segnosaur

Minor note: I don't think this is quite the same thing. The Quebec Pension Plan is a replacement for the CPP. Quebec people pay into the QPP instead of the CPP. On the other hand, this proposed "Ontario Retirement Plan" appears to be an addition to the CPP. i.e. Ontario residents (those who don't have their own pension plans) would pay into both the CPP and the ORP.

You're right, they do... although typically the fees associated with an index fund are a lot lower than with a more 'traditional' fund. (If I remember a year or 2 ago, the fees on my index funds were around 0.5%, whereas my the fees for the actively managed funds were in the 2.5-3% range.. You're right, you can pretty much do the same thing as an index fund/mutual fund by doing all your own stock purchases. Of course, there are a few drawbacks to that too... (e.g. stock trade commissions, research.) For me, the simplicity of dropping by my bank and saying "put $X on this index fund" (without having to do research, set up trading accounts, etc.) is worth the relatively small management fee of the index fund.

Trying to "time the market" is risky, and often tends to bite you in the ass. Your best prospect is to make regular investments, and plan to hold those investments for decades. As for what you should invest in: Might I suggest an indexed mutual fund? Rather than trying to pick individual stocks, an index fund selects a group of stocks based on the current top funds on the stock exchange. Since it doesn't depend on one or 2 individual stocks it is safer. And since there's no real 'decision making' as to which stocks to pick, it has a lower overhead and earns more profit than more actively-managed investments.

Not sure what exactly your point is. (Are you somehow trying to deal with my 'unions are bad' post?) Yeah, McJobs are bad. What's your point? They're also jobs that take very little skill, and thus they can draw on a large pool of potential employees for their work force. That's why wages/benefits for those jobs suck (and they probably should). That's supply and demand... a large supply will result in a situation where prices (i.e. wages/benefits) are low. On the other hand, skilled jobs (engineers, doctors, carpenters, etc.) require more skill/training. Not everyone can do those jobs, and the pool of potential employees is considerably smaller. As a result, they pay more. If someone doesn't like their McJob, it should be up to them to develop the skills needed to find better employment. Oh, and those with "ownership interests"? Quite often restaurants are owned by shareholders, which include many retirement plans (so your grandparents might end up benefiting from your local fast food outlet. And in other cases, businesses may be individually owned/operated, but those people often took substantial risk in starting the business, and their risks should be suitably rewarded.

To answer your polling questions: - Unions are a "bad thing" because they are a form of collusion/price fixing that would be considered illegal anywhere else. Consider: If you found out that the only 2 grocery stores in Canada were secretly working together to keep prices high, people would likely be outraged... its illegal, and it distorts the concept of supply and demand. However, unions do just that... they involve multiple suppliers (i.e. the workers) conspiring together to keep their prices (i.e. wages) higher than they might be in other situations Now, I'm sure many people might point to historic cases where "unions have eliminated injustices"... However, even if that was true in the past, our society has evolved and there are already plenty of protections - Best way to create jobs is a combination of low taxes, enforced transparency, and government spending on advanced scientific research and education.

Ummm... how about the possibility that even if lowered tax rates are good for an economy, they aren't the only factor in economic performance. Its possible that whatever benefit they provide gets "overwhelmed" by the effects of geography, world events, and normal economic cycles. Still, its possible that having a lower tax rate will make the good times better, and the bad times just a little less sucky.

Umm... just out of curiosity, where exactly is your proof that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are "becoming more frequent"? An argument could be made about weather issues becoming more common due to global warming, but earthquakes/volcanoes? Perhaps the problem is the opening post, the poll, and the thread title make no sense. You seem to be talking about so many different things that its hard to figure out what your point is or what topics you actually want discussed. Is this thread supposed to be about tax cuts? Unions? Responses to natural disasters? You probably need more focus. Nice try... You do know how to read, right? Yeah, many of us know how to read. For example, we can read this: OTTAWA–NDP Leader Jack Layton and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion have signed an historic accord to form a coalition government to replace Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. ... Sources said the deal calls for the coalition government to deliver a federal budget immediately after taking office. The budget would include a major package of stimulus measures to shore up the troubled economy. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/546315

Actually, its been found that children raised in households run by homosexuals are just as well adjusted socially as those raised in your traditional 'nuclear family'. From: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378 the strongest conclusion that can be drawn from empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels and qualities of social competence. "A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in ‘traditional nuclear’ families..." From: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/200901/children-single-mothers-how-do-they-really-fare What about grades? Relationships with siblings and friends? There's research on those questions, too. In a nationally representative sample of many different kinds of households...there were no differences at all. What mattered was NOT how many parents there were....Instead, whether children had problems with their grades or with their siblings or friends depended on whether there was a lot of conflict within families, high levels of disagreements between parents, or endless arguments between parents and kids. Yeah, there are plenty of studies that show single parent households sometimes do worse than 2 parent households, but you seem to have the cause and effect wrong. Its not the "single parent" issue that's causing the problems, its the initial conflict, which would have been there whether the parents stayed together or got divorced.

Actually, no it hasn't. Crime rates did increase for a while, but since the early 90s there has been a pretty steady decrease in property crimes and larceny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Propertycrime-us.svg

Ummmm... yeah. You DO realize that the original post was referring to a joke article? And you DO realize that they DO have substantial evidence pointing to the 'big bang', evolution, etc.?

I believe what you're doing here is redefining the word/concept "god" to mean something it does not. Most people, when asked about 'god', probably believe it refers to some sort of sentient being, a supernatural creature capable of making decisions and influencing things in the universe. You appear to be redefining 'god' to mean 'a set of physical laws governing the universe'. Yes, us atheists do believe that there are universal physical 'laws', and we will study and understand more and more of them. But that does not make us believe in 'god' because I doubt many of us have redefined the concept of 'god' like you have.

Taco bell? The water there is tap water that is filled in front of your eyes from a tap into a cup. Not sure what you're referring to. First of all, you can buy bottled water at taco bell; you don't have to get 'tap water' there if you'd prefer not to. Secondly, I used Taco Bell as simply an example of a "common" retailer... one that sells basic bottled water (can't remember if they sell Aquafina or Desani, but I'm pretty sure its one of those 2) but they don't sell "premium bottled water" (e.g. Perrier, etc.) That was my point: many retailers sell only the basic bottled water (made from tap water). Nope, often time they use Ozone, which can cause significant lung problems in high enough concentrations. Now, Ozone is an unstable molecule and does quickly break down, so you're under no significant risk from any Ozone left in bottled water. But then, you're also not under any significant risk from tap water either. You're right, UV light is very effective at sterilizing water. Of course, once treated the water can serve as a growth medium for microorganisms, since the UV treatment doesn't provide any protection past the initial treatment. I don't "concentrate" on issues like Walkerton. You're right, you didn't. It was another poster who brought up Walkerton and claimed they don't trust tap water because of it. That's part of the reason why this thread got sidetracked into talking about water safety. While it may have been inaccurate to say all bottled water is tap water "with a label", consider that the 2 brands with the largest market share (Aquafina and Dasani) are both sourced from municipal water sources. I rather suspect that there are some drinkers of bottled water who haven't touched anything but processed bottled water. Unfortunately people very rarely do the one type of research that is really necessary: A double blind study comparing tap with with bottled water.

Ummm... "fear mongering"? First of all, you were the one who brought up Walkerton, as some sort of evil bogey man. If that's not "fear mongering", then what is? Secondly, if you notice, I'm the one that's pointed out that even if there are "risks" in both tap, bottled, and otherwise processed water, those risks are not significant. In other words, its pretty much the opposite of "fear mongering" I assume by RO you mean Reverse Osmosis. Of course, a couple of things to remember: - Reverse Osmosis does not block out all potential dangers; for example, some pesticides can pass through the membrane used. See: http://waterquality.montana.edu/docs/homeowners/pesticides.shtml - Often water treated with Reverse Osmosis is also subject to the use of Carbon filters to further reduce certain chemicals. Problem is, the carbon can provide a medium for bacteria growth. Now, this does not mean you should have any significant concerns about the water you drink. But that doesn't necessarily mean that tap water isn't safe either.

