hitops

It doesn't matter if the CBC is pro or anti any party. It is ludicrous that taxpayers are funding a media outlet, full stop. Exactly what kind of a vital service is media programming? If people want to consume various garbage opinion pieces, let them direct their own resources to whatever media outlet they choose. Absolutely no reason the tax base should pay for that.

Specifically relating to money shifting from the childless to those with children, you are right. There is no reason people without kids should have to subsidize those with kids. In taxation generally however, you are wrong. People with kids (excluding natives) tend to pay quite a bit more in taxes than those who are single, largely because people with kids tend to be older, further in their careers and earning higher salaries. They tend to be people with more stable economic and social situations to begin with, therefore more earnings and more gov revenue taxed from them. They also have to buy WAY more crap due to kids, contributing a ton more to GST/PST than singles.

Did you get the check for your vote today? I don't recall a more blatant vote buy in recent history. The response from the Liberals and NDP: But we will pay you even more for your vote!

Yes it certainly can, especially if you live somewhere where you are car dependent for employment. I agree that it should not take that long, that is unjust. However I also echo the above poster in that the police certainly don't presume you to be innocent when impounding and vehicle or issuing a ticket, they presume guilt. There are many great police officers, but they are also sometimes the biggest hypocrites. How many times have I seen a police officer abuse their authority to run red lights, make illegal U-turns etc? I see this probably every single day, and then as soon as they have gotten through the light, around the turn etc, the lights go off and they continue on their way. But the rest of us, of course have to obey every law.

Ummm no you 'investing in things' is not the only option. Wealth is largely generated by producing things. Large scale investment projects do not produce wealth, they just move taxed wealth from a large group (the whole population) to a smaller one (whoever is working on the 'invested' project). The economy grows in private hands. It always has and always will. Just check where the tax base comes from. People create wealth, and the government takes it. We can only hope that they spend it on things that make life better rather than just waste it.

Considering the CBC costs something like $700M per year, I'm not too upset by a million from a few bad actors. The fact that they operate on the honour system in the first place, and that they are not elected, are far bigger problems IMO.

No it didn't decrease then increase, the tally was simply mis-interterpreted comparing the first half of the year to the first half of the previous year. When the whole year was tabulated, it was in fact an increase. As it did in many countries. When you say licensed users can have them, you are in effect saying everyone can have them, because that is exactly what happens in the US with that policy. Yet in Canada, where laws are stricter, gun ownership and use is far, far lower not just for legal owners, but illegal users as well. Because the laws that allow you to concealed carry, allow more loose firearm storage and transportation in general. In practice, the typical fight+relationship+alcohol combo that makes up the typical US murder (FBI data), is a lot worse when the gun is on your belt, vs when there is some barrier to you accessing it. The data amply demonstrates this. When it is easily available, it get used to kill. The FBI data shows this - most murders are with available handguns. In Canada, most attempts are with knives, but because knives aren't as good at killing, far more survivors. It's a balance between defence in the home, and wild west in the streets. We plenty of precedent and data from many countries to know which polices strict that balance best. What a bunch of nonsense: Germany - Carry permit is SUPER hard to get, limited to a tiny group that must demonstrate absolute need for firearm. First line of the wiki article: Gun legislation in Germany is considered among the strictest gun control in Europe Austria - Must complete military service, have secure safe for gun which police must come to your house and check, and can only carry at home and at work. Other carry very difficult to obtain. Also can only own 2 guns. Italy - strictly controlled, no right to bear arms. Extremely hard to get concealed carry - must prove absolute need (transporting high-value jewellery, lots of money, security guard, etc) The average person cannot get. Switzerland - Can own 3 weapons. Concealed carry of handgun is banned, except for absolute need. Czech Republic - Liberal gun laws (by European standards) but real ownership rate only half that of Canada. Maybe they just aren't interested. Murder rate about 50% less than Canada. The very first line from that link: "Switzerland has a comprehensive gun control regime..." It then goes on to explain all the ways they carefully control the possession and transport of guns and ammunition. You think this supports your point? lol They (Austria) have very little guns too, what a coincidence. The other four.....all far more strict than the US in number, type, ammo, and concealment. Not even close. These five nations in fact make the counter-point, the US would do well to adopt the controls those nations have, which still allow weapons in homes for defence in most cases. Again stuck on the organized-crime run Mexico. Weird.

