TheNewTeddy

I'm really not sure how groups who think deficit cutting is giving them a raw deal think that empowering Hudak will help.

This is what needs to be opposed if you want to win the strike. You guys (Teachers) need to sit down and work out how long, in hours, each day, you "work". That includes in-class time, and prep time. Recesses and Lunch are "breaks" so don't disinclude them, as other "workers" get the same breaks. I'm going to work under the assumption that teachers do get a full 3 months off, and work for 9 months. You gotta sit down and figure out how many hours a workday you actually work. Again, include marking tests, etc. Working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 52 weeks, is 2080 hours. Teachers, according to the above estimate, work 39 weeks. That means if you work more than 10 hours and 45 minutes a day, then you work MORE than the average worker, despite your long vacation time. So sit down with a calculator and work it out. If you find you only work 9 hours a day on average, then do not use this as part of your strike argument. However, if you find that on average you work 11 hours a day in a 5 day workweek (and I suspect this would be the case) then use that as part of your argument. Make a big sign. "THINK TEACHERS GET TOO MUCH TIME OFF?" with a graphic showing the "average worker" working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and getting 2 weeks off, with a big equals sign, showing how many hours they've worked in the year. Below that (or beside that) do the same for teachers, and have your number, your BIGGER number, in a big bold red font. Frankly, I don't like strikers, but in the past 5 years especially, you guys (strikers of all sort) have done such a god awful job getting your message out, I feel compelled to help, even if I dislike what you are doing. edit - also, turns out this is my 666th post. Almost makes sense that my help of Labour Unions would be my "devil post"

IMHO if you want a good booze that won't cost you an arm and a leg, get some Jamesons. And if you are looking for a cheap drunk, get Sambuca. It's 38% so it's cheaper than the regular 40% drinks, but the cheapnerness ends up making it the cheapest way to legally get alcohol for drinking in Ontario (if my calculations are correct)

That's nice. But if you want to win any strike, you'll need to appeal to the public. This was done in the 70's and gained support, but strikes in the past decade have tended to turn the public away, and only harms the cause of labour and Labour.

If you are attempting to "teach" your "students" your "values" then you are an awful teacher. I won't say "no offence" because I intend full offence.

There are places with loose gun laws - big or small - that do not have as many shooting murders as in the United States. Why? I don't know why. That's what I'd like to find out.

Uh, I'm from Ontario.

Ontario 1 Gold 1 Silver 2 Bronze BC 1 Silver 2 Bronzes Quebec 4 Bronzes Alberta 1 Bronze Teams (impossible to separate) 2 Silvers 1 Bronze if I counted properly

More points: I think the question becomes "Beyond money, what has Canada done for your province" Meaning that not counting the money Canada takes or gives from or to provinces, what has Canada done for your province? Why be a part of Canada? In International Relations, Canada presents the provinces as a united front. A well known, popular, liked, and large nation of 35 mil can get more done than a somewhat unknown, and new province of 13 mil. Outside of foreign affairs, however, I don't see what benefit Canada provides. In trade, many provinces would like to do certain things that they can't for whatever reason. The NEP is an excellent example of this - it was tried and failed. ...sorry, my mind is not really into political debate ATM due to pet illness.

This is actually a great selling point for Independence. It starts with "Canada used Newfoundland". It mentions the billions from Oils and Minerals that have gone off elsewhere, that could have stayed right at home. It mentions workers going to Alberta - something that could still happen even without Confederation. And it mentions Quebec screwing Newfoundland out of it's electricity, something that I think Quebec would do regardless of which country Quebec and/or Labrador is in.

Many of those could have happened without confederation.

Economically, no. Culturally, I'd say we gained more than when any other province joined. In terms of raw cashola? no. Also, I think "Canada" might actually work even as 2 nations. One "Western Canada" and another "Canada & Quebec" with the latter being Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic, with Quebec being all special and stuff.

I'm willing to bet that the poorest (non native) locale in Alberta is poorer than the richest (non native) locale in the Atlantic. (natives being equally poor for reasons I'll get into in another thread) and I'm willing to bet the gap was not as big many decades ago. Also, the EU is a failure - because the EU is supposed to get stronger over time. What we'd be building is a reverse EU, something that will get weaker over time. Frankly, the ideal is the US State Rights groups are able to pull the states out of the feds grasp, and all of our provinces and states can be under some kind of very loose confederation - ideally, one that also includes Europe.

