KeyStone

I totally didn't get it. Thanks.

And who is going to judge the democracies? Is the United States a democracy with the level of corruption, the ability to substantially influence policy with campaign contributions, the fiasco in Florida, the pathetic first-past-the post system? Is Cuba a democracy? They seem to think so? What about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Who wants to be the judge? Will it be the US funded National Endowment for Democracy or the US funded Freedom House?

Well sounds good - if you work for the union being protected. Otherwise, it's really not so good, unless used as a bargaining chip. Here's an example: Let's say that Canadians can buy plastic water bottles for $1.50 with international trade because they come from Bangladesh. Let's say that the plastic water bottles trade union lobbies the government for protectionist measures and they get them. What happens? Well, we now have a hundred union workers who get a decent wage to produce plastic water bottles. We also have 30 million Canadians who now have to pay $10 for a water bottle, as they have no other choices. We also have the people who used to produce these water bottles becoming unemployed. In addition, we are going against free trade, meaning there might be some reciprocal action such as Canada not being able to sell telephony equipment. So, essentially we are looking at wealth distribution. Ensure that consumers have no choice. Then force them to pay exorbitant prices for these goods, or do without. Now, I don't mind wealth distribution, but let's at least make sure it's efficient and doesn't ruin trading deals. Rather than do that, why don't we just collect fifty cents in taxes from every Canadian and give it to those that need it? It makes more sense than 'creating jobs' by handing over a monopoly to a Canadian company so that they can charge consumers whatever they like. Creating trade barriers to protect industries allows those industries to collect a disproportionate amount from the consumers of Canada for the goods and services that they provide at the expense of the Canadian consumer.

Sure, we have two different health care systems. The US system is better for those that have money. They can get elite treatment, and jump the queue ahead of those without money. The Canadian system is better for everyone else. Sure, there are a handful of arbitrary metrics that American health care supporters like to point to, to suggest that there system is better, but overall - for the actual results metrics - our system beats there's in pretty much every category. A system that discourages people from getting tested to see if they are ill and need help is a broken system. People may end up waiting for a year until they have better coverage before they get tested, and during that year, the illness may have progressed too far to become operable. And this is CNN giving advice to people, on the best way to use US healthcare. As for jobs, sure - Canadians go to the US to take the best jobs away from them because the US education system is inadequate leaving massive holes that need to be plugged by foreigners. It's not as if Canadians are going down to the US to get jobs at the Dairy Queen.

The 'terrorists' wanting to decapitate Harper were mostly teens using instant messenger with a couple bags of fertilizer.

Here is a fascinating article on CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/05/ep.he...loss/index.html Just read the first tip. They basically tell people not to get health tests done, because if they find something bad, you won't be able to get health care coverage at an affordable rate. Can you imagine what that is like to suspect there is something wrong with you, but being afraid to find out, because it would mean that you have a pre-existing condition, and therefore, you would have to pay far more for coverage (if you can get it at all). That's messed up.

You obviously haven't met him then.

Well, there are certain things that government ownership brings with it. For instance, government has a mandate beyond profit. They also want to make sure that they are a model employer, that they don't damage the environment, and that they don't risk people's lives in the pursuit of profit. Unfortunately, government also brings some baggage. If the government of Canada killed as many people as Maple Leaf meats - you can be assured that they would be paying a lot more than what Maple Leaf is paying. The other negative, is that government ownership means unions - and as we know, unions mean higher than necessary wages, benefits, worse productivity, and zero flexibility.

I find it absurd that he is forecasting anything beyond two years from now. No one has any fricking clue what is going to happen. Three months ago, this joker was saying that our budget would be balanced and we wouldn't run a deficit. The Conservatives also said that this global economy wouldn't really effect Canada that much. So now, suddenly, we're supposed to believe that Flaherty can predict anything past July?

Considering that Republicans blamed Clinton for Bush's economic disaster for the first six years of his reign - I think we can cut him a little slack here.