No, actually I don't get tired of it. Of course not. Why would you? Not like you actually have to know or understand anything. You just make bizarre unsubstantiated claims and post random you tube videos, without applying any sort of logic or scientific skepticism to what you're seeing. Well, first of all, you specifically brought up the issue of cost in your claim (i.e. that it would not be expensive.) But as I have pointed out, it would be expensive, and ineffective. On the other hand, its been estimated that every dollar spent on fluoridation saves roughly $38 in dental care. (The link I provided earlier to the CDC goes into details.) Secondly, this is the type of B.S. I was referring to. You made a claim without evidence that "small amounts of vitamins make a difference". You made a claim, you should support it. You're right, nobody is. But then, there may be people who have an interest in the topic who may be unaware of how baseless your arguments are. You may be incapable of using any sort of logic or skepticism, but hopefully others will. Irrelevant. The reason why it costs so little does not matter. The only thing that matters is "is it safe" (it is) and "does it provide a significant public health benefit for the money spent" (it does). OH that always works. Might as well just call me a holocaust denier as well. That always works for those arguments. Well you are using the same tactics. If you want to actually demonstrate any real understanding, try actually making your own points, and refer to actual real sources of information: peer reviewed journals, respected news/scientific organizations, etc. But as long as you insist on using biased videos produced by ignorant/non-scientific sources, then you deserve the same amount of respect as those claiming "9/11 was an inside job! Watch this video for proof". Uhhh... no I don't do that. That's YOUR game. I make it a point in any sort of on-line debate to attempt to address every point that's brought up. I addressed your false claim about "more fluoride exposure from tap water than toothpaste" (hint: I proved you were wrong), I addressed your false claim about vitamins being "cheap and effective to add to water" (Hint: once again I showed you were wrong). I don't want to watch those videos because I recognize the crappy source. If you think they are making valid points, then write down what you think that point is and post it here. It is not my job to do your research. Actually, no it doesn't. It has Connet, who knowingly associates with quacks like Mercola and Mike Adams. Here's a hint: If your supposed "renowned scientist" is hanging around people who champion homeopathy (i.e. giving placebos to cure disease) then you should question the label "renowned chemist", since obviously his ability to analyze data properly is lacking. And just out of curiosity, why exactly is he a "renowned chemist" to begin with? After all, St. Lawerence University isn't exactly an ivy league school. (Not that good research can't be done at smaller colleges, but its a fraction of the size of even the largest private colleges). What great scientific break throughs has he made? Or is it just the fact that he spews anti-fluoride claims enough to make him "renowned"? http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/12/anti-fluoridation_crankery_how_1960s.php Yet you use him (or material created by his organization) as "proof". You know, earlier you made a snarky statement about how I might "lump you in with holocaust deniers". But frankly, statements like that actually kind of prove my point. I'm sure those who deny the holocaust feel the same way.... "I listen to <insert holocaust denier>, and I get a better understanding of what's really going on".

Do you ever get tired of spewing nonsense on here? Do you ever actually provide any real proof to justify your opinions? Its getting rather annoying debunking your claims, and since you tend to make unsubstantiated claims, its not quite fair. The easiest way to debunk your claim is to point out: - The cost of fluoridating water works out to roughly $0.50/person/year (see: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm) - The cheapest multivitamin I found on the Wal-Mart web site is $10.97 for 90 tablets, giving a cost of $44.49/year So, adding vitamins to the water would be more than 88 times move expensive than adding fluoride. Of course I'm going to poo-poo the idea. You spout nonsense without ever substantiating your claims. Here's a question... why do people who believe in non-sense insist on using videos to 'prove' their point? Its the same way with 9/11 conspiracy believers. If you actually have a valid point, then present it here in this forum. Provide evidence from a mainstream source. It is not up to me to try to listen to some lame biased video to try to find points to pick apart. One of those videos you presented is from the "Prison Planet" web site, a conspiracy nut-job site run by Alex Jones (who was involved in the Loose Change 9/11 conspiracy movie). So, keep that in mind when viewing the you-tube fluoride videos: one was made by the same guy who believes 9/11 was a hoax.

