Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/08/2009 in all areas

  1. The most likely explanation for the extinction is a giant meteor.
    2 points
  2. Whenever I see an article in the news about those taxpayer-funded mailings from MPs that fill our mailboxes with partisan propaganda, I see the same types of responses from Conservative supporters: 1) All parties do it. 2) Anecdotal stories about receiving mailings from opposition MPs. 3) Claiming that the mailings aren't partisan and are just sent out to keep constituents informed. Response #1 is of course true, but it does not address the degree to which the various parties use or abuse this privilege. Response #2 may also be true, but tells us little about the overall picture. Response #3 usually comes from those sending-out the mailings or their supporters. On Wednesday, MP expense figures for the fiscal year 2008-2009 were made available on the web site of the Parliament of Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/GeneraLInformation/MembersExpenses-2008-2009-e.pdf The 2008-2009 expense figures show that a total of $10,062,553 was spent by MPs on these mailings, which come under the heading "Printing". Of this, Conservative MPs were responsible for $6,255,368 or 62% of total spending on these mailings. Liberal MPs spent $1,591,684 (15.8%). Bloc MPs spent $1,092,690 (10.9%). NDP MPs spent $1,100,016 (10.9%). Independent MPs spent $22,801 (0.2%). Conservative MPs held only 41.2% of the seats in the House of Commons in the first part of the fiscal year and 46.4% of seats after the election. If those figures don't convince you that Conservative MPs are disproportionately (ab)using these mailings, consider these figures: Of the MPs with the highest "Printing" expenses, 61 out of the top 65 are Conservatives. The average spending on these mailings by Conservative MPs was $38,853.22. The average for the rest of the MPs was $17,874.14. If you consider the average spending on "Printing" of only the MPs who served for the full fiscal year the disparity is even greater: $49,415.56 for Conservative MPs vs. $22,438.18 for all other MPs.
    1 point
  3. We saw this story on local news a few days ago and it was on Global National tonight. The exhibit is on display until tomorrow afternoon. We went and saw it yesterday. There are thirty six portraits as part of the school's Remembrance Day exhibition. Other displays also included collages of personal correspondence by WWI and WWII vets reproduced on paper that they had artificially aged together with personal photos and another of prints describing students personal impressions. A hanging sculpture made of paper planes made from reproduced aged newspapers from the World Wars. Sculptures including a row of sixteen pairs of worn empty boots and another of battered old rusted helmets. All made out of paper mache. Very realistic, you had to touch them to make sure they weren't real. We walked out dumbstruck by the emotional capital these kids had invested in this project and the talent there is in that school. Despite the terrible subject, it really gave us a good feeling about this generation . Here is the Link to the video. For some reason the link always comes up on the Canada page. Click Top Stories, the video is on that page.
    1 point
  4. Reputation ratings could lead to more partisanship, group behavior and cliques IMO. MapleLeafWeb is one forum where a community value of quality posting seems to be emerging, and I would hate to see that impacted by 'reputations' which could merely be popularity contests.
    1 point
  5. First and foremost, I resent anyone forcing me to buy something that there's no getting around. Some have compared it to mandatory vehicle insurance, but one can choose not to have a vehicle. So I object to mandatory insurance, especially since I will be at the mercy of the cost. To force someone to have insurance, and then fine them if they don't, is ludicrous; and I see the state forcing something like that as going over the line. If people are going to have "forced coverage," then it should come out of our taxes same as Social Security, Education, etc.
    1 point
  6. No, I'm still waiting. Eight minutes before I first asked you to back up your accusation, you replied to another poster with: "Next target for you... the handgun registry? Another waste of money?" That would indicate that you know very well the government is talking about long guns. Quit being a troll.
    1 point
  7. I guess we are destined to go around in circles on this one. You make your assumptions, I'll make mine. Why is it odd that some conservatives question what other conservatives do? Don't liberals ever do that? Governments do that on a daily basis. What does it have to do with this? There always is. No doubt you were but I don't believe I was one of them. I did hope Harper would stick to the principle however, ill advised as it was. Disappointing. No it isn't violating the law, just abusing the public trust for its own ends. Majorities always have an excuse why the country "needs" an election. It is always bullshit. Unfortunately true but we all have things we would like to see changed.
    1 point
  8. Waited a few weeks to comment on the CBC's revamp in their news department. The National News with Peter Mansbridge was mocked for the absence of the desk. They tried this back in the Peter Kent days. It was silly then as well. Looks like they have stopped Peter from pacing around out there. I am still assessing the main news. I think the CBC News website has improved. The CTV website has become worse and from what I have heard there have been a few complaints about the change. Haven't noticed a difference in the radio news aside from the fact that they changed the opening music again. I can't remember what they call those opening notes. Anyone remember? The Politics show is interesting. I will wait a bit to assess it more. My impression of Solomon prior to his being named was that he might not be evenhanded. That comparison of course is measured against Don Newman. My gold standard for tough but affable goes to Tim Russert. I'll wait a bit more to see how things pan out. I will say this: I miss the National and Journal combo. I don't think we shall see those days again but I do miss the gravitas the show had then.
