Prescription painkillers and good scotch would be my preferred method. Might as well go out comfortably

This is all well and good, but that money must come from somewhere... You have just described the Robin Hood effect, and no matter how you slice it, the wealthy class are being screwed for the benefit of those unable or unwilling to provide for themselves!

Our schools are also free up to the university level, except that in reality NOTHING is ever free. My homes' value would easily rate in the top 3-5% in my community, and 73% of my property taxes (and I own 2 properties) goes to the public education system... This would all be well and good, except my wife and I have no children, so the "free" system is anything but free to us, since we pay a much greater portion of funding than the vast majority of those that actually use the system.

We also have free healthcare in the form of welfare, but since those of us with jobs (or spouses with jobs) don't qualify, we have to pay through the nose to suppliment those that are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves!

Our educational system was superior when it was kept in local control, but it's now government regulated... The healthcare systems are exactly the same way, but we can thank the insurance companies and "corporate medicine" for that one, because HMO's and PPO's have created a problem that will be very difficult to fix!

This is all well and good, but that money must come from somewhere... You have just described the Robin Hood effect, and no matter how you slice it, the wealthy class are being screwed for the benefit of those unable or unwilling to provide for themselves!

Our schools are also free up to the university level, except that in reality NOTHING is ever free. My homes' value would easily rate in the top 3-5% in my community, and 73% of my property taxes (and I own 2 properties) goes to the public education system... This would all be well and good, except my wife and I have no children, so the "free" system is anything but free to us, since we pay a much greater portion of funding than the vast majority of those that actually use the system.

We also have free healthcare in the form of welfare, but since those of us with jobs (or spouses with jobs) don't qualify, we have to pay through the nose to suppliment those that are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves!

Our educational system was superior when it was kept in local control, but it's now government regulated... The healthcare systems are exactly the same way, but we can thank the insurance companies and "corporate medicine" for that one, because HMO's and PPO's have created a problem that will be very difficult to fix!

Sir, you simply do not understand the mind of a liberal. Anything can be fixed by way of higher taxes and more social programs. Anything.

Anything that is wrong with America is the fault of tax breaks for the "rich" and a lack of social programs. Anything.

In the process of trying to justify your one-size-fits-all philosophy that throwing money (taken from the "rich" people) will solve all problems, you, as usual, end up with a glaring steaming pile of oats that have been cycled through the horse. Oh, if only we gave more money to everyone, everyone would be happy in Happy Valley. If your supposedly "common sense" nonsense were true, there would be no crime whatsoever in the communist/socialist nations and we know that simply isn't the case... or would you like to prove for example, that the Soviets had no crime, graft, or social problems worth mentioning?

I could also completely and meticulously shred this ridiculous comparison, if I thought it were worth the effort:


Never mind that it refutes, instead of backing, what was said by the Canadian board member in question that argued that the gap between financial demographics was smaller and they provided "loads" of money to the "poor," it ignores a list of other mitigating factors that you've worked so hard to ignore in the past in an effort to bolster your simplistic conclusions. But then, arguing the merits/demerits of infinite funding for unlimited social programs and trying to compare complex tax structures between two separate nations, one of which provides virtually all national defense for the other at next to no cost (which I'm sure escapes your simplistic view of the comparison altogether), is usually futile, especially when addressing one that considers paying taxes as noble and equitable to dying for one's country.

lol. And you wonder why I usually don't even show you enough respect to address your direct, ill-conceived, left-handed, close-ended, leading questions, which, like this latest one, are usually preceded by an insult such as "However, it runs completely counter to your idealogy, so are you even willing to consider it? Not likely, eh?"

In the process of trying to justify your one-size-fits-all philosophy that throwing money (taken from the "rich" people) will solve all problems,

If your supposedly "common sense" nonsense were true, there would be no crime whatsoever in the communist/socialist nations

one of which provides virtually all national defense for the other at next to no cost (which I'm sure escapes your simplistic view of the comparison altogether),

especially when addressing one that considers paying taxes as noble and equitable to dying for one's country.

And you wonder why I usually don't even show you enough respect to address your direct, ill-conceived, left-handed, close-ended, leading questions, which, like this latest one, are usually preceded by an insult such as "However, it runs completely counter to your idealogy, so are you even willing to consider it? Not likely, eh?"

Hey, huge, he's contradicting you. Share your infinite knowledge of Canadian tax intricacies with him and then explain to this poor sod why the reason their homicide rates are lower is because of the those tax rates. What's he know that you don't? I mean besides the fact that he's Canadian and your not?

Blame Canada
Our northern neighbors may try to cut gun freedoms here.

By Eli Lehrer

Canada's two major parties — the long-ruling Liberals and the new Conservative Party of Canada — remained deadlocked after the polls closed last night. In all likelihood, that's bad news for gun ownership and public safety up north.

The Liberals, who have gone from a 168-seat majority in the 308-seat House of Commons to a plurality of about 135 seats, will almost certainly form a coalition with the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP) to rule Canada. The NDP peddles a watered-down form of socialism that's heavy on interest-group politics but moderate overall: The party has few major spending plans, and even proposes some tax cuts. But the NDP is dead set on taking away Canadians' guns and even reducing gun freedoms in the U.S. "We're proposing going across the border to the U.S. and actively engaging in lobbying to have gun-control laws in the U.S. strengthened," NDP leader Jack Layton explained at a May campaign rally in Winnipeg. And, given that the Liberals will almost certainly have to deal with him to join a government, more gun control — which imposes reasonably few monetary burdens — may well become reality.