No, I'm saying that when gun laws were loosened in a violent city, more violence followed rather that what was predicted, which was less. This was a change in crime rate along with a change in laws, in the same city in the same time period. Much better comparison than different cities or states. Sure but that's the argument - that guns CCW are fine because 'I handle mine just fine'. Well, tons of people don't, and the results effect society of a whole. If the criteria is what each individual can handle, regardless of the downstream effects of that, then the landmine example is perfectly analogous. You will need to specific cite those laws. If you are talking about Switzerland, sorry they have UBER strict laws on ammunition, both transport and maximum possession at one time. If you are talking about Russia, great another nation recovering from mobster rule (Soviets) is about as relevant as Mexico. If you talking about others, you will have to be more specific. The overwhelming majority of comparable nations have very low crime vs US, and very strict gun laws. Basically.......all the places people want to live.

You're splitting hairs. The government DOES forgo tax collection on the purchase of a car - it forgoes whatever tax rate it might imagine beyond what we currently pay. There is no effective practical difference between lowering or eliminating a tax rate on something, or just not raising it on another. It is semantics. Furthermore we directly subsidize the existence of auto, which is an indirect tax that benefits (not by choice like the TFSA, but by law) only one group - auto workers, at the expense of others. The perfect analogy is UCCB. Like the TFSA, it is accessible to everyone. And like the TFSA, some people will take more advantage than others (those who choose to have more kids). But the TFSA is actually MORE fair than the UCCB. Every single Canadian can contribute to the TFSA. Only people in a situation where they can have kids, can take advantage of the UCCB. It excludes women outside of childbearing age, singles, or those otherwise unable to have kids. Outrageous! There are countless similar examples. Many cost the taxpayer far more than this, and favor far fewer. If your objection is that the government is putting their hands into something resulting in some change in the distribution of resources and this is on 'all of us' well.....welcome to virtually every single thing Canadian economic life.

You just admitted that most Canadians can contribute. Your statement that it offers 'nothing' is flatly false. It very clearly offers something to 100% of Canadians, as every last one can contribute if they choose to.What you mean to say is that are upset that some people will, not can, but will contribute more than others. Your argument is like saying it is wrong that Canadians can legally buy a car, since only some can take advantage of that. Yet everyone is equally allowed to buy any car, just as everyone can contribute up to $10000. If ONLY the rich were allowed up to $100,000, you would have a point. Why don't we just ban the use or purchase of anything that people with more money have to ability to use or purchase more of?

Exactly. They are sad and pouting in the corner. They have every opportunity to compete, but don't like games where they don't make the rules. Established media losing ground to other media.....this is roughly as shocking as 'Leafs don't make playoffs' I heard about something called the internets.....don't know it it has caught on though. Maybe just maybe it anybody starts hearing about it, it is possible, just slightly possible that people can still access the debates.

The reason for a bad law is quite irrelevant to the badness of the law. A few years back Chicago changed their laws allowing more CC. After half a year, they had a few fewer murders, and John Locke happily posted this on his blog. By the end of the year, they had significantly more murders than the previous years. Locke stopped mentioning Chicago....... The fact that you can safely transport guns is quite irrelevant to the fact that so many cannot that the US murder rate resembles a developing country. Your argument is identical to the following: I can safely plant landmines in my front yard, and never have a problem, therefore everyone should be able to. Mexico is the exception that proves the rule. The fact you are limited to referencing Mexico constantly, means you understand this. If your point was valid, you would be able to mention many examples, but you cannot. You are stuck with one of the most corrupt, barely developed countries in the western hemisphere which is effectively ruled by druglords. The fact that you are stuck with this example, should inform you about the strength of your argument. No doubt, it will not. It reminds me of people who argue for herbal cancer treatments, because 'they knew this one guy once...' The entirely of Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand stand in defiance of your point. In other words, everywhere that anyone would ever want to live in the modern world. You will of course, look away.