    1 point
  9. Yes, there is a certain length of barrel that a weapon has to have in order to avoid the restricted designation.
    1 point
  10. BTW someone mention sawed off shot guns earlier, I thought that those type of weapons would be banned/restricted to begin with.
    1 point
  11. I'm not so sure if the Registry is useless but it is clear it needed to be revamped. I as well would like to see more study/discussion on this. I don't see how talking about handguns adds to the discussions. I guess anything is possible but we should focus on things that are on the radar. Instead we are talking about what the Tories would do if they win a Majority. Majority????? This country might not see one any time soon.
    1 point
  12. Jdobbin why are you continuing with these semantics you know very well the long gun portion has been stressed over and over. There are also been other arguments that have been used against the long gun registry. Right now this thread is being derailed by your partisan attacks instead we should be talking about the next steps of this process.
    1 point
  13. Frequent flyers costly Printing spree price tag is $10M By ELIZABETH THOMPSON, NATIONAL BUREAU http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2009/11/07/11666131-sun.html
    1 point
  14. If and I do mean "if" these folks would work harder and spend more time and less money at out expense than I would be happy with the result we get. That is not the case though. If I was allowed to make some rules for these folks it would go something like this. Once elected the taxpayers would pay to fly them to Ottawa for day one, and the taxpayer would pay to send them back to their constituency one a month. The taxpayer will provide a residence for them, instead of an allowance. The representative would attend to the business of government 5 days a week, 20 weeks a year. Doors to the House of Commons to open at 0845 then close by 0900. Coffee break at 1115 until 1130. Lunch to begin at 1330 and end at 1430. Doors would open at 1700 to let representatives out for the day. Anyone not in attendance at 0900 to be docked a days pay. Representatives to be granted 6 weeks annual vacation. Representatives to be paid pensions based upon contributions at a rate determined by the representatives.
    1 point
  15. Anyone that doesn't care how government spends their money must be rich or or reckless with their own. How can one not be, its adding to the country's debt. I read about one MP that makes 153,000 yearly, 25,500 expense account and has 63 free passes to trips from Ottawa to home or where ever they want to go plus their families! They also got a raise in pay for 2009! Why? they only worked 25 weeks last year and this week they are off! These guys make more than teachers and work less hours and don't forget their pensions, at least they have one, a big one!
    1 point
  16. This practice shouldn't even be allowed as far as I'm concerned.
    1 point
  17. I don't think 'smart' is the word the average taxpayer would use to describe this kind of spending. We're always hearing what great fund-raisers the Conservatives are, yet their MPs are using the taxpayers' funds to get their message out more than any other party. Since most MPs are not cabinet ministers managing departmental budgets, these expense reports allow us to get an idea of how well our MP manages the taxpayers' money.
    1 point
  18. It may seem like small potatoes when the taxpayer is footing the bill, but if the Conservative Party had to pay for what their MPs spent on these partisan mailings it would have used up 30% of the funds the Conservative Party raised in the same period.
    1 point
  19. As heartwarming it is to hear that "the people themselves do not bother you" ( ) you might want to take a look at your own government. You do realize Harper is Canada's PM, right?
    1 point
  20. I noticed that aspect. I've tested it out with your post. One of the thing I don't like about the comments section on media websites is the voting up and down (not to mention the anonymous nature of the posters). In fact, I don't read the comment sections because it is rarely insightful. The voting seems even less insightful. Perhaps if the positive or negative thumbs up came with the posters name attached (kind of like Facebook's Like button) then there might be some accountability in choosing to click the button. Then reputation would fall in two directions. I will mull things over a bit but it is the type of thing has caused me to depart other forums.
    0 points
  21. Greg, I don't think that the voting feature will help things, and will likely distract from our discussions.
    0 points
  22. Waldo...your replies are often muddied by providing information that is somewhat related but out of context. I started this thread with a simple quote from the latest IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers".....you said you didn't know what I was referring to. It's right there in the original link - not hard to find. As I said - it goes to the heart of Climate Change and the "confidence" in whether humans are responsible and how much impact they have. A follow-up posting qualified "likely" as being "2 out of 3 chances of being correct" and we still don't know what "significant" actually means. The statement seems clear to me and if you can read it with an open mind, perhaps you can tell me how this equates to "The Science is settled". Here's the quote again. To follow up on the Alarmist/Denier issue....Alarmists are absolutely sure that humans are the major factor in Climate Change and that without major reductions in GHG, the world will be irreparably damaged. Deniers, for the most part, acknowledge that humans have SOME influence on Climate change, but not a significant one. And that is where the line is drawn - what is "significant"?. If we affect Climate Change by 30% - does that create Armegeddon? And if so and we magically eliminate all fossil fuels, we reduce that impact to 20% - will that somehow avert Armegeddon? It's really a question of what is "significant. But it goes further......to accept that, we have to agree that CO2 has the magnitude of effect that is being claimed. The science is so "not settled".