It's an easy bone for Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin to throw to his coalition partners, but it's a bad idea. While Canada has banned most handgun ownership since 1977, Canadians remain even more likely to hunt and shoot than their American counterparts. The NDP wants none of this: It proposes taking away vaguely defined "assault weapons" (this likely refers to hunting weapons, since private ownership of machine guns is already illegal in Canada) and lobbying U.S. state and federal governments to take away their own citizens' guns.

In addition to being awfully arrogant, this plan is ironic, since more crime probably flows from Canada to the U.S. than vice versa: The nation has an overall crime rate half again higher than the United States'. Toronto, once the safest large city in North America, now has more muggings, car thefts, and violent assaults per capita than New York City. All of Canada's major provinces would rank among the 20 most dangerous American states. Since American crime rates peaked in the early 1990s, crime has fallen in 48 American states and over 80 percent of America's major cities. Meanwhile, it has risen in six of Canada's ten major providences and seven of its ten largest cities. The reasons for this divide are complex, but it's notable that the United States imprisons wrongdoers at about five times Canada's rate and has about a quarter more police on a per-capita basis. Canada, meanwhile, can boast only of a national gun-registration database that cost 1,000 times more than originally projected.

Indeed, international comparisons lend credence to the idea that Canada's existing gun controls aren't helping, and that more gun control will make things worse. Both the United Kingdom and Australia have seen crime soar after they imposed more severe versions of the gun-grabbing legislation the NDP faction in Canada's government will push. Both nations, much safer than the United States through the 1970s, are significantly more dangerous today.

Canadians, whose Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains no right to keep and bear arms and whose legal system offers little in the way of judicial review, will almost certainly have at least some of their guns taken away when their newly organized government gets down to business. So long as a Republican remains in the White House, Americans probably have little to fear from whatever lobbyists Ottawa might send to push for gun control in Washington. Even John Kerry — who may well run on the first Democratic platform in a generation that doesn't call for major new gun control laws — probably wouldn't be swayed. But, at the very least, those who support grabbing America's guns will have a powerful foreign champion in their corner.

Gun control has failed in Canada and everywhere else governments have tried to impose it. Canadians have reasonable concerns about crime, but their next government's likely gun-control plans won't help things.

Wow .. if you read your own text, you will realize exactly what the difference between canadians and Americans is. In canada we belive that helping others is a good thing. As you mentioned in a personal story, where you helped a hitchinker, gave him some food, and then drove him back to the highway. In your post you state that you are against helping others by sharing a small part of your wealth.

By providing free education you are infact reducing the gap between rich and poor people. If there were a larger gap, there would most likely be more crime among the poor poeple.

Interesting article on the subject:

Bla bla bla, bs, bs, bs.
You don't really think our gummermint will really try to change US policy, do you? Talk about fear and loathing.
Oh, sure is interesting to hear that we export crime to the US.
BTW, I'm heading down Friday to steal your wimmen and rape your horses.

Who said anything about communism? I'm talking about democratic, capitalist nations, with reasonably comparable tax burdens as the United States.

Yet another aspect that should be strongly considered is the simple FACT that the United States contributes more financial aid around the world, than most other countries combined... This means that if we're now going to implement new federal programs like healthcare reform (or free healthcare), that we have a choice to make. We either have to stop helping others, or increase our taxes even more.

Frankly, I feel that we should start by kicking the UN out and then stop supporting other countries. If we weren't being taxed into oblivion, maybe we wouldn't need so many social programs! :wink:

Okay, then, I'll state more clearly: the NDP came in fourth (fourth) in the election. Yup, one of their campaign promised was what was mentioned in the article, as to how they intended, were they to win, to lobby the US government for tougher gun laws. However, that's akin to saying that the US Green Party, once they win the election, will institute free health care for all Americans. In other words, it sounds nice, sure to win votes from idealists, but it won't happen in my or your lifetime. I really can't image a party that has only 23 seats in government going up against the NRA. Do you?
As to US policy-makers trying to dictate Canadian laws on marijuana, um, you folks are bigger and stronger. The US gov't tries to dictate policy in a lot of countries; we feel it more because we're neighbours.

You've said you have no solution. I've said there is one possible solution. Would you not consider it?

As it is, all I get out of this is the minor amusement of watching you go postal.

Who said anything about communism?

Duh. Perhaps we should consider NOT providing virtually all national defense for other nations. Is that something you're willing to consider?

Show me the quote where I equated tax paying with dying for one's country.

Will you not debate me honestly, please?

How is it an insult to point out that these ideas don't fit with your idealogy?

I'm Canadian too there, Chief. Canadian American. Cost my Momma 4 Canadian dollars to bring me into this world.

Yes and no. The Liberal party has shifted to the right in recent years, with the Prime Minister being somewhat of a fiscal conservative, though he won't come right out and say it.
There'll be a lot of compromising for the next 4-6 years, so the NDP might be the swing vote for certain policies, the Conservatives for other decisions, and the Bloc Québécois will vote for whatever is good for Québec.
The NDP are no more in the driver's seat than I am in my relationship in my gf. Sure, there's an occasional illusion of it, but...

Yet another aspect that should be strongly considered is the simple FACT that the United States contributes more financial aid around the world, than most other countries combined... This means that if we're now going to implement new federal programs like healthcare reform (or free healthcare), that we have a choice to make. We either have to stop helping others, or increase our taxes even more.

Frankly, I feel that we should start by kicking the UN out and then stop supporting other countries. If we weren't being taxed into oblivion, maybe we wouldn't need so many social programs! :wink: