Hydraboss

So, the belief of one side is that it is perfectly permissible for the gov't to support the CBC with a billion dollars a year (rough figure) because there is a certain amount of viewership that believes that what is being broadcast is worthy and valuable. I am not going to get into what is good and what is bad programming, as that is solely a matter of preference. I will, however, pose this: I want to start a public broadcast network in Canada, and I want one billion a year from the gov't. I will broadcast in both english and french, and I will include two radio stations as well (bilingual of course). It will be dedicated to the open broadcast of lesbian sex acts. The "best" and most explicit programming will be shown at 3:45pm local time across the country. I have no doubt that it will command viewership numbers that should easily surpass even the private broadcasters, but that doesn't matter because there is a "significant segment" of the Canadian public that will want this funding for a public network. No one has a problem with this, do they?

Dammit, I just took the stupid thing and.... Economic 3.50 Social 1.90 I hate to ask, but is that not almost exactly where Paul Martin is? Oh, woe is me.

\" However, placing a levy on every television set in this country would likely spark a mass protest so exactly duplicating the BBC model is likely impratical "/ The billion or so (the amount is unimportant) that the CBC sucks from the public trough is "a levy on every taxpayer in the country." MotherCorp competes unfairly with the private broadcasters by obtaining the "Canadian rights" to broadcasts like HNIC, and then seeking out advertising sponsors. IF YOU ARE FUNDED BY THE PUBLIC, NO ADVERTISING DOLLARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. This is unfair competition, just the same as when the Olympics are broadcast...CBC first, the rest of the broadcasters the next day. NO public funding ...or... go it alone. What's next...Al Jezeer? (sp)

I would like to formally nominate Sponge Bob. He's hardworking, has the ability to absorb most concepts (and water), has a second in command that remains quiet when he's supposed to (Gary the Snail), and he's yellow. He has been at his job for some time and did not cross the parking lot to work for the competition. Sources: My eight year old son

Why do we need a national daycare program at all??? If it is designed to make DC affordable for the "working poor" why not just allow for welfare to take care of it. Are people too embarrased to collect welfare, and therefore we need the fed's and provincial governments to have a seperate system? If the "single mom with three kids" needs assistance to be self-sufficient, then fine. But the welfare system can pay the DC provider directly. Of course, the key to keeping the anti-welfare state crowd happy is to lower taxes so that people that don't require the system don't fund the "bunny-rabbit effect". Canada already has an over-bloated, unaccountable welfare system, so what's a couple billion more. At least this way, there would not be the need for another government "division" that has as many employees and consultants as recipients. Take care of your kids, they're YOUR responsibility. No, really, they are. Read the instruction manual.

Excerpt from CAPP site (www.capp.ca): "Definitions Established reserves are a portion of the ultimate potential that may be produced from a sedimentary basin. Established reserves are defined as those recoverable under current technology and present and anticipated economic conditions, proved by drilling, testing or production plus a judgement portion based on geological or geophysical data. Reserves do not include resources estimated to exist but yet to be discovered. Total resource estimates are available in the National Energy Board’s Canadian Energy Supply and Demand to 2025 and Canada’s Conventional Natural Gas Resources – a Status Report. " The PRODUCING reserves are 41.7 and 10.3 respectively, not wildcat numbers based on seismic. That is a basic understanding of ANYONE IN THE INDUSTRY. And again, leaving out the numbers from oilsands is not "disingenious", it is proper when comparing LIKE INDUSTRIES, aka conventional drilling. My original point was to indicate why the investment is here in Alberta. Tax policies dictate that unless the seismic is astounding, producers choose not to invest in BC. The same policies curb like investment in Sask, although it is getting better.

Actually, no, the opil and gas reserves in B.C. and Saskatchewan are not comparable to Alberta's. Alberta has mor ethan 4 time sthe amount of natural gas than eitehr neighbour and, while conventional crude reserves in ALbetra and Saskatchewan are comparable, Alberta has the oil sands, which accounts for over half of the province's total crude oil and equivalent production. So, we have way, way more of the stuff here than either neighbour. See, unlike most, I don't necessarily see these as inherently good things. An economy is a means to an end, particularly when that economy is based on natural resources that belong to the people of Alberta, not the government or private companies. the people should be the beneficiaries of all this wealth. But what do we have? Roads, schools and a healh care system that's crumbling. Soaring prices for heat and electricty. Poverty and homelessness that continue to plague our neglected cities. A political culture of cronyism, centralization and corruption. But hey, you got your Raph bucks, your SUV, your oil-patch job, plus you get to bask in the reflected glory of all these go-go business types: who cares about anything or anyone else? Sure have. That's the fund that, thanks to Klein's brilliant fiscal managment policies, has managed to "grow" from 12.8 billion in 1985 to $12.1 billion today. Whoops! Actually, yes, NE BC has equivalent natural gas reserves. They tend to be less spread out in the region, but are in larger single resevoirs and of MUCH higher pressure. My statement did not involve the oilsands because I made reference only to conventional drilling, not mining (or SAG-D operations). You can refer to publications from CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) for confirmation of my statement. Therefore, we do not "...have way, way more of the stuff here than either neighbour...", we have simply welcomed investment by corporations and allowed superior development of our fields. That is false information.