    0 points
  23. The Crown Victoria is old, and out of date, and it isn't worth a great deal of investment. Dodge and Chevrolet both have police cars available, and Ford likely will too. It simply won't be a CV built in STAP.
    -1 points
  24. The Crown Victoria is old, and out of date, and it isn't worth a great deal of investment. Dodge and Chevrolet both have police cars available, and Ford likely will too. It simply won't be a CV built in STAP.
    -1 points
  25. Sorry, I thought we were talking about the making of Ford vehicles in Canada. More recently, they have both poured billions into companies that are on life support. Is that preferable to you? which brings me back to the three options that you can do about the situation: - go hungry - find other work - move. They'll probably take the tradeitional Canadian tactic though, which is to whine that the government should do something
    -1 points
  26. I would like to respond, but the things you are talking about are so very broad in context it is pretty much impossible. Getting once more back to the topic at hand, the closure of Big Three plants is inevitable. All we can really control is our reaction to it, and I do not see pouring more billions ionto failing businesses as having much future for the autoworkers themselves. One industry towns are always at risk, and Ontario has quite a few. Move to the oil patch in Saskatchewan, or work construction in Calgary. Or give up. Or be poor. Really, it comes down to a personal choice.
    -1 points
  27. Ford isn't failing...or asking for money.
    -1 points
  28. You do realize that contract was for seasonal flu vaccine. A new contract negotiation was set up for the H1N1 vaccine.
    -1 points
  29. It is on the government's website: The regular flu virus vaccine proceeded as usual. The H1N1 had to go through additional negotiations that the regular flu vaccine didn't. While the contract was for one company, the negotiations for this part of the contract were new. In other words, when Carolyn Bennett asked about the terms of this contract, it was a legitimate question in regards the development of this vaccine.
    -1 points
  30. You are contradicted by the government website and by the fact that the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007.
    -1 points
  31. Globe and mail article today. Follow the leader not the Liberals http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/
    -1 points
  32. It's rather sad. The once great party which I was usually in agreement with is almost completely gone. I'm thinking of canceling my membership. They certainly don't represent my values anymore.
    -1 points
  33. Yep. There are a lot of deniers amoung alarmists who insist in believing that we understand climate when the overwhelming evidence says that we don't. In any case, the bigger problem with this "settled science" argument is it assumes that the science tells us what policies we should adopt. i.e. it does not make a difference how certain the we are about the effect of CO2 over the last 30 years if we do not feel the cost of the "solutions" outweighs the alledged benefits. For example, if the science told us that a genetic defect in 20% of the people would eventually lead to the collapse of the human race would we then support the mass sterilization of that 20%? I am suspect most people would refuse to support such invasive policies even if the risk was real. In the end we need a way to produce energy for the same cost as fossil fuels without emissions. We don't have that technology today which means any discussion about timetables and targets for eliminating CO2 emissions is a waste of time. The technology has to be developed first.
    -1 points
  34. So your table of percentages for the term "likely" tells us that there is 1 chance in 3 that humans do not play a significant role in "Global Warming". And with regards to the other 2 out of 3 chances, the IPCC is still struggling with what "significant" actually means. Does that sound like the science is settled? And one has to ask, regardless of what "significant actually means" - why is their "certainty" only 66.6%? This is exactly why people like yourself are referred to as alarmists. There are very, very few deniers - people who believe that humans don't have any influence on Climate Change. Most "sceptics" regard humans as having only a small or moderate impact on Climate Change.
    -1 points
  35. The Tories have said registration is ineffective. Period. Are you saying it is effective for handguns? How so if the argument is that police should not trust or rely in it?
    -1 points
  36. Think my argument from the beginning has been that the Tories have argued that registration is ineffective. They certainly won't remove it from handguns with a minority. However, if the argument is that registration is useless, surely that has to apply to handguns as well. Right? I just find it odd and conservative writers are wondering aloud as well. The Neil Reynolds article in the Globe and Mail was particularly pointed saying the Tories wanted to move many prisoners frown low to high security to super regional prisons with the money saved from cutting elsewhere. Don't think I argued that. I was pointing to changes the Tories have made that didn't require any debate but probably should have. I also didn't argue that a majority for the Tories is more dangerous than any other party's majority. I am saying that they would do things they presently wouldn't tackle just as the the Liberals did when they had a majority. Some of those things from both sides, you probably wouldn't like. I could go back and look but I faced a barrage of attacks saying it would be impossible for Harper to call an election. I don't believe the law would apply to a majority government either. In short, a government can make any excuse to call an election and not violate that law. As for the Constitution.... as soon as it is opened, expect everything and a bag of chips tossed in. It will be hatd to control the process even for something small.
