RNG

Shouldn't that have been Hungary?

I wasn't labeling you a socialist, I was labeling those policies. And I still disagree. Taking less isn't giving.

And herein lies the great socialist fallacy. Companies need to make a profit. successful companies make a large profit. If you don't like it, buy their shares rather than take their money. Because when you in fact take their money, they just charge more for their products. The consumer always ends up paying anyway. I don't like the government and their boutique tax credit stuff, and tax breaks for certain industries and on and on. It gets complicated and unfair. I know a whole herd of you strongly disagree with me on this, but I think that taxes are only for government revenue. Social engineering should not be being done. An elimination of all other taxes and the implementation of a modified GST type of system is the answer. Google FairTax sometimes. But, with the system we currently have, I will not allow people to call a tax break a subsidy without battling back.

Well, yes. I agree. But his wife isn't in the equation. I especially love the quotes where he calls himseld an American. Great stuff.

I don't like Iggy, I mostly don't like Liberal policies. But damn, the fact that his wife isn't Canadian is so not important.

You are so right. I visit a US dominated forum regularly and they are so totally partizan. If Obama came up with a cure for cancer the Reps would blame him for causing too many people putting a strain on resources, and vica versa.

You really know how to put a guy on the spot. I am fiscally very right wing. And I will throw a thousand examples of how socialism doesn't work. And how the government should not be in business and on and on like any other rightwing nut. And then the damned Scandihoovian countries come along and sort of poo on my parade in terms of their society, their stability and their businesses. I wish I knew. One of the things might be that the average citizen tries to contribute, rather than take. But not sure.

And yet it still bothers me tremendously that a Liberal, Paul Martin as Finance Minister, and a Democrat, Slick Willie Clinton did better for their respective country's deficite and debt than the Conservatives and Republicans through my adult life.

PetroCanada's birth was the buying of Pacific Petroleums, followed by buying Fina's Canadian assets. I worked for them through the NEP, which was a mixed blessing. Unlike many of my friends, I remained employed even though the company was losing vast amounts of money because the Liberals couldn't at all admit the huge screw-up they had commited, but it was hard to swallow. Profitable - no way. We drilled areas based on the unemployment figures rather than where there was good potential for hydrocarbon. And Mr. Strong was a polititian, not a businessman.

I really like the new Calgary mayor, and I hate Trudeau.

You really have a comprehension problem here. I think there are therapy's for you, but am not sure, you may be too far gone. They are not subsidising, ie. giving anything. They are just stealing less. For good reason.

And the NDP never tell us how they will pay for their vote-buying promises.

And because WIP lives in a city, he doesn't need heat in the winter? He seems to have avoided that little bit of FACT.

Wrong.

Still, show me a cancelled cheque or a payment. Taking less is not a subsidy. And quoting Layton on a subject like this is a total joke.

Wow, people play NIMBY!!!!11. Great for you, but many can't. Yes, but goods have to move from port to point of consumption. From factory to store, and on and on. Your statement is really meaningless.

How is realizing that certain industries have cashflow issues, or very large capital outlay issues and therefore decreasing the amount of their money the government takes a subsidy? How did our railroads get built?

Yet again, what subsidy? Show me where any oilsands producer has gotten a cent of tax dollars. You can't. The fact that the government isn't stealing as much of a companies money as they could is not a subsidy.

Not nearly enough, but Harper did get our military some decent equipment. C-17's, C-130J's, lots of good stuff. Unfortunate that a country our size can only man 2500 troups, but by all metrics they punch above their weight class. We should all be proud of them, whether you agree with the mission or not.

Look up the absorbtion coeficient of CO2 and that of water. Water is the evil lizard in the equasion. Post 9/11, and after the Iceland volcano when air traffic was curtailed there was a noticable cooling of the atmosphere. Stop irrigation, kill domestic animals (who breath water vapour and piss lots etc). Come to think of it, kill people too. CO2 ain't the problem, it's water.

What? He is in power. Power limited by the fact that he doesn't have a majority, admittedly. But he is the PM. Suck it up! So because he is a minority leader he is supposed to lie down and die? What are you trying to say?

Like it or not, they are barbarians and we can't, in a few years bring them out of that. I really think we should get out, and control the AQ types et al with Predators and Tommahawks. Yes, Canada should either help pay for some of that or buy some of our own Preditors (O/E), but being there is just dumb. Bummer for the poor folk and females over there, but we didn't do it.

No, silly, that's Conservative soldiers. Don't you know anything???///??

But the great conundrum. It does affect you and me. They cost us tax dollars because of the drain they have on medicare. It's like, do we have the right to legislate helmets for motorcyclists or seatbelts for car drivers/riders. If we have a tax funded medical system then yes. I personally would have preferred to have voluntary private medical insurance and the loser dudes can face their own fate. But since I have to pay for the treatment, I can demand certain behaviour.

That was Quebec related, troll.