hitops

But that's not what you actually want. You want the double standard - on the one side wealthy people should not be able to protect their position, and the wealth should be redistributed more. But on the other - that concept stops dead in its tracks when it comes to the lower end domestically, you don't want redistributing wealth and opportunity to the even less fortunate elsewhere. The cheap labor that you're talking about has lifted literally hundreds of millions out of dire poverty onto the first step of the economic ladder. When you talk about restricting the 'cheap labor', you're basically making the case for the alternative - starvation and destitution. A single year of operations in the current model of many overseas operations, transfers more sustainable economic improvement to the poor than the entire history of foreign aid combined. For people working in western countries, the amount of money they send home dwarfs foreign aid and charity work by many fold. There is, as a fact of sheer measurable quantify of money transferred, no better way to get help to the poorest.

Nice try but: General delivery: This was fixed in 2007 with the passing of the Residence of Verification bill. Get bills emailed: Requesting one paper bill will take approximately a 5 second phone call or email to any bank or utility. Recently moved: Update address with bank or any utility, have them send you paper statement. I had to do this to get driver's in new province. Went to bank, updated address, had printout with new address. Took about 10 min. Went and got driver's same day. Too disorganized: That's your own fault, you're disenfranchising yourself. Even in that case, you can get a copy of an old utility (if you lost it) with a simple phone call or email. Pay room and board: Those people still have bank accounts, debit and credit cards. Wife can't vote: Add her to anything, get printout. Homeless: The is the hardest one. Yet, even the homeless can use correspondence with social assistance (which does not require a fixed address) or even attestation by a soup kitchen (read the elections act). Just for fun though, let's think about the absurdity of the homeless example. What you're implying with this argument is a homeless guy who fulfills all of the following: - Is able to identify the current day, and realize when election day occurs - Prioritizes voting - Successfully voted in the last election - Has somebody in their social circle who has it together enough to have documents themselves, and is willing to vouch for them (you know, one of those regular established and responsible people the homeless are known to associated with). - Is too incapable of gathering the available options, yet organized enough to find this person and arrange to have them vouch for them at an appointed time Boy I would love to meet this truly unique homeless person. The number of homeless falling into this description is probably somewhere between zero and zero. Well you've got me there. I'm stuck on identifying an actual person rather than an imaginary one. You would need a mechanism to substantiate it, in order to do so. As we don't have one, it's a lot like pointing out that a blind person cannot identify a sunset. Take the argument further. If the point is ease of voting, why stop at vouching? Just put it as an anonymous poll online that anyone can access, set up like the a daily CBC poll. No need to register or anything, just log in and vote. After all, why ask for any kind of formal process to verify, that would be 'disenfranchising' somebody somewhere.

lol this exactly proves my point. You claim that my argument is easy to pick apart.......and then fail to do it. You prefer to just refer to some great 'other', and I suppose hope that they can. Like those who haven't even bothered to become familiar with the bill, but quickly claim disenfranchisement, I doubt you've bothered to become familiar with these experts arguments either. They are no better than yours, and likewise do not provide any examples of someone would clearly be disenfranchised. Ya but if the 'experts' believe it, I don't have to logically reason it out myself. I can just feel good on an emotional level and hope somebody else is making a good case. If voter fraud happened, how would that be identified? There is no mechanism to do so. We cannot look, and so we cannot find. I've already pointed out the available forms of ID old people can use, of which virtually every elderly person in the country could have at least one. Consult the list, and tell me who it is that would have none of those. Aboriginals actually have even more options than other Canadians, given the status card is also usable.

This is all it is. As in nearly all things in human nature, the emotional value of a position is more important that the actual value. Although pipelines are clearly safer, they are more dangerous to the self-important narrative of pipeline opposition, built over time. Opposition to pipelines is strongly symbolic, sexy, and trendy. Take this standard scenario: You're a college guy and you just met a cute girl in the local enviro club or enviro-minded social circle, and you guys bond over vaguely understood but highly motivating notions of enviro protection. You're going to tell her that you now support pipelines because by opposing them you get policy that actually causes more environmental damage? That would be a no. She's the cutie, and she don't like her no pipelines.

I've also heard those people, what I haven't heard is a logical argument from them as to why. They love to say there's no evidence of fraud. Well there's also no proof that this law would disenfranchise anyone. A single other precedent example would do. None are offered. I have yet to head a single example of person who could not vote under these changes, or even a theoretical person who could not.

You're a perfect example of the debate you're complaining of. I don't think there's a single substantive point in this post.You hate the CPC. Ok good for you, I don't like them either. What dose that have to do with the bill? I've seen tons of posts like yours all claiming this massive disenfranchisement. What I haven't seen is any credible argument to support that, nor a single example of a person who would not be able to vote after these changes. Can you offer one? Oh wait wait.....I've figured it out. The conservatives have a secret plan to stop the old from voting....because they.....always vote conservative?

That's great but once again has nothing to do with anything in my post.Various conservatives could well be total clowns worthy of losing their seats. I'm debating the bill on its merits, not its authors. There exists a reality of debate beyond team a vs team b, much as posters here may struggle to believe

Good strawman. It's incredibly arrogant and selfish to assume you deserve the opportunity over the very poor, just because you happened to tumble out of a uterus within some given defined political borders. Free trade and consequent outsourcing of labor, has improved the standards of living more than anything else in history.

Don't know. Did you have a response to my post?

It doesn't claim to disenfranchise 400,000 people. It claims that 400,000 people used VIC. Those are different things. If you get a card in the mail that is uniquely for voting, obviously you would think of using that when it comes time to vote. If you remove that card, those people don't magically get transformed into stumbling brain-dead zombies, flailing hopelessly. They just do whatever they did before that card came out. It's like saying if you take away somebody's motorcycle license, they can't drive a car either.

Double post.

2 merit points to you for 'appeal to authority' argument. Care you address the points? I guess you've never bothered to look at the list of ID's before. 'The experts' shouldn't do your thinking for you here.

Umm no. I would kindly suggest you educate yourself on how energy resource revenues work in this country.

Well if you took 2 seconds to search google, you'd find that both those people have other forms of acceptable ID. Student: - Internet bill - Phone Bill - Any utility bill - Bank or credit card statement - Any correspondence from university - Any correspondence from student loans - Attestation of residence by dormitory - Student card - Library card - Public transportation - Debit Card - Health Card Senior - Any utility - Internet - Phone - Attestation of residence by old folks home - Statement from OSS - Statement from CPP - Statement from social assistance - Library card - Health card - Long term care hospital bracelet You can't think of any way those people could vote? Give me a break. When I was a student I had at least 15 of the acceptable items, and that's just the ones I can think of now. We don't have any way of detecting voter fraud, so we haven't detected any. I can't think of a single person who would be actually incapable of voting. Perhaps a wild human who has gone undetected by society and raised by wolves.

But not public health care. Unless you have some examples?

I'm with you there. GST should be 20%, and income tax cut in half.

Correct. The UCCB should be abolished. It force the childless to subsidize those with children. The childless did not force anyone to have children, that was their choice. Full disclosure: I would benefit a lot from income splitting and I currently collect UCCB.

No he wants tit-for-tat tariffs. That is anti-trade. He dresses it in language of 'fairness' without understanding it doesn't balance anything, it just reduces prosperity on both sides.The idea is that if you allow Korea to sell cars cheaper, but they do not do the same to us, we lose. This idea is false, by getting cheaper Korean cars, we save more money. This remains true whether or not Korea allows the same access to our cars. That money can then be used more efficiently. Before now, that money was inefficiently used to pay the extra cost of tariffs on Korean vehicles, or in paying similar amounts for an inferior NA vehicle. Now it can be used more efficiently. Wilbur's strategy to impose tariffs in retribution, is one he believe is like responding to a punch in the face with a counter-punch. In reality it's like responding to a punch in the face by throwing your face forward in the hopes of hurting his fist. If Korea gets more access, and we don't, Korea actually suffers the most. Not only do they still have to pay tariffs on NA vehicles, the new overseas demand for Korea vehicle raises the price for Koreans as well. The world is not a monolithic panel with one dial that says 'more good' and 'more bad' at each end. It's an impossibly complex global economy and the interactions require a far broader understanding than 'oh no, we make less stuff!'

If it gets you a lot of cheap stuff, it is not one-sided, by definition.You don't recognize it's not zero-sum. Cheap stuff is why modern societies have a high standard or living. Are you thinking of all the supplies and services we can obtain cheaply for public services? Are you thinking of the increased costs to hospitals, public works, food banks and social organizations and governments everywhere when the price of goods rises due to imposition of 'balanced' tariffs that you want? No, of course you aren't. Exporting things doesn't make your citizens have good lives. Chins exports everything, and the lives of most Chinese suck. Purchasing power and access to goods is what improves things for the citizens. The average Chinese would be far better off if the Chinese government dropped the very same tariffs you would have us impose. When you impose tariffs, you impose them on your own citizens, not other countries.

The lack of transferability for some trades is indeed an issue. It makes some sense that a given cert board could ask for a few extra courses, after all the type of projects common in each province varies and competence in one does not automatically mean competence in another. But you're right, this is red tape mostly. There is indeed both high unemployment and a labor shortage. The shortage is in areas the unemployed are not able to do and not willing to get qualified for. The US is the perfect example. Millions of unemployed, yet millions of Indians imported to do jobs that require actual skill and hard work not found in the local population, yet highly demanded by it, of course. The free market model would have employers paying more for labor when the demand is there, and recruiting from a wider pool. That should include international. What right do you have to a good job when an eager Pilipino is ready to work harder, longer, and have a better attitude about it? He should not be excluded just because you wanted to follow your 'passion' of international relations for your own fulfillment and social trendiness......so long as you could fit the page turning in between American Idol commercials and pub crawls. Sorry, the world has a massive oversupply of people with half-thought opinions on how things should be. What it needs is workers who can deliver what others want.

BC should have the right to unilateral control of its coastline and access to it over the needs of the ROC the same day that Alberta is given the right to sole control over its natural resources to the exclusion of the ROC.

No proof? Here's the problem: If you never look for evidence, and you don't even have a mechanism to look for it, obviously you won't find it How would you ever prove electoral fraud from in eligible vouching? You can't. If there was mass fraud, there would no way to know.

As do Venezuelans.

But this is tunnel vision. We don't live on an island connected to Europe and China. This is a global economy. Sending it anywhere, and sending as much as possible weakens Putin's position. More oil on the world market period, anywhere, means lower prices. Lower prices, means Putin makes less money, and has less influence. Lots of countries have tried this. None are places you would want to live. There is a reason some nations have high individual prosperity and opportunity, and it's not because the magic prosperity fairy cast a spell.

I think this bears repeating. Very true!