Yet the guns available to CCW owners, available only because of CCW laws, are in fact, used in most murders. They would not be available for those crimes, if they were not first brought into circulation by legitimate buyers. Nearly every country in the developed world had similar reductions over the same period. This points to something far larger than US gun laws as the mechanism to crime reduction. Despite the declines, the US stubbornly maintains a far, far larger murder rate than most others (similar proportional difference as 1970). The other thing the US has in far greater numbers than most others, is hundreds of millions of easily accessible, concealable, lethal weapons. It's not a quantum leap to reason that criminals will always be criminals, however when they assault people in a place where they have far easier access to more lethal weapons, more lethality will result. This is about as shocking as the fact where there is more ice, more people learn to skate. That proves the point. In Canada, legal gun owners are not committing crimes, and their guns (typically long guns) are not used in crimes. In the US, legal gun owners are not committing crimes, but their guns are being used in crimes. Why? Because in one case there is a mass supply of concealable weapons. Why? Because the are widely available for purchase and carry. Not the case in Canada, hence the difference. If law x means that some people can live uprightly with the law, yet the downstream results of the law are destructive, then it is a still a bad law. Again the landmine example is relevant. That actually makes perfect sense, and again you prove my point. In Canada, laws about transport and use of firearms are restrictive, while still allowing use of firearms safely. In US, laws are different, and so are the results (4x greater murder rate vs Canada). In Canada if their is a situation escalate, it is simply much riskier (legally) and more difficult technically, to rapidly obtain and deploy your firearm (even if it is in your vehicle). Less use of things that kill people easily, means less people get killed.

I would say it is the exact opposite. The fact that the limit is $10,000, explicitly limits people who could contribute more (the wealthy). It is in fact 95% of society that can contribute less than $10,000, very few could contribute more than that. This is specifically beneficial to the majority of Canadians, as the vast majority can take advantage of it by contributing something between $0 and $10,000. If you choose not to, great. Don't malign people for making smart decisions you don't want to make.

It's not a tax break for the wealthy, unless it is somehow legislated to be only available to people who are wealthy, which is is not. It is available to anyone. Now if you are an average person and choose to make an $800/mo car payment in order to drive a nice car to show your neighbors, rather than keeping your old one and putting into TFSA, that's your choice. This is mechanism for responsible people from lower income brackets to plan ahead to give themselves more wealth in the future. It's a way for people to move up. Naturally, there are reasons people in lower income brackets are there, and those reasons don't usually include 'great money manager'. Rather they usually include 'need $12/day for smokes'. Life is full of choices.

That logic does not follow. It does not follow that because CCW holders do not commit many crimes, that allowing CCW will not result in more gun crimes. The US amply proves that. There are many, many gun crimes in the US with concealed weapons that have nothing to do with CCW holders. The reason is the vast access and widespread availability of easily concealable, easily transportable firearms. CCW contributes to this, even if its legitimate users do not. Gun crimes have not been falling in the US due to CCW laws. Gun crimes (and crimes in generally), have been falling in the entire developed world, regardless of gun laws. They remain far higher relative to the rest of the developed world, within the US. Furthermore within the US, those crimes have fallen in nearly every state, by almost the exact same percentage, regardless of that state's specific gun law. There is literally no evidence that CCW laws have had downward influence on gun crime, although they occurred at the same time. If you believe they did, you would have to explain why states with highly restrictive gun laws had equal crime reduction, why Canada had similar crime reduction, why Japan, Europe, etc had crime reduction, all during this period. Obviously CCW laws within only some states, within only one country, did not cause this. The US has tons of gun crimes because it has tons of easily available handguns. These are the weapons used in most crimes according to the FBI. Despite CCW permit holders being safe, despite gun training etc. CCW laws, while not making CCW carriers dangerous, do result in far greater availability of weapons which are then, as a point of recorded fact by the FBI, used in crimes. Ya but would't they just use other weapons? Ya maybe, but a lot less people get killed with other weapons, which is why plenty of people get stabbed, but far fewer (per capita) die, in Canada. Your argument is like saying people should be able to plant land mines in their yard. Yes, they might be fully aware of them and safe around them. That is irrelevant to why that would be dangerous. I support the idea that we should be able to have guns in our homes. I support the idea that if you shoot somebody in your home, you get the benefit of the doubt. I do not support the idea that we can all roam around town with handguns. The evidence from the US is clear - 4x as many people get murdered there, compared to here, per capita.

