I Miss Trudeau

Ooops I'm sorry, I wouldn't want to offend by casting the Liberals in a less than positive light <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sadly, I think you truly are stupid enough to not grasp whats at issue here.

So why endorse a policy that has almost universally had a shrinking effect on the middle class? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which is...? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> These great market reforms that you speak of.

Well, I'd say its pretty clear that the rules are no longer enforced or even in existence.

2 : a member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic peoples including the Israelites Get a dictionary, twine sphere.

So why endorse a policy that has almost universally had a shrinking effect on the middle class?

Factor <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So just to be clear, Clinton reduced poverty while Bush has increased it, but Bush wins?

If I get a gun and shoot any of these armed idiots that steps one inch over the border, will I get some kind of medal?

The Tories ARE the real issue concerning the wholesale labelling of Liberals as crooks. The fact is that the Tories need adscam to be bigger and farther reaching than it appears to be, and truth or accuracy be damned, its going to get that big!

Whats needed is a mandatory high school philosophy course, focusing on logic and issues in current events. That way, this BS can be dragged out, thoroughly (andfairly) destroyed, and put to rest for good. Of course, this all assumes that the education system wants to encourage critical thinking which is simply not the case.

Even "some hundreds of years ago," the empirical evidence indicated a roughly spherical earth in a heliocentric system. Your point seems to be that we should once again permit theology to muddy the scientific waters.

The real issue is that the conservatives, and their supporters, need something like this to ever have a shot at forming the government. When your policies are so far out of whack with what Canadians want, over zealous mudslinging is your only kick at the can.

If there is an exemplar of a Kangaroo court in contemporary Canadian law, the Gomery inquiry would be it. We have a judge who has: a. attempted to lead witnesses on the stand, b. engaged in personal attacks on people involved in the inquiry, and c. asked for public input into the inquiry, even though the public has been privy to only a tiny fraction of the evidence and testimony, evidence that was reported by the press on a ratings influenced agenda. Apparently, people like Gomery seem to believe that trials and inquiries ought to be conducted, at least in part, by public opinion polls.

Hey now. Don't tarnish the entire thread. It was going well until the third post.

The point is that a lower minimum wage gives a competitive edge to companies in that jurisdiction, just as a low stumpage fee does. By your reasoning, a low minimum wage is also a subsidy.. just think of all the tax revenue the government is forgoing by setting it a littler lower! rolleyes.gif Even if the stumpage fees were effectively zero, it wouldn't be a subsidy. How is $0.00 compared to $0.15 any different, fundamentally, than $1.00 compared to $1.15? If it was a subsidy, sure. But it isn't. Furthermore, the low stumpage fee helps a rather large industry survive and thrive. If the fees were increased by much, it would likely result in BC taxpayers losing out on more revenue than the low fee. A low royalty rate on pumped oil until the development is paid off, and then a steadily increasing rate still does not amount to a subsidy. At any rate, count me as one Albertan rather upset about how Klein and his ilk are practically giving away oil to corporations.

How could this possibly be a subsidy, though? Would you consider any jurisdiction with a lower minimum wage than anywhere else to be subsidizing products? Lower road taxes? Less corporate tax? Perhaps because Canadian provinces allow trucks to carry far, far more weight than most states, that amounts to a subsidy as well?

Condi goes shoe shopping.... Shoe shopping while NO sinks...

So now you're suggesting that the government bought land and built trees? This analogy is so far gone that I'm surprised you offered it up, August. Look. Even if Canada increased their stumpage fee to be triple what any other nation charged, there would still be foregone revenue (and in your opinion, tax dollars handed out) because it could always go a little higher. The only way out of your little conundrum is to prohibit forestry on crown land all together.

What? Robertson is now calling for the assisination of Jesus? Fitting, I guess, given that he and is ilk have already mangled him beyond recognition.

Handing over tax dollars? Thats a catchy slogan these days, but doesn't describe the situation at all. Not a single penny of tax revenue is handed over due to low stumpage fees.

That only works because the main alternative party to the Liberals in english Canada seems to constantly imply that we should just be happy that the Americans are sticking it in our butts instead of someone elses.

Mistaken impressions are common when you don't bother to read the text. Fortunatly, we don't need God to cover the gaps between what I said and what you think I said. Only a little common sense.

I don't think anyone here believes that evolution in its current form can explain everything. The only relevant point is that alternatives to evolution explain precisely nothing and can therefore be ignored.

But not always.

BS. Most of it show go to the Canadian softwood industry which has been decimated by illegal tariffs. But hey, why not encourage further tariffs by giving away money to US citizens as "compensation" for their government attempting to destroy a Canadian industry.

I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to this one. You didn't understand what BD was talking about, so instead of asking for clarification, you decided to imply that it was incomprehensible (complete with keyboard spam! ASHG!#$%). Given that, merely telling you to grow up seems overly polite of BD in my opinion.