Dave_ON

I think it's safe to say that separation is all but off the agenda. While far from scientific, the most folks I run into actually have quite a bit of respect for Gille Duceppe and many wish they had a party leader that would fight as hard for their region as he does for Quebec.

Hmm is it time for another coalition thread? Well why not? I guess my question is, why are so many people here convinced Canada is so unique in this position? We now have two other commonwealth parliaments that are "coalitions" why would Canada in all sincerity be unique? I suppose the way I see it if no single party has the majority of the seats, and thus cannot form a stable government for a maximum of five years, they have no more "right" to form government than any other single party or combination thereof. If two parties can form a majority government, that is preferable to a minority government that won the most seats. Again the BLOC is the real sticking issue for most people, and on this I agree. What I don't like is this it flies in the face of democracy and shakes the very foundation of our country rhetoric most anti-coalition folks spout off about. With no majority in site for any party I think we have to consider the possibility of some type of coalition, there was no dreaded "public backlash" in AU or the UK so I dare say most folks here would hardly take note, or would forget soon after.

Cap I'm sorry I have to disagree on this. Considering the CPC ran on a platform of transparency and accountability this is an unacceptable answer. They should be embracing the media to show how very transparent and accountable they are. As it stands their hiding from the media, and clamping down on their MP's only serves to further incite the media in to a bigger frenzy. In short this has been the least accountable and transparent government we've had in a very long time. The big bad media makes me this secretive isn't a good enough reason.

Agreed on this point, and it is still beyond me as to why it is France has a permanent seat at the table whereas Canada does not. Let's compare our respective contributions to WWII. The US, UK and Russia I get, France not so much.

Greenland is still under Denmark and yes I erred in listing it separately. My intent was since it is technically in NA it's under the "others" portion as opposed to Western Europe. So politically speaking I concede that both you and MDancer are quite correct, Greenland would be under the umbrella of Denmark. As for central America and the Caribbean, in terms of the security council regions, They're in their own group Latin America and the Caribbean. The other regional groups are "Western Europe and Others" Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. Now that we've gotten over the Greenland issue, perhaps MDance can enlighten me as to the point he was attempting to make earlier.

Rather immaterial to the question, why are you listing countries and their terms that aren't in our region? Unless you're attempting to make some other point that I'm missing.

Greenland is in our region, there seat eligibility is not at issue, they too are lumped under the "others" portion. The fact remains your comparison with other countries that aren't in our region is somewhat pointless.

Canada isn't competing for a seat with any of the above countries you've listed. It's divided into regions. Canada is in the "Western Europe and Others" region. Japan falls into Asia and the other two are South America of course. The reason Canada is lumped in as "others" is the US has a perm. seat, so that leaves just us Mexico and Greenland. So if you are going to try and find a pattern or suggest a grounds for comparison you need to list the number of times Western European countries had 2 year term seats. We're currently competing with Germany who is likely to take the first ballot and Portugal, and Canada is favored to win 2nd ballot. Oddly enough so does France which perplexes me somewhat. I guess we should have surrendered in WWII and than we'd have a perm seat also.

Oh it very much was designed as a tax grab, it's just under conservative administration, (ie. the waiving of the fees) that it has become a sink hole. Properly managed it would have paid for itself by now and likely generating revenue. Alas the cost of the registry escalates with each year. Either we stop waiving the fees or we cancel it altogether, the current setup should not continue.

Well it's a private members bill so if I'm not very much mistaken I don't think it can be made a matter of confidence as it's not a bill direct from the government. ie. a confidence vote means you do or do not have confidence in the governments ability to govern, since this bill is not from the government it's not reflective of their general policy. Again I may be wrong on this count, anyone know if you can make a private members bill a confidence vote?

So is the gun registry a requirement on top of a license? Again I don't understand really all this is about. If it's a simple tax, like a pet, car, marriage etc registration I don't really see it as an issue.

Umm cars aren't registered with the intent that it reduces accidents. It's done to show ownership, and is a revenue (read tax) source for the province. Pet registrations also do not reduce animal attacks, nevertheless we're require to register dogs and cats in most urban centres, again to designate ownership and it's another revenue source for the city. Registration of most things is a fact of life, I guess I don't see why registering gun ownership is such a big deal. Admittedly I don't know much about the gun registry, do you have to also have a license? Seems fair you have to license or register most everything else in life, marriage, death, birth the list goes on.

I don't recall saying it or Trudeau had, all I said is he was autocratic and wanted a strong federal government.

Can't say I agree or disagree, given you don't state what he should be opposing.