That's exactly the point. We have lots of long guns in the homes of Canadians, with very few gun-related homicides. Far more with other weapons. However in the US, the lions share are with handguns, both in and out of the home. When you are out and about in a bar or somebody else's house in Canada, getting drunk and fighting, you don't have a weapon with you. You have to be in your own home to access your rifle, which is more difficult to get from storage than the handgun from your side table. A lot more people die from handguns than the easily accessible weapons Canadians have. Overall our murder rate is like 1/4 the US. Guns are better at killing people, that's why we give them to soldiers and not just knives or broken chairs + bad attitude on the battlefield.

Your response here does not disprove that as a myth. While what you posted is true, that irrelevant to the fact that dispute+alcohol+gun is the classic formula that explains the lions share of dun deaths in the US excluding suicide.

Your response here does not disprove that as a myth. While what you posted is true, that is irrelevant to the fact that dispute+alcohol+gun is the classic formula that explains the lions share of dun deaths in the US excluding suicide. Yes, responsible people are responsible. Glad we covered that. That's not the problem though.

You can't shoot a guy who's trying to knife you either, without going to court and putting your life through the grinder. If somebody threatens your kids life with a knife and you shoot him....100% you will get arrested and tried.

Not long guns though. The issue in the US is handguns. The other difference is the huge number of African Americans and the effect of African American culture. Again we have plenty of long guns at home in Canada, but not the same issues with firearms and domestic deaths.

Here is the reality of how people's voting works, according to this thread: - Guy who agree with me - voting on reason - Guy who disagrees with me - voting on emotion Glad we have the system down. All politicians are cheats and liars to some extent. Saying 'guy in charge was not 100% mother Theresa' is a statement of no value. People vote understanding that they will be disappointed, but assuming the alternatives would leave them more disappointed. That doesn't make them illogical or emotional, in fact I would argue that is highly rational. Hoping the next guy will be far better than the first guy, I would argue, is probably more emotional than rational. There are almost unlimited examples in history of people rallying around an opposition figure due to anger at the incumbent, with a far worse result. We have no reason to assume Trudeau would be better, or worse, than Harper. Taken in isolation, the Harper government is corrupt group or unethical scoundrels. Taken in the context of your average Canadian government and what is generally our historical experience with federal government, they are on the better side of ethical and responsible. Many of the issue that make them look stupid, have an alternative no better. For example increasing the child tax benefit is an obvious vote buy before the election. I will get more money from this, but I disagree with it. However the alternatives will either keep it, or bring in something even more expensive to take money from my pocket and hand it to people who freely chose to have lots of kids, a decision I had no part it. So if I voted on that single issue, I have no alternative. Many issues are like that.

We already have tons of guns in the house, just mostly long guns (not the kind typically used for the incidents you mentioned in the US). The issue not whether you can have a gun, the issue is you cannot use it to defend your person and property in your own home. For example somebody is threatening you with a knife and you shoot them, you will 100% get arrested and face trial, and you hope get aquited.Your concern about going down the U.S. road is just nonsense political babble. The danger in the US is blacks in black areas. Factor that out, and murder rates in non-black suburbs are lower than most Canadian cities. If you don't bring the African Americans along with brining the guns, you won't get the same violence.

I think he meant relevant ones to Canada. The US is full of African Americans, you can't compare that crime situation directly to Canada.I don't think we want everyone hitting the bars and getting into fights with concealed firearms in the mix. Having a weapon to defend yourself inside your own home is another matter.

Um nope each of those beliefs have traditionally been held by a majority of that religions adherents. Less so today, but certainly millions would still believe it. Have to say I'm surprised you are ok with accommodating a person's belief they should not have to be around black people. Can I also refuse service to them at a restaurant, in your world?