Demosthenes26

Yes. That only true if you're talking about canned or preserved goods. Alot of sugar and salt goes simply into make food taste better especially with processed foods. People are built to like things that are sugary, salty or fatty because for most of human history that was what was missing from our diet. Now the reverse is true and companies are designing food towards these tastes. With the consequense being our current obsesity epidemic. Our government definitely has a role in stopping this. EIther through regulation or public health campaigns. But that the same time we can't talk about obese people as if they are blameless. At the end of the day we are each responsible for our own health, they are clearly choosing wrongly, and it's affecting all of us.

"Physical space" as opposed to nonphysical space? Additionally people oppose oil projects simply because they are oil projects. It doesn't matter how safe or environmentally responsible are project is. Consider the keystone pipeline debate. Largely the opposition to that was an environmental one, however it was clearly demonstrated that a pipeline was a safe and more environmentally safe method of transport additionally used less oil to transport and thus co2 / greenhouse gases. I think people have equated oil = bad in the popular consciousness, and aren't willing to fully engage the issue.

No. US military aid stopped after the army took control of Egypt. Russia is currently backing the regime in Egypt.

While the statue is probably referring to victims of totalitarian oppression. Communism itself is not blameless in the suffering of the people under its rule. Centrally planned economies of Communism frequently suffered starvation as a result of the economic mismanagement of bureaucrats. The great Chinese famine killed 15 million people be Chinese government estimates. Similarly the soviet famine of 1932-1933 killed at least 5 million. You should also note there had yet to be a democratic communist state.totalitarianism and communism kind of go hand and hand.

Is your point that the government is wasting money? Or that they are spending based on ideology. Either point Is invalidated by the second.

One thing about Harper is that he is not very charismatic. I feel that Harper has to be really guarded about his appearances, because he lacks the ability to charm his way out of things. Unlike Pierre Trudeau. As a comparison look at rob ford and his unguarded approach to the media.

One thing about Harper is that he is not very charismatic. I feel that Harper has to be really guarded about his appearances, because he lacks the ability to charm his way out of things. Unlike Pierre Trudeau. As a comparison look at rob ford and his unguarded approach to the media.

One thing about Harper is that he is not very charismatic. I feel that Harper has to be really guarded about his appearances, because he lacks the ability to charm his way out of things. Unlike Pierre Trudeau. As a comparison look at rob ford and his unguarded approach to the media.

I've never been comfortable with the idea of burqa / niqab Garments. I can understand dressing conservatively as An act of religious expression. But to complete cover yourself. In particular your face is an idea completely foreign to me. Faces are how we distinguish One another. The niqab/burqa garments prevent such identification, as a result the removal of any individual identity. I cannot fathom why some one is willing to give up their identity in such a manner. I accept religious expression where people are willing participants. but where it crosses into indoctrination or people are pressured into it. There's a line that's crossed that I/society cannot accept. I feel that These garments cross that line. I don't think anyone would wear these without undue influence or some level of indoctrination. I find it no coincidence that the societies they come from are a amongst the most sexist and intolerant. where women have no identity, Why would they be treated as equals? Other religious Kirpans, turbans, crosses etc are no where near as oppressive. I can accept them because they don't deny someone the right to identify themselves. I can understand why someone would want to wear them. But I've never actually heard a reason from a Muslim woman who wears one of the garments. I like to actually hear that.

What does aid have to do with Canada' s support at all? Canada's support for Israel has more to with the alliance structure of the middle east. Israel being a staunch ally of the US and Canadian foreign policy usually follows in step of US policy.

Do you know what a paradigm is?A paradigm is a conceptual framework. What are you trying to say repeating yourself? As for the rest of your arguments they're unclear as to what your trying to say. I really don't want to write another essay. but there's just so much wrong with what you wrote. To start corporations are only "persons" in that they are recognized as a legal entity and are taxed. They share the some of the same rights as people they have special rights (is the can issue shares) but also they are have rights denied To them like the right to vote. The corporations are people is a popular misconception which stems from a US supreme Court decision which allowed corporation to make campaign contributions the same way people do. It was in essence "corporations have the same right to free speech as living persons". But not corporations are people and this is not the case in Canada. Is this a paradigm? As I stated before the money supply in Canada is determined by the overnight loans rate set by the bank of Canada. The debt has no direct bearing on this. And governments have tried to print off money to pay off their debts. However this goes against what money actually is. Which is a representation of wealth. Printing off excessive amounts of money only causes inflation. Which is why central banks don't just print money to satisfy the needs of money. As well the only the government has of the BOC is the appointment of the governor of the BOC. Is this a paradigm? Your opinion on Taxation doesn't make any sense please elaborate. Changes to current system could improve things. But nothing you've said is a real issue. Please read an introductory economics text book before responding.

No. You wrote a lot and I don't think I'll be able to address all your points But here's me trying. Debt has existed as long as money has existed, and likely before that we can find provisions in hammurabi's code regarding the relationship between debtors and debtees. Government debt as we know it Comes from the Italian wars. But this is a different debate entirely I have yet to say debt is not an issue. It is required to maintained at a responsible level and governments need to ensure that It doesn't reach insolvency. However the whole debt doesn't need to be paid off. Your view is far too reflective of home economics and missing far too much macro economics. Consumers need to pay off debt because their interest accumulates faster than the inflation rate. The result is the amount you pay is worth less than the future value. For governments the opposite is true interest rates are generally lower than inflation rate so the amount paid is less than the future value. Also the tax basis will also be increasing as gdp increases. So taxation will not necessarily be increasing with the debt. Your argument about the money supply is wrong. Government debt has no direct effect on the money supply. That's determined by the overnight loans, foreign exchange rate or the amount printed. In Canada its determined by the overnight loans rate, which is set by the B.O.C. In addition inflation is determined by the rise/ fall in consumer spending and its consequences on demand and supply. To say that a fall in money supply would cause inflationary pressures doesn't make any sense. Debt and taxation are not black holes and don't drain the money supply they are part of the cycle. If governments where to stop using debt as a finance tool the effect most certainly would be an increase in taxation. Projects would have to be paid in advance, the government would have to create reserves for day to day financing.

1)not all CND bond holders are Canadian. Some kind of tax settlement would not appeal to them. Also this option would reduce revenues requiring either a tax hike, services cut or a bond sale. 2) government debt is only a problem when it approaches insolvency (interest exceeds revenue) governments are assumed to exist continuously and there for it does not need to worry about its debts as it can keep paying off the interest without actually repaying the principal sum.OR where it cease to exist its debt would be the least of its concern. 3) THE MATH ON THIS STUFF IS HARDER THAN ROCKET SCIENCE. To put it bluntly we can put a man on the moon. We can only make an educated guess as things like the inflation rate.

OK but its a bit more concerning that. Its more than simply getting paid for a side job. Given that he's an MP and that he's getting paid by unions. At the very least its a conflict of interest.

I can make the case Quebec government mismanagement without hyberbole or statisticsThe language law is itself an example of government mismanagement. The language law bounds Quebec to French as its language of business. French is of course not the language of today's economy. For any business working within Quebec this is major inconvinence and can discourage non-quebec companies from moving into Quebec. Also as the topic article demonstrates. At time just plain ridiculous. Like wise students/workers who receive their education In French are confined to employment in Quebec unless they can speak English and vice versa. Pre - 1950s montreal used to be the economic center of Canada. It has since fallen from that height. The language laws certainly did not help with its decline.

(Insert sarcasm)Oh us poor white folks being forced to intermarry those non-white folks. Yes clearly this is genocide. Us white folks living in wealth and plently, marrying exotic and foreign peoples... a crime against humanity! But don't you worry dissenter there are plenty of white countries as who'd agree with you why don't you try eastern Europe?

Agreed

Let me ask you this why does the Canadian government need to pay off its debt? If you consider that yield rate are current floating around 1.2% for 1year government bonds. While inflation is targeted annually for 2% you quickly realize, that although nominally the government is losing money. Per inflation theory the government is actually gaining money in the real sense. So the "ultrarich" are actually losing real money by investing solely in gov't bonds. And its not a question of needing bonds to maintain its service. As I stated the government will be issuing bonds even while its in surplus. The immediate practical use of bonds are that the Guarantee a constant cash flow while tax revenues are being collected. As previously stated Gov't Bond are a necessary tool for investment.

No but you did reference it to support your argument. And you have still yet to provide either a link to the video or the article you referenced. How is it now clear that terrorists involved were not what the CIA was trying to cover up? And is it not the nature of a secret organization to not want people knowing what its doing?

Really? Cause its seems pretty clear Here that you were insinuating such here

FYI none of your links go to this supposed video or mention these supposed prisoners. If you would please provide so I can properly critic your conspiracy theory.

From who inside? And a video from someone who he had an affair with is hardly evidence.

The optimum word is unverified. Which a polite way of saying baseless. We really have no way know what was going on at that time. I suppose anything was possibly going on at that time. so why not accuse them of something more ridiculous like Breeding Nazi zombie supersoldiers.