-VMG-

Me obviously.

That is the most surprising thing i have heard in a long time.... not. I knew that a long time ago that people were stupid... this is one of the many many things that proves this. It became stunningly apparent with the amount of people who said the coalition government was undemocratic and how the conservatives were voted in to govern.

Even if they weren't slaves... The ones in charge would still say they work hard, while everything else does the hard work.

There's also a difference between working hard and hard working... Egyptian slaves working on the pyramids had hard work.... The slave drivers probably said they worked really hard for their pay.

Except it won't be 2400 a year... it's private... and they will be out to make as much money as possible.

So you are better than someone because you make more money than they do? Hmm.

Here's a problem with tier two healthcare.... where do you think the doctors are going to go? The private hospitals where they can set their price and make more money.... are you going to stop them from working in the private clinics in order to have doctors for the public ones? Why should you get better care because you have more money to spend?

How many people in your family... There are many people who work hard and don't make enough to pay for it... don't give me this work hard bullshit.

Do you have a family?

It's more than just good deals... that's a simple example. I could get into how people who don't make a lot of money can use their credit to allow them to live life a bit easier and are likely getting screwed. But there doesn't seem to be much compassion or consideration for anything on these forums and that it is not black and white.

Okay be ignorant. Your choice.

It is ultimately up to the consumer... but it is such a good offer that people buy into it. It does, but at the same time a lot of companies offer things through credit you can't recieve through cash... which makes it all the more enticing.. I do blame the consumer... but i wouldn't blame it ALL on the consumer.

Except that there are things that affect supply and things that effect demand. To simply say it was supply and demand is an incredibly vague statement. The supply of oil is why the oil price went down.... but what caused the supply to increase.... or not to decrease compared to earlier times.. Although i suppose Gold is a lot less useful than oil.... which makes it a more stable base than oil because so many things can effect the demand of oil... and maybe a few less things can effect the supply of gold in comparison to oil.

I know that a reason they didn't continue their advance on Baghdad was the sheer amount of destruction they had caused on their way towards it... I would say a possible the reason was as much to liberate Kuwait as it was to a) keep Iraq from having a sea port to export their Oil, severely limiting their presence in a international market... B ) To secure the Oil in Kuwait to keep it in the hands of a more internationally "friendly" country...

Do you have any more sources of info on that? I mean i could simply look at the price of gold and see that it goes up and down... but that doesn't exactly show the causes of the increase or decrease in price. Not doubting your information... It just needs more info attached to it than the gold price by itself...

Do you doubt any other motive? The invasion of Kuwait could have simply been a internationally justified invasion of Iraq... Sort of like the Iraq War today... potential weapons of mass destruction was a facade of the real reason they invaded Iraq...

Would you agree though that economic output and labour can fluctuate by a lot? I suppose that would create a more dynamic and realistic economic scene... but it doesn't seem like it would be very stable (which is what people want).

I do not believe supranational military operations can be put on the hands of Canada completely.... The first gulf war was in partial retaliation to Iraq's actions.... I guess we could debate whether we should have continued into Iraq after pushing them out of Kuwait.. Korea was a U.N. operation.... in defense of South Korea... I don't have much information of Serbia... but what i have seen is that it was a NATO operation... doesn't relieve Canada of any faults... but it does show that it wasn't just Canada attacking a country... Did Canada lead the attack on serbia? or were we simply part of the operation? How does the first question about Germany Italy and Japan have any relevance?

I don't think you can blame it completely on the consumer... it can easily be blamed partly on the loaners as well... intimidation tactic... if you don't use this you will be nobody. Why wouldn't consumers use credit? Don't have the money... no worries... use credit now, pay later when you have the chance... too bad the average person is stupid with their money and buy shit they don't need... then when they are broke they have all this pointless shit and no food.

I think the idea is that it is something physical... and limited... I'm not saying we need to make money out of gold... i'm saying we need something that has value to determine how much value in money should be physically produced.... It is mostly useless that is true.... Also why i said it doesn't have to be gold.. but it could be something else that may have more use... but i think gold is more stable (limited) than paper... which we seem to make a ton of all the time... where as we have limited supplies of gold. But there is a problem... this gives countries that have high amounts of gold resources the ability to have stronger currencies... while countries with less gold have less strong currencies... It's fake inequality... and could be considered a sort of inflation in the broader light... I also noted that it's not so much a problem of physical currency... but plastic digital currency that is probably creating the biggest problem...

Gold is a limited resource (as far as we know) you can only have so much gold in the world.... There is likely billions of more trees in the world that can be turned into paper currency. Now, the idea is that gold is stable... Paper COULD be stable if managed correctly... but if it is not then it becomes are very unstable thing. It doesn't help that a bank account has become simply numbers with no real meaning considering it doesn't need to be backed by anything physical. At least with gold there is something physical that allows for limitation. The question you should ask is, why is gold any more valuable than anything else.... Romans were paid in salt... it serves the same purpose. Money does not exist physically... anything can be considered money.... gold and other such things are physical... they have meaning... This is the age of sending imaginary numbers from one person to another and no physical exchange. I sen my number 250 to your bank account.... is anything really being exchanged here? Where did the 250 come from? most likely somebody elses bank account... that came from someone elses bank account. I suppose we could have physical money and it would serve the same purpose and it is really this digital worlds fault... but i would still say gold is more stable than paper... contrary to rock-paper-scissors mechanic of paper > rock.... or maybe man's intelligence is the scissor... and has much power over paper... but then rock still has more power over scissors... lol anyways...

I think a major problem is that we no longer have gold backing... Our currency is meaningless.... I suppose corruption and greed doesn't exactly help either... it might help the initial boom of an economy... but that only means the economy has that much further to fall to stabilize.

Taliban is not the one whos doing the terrorist attacks in western countries... they are defending their country from foreign occupation. And i do believe the leaders of Al-Qaeda do understand that it is retaliatory. When have we attacked other sovereign states? We do peace-keeping missions... the only time we attacked another sovereign state was Afghanistan I might add that we have command of the armies there, and we do not use "american kit"... we have our own sub-par stuff. Probably a good idea considering they don't believe in Christmas like we do.

Provocation of provocation... it's true the war in Afghanistan would provoke some hatred... but the mission in afghanistan was provoked in the first place... I think the act of not participating in the war in iraq shows that we don't mindlessly follow the US into war is a big thing at the same time... shows that we act rationally... if an ally is attacked we defend that ally.... if our ally goes out of their own jurisdiction and we don't back them for logical reasons it shows on the radar. Of course this could all be bullshit and they don't give a shit about anything... but i honestly don't believe that.

Ever think the reason we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil is our softer immigration policies? Or part of the reason we haven't been directly targeted is because of our acceptance of diversity, and our peace keeping way of thinking? That we don't just blatantly go into war situations without a reason and we think before we act? It probably isn't a popular view even among terrorists to bomb a country that is as accepting of different cultures and beliefs as Canada. I know this won't stop determined fanatics... but it might make them have a second thought. The terrorists in most cases are not mindless idiots... they want a reaction... terror, fear... if they were to attack Canada the attack would be seen as completely uncalled for with no provocation and likely would not sit well even among anti-west organizations. If we become more the like the US we become a bigger target. The "terrorists" hate the west but the US in particular. They did not do terrorist attacks for no reason... they wanted a reaction, and they wanted to rally the hatred for the west... Bombing a nation as peaceful (getting less peaceful) and accepting as Canada would not be a good publicity stun on their end... and as much as you might think they are mindless (the likelihood is that the soldiers are, but the leaders are not, otherwise they would have gotten this far as an organization) many of their plots are based on gaining something for themselves, bombing Canada would not gain them anything as it stands...