Although our national anthem is especially weak, the idea behind it is to inspire patriotism and loyalty to one's country. This has the following effects: 1) It is easier to convince people to risk their lives in war for their country. 2) It is easier to convince people to do their civic duty (ie not litter, reduce electrical consumption etc) 3) It makes it less likely they will abandon Canada for the US or elsewhere because of a slightly higher wage. 4) It makes it less likely that some region of Canada (let's say Fort Mcmurray) will suddenly decide that they want to secede on the basis that they happen to have more wealth under the ground than other parts of Canada. 5) People will whine less when asked to share the wealth with the rest of Canada.

What about the Gazette? Aren't they an anglo paper in Montreal?

Well, Rush Limbaugh might very well describe me as anti-Jewish, but that is because Rush Limbaugh uses gross generalizations, misinterpretations, outright lies, and a very loud voice, as tactics in his debating style. An informed poster might recognize that my posts have been critical of Israel's foreign policy, particularly towards Palestinians, as well as those posters who defend some of Israel's more egregious crimes. Crying anti-semitism or anti-Jewish every time someone criticizes Israel is getting a bit tired. Please consult with the CJC for updated tactics. I don't presume that everyone who defends Israel is Jewish. It's a bit silly for you to presume that everyone opposed to Israel's actions is Arab or Persian. But it's not as if you would be the only bigot here. You are in good company.

Spin all you like. You and I both know what we're talking about.

But before we jump to conclusions, there is a very important question that needs to be asked. Was she wearing revealing clothing at the time of the rape? Obviously, this is irrelevant, but in the minds of some men in those countries, that is a relevant question, as they blame the teen for tempting these men. It is frustrating to me, that we can't do more to intervene in these situations. Anything short of genocide, and it is illegal for the international community to take up arms and implement regime change by force. So, we have to stand by and let these atrocities happen?

Let me ask you a question, BC Chick. When you did that little political survey, there was a question that said: Do you consider all cultures to be equal? What did you answer?

I wasn't being serious. Sarcasm. While I defend Iran and the Arabs on some things, they still have decades to go to catch up in terms of civilization.

Well at least your racism isn't limited only to Arabs.

Well, while we certainly have a responsibility to share our learnings with the rest of the world, just as the Greeks shared their knowledge, it is something quite different to suggest that we impose our 'more civliized' belief system upon them. There are some that say that Canada and the US are far behind Western Europe when it comes to civilization.

Yeah, Aquaman would have kicked his ass.

This would make the divide between whites and blacks even worse. Imagine that all your family is black, all your neighbourhood is black, and now all your teachers and classmates are black. What would that do to your trust of white people. It will pretty much ensure that all your friends are black. And to be quite frank, there is a dangerous undercurrent in the black culture that is not particularly beneficial, or productive that will likely be nurtured in such an environment. Gender segregation is somewhat different since it is less likely that a child's family and neigbourhood will consist of people predominantly of one gender.

Well, I think the majority of Canadians were uninformed about parliamentary procedure in Canada. Harper was the only one running ads, to tell people how it worked. He had great success initially. Then two things happened. Firstly, Canadians had a chance to tell their friends how full of shit Harper is. He knows perfectly well how our parliamentary system works given that he planned to take power from the Liberals in the same way previously. Generally, if no one party gets 50% of the seats, the party with the most seats does not automatically rule. Usually they rule, because usually, they can get along with at least one of the other parties to hit 50%. But since he is unable to get along with anyone else, the other parties have a chance to form a government. Secondly, Dion mercifully stepped down. Many fence-sitting Lib-Cons could not stand the man's incompetence and incoherence. Plus, now was not the time to bring in the leader of a coalition who was stepping down in three months. At a time like this, we need a stable government, not one about to morph into some new form in 3 months. So, with Ignatieff becoming the de facto leader, Canadians were now given a second option for stable leadership.

