenders' fault for shoving out these bad loans they knew would go bust and then selling off the risk It's Wall Street's/investors fault for creating a huge scheme of betting on bad loans to go bust and creating demand for these investments for the banks by buying them up It's the US government's fault for removing regulations that allowed all of this to happen, and in great part encouraging it

People buying the houses are certainly responsible for their decisions. But so are the banks who peddle these predatary loans and then sell these risky loans off to other investors (also at fault) who make money betting that they these loans will go bust. If a home-buyer goes to every bank and they are all telling you that you can afford the mortage because housing prices have perpetually increased so they can leverage that future profit to afford the mortage, is it entirely the fault of these home-buyers for believing what every bank is telling them?

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...igh-income.html Good news for the improved gender equality #'s, but the other numbers are virtually the same stats as in the US since 1980. The rich have gotten richer, the rest have stayed the same (and, my guess is the poorest of them may have indeed gotten poorer). 30 years of economic/GDP growth, and the rich are the only ones to benefit in income with everyone else running on a streadmill. These #'s are absolutely unacceptable. What a scheme. More education is needed to enter the workplace today as employment benefits have decreased along with this stagnant income. Looks like virtually none of these extra profits made in the last 30 years have "trickled down" to the non-rich, as free-marketeers (the upper class and their fooled apologists) without a clue of ecnomics would want us to believe. Cheers to greatly increased income inequality! Edit: I'm not arguing for some Communist redistribution scheme of pure equality. The rich deserve to be have much more money than most people because they are often the most valuable people (per head) in the workplace. I'm arguing that as per the stats (inflation-adjusted here), the 1% earners do not deserve to receive virtually all of the increases in income derived from Canada's economic growth the last 30 years while the other 99% group receives virtually zero income increase, when it took the work of both owners/investers etc. and the wage-workers to create these profits.

space exploration is cool, that is to say, awesomely interesting. That's why most people support it do so, including scientists.

Interesting idea for a test but i thought a lot of the tensions weren't fair.

Why?

This is somewhat old news, it had been reported a good while ago that he was returning to the US to teach and but would split time bn there and U of T. The guy is an opportuninist no doubt.

Roger Maris didn't have a HOF career, He had one great season and a few other good ones. He only hit 275 career homeruns, 1325 hits, retired when he was 33, not even close to HOF numbers.

Wait, do you support more history being taught or less, i dont understand.

I don't think many people would dispute this. Critical thinking was taught quite well for me as a student in my last few years of high school, say with enormous emphasis starting in Grade 9 and increasing every year. My particular english teachers were awesome at teaching me critical thinking via constant essays I had to write. I don't think many people would also disagree with the author that there are so many idiots out there online that make anonymous ignorant comments about natives or whatever the topic is. My comment was on-topic because the article wrote about how more history should be taught in schools, and it's true,

Language is a huge part of culture, possibly even the most important part. Culture can also be very exclusive and divisive. IMO there would be less civil war etc. if everyone spoke the same language. Generally it would be easier for everyone to get along. Look at the problems that language differences has caused in Canada historically? A lot of languages also aren't that different, ie: english, french, spanish, italian etc., so if had to combine those languages as an example, there wouldn't be much of a difference in how people process thoughts in their mind.

You think who our prime ministers were are useless facts? Much of history is "fact-based" (we should hope at least, though history is always told from a particular point of view meant for a particular audience). This country has a history of not teaching the history of Canada, whether it is our political history or the history of aboriginals. If you do become employed as a teacher I hope you help campaign to the "powers that be" to have more Canadian history taught in our schools.

Did they teach you basic manners in teacher's college? Thought not...because you insult someone in pretty much every reply you ever make.

K-12 Teachers need to teach more Canadian history in the classrooms. A lot more, because it's pathetic. Question for everyone: Can you name Canada's 2nd Prime Minister, the one who served after Sir John A. McDonald? I would bet 95% of Canadians could not answer this question (including myself, I had to look it up).

"Happiest country" shouldn't be measured with education levels or economic prosperity. As we know, money doesn't really buy happiness. You can have people who may not live as long or have as high a standard of living but have tighly-knit communities and more loving families and social lives who would consider themselves happier than many people in countries on the list. So the way they say they compute the score on this list you could never have an African or Latin American country on this list. It's subjective, but any "happiness" scale should be measured on how much people consider themselves to be happy. There are other lists that do that better.

This is true. It's very convenient, and works well. But seriously, i think anything that directly involves our soil, like the War of 1812, can be argued to at least in some extend involve "Canadians", or Canadian British or whatever we were called. I don't think Canadian British can be given credit or blame for something that happens over on the island of Great Britain that doesn't involve anyone in North America. The people of the 13 British colonies of America were also British, so technically the British created the United States and wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the US.

A lot of "rules" that religions have are just made up nonesense that some Pope or Rabbi etc. created that's not even mentioned in their holy books. Now, breaking God's rules that are in whatever holy book you believe in might be different. But then again, a lot of what is attributed to being "God's words" or actions in the Bible and whatnot was actually just made up by creative writers and never actually occured. So it's all very confusing. God should come down again and make a documentary and tell everyone what to do, what religion to follow etc. Maybe Jesus should have his own talk show like Oprah. All this smoke & mirrors is really annoying.

I don't see how this is an attack on Obama's children. The NRA is just making a point that involves his children. In no way is the NRA saying anything bad about his kids or family. I think the Obama camp just doesn't want to comment on the argument, which has some validity, and are using this "digust" as a way to deflect attack and score political points.

We were British, so since the British burned down the White House didn't we burn down the White House? No wait, it was actually the British!

Ya this site tends to discriminate against posts 3000 words long about nonesense. Good luck with protecting the well being of the future of the life on this planet

All "Canadians" were British subjects until 1947. Just sayin

LOL.

The NRA kinda has a point. I don't think it's a cheap shot at his kids. On the other hand, for ordinary people there aren't psychos who everyday would do anything to kidnap or kill your kids. He's the Prez. He wears bulletproof armour for a reason, and I bet you don't.

This song rules: