Scotty

Perhaps he should have said a good argument.

It sounds as though what you are saying is that the internet has made it easier for you to bully people...

How about we do away with the Green program? It's been a disaster from day one, run by the premier himself often without even consultation with the Ontario Energy Board or the Ontario Power Authority. It's cost billions of dollars in tax money which could have been spent on programs to encourage manufacturing, or on tax cuts, or on paying down the deficit, and it's resulted in dramatically increased power costs, which, as you might expect, have a strong, negative effect on manufacturing. As a Torstar report on Ontario Auditor General's report noted last week. The government claimed 50,000 jobs would be created. To date, it claims 20,000 but the auditor points out that most of these are short-term construction jobs. The auditor notes that studies in other jurisdictions show that for each job created, two to four jobs are lost in other sectors, and that each job created costs $179,000. Toronto Star I would suggest that common logic says that manufacturing is the sector most affected by skyrocketing energy prices.

I think it was an indication of the immaturity and entitlement mentality of Trudeau, and, by extension, all his ilk.

Bullies always think they have the right to bully people, because to bullies, everyone is inferior to them. Bullies never have difficulty justifying their mean spirited attacks on others. All that matters, to them, is them.

From viewing the threads in the Business and Economy group it seems mainly concerned with larger macroeconomic discussions, globalization, government-industry relationships and transfers, and various industrial business topics. It talks about recessions, gas and oil prices, bankruptcies, the fed's policies etc. I have seen virtually nothing in there about the market, and individual investment decisions and advice, other than a short gold feature, and the occasional 'end of the world' sort of posting. And if it was for investments it would have said "Business, Economy and Investments". More to the point, there seems a dearth of such discussion forums in Canada. The only ones I've found are American based.

That IS all the government did. It can't ban someone from traveling wherever they want to. It just wouldn't bring them along as a member of the government group.

I'm not sure I get your point. The logic is the same in either case. The group has a much higher failure rate than normal, and so we say "don't select from that group" or "that group sucks". But of course, that doesn't mean every single entity within that group is going to be a failure. Some will perform flawlessly. This is reflexively understood.

Ok. An interesting priority there. Who cares about 'stupid' farmers. They're 'stupid' after all, because they don't vote the way you like. What's really important, desperately important, is that people be able to grow as much pot as they want.

First: The health care system hasn't been brought up to 'standard' which, I take it, you mean an acceptable condition of efficiency and effectiveness. It is still in deep trouble. Second: They are not cutting funding, they are suggesting the rate of increase is unsustainable.

How do you feel about the KKK?

Doesn't really affect me as long as I never have to have any dealings with them. I sure wouldn't want to have to work with one, though. I don't want to work with people whose faces I can't see, who walk around with a shroud over themselves. Work has a social environment, and these women deliberately exclude themselves from it and from the rest of society.

And that would be bigoted? I'm afraid that, like most on the Left, you have an extremely poor grasp of what bigotry means. If one posts facts, and derives conclusions from those facts, that is not bigotry. Those conclusions are either mistaken, or correct. The proper response then would be to discuss the various reasons why the conclusion is or is not correct. You appear to think the correct response is to call the person who made the conclusions names. That is a pretty damned poor response from someone who has accepted a position to attempt to keep discussions respectful.

An interesting position for a 'facilitator' to take. Rather than suggesting people stick to discussing the issues rather than attacking the person, you matter-of-fact state that 'accusations' against a person because of their opinion, will simply continue as long as they express that opinion. And ask him why he is complaining!

If A then B. The problem with such logic is when you presuppose A, without any actual evidence. The Big Three religions have similar problems? Perhaps you could expound upon this. I don't see that at all. In particular, I don't see the rising fanaticism amongst Muslims to be be similar to any problems Christianity has.

He and you have much in common, then.

I recall a CBC article once where a female reporter put on the burqua, and she described how heavy, oppressive, and hellishly hot the things were, even in our more moderate climate. So I'd suspect that, as rude as the original poster was, he was probably, to a degree, factual. Anyone encased in those robes on a hot day is going to sweat like a pig.

Correct. But the necessary reform has been kicked down the road again and again because of the complexity involved, and the need to get eleven provinces to agree with the feds on a new system. The Liberals felt no particular political pressure to do anything. They're often expressed love for social programs seems more than enough to please the sheep which follow them. The Tories, unfortunately, have not shown the courage to take on the herculean task of major reform. In part, that's because they feel so vulnerable to the oft-expressed charge that they're trying to bring in an American system. Any major moves away from the current system would have the Liberals and NDP screaming it from the top of their lungs. And such a change is not something which happens overnight. The organization and discussions will take years, the implementation more years, the benefits more years to be seen. Clearly they don't want that hanging around their necks in the next election. Yet if not them, who? Certainly the Liberals won't do anything. The NDP? They'll just double taxes and beam around at everyone, waiting to bask in admiration at their 'generosity'.

Left wing Canadians.

Perhaps if it was led by a Conservative, it wouldn't have spend months and millions and come up with a singular answer to all our health care problems. Just spend more money! That was it. The only recommendation to come out of the inquiry. All problems solved. Just keep spending more money! Ah, the brilliant economics of the Left.

I don't suppose you've paused long enough to consider the fact that they're right? No, of course not.

The Liberals decreased health care funding as part of their deficit fighting efforts. Then, after the economy turned around they did nothing to restore that funding. As the population increased over the years, and the health care system continued to deteriorate, they continued to do nothing because they felt no political need to act, given their high place in the polls Only near the end of their rule, when the polls turned around and they began to feel threatened did they suddenly discover a deep and abiding care for the state of our health care system and move to address it.

Would that be like the last Liberal government, which, despite years of immense surpluses, let the health care system waste away for lack of money because, quite frankly, they just didn't give a damn?

Was just wondering. The subject pops up from time to time, but doesn't really belong in any of the existing forums...

Try buying shares in Dollarama. Unsurprisingly, it's been prospering as people get poorer.