Well, I certainly agree with you that tax cuts are not needed. However, there are times when it makes sense to run a deficit, and this is one of those times. This is an economic crisis, the proportion of which we haven't seen since 1929. Jobs will be lost. Homes will be repossessed and industries will be destroyed. While this is unavoidable, there is much that can be done to minimize the damage. Unfortunately, there are two problems. 1) Thanks to globalization and the flow of capital through porous borders, Canada can do little to boost its own economy. The US injection will do more to spur our economy than the Canadian spending spree. 2) Neither the Conservatives, the Liberals, or any of the other parties have the first freaking clue about how to stimulate the economy. It seems that they have agreed that spending is good, and now they are figuring out which special interests groups they want to appease the most.

How do you figure that is protectionism? Protectionism would be if they said that only Canadian companies and employees could do the work. I'm not seeing protectionism in this policy, but perhaps you are referring to something in the policy that I am unaware of'? This is government encouraging certain consumer behaviour, as it deems it good for the country (meeting environmental targets), just as it discourages certain consumer behaviour (smoking) because it deems it best for our nation as a whole. Possibly, but it depends how it is done. If it funds a BDC branch to assist and lend to entrepeneurs to create local business, it doesn't really create a barrier to trade - in fact it might help trade. You can't lump all encouragement of local business together. No, it isn't wrong. Imagine that you are a leg on a centipede. Imagine that all of the legs had seperate brains. How would you get anywhere? Wouldn't it be easier if one brain controlled all the legs? This is similar to how government behaves - it sees a bigger vision and determines ways to encourage or discourage certain behaviour while still balancing personal freedoms. The idea that tax cuts will stimulate the economy, is largely a myth. Let's look at ways that tax cuts could stimulate the economy. 1) If existing businesses make more profit, they can afford to invest more, and hire more people. Well, if the company is re-investing the money, then it isn't going to be taxed on that money reinvested - same with hiring new employees. Actually, lower taxes make it easier for the business to take money out of the company as opposed to reinvesting. 2) More businesses will survive with a lower tax rate. Well no. If a company is losing money, they wouldn't pay taxes anyways. This only helps the companies that are doing well. 3) A lower tax rate will encourage businesses to relocate to Canada, or start in Canada. Well, this is true in the short term, but given the prevalent free market mantras and push for globalization, every country has the same strategy. So, whatever short term gains we get from stealing business from other countries, will be offset by other nations lowering their tax rates. So, in ten years, we will be back where we started - but with a much lower tax base, and massive funding shortages. This is not really good for anyone except elite MNC's. As for lower personal income tax - this doesn't really stimulate the economy either. Look, let's say that the government has 100 billion dollars. It can either give it back through tax relief, or it can spend it. If they spend it, they guarantee that 100 billion goes out into the economy. If they give it back, then a percentage will go back into the economy, but a percentage will be lost to leakage. Some will save money. Some will spend it overseas. Some will buy imports. Leakage will occur. So, spending vs tax relief is basically asking 100 billion injected into the economy or 60 Billion injected. There are other reasons to defend tax relief, but suggesting that it will boost the economy more than government spending, is simply inaccurate. Well, you can say point out the fact that our unemployment rate is below 7%, but given that our population is growing, and our GDP is shrinking it suggests that either people are getting paid less per hour, or they are working less hours. Besides which, I think the worst is yet to come. Obama doesn't know what he is talking about. The US just had a massive tax cut under Bush - and see how it helped their economy. As I indicated above, the correlation between lower taxes and stimulating the economy is largely fabricated. Well, not that I am wishing for Harper to stay in power, but I think Canadians are wising up to the fact that tax cuts is little more than panacea. If they can convince people that tax cuts will boost the economy, then maybe it will.

Fantastic. This will make it much easier for me to sell my vote. All I will need to do is have the representative in my home, when I cast my ballot electronically. Or I can just sell him the password and PIN necessary to register my vote. This really is a great idea. Why should I give someone my vote, when I can sell it?