Alta4ever

Price is what will correct it, if you can't afford it you can't cansume it, and will either do without, or find a cheaper alternative.

Incorrect America was founded by Calvisits, America was a port of call for privateers, that were fighting the Spanish Empire to compete in the South American sugar and slave markets. They were and weren't privateers depending on what was granted from the King of England at the time.

What is being consumed changes over time, we have seen it over and over. To think that people will continue to buy what they do today does not fit with history, we have ssen the rise and fall of industries, because what the world has demanded for commodities has changed.

What if the government has no need for what you can offer what is that worth? Sorry but with the way things are it will never work. I am very resistant against exporing marxist ideas yes. The only way for you system to work has been tried, its called communism and that was an utter failure. Since the markets were created in the 1600's by England, its the only system of commerce to survive because it is the most robust. All others have been doomed to failure. Capitalism works period. Your ideas have been proven in wrong in the last 400 years. Everything in economics is based on consumable commodities, and what value can be determined by demand. Its caused by the nature of the human race.

So who then determines in kind value for service and how do you tax it? Or should we allow the other canadian currency? Do you want to pay your morgage in pelts?

So helping keep jobs for workers, would be considered doing nothing. would you rather just have the government pay a wage to the citizens instead until the government runs out of funds, and has no tax base left? Please how do you help the hard working taxpayer from losing their job?

The New Deal did nothing but drag the bad recession into a depression that lasted for ten years. What brought the world out of it was war. Is this something you would like to repeat?

Well I can tell you part of the problem, why buy a vehicle from GM, Ford, or Chrysler that has the added costs of a Union built into the vehicle, the cost of huge pensions that the unions got in the 70s. Not to mention the fact of an over paid work force. Up until this year I had bought nothing but Chev, but I am so sick of CAW I decided to buy Toyota, because their workers have seen the value of not having CAW in thier plants. They have had 5 unionization votes, and decided not to join all five times. Until the North American auto industry can shake of the huge Albatros of CAW they are doomed to failure. I and a great deal others that I know will continue to buy the superiour products offered by Nissan, Toyota and there like.

No cash has been handed to the bank.

Thanks Jerry I doubt anyone could have said it better.

No its still amounts to a very politically divided nation.

But that would mean the unenlightened masses couldn't blame the Americans because you know everything is always their fault.

No I would like to see it stop, but what I was saying was that it wouldn't matter in the long run because they places will find other ways of financing their military.

Diesn't matter if we funnel money through them or not their goal is most likely to have any fight to become a proxy war, where they will gain support from chinese, Russians, or Iranians. They don't require the out pouring of resources either because they are fighting wars close to home, where we have the added cost of transport.

Sorry 6.5% still not a huge margin. Barack 52.6% of the popular vote in 2008 Bush 50.2% of the popular vote in 2004 Barack did 2.6% better, thats not much better. His result aren't very good considering what the left is deluding themselves with.

Our country can't afford the warefare becasue of the massive amounts of spending domestically, something that nations who care little about their citizens don't really have to concern themselves with. They have the money to spend on military resources, at the expense of their citizens.

Ya he had such an overwhelming majority in the popular vote, with only 4% more then McCain you statement is very false, he only did slightly better then John Kerry and Al Gore.

What you got was the protest vote from both major parties, whe you poll over 10% and take at least one sea tin the house I will beleive you. As for a market place for ideas, it does not take money it takes an audience, this can be gained very cheaply to begin with. You need to first form your donor base then move to the formation of a party, not expect the government to fund your ideas. This is the idea between socialism and capitalism. Any jusification for miss use of public money just doesn't stand. If you have an idea its on your shoulders to sell it to the masses not mine as the taxpayer. If you really want to get funding for forming policy join a think tank thats their purpose. BTW Lizzie May is part of the wacko element, so I doubt you've shed it.

Where to start? I am a huge fan of Aircraft, Avation and the history that goes along with it. But rebuilting an aircraft that is 30 years out of date? You've got to be kidding me. If you want to see a replica go to the Wetaskiwin Museum they have one life sized. The cost of develop the aircraft was prohibative the Canadian tax payer never could have afforded the total cost of the project. While there may or may not have been customers for the aircraft is speculative, but for you blame the conservatives for this is very short sighted. The sate of our military is not the doing of one party or one government it is the result of many many years of cut funding and neglect, to pin in on one party or government is foolish. Projected capabilities are nothing, because they are nothing but pure speculation. It was well ahead of its time, but it would have bankrupted the nation for us to take it from prototype to production, Dief may or may not have had other options, we will not know for years to come or if ever. To have a truely rational response you need to have a look at the politics of the time, the administration of the project and the CEO of AVRO to fully understand the tragic situtuation and why it happened the way it did. Stop living in the past and move on, history is to learn from not re-live .

So the policies of the last 30 years have nothing to with the current state if affairs, just the last 3 years where no crime or punishment was pushed through until this past year? Don't you think that you should beyond 2 to three years, it usually takes a good five years before you see any real results of policy.

Don't forget about an overpowerful union that has crippled the ablity of these companies to compete as they decide which vehilces will be produced in which plant, and also force their opinions on what types of vehilces will be produced.

What you are speaking of is current legacy, not what could be see by Historians looking back with all the information of what was happening, say in about 50 years when classified documents are released. We have seen views changed on popular leaders as more is learned about about what the situation was, currently we are seeing this with Woodrow Wilson. What I see from people like you is blinding hate that poisons your views on what has happened and are using GWB as scape goat for problems have roots long before his administration. What we watched in the US was an 8 year tempertantrum from the American liberals. After the dems loses in both 2000 and 2004 what did we see, American liberals claiming to want to move Canada, a loss of national pride because an election didn't go their way. In 1992 did we see republicans declairing loss of pride in their country, have we seen it in 2008. NO but we have seen GWb become a convienent scape goat. Has America changed so fundimentally now that a Democrat is on the Whitehouse? No The founding documents are the same, the ideals that the country held on Nov 3 are the same as they are now. As for your fear of revisionists, how we perceive history is not static, it changes as new information about it is discovered. Should we not correct mistakes should we not debate it instead of swallowing it whole.

You know and I know that that how you see this and how the general public see this will differ widely.

No they voted for the party that they thought represented them and their veiws best. Do I need to re post the numbers of the popular vote against the liberals the ndp and the bloc, then constrat that against the popular vote against the conservatives to remind you how silly that arguement is. Conservatives have aa stronger mandate and will govern based apon that.

Don't forget that this new dream may yet be a nightmare.