Because Canada is a failure. Compare the wealth of Calgary, AB to that of Bathurst, NB. I don't have any hard and fast figures beside me, but I'm willing to be that kind of disparity is among the highest in the developed world... despite the fact that we have billions and billions of tax dollars going to try to make it not be the case... and yet the gap grows and grows. From 1949 though to about 2009 we dumped billions into Newfoundland, and got nothing. Then, they turned on the oil pumps, and now they are a "have" province... all the while collecting more royalties - as a share of the provincial budget - than Alberta. Ontario, which back in the 60's was the best place in the world (no really; we had the biggest highways and the longest subways) is now a rotten wasteland thanks to the billions the feds need to pay off the provinces to shut their mouths. Canada is a failure. Canada works better as multiple countries, perhaps 4, perhaps 7, but multiple countries. Ontario, and Quebec are two. The west is another, but you could take BC out and make it it's own country, and you could even do the same with Alberta, leaving SK and MB as their own little country. The Atlantic is another country, with the possibility of an independent Newfoundland. Then, once we finish breaking into 4 chunks, we re-federate EU style. This is actually something the Quebec Separatists want, and given our cultural ties, I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Albertans would agree with this too.

As some of you know (the ones who read my rants) I am a separatist. You might ask "what is a Quebec Separatist doing living in Toronto" and I answer "I'm an Ontario Separatist." You might then ask "So you want Ontario to go but Quebec to stay" and I answer "No, I'm a Quebec Separatist too... and an Alberta Separatist, and a Newfoundland Separatist..." So I find myself in the very strange position, this Quebec election, cheering for the federalists. You see, while I support Quebec leaving this country, Stephen Harper does not, nor do 304 of our 308 MPs (or so they say) The end result of this is that if the PQ is elected, the feds will try to KEEP Quebec in the country - and this is something I oppose. Billions will be redirected from Ontario and Alberta to keep Quebec happy. Ontario and Alberta already pay too much into this confederation. I support Separatism, but I do not support the response to it. While Quebec decides weather it wants a Lady Seppie, a n00b Idiot, or a Corrupt Luckmagnet as their leader, I'm more curious in debating the response to a PQ victory from the rest of Canada. ...I was planning to write more but my point has gotten across and my keyboard is not co-operating, so, I'll end here.

Note if anyone is interested; I've updated the map with the latest information.

If I was there I'd oppose the PQ. While I support lower tuition, the striking students have done more damage to that cause than any other group that I can remember in my lifetime. By supporting the students, they actually oppose lower tuition.

If you look at history, it is in fact Ontario that has been held back in the games.

I'd separate those who do things on purpose (IE murder) from those who do things by accident (IE negligence) I'd also separate those who commit heinous crimes (IE rape) from those who commit other kinds of crime (IE fraud) I'd then take take the murderous rapists and shove 20 of them into a small cell and put a sword in the middle, and let the problem fix itself.

I watch the Olympics to see the competition. If I want to see ladies without clothing on, I'll use the Internet.

Summer Olympic sports, by how much I like em. Love Archery - Awesome stuff, too bad I wasn't around in the middle ages when this was hot! Boxing - Fighting is good! Judo - Same as above Swimming - Like racing, but in the water!! Rowing - Same as above Like Shooting - Like archery, but too "modern" Volleyball - Alright I suppose, seems fun, fast, easy to follow Diving - good pace, scoring, etc. Artistic Gymnastics - Like the scoring, waiting for it; suspense. Sorta Like Basketball - Similar to Volleyball Weightlifting - Simple to understand Dunno Canoe/Kayak Slalom - Never seen Handball - Same Field Hockey - Not seen too much of Sailing - Same as above Water Polo - Same as above, but it was in Trek, so I'll give it a shot Sorta Dislike Fencing - Was in "Dunno" but am watching ATM, not as fun as I thought it'd be. Dislike Tennis - Just not my cup of tea Badminton - Like Tennis, but slower Equestrian - Don't care for horses. Hate Table Tennis - Anything with "Table" in it, is out in my books Beach Volleyball - Put on an effing sweater I'm honestly not sure how some of these sports on the lower half of the list have made it into the games.

There are so many things I could say to think it'd fill up a thread of it's own. I just want to quote this for possible future reference.

Romania had a referendum to impeach their president. Not the first time this country has done that, they did it in 2007 as well. That ballot resulted in 3/4uarters saying no. This time, to get the vote to work, Parliament changed the law. Previously, it required 50%+1 of all voters, voting or otherwise. To get around this, Parliament changed the law to now be 50%+1 of voting voters only. When the EU complained, they added a second stipulation, that 50%+1 of all voters must cast a ballot (a turnout minimum) for the vote to be valid. Here is a turnout map of this referendum http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Referendum_29_iulie.png you can see the problem. On the ballot question "Do you agree with the dismissal of Romanian President Traian Basescu?" only 46% of voters have bothered to cast a ballot, meaning the President has won the referendum, and will remain in office.

I've been under the impression that is all the facilitator does, tech stuff???