Cato

CPP contribution too will be deducted from your paycheck; that is not a tax either. What about the union due? That means nothing. The general revenue is made up of income from many sources, like: - income taxes from corporations and individuals - property taxes - consumption taxes - custom duties - health insurance contributions - licences (natural resource usage, motor vehicles) - fees (their list is endless) - sale of goods and services (crown corporations) - investment income The point with the EI contribution is, that it is connected to specific obligations of the government. This is in contrast to for example the federal fuel tax, which was declared to go towards road and bridge repair and construction, but this declaration is not in the actual law. Accordingly, the government decided to spend that income on everything but road and bridge repair/construction. It happened just a few years ago, when Martin was in BC before the election (which he lost, luckily) and representants of the BC municipalities were asking for at least part of that money, because the federal government did not fulfill its obligations (this was part of the sham of the Liberal "debt reduction"). Martin's answer was sorry, but that is a tax, i.e. the government has no obligation to spend it a certain way. On the other hand, I concede that this is rather a semantic issue. One could say the EI is a tax in good times (when the unemployment is low) and a burden in bad times.

You stated your opinion and then asked for responses as if your opinion was fact. It isn't. Your way of obfuscation is frustrating. What did I state as fact, which you think is only my opinion?

I wonder if you are really denying the quite obvious and publically expressed feeling of many Americans, that electing a (semi)black person for President was a unique event. In case you are denying that, you should take a look at the list of past US Presidents and Vice Presidents with their pictures and then come back here and tell about the other black Presidents or Vice Presidents. However, if the event itself was unique, then why would someone be racist for simply mentioning and acknowledging the uniqueness of that event?

In some cases, yes. Example: the support of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of that is eye-wash, pure hypocrisy or plain national interest. Canada is still an appendix of England, though the dependency on the USA (economic as well as national security) plays now a much greater role.

I really do not understand what exactly you are referring to. Are you saying that the leap I mentioned is not existent, it is my invention? If so, then can you detail the transition from believing the existence (or past existence) of a "higher being" and your specific religion? Have not you been told yet by "true believers", that this sort of belief is "cafeteria Catholocism"? It does not need to be Catholicism, but I heard it this way. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Keep in mind, that "evolution", as far as it touches "creation" has not changed for a long time; it's the creationists, who are coming up with new creatures. When do you think the vast majority of the religious became religious? Not in their early childhood? Don't you find it strange, that the children of Christians almost always become Christians, those of Moslims will be devoted Moslims and Jews' children are destined to become followers of the Jewish faith? You can add other religions as well. The future faith of someone is decided by the parents and by the prevailing culture, not by the persons directly, reasoning plays no role. I think it is a Catholic wisdom, that if a child is not Catholic yet when becoming 12, then he/she is lost for the faith or something like that.

They were/are not acting upon it, except when forced by Americans (or earlier by England).

Well... why not, just for fun. LOL, this is good. I guess your "Conrad" is Black the Crook. I saw such garbage many times in MacLeans, NP etc. Are you too paid for posting this? Here are the news: 1. Your "Conrad" the Crook is not nationless, 2. Conrad Black gave up his Canadian citizenship for the title of Lord. He is not a Canadian.

The belief of Americans, that they they and their Presidents are appointed/called upon to make judgements everywhere in the world has been the pest of societies in the past century, paralleled only by the former Soviet Union.

It was omnipresent in the region, due to the British-Zionist plan to make a "Jewish home" in Palestine. You seem to ignore - or not to know Weizman's the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence and the King-Crane Commission's report from 1919: The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase... and the many other proofs, that the Zionists always intended and of course still intend intend to dispell all Palestinians from Palestine and occupy it permanently. Thus the Arab inhabitants of Palestine were justifiedly resisting the Jewish immigration. It was one event in the sequence of hundreds and thousands, which together constitute history, the basis for the present. I see objective argumentation is your strong side. What about hostage taking from the population, not from fighters? Do you know of any other country, the Supreme Court of which sanctionized this kind of hostage taking? (This does not mitigate the IDF's usage of civilians as shild.) A funny choice of words. For me this is the majority of Israeli Jews: thives, terrorists, liars and common robbers. Of course you can, justifiedly, if I bombed and shelled your cities, stole your water, destroyed your home and your farm, etc. They were never supported even close to the extent the US supported Israel. Right, unlike the US. There is a Jewish joke about their God having given them the only spot in the ME without oil. Well, that's true, but their God gave them a huge, rich and dumb host to leech on. No question about the Israeli Jews being much more successful than the Arabs both in war and in propaganda (and and). You are making it difficult to take you seriously. 1. It was you, who mentioned Irgun and the Stern Gang as the only Zionist terrorist groups. 2. You are implying, that Haganah was not a terrorist group. Well, it was, as was Lehi. 3. Shamir about the Irgun and Stern Gang: it was the only way we could operate, because we were so small. So it was more efficient and more moral to go for selected targets 4. Weizman about the massacre of civilians in Deir Yassin, by Irgun and Stern together: miraculous simplification of our task Ben Gurion about the same: without Deir Yasin there would be no Israel 5. Almost all Prime Ministers of Israel had been active participants in one or another terrorist group (unparalleled on the earth): Begin, Rabin, Shamir, Sharon, ... So, be careful with the separation and condemnation of these groups.

