[Deepsycher]

Oh, alright, I have a better picture now.

Then, and even now, Toronto has one of the highest morgage / rental rates in Ontario. It costs a LOT of money to afford large housing in that area ; its even a fair amount to even rent an apartment. . Most people normally go towards the outer cities, like Brampton, Oakville, or Mississauga, because its cheaper? And a lot more spaced out.

I don't really like how all of Toronto's stores are all close together, and you're right, they do kind of have a stuffy atmosphere to them. I can only walk in the underground PATH system, or look up at big buildings for too long.

But ANYways, you should've visited other cities close by. There's lots to see.

Won't be easy paying for a trip back there and the relatives are so busy working to have time to go out. I have seen some attractions such as safari parks, small model works, visits in towers and Niagra falls on a trip before that. I have seen good open places for houses, but one accomodation was dominated by tall sky scrapers at the side.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 13 January 2006 - 11:14 PM

[Dr Lecter]

I would rather live in a dictactorship, preferable being the dictactor.

[Deepsycher]

I would rather live in a dictactorship, preferable being the dictactor.

Yes, but what happens if organisations want to dominate and control that dictatorship to their own speakers upfront?

I prefer some of the communist methods, where everyone is granted equal chances but enforcing everyone to have the same is a different story. I call it conmunism when one person takes the lead not in the best interest of the people, twists the policies so it is like capitalism in disguise. Still that can lead to dictatorship, when they themselves don't go by the policies they set, telling people how to live, what they must have or must not have and what to say.

Still I do not know which is better from what I read, perhaps with dictatorship, I suppose some people know where they stand.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 15 January 2006 - 09:16 PM

[Dr Lecter]

The best thing about a dictactorship would be the fact that things happen alot faster. Also most of the times dictactors are un-elected, thust they normally have some kind of backbone, rather than most politicians today.

[Deepsycher]

How about this: As a solution wouldn't it be good if there are no leaders? Only temporary leaders in specialized areas of concerns. So all parties work together to find solutions and solve problems. MP's to be voted by the public for their performance but are not elected or affected by votes from the party.

What I do not know, will it be beneficial to allocate each sector to one party at a time for control, or to be shared by a group of members from all parties?

So that they are busy trying to find constructive solutions to please the public, rather than boastful talk, passing the blame on and less work outside. To be fair, for the wages to be the same as any normal person and bonus pay for performance.

Would it be fair that most policies are voted by everyone defined on the importance of their reasons?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 16 January 2006 - 02:38 PM