pinko

You mean do tax breaks for the rich stimulate the economy. Ther answer is no.

Do tax cuts truly stimulate? If 10 years of tax cuts are supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs, where is that economy and where are those jobs? A.Bruce Bartlett : The Bush tax cuts were economically worthless.

FORTY MILLION AMERICANS ARE UNEMPLOYED. FIVE QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS COMPETE PER JOB. MANY AMERICANS ARE UNDEREMPLOYED RELATIVE TO THEIR QUALIFICATIONS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pje5l7KZDw&sns=fb

Prove otherwise.

Yes and he has a fourteenth amendment option if he wishes to use it.

I live in Manitoba and the concept(your graveyard example) does not exist here as you describe it..

Correct. I believe job growth in the hundreds of thousands is required in the USA rather than the current anemic job growth.

What aboriginal claims are you referring to?

It has already been established we have property rights. An informed citizen will not be intimidated by a lawyer advocating a particular point of view.

I am wondering if you recognize that there are both individual and collective rights in Canada.

It would be a lawful seizure. Here in Winnipeg such laws have been used to undermine the activities of biker gangs including a Hells Angels chapter.

I am wondering if you could distinguish the constituent parts of the aboriginal community. It is my undertstanding there are aboriginal communities without treaties.

There is economic growth but it is very soft. I would suggest job growth is more important to ordinary people than this discussion about the debt and deficit.

I would like to address the seizure of a house by way of an example and then test your hypothesis against my example. Let us say a warrant is obtained by police based upon investigation and observation of a particular home. Upon entrance to the home the police find a grow op and charge the owner and/or occupants under the appropriate sections of the criminal code. For the sake of discussion assume convictions are obtained. In the province I reside in the Crown may seize the proceeds of crime including a home and contents. In such a circumstance why should the Crown be obliged to provide any compensation whatsoever?

You mean there may not have been enough evidence to get a conviction.

Maybe the person should sue the police if that person thinks there is a cause of action.

I haven't seen any evidence of that. Unless you have some concrete examples I take what you say with a grain of salt.

Tough. Those are the breaks. Maybe the other person should compensate the computer owner.

You seem to be conflating arbitrary seizure with compensation. They don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I am sure you realize Congress has input on such priorities.

We should certainly be serious and realistic as well. There are a variety of circumstances where property may be seized and that isn't confined to the police.

If a warrant is granted to the police and it has been executed properly there is no need for any compensation. As has been previously noted a person may resort to the courts if that person believes a breach of the law has occurred.

I seen no reason for such an obligation on the part of the police.

Most likely the computer was evidence in a trial.