Anyone following the secret sovereignty talks

[takeanumber]

But I'll repeat. Paying taxes is a better measure of citizenship (or measure of our respect for the State).

If that's the case, then corporations are the shittiest of citizens.

[August1991]

Corporations are neither people nor citizens. They are a series of contracts between people.

It makes as much sense to say a corporation is a citizen as to say a marriage is a citizen.

All taxes are ultimately paid by individuals.

[Argus]

Can someone please make the argument that equates "good government" or "democracy" with "many people voting"?

I've never been able to find one. That's why I'd like to reduce the number of voters. As I suggested earlier, simply forcing would-be voters to go to some building to register, and maybe take a very basic test, would probably knock 60% or more of voters out for lack of effort on their part.

I, for one, wouldn't miss them. You could knock 90% of voters out and probably get better decisions, because those who remained would take their votes seriously.

[Cartman]

If you do not have representation from all parts of society, you will not have policies which reflect all parts of society. For example, in Alberta, those under 25 get hammered on auto insurance. As a group they may be more dangerous, but not all youth are poor drivers. Rates should be based on the individual's record, not due to membership in a statistical group. How can we expect people to become responsible workers if transportation is an impediment to employment (esp. in rural Canada)?

[August1991]

For example, in Alberta, those under 25 get hammered on auto insurance. As a group they may be more dangerous, but not all youth are poor drivers.

IMV, Cartman, you have asked a fundamental question. How to know that people are telling the truth? People claim to be good, or bad drivers; the truth is another thing.

How to make people tell the truth? Well, are people honest when they buy? For example, did you buy anything in the past week, using cash, that you prefer to keep secret? IOW, I think people are most honest when they buy using cash.

Also, I think that no society based on dishonesty will last for long. IOW, no society that does not accept ambiguity will last for long. Paper money is a good thing for civilized society. It exposes honesty in an anonymous way.

[takeanumber]

All taxes are ultimately paid by individuals.

Patently false.

[caesar]

Why do you think that people who buy using cash are most honest. Buying with a debit card or credit card leaves a paper trail; cash sales may not be recorded. If people do not want their purchases scrutinized; they would pay cash. Cash sales are often done for the shopkeeper and/or customer to avoid paying taxes.

[Reverend Blair]

I paid cash for all of my purchases last week. I have no problem divulging what I bought...groceries, beer, a used distributor, tobacco, insulin and needles (diabetic dog), and pet food...but I do not like being profiled by large corporations so they can better target me with advertising.

I don't like paying taxes, but do understand that they are used to pay for services that I want the government to provide. I do not think that they should determine the worth of a citizen though. I know a couple of people who do not work and therefore pay no taxes. They still contribute to the country as a whole though, through volunteer work or looking after elderly parents or both. That is valuable. There is more to a society than money and a government is there to do much more than manage tax dollars.

[Argus]

I don't like paying taxes, but  do understand that they are used to pay for services that I want the government to provide.

Like money to expand golf courses, to put out blonde joke books, to refurbish hotels and build canoe museums, to put up little "Canada" wordmarks on hockey arenas and convention halls, to donate foreign aid to poor countries like China and India - whose money goes to build nuclear missiles. And other important stuff like that, right?

[Argus]

If you do not have representation from all parts of society, you will not have policies which reflect all parts of society.

Quite possibly true. But whose to say you need 1 million voters from each segment of society? Whose to say 10 voters wouldn't represent that segment of society just as well? Or say, 1,000 voters from each of a few dozen segments of society.

[August1991]

Patently false.

Example?

I do not like being profiled by large corporations so they can better target me with advertising.

But you were "profiled" and you provided some valuable information to society by your purchases. You "voted".

Everytime anyone buys something, using a credit card or cash, they "vote" for the item. Corporations, if you will, respond to that vote. My point is that cash means a virtually anonymous vote.

Like money to expand golf courses...

or pay Gil Parent's salary. My own favourite is Sergio Marchi. But hey, someone's gotta sit at the chair.

[Reverend Blair]

Like money to expand golf courses, to put out blonde joke books, to refurbish hotels and build canoe museums, to put up little "Canada" wordmarks on hockey arenas and convention halls, to donate foreign aid to poor countries like China and India - whose money goes to build nuclear missiles. And other important stuff like that, right?

I never said that there wasn't waste, but inferring that is all our tax money goes to is just silly.

But you were "profiled" and you provided some valuable information to society by your purchases. You "voted".

Yes, and I made sure to vote for as many Manitoba/Canadian owned businesses as possible. Within that I voted for those companies that have a record of supporting the same things I do.

Not one of those companies, nor my bank, nor Visa, nor Mastercard can track my purchases though. My income, postal code, etc cannot be used to say, "X percentage of people in this type of area and this income bracket purchase this type of product so we should target them with this new product that directs with the small businesses they are currently buying from."

The small businesses I support cannot afford that type of profiling, so by paying cash I am supporting them. By supporting them, I am supporting my own province and country.

[takeanumber]

Yes, and I made sure to vote for as many Manitoba/Canadian owned businesses as possible. Within that I voted for those companies that have a record of supporting the same things I do.

Classic.

I enjoy the wit.

And I agree.

The small businesses I support cannot afford that type of profiling,

Thx for being a good Canadians and running a business.

Hopefully you're honest with it. Chances are that you are.

I think we need more entrepreneurial education for the youth that want it. And perhaps more capital pooling and capital matching opportunities.

I think that would a be a positive policy.

[William Ashley]

So just a reminder about the US military and police forces control of all Canadian international borders and communications systems.

Bob Hamilton was appointed as Canada's representative in those talks I can't find any independent bios on first glance.

However I do notice that letters do him do exist:

http://www.cme-mec.ca/download.php?file=goposltq.pdf

The media is still following this stuff.

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/5894-fortress-around-north-america

Note though that the "public consultation" closed a month ago... anyone hear about that or participate? The media didn't seem to report it existed.

None the less this is still a very important issue. If you were to write Mr. Hamilton what would you say?

I would say "open up trade" but don't effect non US Canadian Borders. One would think all that time in security has to happen at one point.. so why tie up the non us borders? When was the last terror attack in Canada?

Most of Canadian US trade issues could be solved through finishing that pipeline.

US has more immigrants than Canada does, it is nonsense. Why inconvenience people. trade is just the cookie this is about compromising Canadian National security more.

It is a death walk in giving away all Canada's national security information. Giving the US a veto on not only Canadian citizens travel is unconstitutional since the right to enter and leave Canada is a constitutional right. The ability for a treaty to override the constitution is one that should never obtain assent. Sharing private information especially stuff covered under the privacy act is illegal. The US openly shares information with US companies, and it goes into the void. It is not in Canada's interest to breach the constitution or privacy legislation. Likewise letting the US decide who enters or leaves Canada is backward. Canada and the US for instance maintain separate lists of organizations deemed to be terrorist organization.. US lists should not effect Canadian travel. Also people definitely deserve the right to fair trial if their rights are being infringed, not the arbitrary processes and months of detention the US uses on people they want to attack. It goes beyond the law and into the realm of political crimes against law abiding individuals.

No Canadian rights should be compromised in any outcome and no existing laws including privacy laws should be violated.

Edited July 7, 2011 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

The USA is useless to the cause of Canadian sovereignty, other than serving as a semi-porus buffer zone between us and that failed crimminal state Mexico...keep up the good work America - you can absorb them like a sponge....ooops - just found out that we have 20 thousand illegal immigrants in and around the GST with fairly serious crimminal records - oh well - round em up - ship em out.