I gather from the above, that you are not among the faithful. It is not only unfair but useless to opinion for others. Beside, all Christians, Muslims and religious Jews accept the results of that leap, but not all of them are pushy. The Church is secondary in this issue. Accepting the authority of any Church is already past the relevant point. Someone does not accept the authority of the a Church without being a follower of that teaching, does one? I asked this question several times on different places; I received only one honest and useful answer: This is perfectly natural for me. Now, if that person had made a deeper thought about that, he would have recognized, that the adherents of other religions could (and probably would) say the very same. But then what gives the superiority, the assurance of truth to your particular religion? What I would like to hear from the faithful is, why they think their faith is the correct one and where they think the followers of other faiths made the error leading to the "wrong belief".

I am a long time atheist; however, I am not anti-religious (as long as religious people keep out their nose from my life). I am not proselytizing (or would this be "deselytizing"?); in fact, I envy those with deep religious conviction. However, this being a forum specialized for religion AND politics, I think this is the right place to ask an important question regarding the unremitting debates between adherents of religions and atheists/agnostics without unduly offending the feelings. So, why are people, mainly the religious ones, are diverting the debate always to the question of evolution vs. creation? I mean the vast majority of religious people are not abstractly religious but very specifically. Their religiousity does not consist of only claiming that the universum or at least the earth has some originator of some "spiritual form" (whatever that means). No, the religions include very detailed specifics, like a God as a "person", sometimes even with a gender. Even more, the beliefs include very specifics regarding the creation of the "world", regarding the relationship between the God and humans not only in terms of creation but of expected behaviour, of punishment and reward. Even more, the beliefs include specific rituals and details "important" enough to kill each other over them. There is a huge leap from accepting, that the "world" has been created by a higher being and that that being is watching us, caring for us, punishing and rewarding us, and that we have to follow special rituals in order to satisfy the wishes/expectations of that higher being. Why are the religious concentrating on the single question "evolution/creation"? It is like if you accept, that the world has been created by a higher being, then you have to come with me in the church on Sunday, kniel down and mumble certain words etc. Of course, the church has to be my church, the rituals have to be my rituals, etc. - otherwise your belief is wrong. What makes the religious ignore this IMO important aspect?

It is an explanation of the backgrounds and a reminder for the hypocrites and liars about who introduced terrorism in the Palestine story. I am not looking for excuses (it is not my business, except that I can't stand the mass of lies regarding history and politics). However, if I were a Palestinian, I would not need that excuse; Israel delivers enough daily. A further hypocrisy is to separate this issue, i.e. attacking random targets, from the generic situation.

If you ask this question then you are not up to a freespirited discussion on this subject. It does not. This is rather the sign of powerlessness. How did bombing of trains, busses, market places help the Jewish cause? Or perhaps you don't even know about terrorism committed in palestine by Jews? Israel has been propped up by money and weaponry from everywhere, particularly from the US. Today Israelis do not need "personal bombing", they have the most moder weapon systems. Let's supply the Palestinians with modern weapons and the required knowledge, and they will change from throwing the bomb by hand to dropping it from above or shooting from tanks. Until then your complaint is pure hypocrisy.

The EI contribution can not be seen as a tax: it will be paid by exactly those, who are the beneficiaries of the system. The fact, that the Liberals have used it in their "debt reduction" sham plays no role in this question; the federal government (i.e. the federal taxpayer) is responsible for supporting the unemployed, no matter if the collected funds are enough or not.

Semantics? LOL Palestinians are bringing weapon in Palestine to fight the invaders.

It seems Hamas was not suppose to supplant the PLO but to counterbalance it, "divide and conquer". Hamas came handy sometimes when Israel needed some pretextnot to fulfill her obligations from the Oslo agreement. Did not Fox News publish the result of the elections? Well, here it is: the PLO lost. and the decisions of the Grand Mufti can be traced back to the increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. 1. They did not have any other option anyway. 2. "Warfare" had a different meaning that time; the technology changes.

Well, we must have different sources of information; what I read is, that the weapons and other supply are going in Gaza (from Egypt, not in), to be used against the invaders.

Useless blathering, ignoring all underlying facts, among others 1. Hamas is a creature of Israel (but it got out of hand), 2. Hamas is the rightful representant of the Palestinians, 3. Hamas is fighting against the theft and robbery committed by Israel now decades long. In other circumstances such organizations have been called "partisans", for example Yugoslav groups in WWII.

Smuggle in where to?