    -1 points
  37. One the main arguments against the registry has been that it is ineffective. It isn't semantics since a registry is what covers handguns as well. if one is ineffective, is the other one just as ineffective? Is that the next step in the process? I have said that I opposed the registry since I favoured a focus on licensing. However, I wanted to hear what police said about in detail before dropping it. However, if the registry is regarded as useless, why is it around for handguns? Surely the same arguments against it stand, don't they? And if they don't, why? If you want to debate this, don't keep repeating that handguns will never be dropped if your argument is that the registry is useless.
    -1 points
  38. I have asked for more discussion on registry. I want to hear what the police say and if we need to poll their numbers, all the better. I'd rather there be disclosure. I have called my MP to push for that type of hearing in the committee. Handguns are on the registry. If the registry is useless as the Tories have claimed then it stands to reason that this would hold true for handguns as well. I'd rather hear about where the parties stand on the issue rather than wait until after the next election if you take my meaning.
    -1 points
  39. And you are someone who seems to personalize. Can't you just deal with the argument and not the person. I realize you keep saying this was about the long gun registry but Van Loan and others didn't make that distinction when they said that registered gun don't protect police. They didn't. They said registration is ineffective. If it is ineffective for one, why would it be effective for the other? What answer do you have? Think I'd rather know the answer to the important question of the registry's effectiveness overall but you want to shut down that debate. I certainly don't want to hear about it after an election and then you telling me then how it makes sense.
    -1 points
  40. I'm suprised more on the left aren't celebrating. Ford is an example of the type of evil corporation they've been fighting against for years. Remember? They make too much money, and need to be taxed more. I figured they'd all be cheering Ford getting what it deserves. No?
    -1 points
  41. You say that again August, but I see nothing to support your assertion.
    -1 points
  42. I think anti-Americanism is over played here; most people don't give any more thought to Americans than Americans give thought to Canadians. When asked, however, it brings immediately to mind things we don't like as people tend to remember negatives over positives. And the Canadian media dwell on it way too much. It's not a big of a deal as some make it out to be. Furthermore, I'm tired of being told we don't have our own culture, our own identify - that if we didn't identify with not being American we aren't anything. What's the matter with just being Canadian? A mix of every country in the world with a basic English/European background that's changing every year as our population changes, as our ideas change, as the world evolves? I don't think the French are asked ... what is French, or the Germans ... what is German? So why are we asked? It's all phony in my opinion. We are .. Canadian. We don't have to articulate what that means .. we know. Same as every other nationality in every other country.
    -1 points
  43. There, you are doing it again. It seems the best strategy is to avoid you altogether.
    -1 points
  44. You get what you give. Now, please express your thoughts on Canadian identity.
    -1 points
  45. my name is a play on words which can be seen. It says smallc and rihgt under it, as in just a little. I don't see how that's relevant to the point though. You claim sovereignty is the underlying factor when it comes to every event in Quebec life. I think some evidence would be in order given the implications of the assertion.
    -1 points
  46. Th Liberal party doesn't deplore the Afghan mission. Part of it does, I'm sure, but part of it always have. The ability to be pragmatic is the key to success in Canada. That's the exact reason that the Conservative party now does so well.
    -1 points
  47. The Rest of the Story Sounds like bad news for a party that I thought was going to be in much better shape in January last year.
    -1 points
  48. Landmark health bill passes House on close vote The Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed landmark health care reform legislation, handing President Barack Obama a hard won victory on his signature domestic priority. Ironically, this reform seems to anger both conservatives and liberals. I was never happy with Obama's plan for health care, and it was one of the major reasons I would not vote for him in the primaries. It'll be interesting to see where this leads when all is said and done, but I suspect there will be a lot of complaints. Now I guess we just have to wait and see how the Senate votes.
    -1 points
  49. We've had a number of threads that go back and forth on the anal details of Climate Change. And of couse, we see stories that the "science is settled". I found it interesting that the IPCC's own latest report indicates the following.......note that they use the term "likely". Other terms are used throughout the document - terms like "more likely than not", "very likely" and "virtually certain". In selecting "likely" to describe the very heart of Global Warming arguments, it appears that even the IPCC has a long way to go before the science is settled. Link: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
    -1 points
×
×
  • Create New...