Oh I never said he wasn't autocratic or arrogant, he had both qualities in large supply. However, I do believe he was working for a strong federal government as is part and parcel with being autocratic I suppose. Than again what PM that divides people so starkly hasn't been arrogant and autocratic? Think of the PM's that haven't been, Martin, Campbell (as far as we can tell that is), Turner, Clark. All lacked the certain je ne c'est quoi, that gives a PM a legacy. Whether that's infamy or otherwise is a matter of perspective I suppose. However, it never ceases to amaze me how quickly the Albertan ire rises at the very mention of the name Trudeau, honestly we're nigh on 30 years since the NEP.

I'm not so sure Toronto is the only one that feels this way, I think any major city agrees, TO is just the most vociferous, and yes the perception of TO in this country is that TO regards itself as the centre of the universe. It's a low hanging fruit tactic at best. Seriously though, the CPC didn't and likely will not win a single seat in NF, Maritimes they have lukewarm support, and Quebec they are a distant third. In Ontario their support seems to have stagnated. Whether the gun registry is a employed intentionally as a wedge is indeterminate, what remains clearly evident is that it is a wedge issue and is dividing straight down the urban/rural divide.

Oh that's a tough one. On the surface Mr. Trudeau is the obvious choice, and he did so knowingly with the best of intentions. Mr. Harper on the other hand is either doing so unwittingly or far more insidiously. Despite my own dislike of Mr. Harper I'm inclined to believe it is the former. Nevertheless he is indeed divisive, though in a very different way from previous PM's. Previous PM's have always tended to play one region against the other; Mr. Harper is breaking with this great Canadian tradition and appears to divide along an urban/rural line as is evidenced by the election results and polls. Also interesting to note is there is a stark gender divide as well, with men tending towards the CPC and women toward the LPC.

Speaking of wedge politics... I find the use of pejorative labels to be inherently divisive and this one small statement contradicts and otherwise sound argument. Generally the use of phrases such as "right wing nut", "socialist", "special interest groups", "Toronto/urban Elites" or "country bumpkins" are pejorative and truly have no place in civilized discourse. Regardless of where one is from, or of their political stripe, their arguments can't simply be dismissed because we choose to label them as whatever "undesirable" happens to be in vogue.

I'm not convinced Ignatieff has the nads to do it though I may be wrong and he'd be a fool to let such an opportunity pass him by. After all the CPC has never been more vulnerable. I guess we'll see what the first full fall poll shows.

Agreed but in all honesty the onus is on the incumbent to stand on their record. The longer they are in office the more difficult it is to prove you've done a good job and that the alternatives can't do any better. I have to strongly disagree with you on this point. I don't realistically see the CPC picking up any seats based on the trend of the last year. They've lost a lot of ground. Many of the ridings they took were very close calls and I think honestly those seats will be lost. Based on current circumstances, short of a stroke of political genius, it appears the CPC will squeak out a weakened minority, or what would be more advantageous to them the LPC may pull off a slim minority. That's difficult to say, the Bloc with their current leadership campaign extremely well. Poll numbers aside, the Bloc under Duceppe has never failed to surprise. The NDP is somewhat of a wild card at this point and it's difficult to say how their fortunes will change next election. They certainly haven't gained any ground, but again, they haven't really lost any either.

This is not good for the CPC in the least. Their supporters can spin it however they want but the trend has been a downward one for the CPC and has been for quite some time. What this means is Harper won't be calling the election any time soon. If you think that the political strategists ignore summer polls you're mistaken. The plain fact of the matter is the CPC has not managed to recover the numbers it had back before the second prorogation and they never will as the incumbent. What people are failing to account for is the incumbent has nowhere to go but down except under the most extraordinary of circumstances. I agree with WildBill about the incumbent bump, however that would only mean about 2-3% which is no where near enough, also the incumbent bump only goes for so long, there is a breaking point, and it happens to every party where suddenly people are sick of the current lot and they clean house. That is the greater historical trend that we shouldn't overlook. Is that going to happen this election? Doubtful, but I do know one thing is certain when the election is called, barring divine intervention, the CPC will lose seats and if they manage to squeak in another minority it will be significantly weaker than the current one.

I'm saying consumption tax, ie. the HST should be higher and offset by the elimination or drastic reduction in income/payroll/capital gains taxes.

