TwoDucks

Personally, I think elections should be held weekly along with a dose of castor oil. Makes for a better constitution.

Calling the excise tax a carbon tax is true in the same sense that calling income tax a carbon tax. After all, people are about 18% carbon by mass.

The truth costs money, whereas misinformation generates it. Thus it's good for the economy. Get with the program, nerds!

As someone who works in the cellphone industry, the cost to block a phone based on its serial number is going to be pretty small. It's already done by some providers in limited circumstances. There certainly would be other issues to consider with such a proposal, but I doubt you'd be interested in them so much as wanting to score a point for your ideological viewpoint.

Just because you don't understand something does not make it a waste of money. As to the announcement, that's a shame.

Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment, but I remember reading an article a few years back about how a set of ads placed for an agency that was hiring people to go on social media and promote conservative/attack liberal viewpoints. Whenever I read your posts I think of that. That said, to answer your question, it does sound fitting of a Tory. I think if Mark Carney were to swing to the Tories, it would mean they've evolved past being the brutish party the Conservatives are now.

You're certainly right and I won't dispute that. However his current position certainly puts him in a position of leadership and shows a competence in dealing with money matters. Both of those are things I'd want in a potential leader of my country.

I have no idea if or why he'd potentially want to be the leader of the Liberals. I hadn't heard his name floated prior to this thread. That said, do you disagree that he could run circles around Harper with respect to the economy?

Just like hyperbole, bluster and general asshatery is to be expected from the right? Come on now, play nice.

Mark Carney would be interesting as the Liberal leader. I dunno about how others feel, but he has always come across as fairly non-partisan to me. Also, Harper would have a hard time playing the economy against him, and really, what does he have beyond that?

Sounds like you're due for a promotion. How does cabinet minister sound?

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I do seem to recall he and Samuel L. Jackson issuing a statement asking to get those motherfucking oil companies off those motherfucking fields.

Yeah, because Mulcair has said Alberta needs to stop making money, amirite?

So... you're saying with one of Canada's largest purchases ever, your best suggestion to fund it is to find money between the couch cushions?

Mandatory minimums. Hur hur.

Every day for several weeks? Dang, hopefully he washed it every day, otherwise the message might not be the most offensive thing about this scenario.

Clearly he has a point. I don't want migrant workers to have better supplementary health care than me. Where's our universal pharmacare? Dental work?

I think the main sticking point has nothing to do with migrant workers vs immigrants. That said, an immigrant who lives here permanently is far more likely to be contributing to the local economy, wheteas a migrant worker would, presumably, be saving up as much as possible to send home.

The market is also not free when the government gives businesses a backdoor to undercut going rates for labour. If you're going to crow about how great the free market is, at least try to be consistent. Although I appreciate the technical quality of your logical contortions, I'm not sure I support your assertion that bringing migrant workers to Canada will result in a lower jobless rate. Can you elaborate on how Canada benefits? If you wouldn't mind highlighting specifically the impact on anyone who isn't a shareholder in the companies planning on hiring migrant workers, it would be appreciated.

We need Workers Councils, like in Germany. North American corporations typically have their heads up their asses when it comes to labour management.

The metrics of the survey indicated $100k per person, not family. That's the only time the Association of Leftist Bogeymen requires you mail your paycheque in. Lighten up, comrade.

I take it you have a problem with the methodology of the survey cutting the line of wealthy as earning more than $100 000 per year? Well, tough biscuits, I suppose. Statistics Canada has lots of fun numbers, but they all say if you're earning $100k each, you're making way more than average. If you don't feel wealthy despite making more than the majority of Canadians, imagine how someone who actually makes the average income feels, or someone who makes less, for that matter. You play the victim so well! Nevertheless, unless you think 58% of Conservative supporters are part of the left, maybe you're diatribe should be saved for a more left vs right issue, as opposed to this one. In any case, having to pay a bit more in taxes is not punishing you, so don't be silly. Do you drive on roads? Do you get healthcare? Do you benefit from law and order? There is a ridiculous number of ways you benefit from government projects and services. Yes, that's exactly what I believe. People are only rich because they're crooked or lucky. Which are you? Oh, so you support universal post-secondary education? There's hope for you yet!

I'll post two of the questions from the study again: - Macleans So given the questions already provided, do you feel they're biased, and if so, why?

Oh no you di'int! *wags finger* Why not either let the tired meme of "Dur, all Occupy protesters have no jobs!" die the disrespectful death it deserves? If I were to start tossing out that all conservatives are dumb, I'd be rightly lambasted, even if I've got proof backing me up.

Well, Manning seems a bit more wiry and quicker, but Broadbent seems like he'd have more power behind his jabs, so it's a tough call. Wait, they're boxing, right?