Why speak in the hypothetical "it may be possible"? Information on any brand of bottled water is readily available online. I used the phrase "may be possible" not because I doubt that people can buy such "premium" waters; I used the phrase because most water purchased is not premium water. Heck, when you go to your local Taco Bell, they probably don't sell "imported glacial water", they'll have water from one of the larger manufacturers who does use municipal water as its source. So? Many people complain about tap water because they don't want "chemicals", or want their water to be "natural". But we treat water because what's "natural" is not always safe. (Mmmmm... cholera-tainted well-water.) I would certainly hope that any company selling "premium glacial amazonian water" would take steps to make their products safe. But doing so will itself likely add chemicals. So instead of adding chemicals from one source, you're adding them from another source. Unlike tap water, which can't be "recalled" if something is found in it. They can, however, issue a "boiled tap water advisory", or take similar measures to prevent consumption. The point is, despite all efforts to make our foot/water "safe", problems will occur. This can happen with both government-sourced tap water and privately produced bottled water. Concentrating only on issues like Walkerton (and slamming tap water over it) while ignoring similar risks inherent in other water sources gives a distorted view of reality. You mean, not including all the people working at the companies that produce the bottled water whose livelihoods depend on the public wanting to buy their water. Strangely enough, all those people who were "worried about their livelyhoods" still managed to distribute a product (Perrier) that was contaminated by benzene. (And I believe it was a government agency which noticed the problem.) And private companies also have an incentive to minimize costs, which could cause them to cut back on their food safety programs (perhaps a short-sighted option, but still one that many might take.) I don't necessarily think private companies would always be horrible at policing themselves. But there are benefits and drawbacks to both public AND private food and water inspections.

How many times do people repeat this nonsense? Yes, you can buy bottled tap water. You can also buy bottled spring water, bottled glacier water, bottled purified water, bottled remineralized water, bottled carbonated water, etc. These are all different products. Do a bit of research rather than regurgitating BS. Not sure if that's as much B.S. as you might think. While it may be possible to buy "bottled glacial water", the vast majority of bottled water that's drunk is basically tap water (even when they happen to have pictures of mountain glaciers on the bottle). And even if its carbonated/remineralized, it still probably has tap water as its 'basis'. Of course, even if water did come from some alternative source (e.g. "fresh mountain springs"), I suspect it would still need to get treated by many of the same processes to ensure its 'safe'. Oh, and here's something to consider: Perrier (probably one of the most well known brand of "premium" bottled water) had to recall millions of bottles after benzene (a rather nasty chemical that's a well known carcinogen) was found in samples. See: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE7D61F39F933A25751C0A966958260 Oh, and here's something else to consider: In the U.S. (not sure of the situation here in Canada), they have thousands of people dealing with the safety of tap water. However, they have one person dealing with the safety of bottled water. And he only does it part time. And they don't even check water unless it crosses state lines.

Its also wrong for the government to forcefully make restaurants and food retailers comply with health and safety regulations. If I want to buy or sell rotten, rancid beef, its my right by gawd!!!! So, why aren't you fighting for that right too? Oh, and by the way, can I have some money? After all, I pointed out that the 'average' taxpayer pays at least part of the cost for the dental problems of those who don't engage in proper care (e.g. people on welfare, through group insurance plans, etc.) I like money, and I like my money to stay in my pocket. If you're so eager to get rid of fluoridation, then you obviously have no problem paying for the extra costs. So, can I have some of that money? Frankly, your water filtration system may actually cause more problems than it prevents. Depending on the filter type, many can actually provide a medium to increase bacteria growth. Yes, lets look at Walkerton... A very sad, tragic case. But, lets put this in context, shall we? There are roughly 30 million Canadians. Roughly 7 people died. So, it caused the death of 0.000023% of all Canadians. Given the fact that almost everyone consumes water (either directly or indirectly) in a day, that's a pretty small risk. More people did get sick, but the risk was around .008% of the population.