Can't say I agree with this in the least. Taxing income is counter-productive as the tax burden rests more on the poor as it is. Anyone who makes say 45k or more a year likely has an RRSP, if the contribute say 8k of their income to an RRSP they have effectively lowered their income from 45k a year to 37k a year. This moves them down a tax bracket. Yes when they cash in their RRSP they will be taxed on that, however they will never really pay the tax rate they "should" have according to the scale paid. Those who make substantially less than 45k don't have this tax break available to them. Consumption tax is unavoidable however, the truth of the matter is, the more money people make the more they tend to spend. This means those of lower income would retain more of their income to spend as they need. As I mentioned I'm not saying jack up the tax as it exists. We need to rework some of the exemptions, there are other necessities that should also be tax exempt, but iPhones, PS3, computers, cars etc. should be taxed. There are many states in the US that do not tax items such as clothing and hair cuts and I think these shouldn't be taxed. But if you eat at McDonald's you should be taxed as this is not a necessity. There are many of little things that people buy daily that would make up for the loss of income tax revenue.

Then we are in basic agreement. I would still posit that everyone is deserving of common courtesy. Respect is perhaps the wrong term to use as it doesn't properly convey my meaning. I agree biblical literalists/creationists are indeed the at issue, though it's a shame they've absconded the terms. If you take the creation myth for what it is, an explanation of the universe as was commonly understood given the information available at the time, you get quite a different picture. One can be a creationist, in the true sense of the word that is, in that the universe appears to have been initiated by someone or something of intelligence. Indeed and by far an in large most people who are religious feel that spirituality or religion is a methodology for understanding the metaphysical universe. Extreme and blind devotion to anything benefits no one as this causes one to discount possibilities before they are given due consideration. You tend to get more flies with honey than with vinegar, but that's just my observation. The key to my statement is "in the classical sense", let me be more clear. I was specifically referring to the Platonic school of skeptical thought, aka ancient skeptic. It derives from the Greek word Skepsis and quite literally means inquiry or consideration. The central tenets of this philosophy are that our epistemic abilities are indeed limited and therefore we should reserve judgment in all things as we can never "know" everything, only guess. Modern skepticism as you refer to it is an entirely different creature, indeed the very fact that modern skeptics pass judgment based on a limited number of facts runs counterman to the very core of skepticism. ie because we cannot know everything and consider all possibilities, what do we really "know"? Incidentally it was skepticism that gave rise to the Agnostic (no knowledge) school of religious thought. Now we're getting somewhere, we can never really prove anything, even with a preponderance of evidence, we can at best infer based on the facts available to us at the time. Again we're back to classical skepticism, judgment cannot be made in the absence of all the facts, ergo judgment (in the context of finality) can never be passed and we must re-evaluate prior conclusions. "Belief" is merely a term for the conclusions we reach and hold to be true based on our perception of the world. For some that may be based on intuition, emotion, second hand information/opinions or physical evidence. All these methods eventually lead to a "belief" of some sort. Again because as you have already stated science doesn't "prove" anything, it is merely a belief derived from physical evidence. So we agree, one must always be open to the possibility that they concluded incorrectly and prepared to revise their conclusions based on new information. Not sure what you're attempting to infer by this statement. The question of course is ridiculous given our current knowledge, the same could be said about teaching the geocentric theory. However, let's look at it from a different perspective, do you think logically that based on the evidence that was available at the time that the flat earth theory was postulated that this was at all an unreasonable conclusion? Based on the physical evidence they had available, ie. what they could see with their eyes, a flat earth is the most logical conclusion. This question only serves to prove my central premise, we form opinions, theories what have you based on the evidence available to us at the time. When new ideas, thoughts, or evidence come to light these conclusions need to be revisited and revised as necessary. The true danger is believing you arrived at a final conclusion that is beyond refutation. I can't speak to what Pliny does or doesn't believe, however I certainly didn't state that vaccination was a bad thing, quite to the contrary I mentioned how they have served to eliminate things such as small pox or polio. The issue here is we're not dealing with those terrible and almost always fatal diseases. We're dealing with the flu and this is what I took issue with. Why create a panic unnecessarily, what good does that do? Are you suggesting the ends justify the means? If whipping the general populace into a hysterical frenzy achieves heard immunity that's ok? Realistically what percentage of flu sufferers actually die vs. other diseases we routinely immunize for. I would say they're substantially lower then the likes of small pox or other such diseases. Again not calling into question their effectiveness, merely the redirection of resources for something that in the vast majority of cases is not fatal.

In many ways the HST is a luxury tax. The absolute necessities of life aren't taxed. Really the more you spend, the more HST you pay it scales all on its own. Those who can afford luxuries do pay the HST on those items and it tends to be a lot of HST as they are generally bigger ticket items. Honestly I think we should rework some of the exemptions, eliminate the tax credit and just remove tax on clothing, basic school supplies etc. It's cheaper to not collect a tax that will have to be refunded. This cuts down on administration on the government level and on what business have to report. It's win win and an overhaul like the HST is long over due. What we really need to do is eliminate income/payroll/capital gains taxes and implement a higher consumption tax.