Perhaps they're unreported, apparently there's a lot of that going around. That's perhaps the most pathetic idiotic excuse you've used. Rather looks more like a joke than a serious excuse. If you were serious about it: - Why exactly would you expect homocide rates rates to go unreported? (They're probably the one statistic that has been pretty consistently tracked for a long time) - Even if there were unreported homicides, you would still see the rates rise and fall based on the actual number (i.e. if X% goes unreported, and you double the number of total crimes, the unreported rate goes up. but that hasn't happened.) And if you weren't serious about it, then once again: why have you not seen the per-capita homicide rates increase as our population has gotten older!. I realize of course that there is no problem. And I rather suspect that you know that there's no problem either, but you are clinging to unsubstantiated claims because if you tried to look at the facts you would fail. I've justified it and explained it throughout. You keep saying I see... but apparently not. That's not my fault. Nope you haven't. At no point have you pointed to any statistical evidence indicating increases in per-capita homicide from our aging population. Simply chanting "on their radar" is not statistical proof. It is not hard data. It is simply repeating a mindless catch phrase. Well, not compared to some of your compatriots in this issue but I guess comments like ..."The leftist charade this country has been suffering through is so played.". First of all, just because I might have taken the same position on a subject does not mean that I consider them a 'compatriot'. I will develop my opinion on an issue based on my own logic/reasoning, not what others here have stated. Secondly, being a 'troll' is a pretty black and white matter. You've admitted that you lied earlier to cause controversy. The depth that you did so is irrelevant... a troll is a troll. Major difference here... When I use the phrase "I see", it is simply a literary device I am using to segue from your posting/claim to mine. The phrase "I see" is not used as any sort of proof; indeed it is always accompanied by further exposition to debunk your point properly. (Complaining about the use of "I see" is basically complaining about my writing style, and doesn't address the fact that you've never been able to properly address the content of the posts.) On the other hand, when you repeatedly chant "on their radars", you are attempting to use that as some sort of proof or support for your claim. YOU don't have data to back you up. Those others that have the issue "on their radar" likewise do not have data. But you think by chanting it over and over again it will somehow act as proof. Hint: it does not. 2 wrongs don't make a right. And 2 people holding the same incorrect unsupported claims do not automatically make a point valid.

I'm not a fan of Saipan's method of posting random quotes to support his arguments... however, the gun registry might be an issue that could help swing an election to the conservatives (mostly by allowing them to pick up a few rural seats that had been going to the NDP or Liberals.) Granted, it won't be the only issue, and it will depend strongly on the conservative's ability to customize their campaign for various regions (e.g. emphasize firearms in some parts of the country, but downplay it in others.) Frankly, I doubt they could win an election without picking up those extra seats. But then, that's just a guess.

And let us all remember that elections produce a considerable amount of volatility, and it's hardly unheard of in most democracies to have had parties who thought they had it in the bag by positive public and internal polls to have been squashed on voting day. We can't be quite sure how the dynamic will work.... Yeah, I agree about the volatility. But then, the poster that I was originally responding to wasn't saying "I ignore polls because the voting population is volatile", he was concentrating on the effect of cell phones vs. land lines only.

You are right in that increasing use of cell phones may mean that certain groups are under-represented in polls. However, keep a couple of things in mind. First of all, if the polling companies want to, they can correct for that when they do their analysis. They've found that they can 'skew' the figures by taking a look at the results from the land-line survey, break it down by age group, and weight the results based on the demographics of cell-phone only people. Now, I don't know if the results that we see in the newspapers do that sort of 'skewing' (although I suspect any polling values used by the political parties themselves have such analysis done.) Secondly, it might be possible that not calling people who use cell-phones only may ironically make polls more accurate. The reason for that is that those who do not possess a land line (i.e. cell phone only) are statistically less likely to vote (e.g. in the younger demographics). Simply saying "I support party X" doesn't really reflect how an election will go if you don't go out and cast your ballot. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/cell_phones_and_political_surv.php?nr=1 http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1601/assessing-cell-phone-challenge-in-public-opinion-surveys

Some people actually go and get private loans/lines of credit in order to help tide them over. Granted, there is a risk that any person might spend years in school and still find themselves unemployed (and now in serious debt), but it does provide an incentive to select classes that are useful. Taking Engineering, medicine, etc.=useful. Taking philosophy, underwater basket weaving=not useful. (At least in terms of improving your income and financial status). Just out of curiosity, what area of technology are you thinking of that's becoming "completely obsolete"? I work with computers. I suspect my area of employment changes faster than the "average" job. Yet I have managed to stay employed without taking time off for new training. (The reason? While technology changes, concepts learned earlier are relevant and easily adaptable to new situations.) If a person has been working at some skilled job for 30 years, I would assume they would have built up equity (savings, retirement plans, etc.) As such, if they did get laid off, they should be able to survive even if the only job they find is working at Wal-Mart. I myself am in a skilled trade. I've been working in my field for less than 20 years. Yet if I got laid off tomorrow, I could still make ends meet even if I took a part-time minimum wage job. Granted, it would mean delaying the purchase of a new car, etc. but I'd still live pretty well. In 30 years I'd probably have enough to retire.

I see... So, what you're saying is that you are an admitted internet troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 Do you think that that detracts from any moral high ground in any sort of debate over the issue? I see... So, let me get this straight... you didn't have any interest in gun control, yet somehow you now recognize that the "prescription the right has... is the wrong one"? Something tells me you ain't being totally honest with your claims there. (And given the fact that you've admitted to being an "internet troll", your credibility is diminished.)

And yet, it's on their radar nonetheless. You keep chanting "on their radar" over and over like a brained-damaged parrot without ever, you know, justifying it or explaining its significance. Here's a suggestion: why don't you actually find some facts to justify your opinions? Yeah, I know... radical concept. Except, and as I said before, I was pointing to numbers of cases of dementia and guns. Ummmm... do you even understand the difference between "total number of cases" and "relative number"? The population of both Canada and the U.S. is increasing. Even if there were fewer problems per capita you might still see an increase in overall numbers. That does not mean that there's a problem. Yet they're more likely to die in firearm fatalities on a per capita basis. Perhaps you might actually want to look up the concept of "per capita". I suspect you might not quite understand what it means. Ummm... that's a pretty thin statement to basis your claims on. "increase"? Over what time period? "rates of homicide"? Are they talking per capita or overall numbers? Skimmed through the article, and couldn't find any area that addressed those issues. What I suspect is that they're looking at an increase in total numbers, which (as I said) would increase not because there's actually a problem, but because the population itself is increasing. Of course, that's assuming that numbers are actually statistically significant... the article was looking at homicides numbering in the dozens... not exactly enough to really draw any statistical conclusions. I can also predict that we'll find bigfit hanging out with Elvis somewhere in B.C. But strangely enough, wild baseless claims don't exactly constitute any sort of evidence. Once again, since you seem to ignore anything which debunks your claims... if there is a risk of increased per-capita firearms related deaths among seniors why do we not see evidence of it now. Our population has been aging demographically for decades now. (Heck, the proportion that are seniors has almost doubled between 1946 and 2006. Why aren't you seeing per-capita homicide rates skyrocket? I have considered them, and I still think guns are in an entirely different class. I see... So, you are not so interested in actually saving lives as you are in instituting rules that you might agree with, and the heck if it actually helps society. Yes, because you can't go postal anywhere near as easily or painlessly with these as you can with a gun. Yet people die needlessly from pools/cars/etc. Nice to see you have so little empathy that you will ignore the thousands of deaths on our roadways in favor of stopping some senior who is statistically unlikely to use their firearm to kill someone from owning one.