Gotcha. I always wondered how the issue of proportional debt was going to be dealt with in the event of a "yes" vote. Have the BQ announced that, or is it just the common belief?

Agreed. But if that is the case with Quebec, how does the BQ propose to deal with a separation? Is it just an empty threat (I believe that it is) because if you're not part of Canada, you don't get the transfers. Am I missing something important here?

Opinions wanted: Q: If the fed's were to completely do away with all transfer payments, would the respective choices in provincial governments change? I wonder if the people of these so-called "have not" provinces would oust their NDP or Liberal governments in lieu of little versions of Ralphdom. Would they empower governments with policies that provide social aid, or those that would cut programs and turn pro-business to encourage investment? If they stuck with the NDP-type ones, where would the money come from? Even though I know that this would never happen (waaaayy too socialist of a society), I am still curious about your thoughts on the matter.

Bang on. Do you want to see the effects of "reasonable" royalties? www.nickles.com/rig/ Active drilling rigs today: Sask 51 BC 136 Alta 543 The oil and gas reserves in NE BC are comparable, if not in excess, of the average Alberta wells. Saskatchewan is pretty much on par. So why do all the oil companies drill here? 1) Reduced energy royalties 2) An absence of union oilfield labour 3) Low business tax 4) Pro-business government policies Do the majority of Albertans like Tory policies? Must. Keep electing them. The only thing that spooks O&G companies that operate in this province is the spectre of Kyoto (aka The Great Overseas Money Transfer)

I was but a mere tyke during the recession of the '80s that killed the last boom, but I remember well how Albertans, when faced with adversity, pulled up their socks, tightened their belts and stuck their hands out. Happened during the B.S.E. crisis too, when all those tough, self-sufficient farmers and ranchers came screaming to the government for a bailout (the bulk of which the government promptly handed over to U.S. based meat-packers). Yup, Albertans are rugged individualists alright...when it suits them. Just curious as to whom you are referring. "stuck their hands out"? There was no help forthcoming when the patch collapsed. I remember driving through Nisku (the major industrial park) and seeing gates chained shut that were open the day before. The impact was devastating. And yet I know of not one single person who went running and "stuck their hands out". There was no one to stick your hand out to. On the BSE issue, I couldn't agree more. Please remember that Ralph balanced everything on under $10/barrel oil. I was one of the taxpayers and oilfield workers that made that happen. I have quite a number of guys from "down east" working for me that never knew you could work 80+ hours a week and survive. They do now, and when they see their paychecks, I don't think they regret it. While Albertans may whine at the Kingdom of Ralph somewhat, we still work our asses off while we do it.

By the way, how did you make out Kimmy? Did you get enough to form a Conservative-Kimmy coalition? And where is my f**kng hat? Remember...the blue one?

Not a bad politician, but bad circumstance. I did not like the man, but I have to respect having the balls to resign tonight. Good bye Paul. Good luck.

Will Paulie-boy form a coalition? Thoughts? Ramblings?

I've never met a hot blonde that was.

How do you say "Damn" when they elect a hot blonde?

From what I see, she'll probably win, but not easily. Last time she only won by just over 600. And that was as a con.

That was early in a BC riding...I doubt it I was so excited for a minute. God, I'd love them to get a seat. We NEED them to get a seat. Imagine the next leaders debate with one of Jimmy's boys (or girls) there to show the NDP and Libs what environmental responsibility is. Go Green!

8:13pm - good, very good

cac28.insinc.com Edit: Damn, won't work

One quick one before I go vote: Paul Martin and a CSIS agent are taking a stroll when they come upon a little girl carrying a basket with a blanket over it. Curious, Martin asks the girl, "What's in the basket?" She replies, "New baby kittens," and she opens the basket to show him. "How nice," says Martin. "What kind are they?" The little girl says, "Liberals." Martin smiles, pats the little girl on the head and continues on. Three weeks later, Martin is taking another stroll, this time with Jack Layton. They see the little girl again with the same basket. Martin says, "Watch this, Jack; it's really cute." They approach the little girl. He greets the little girl and says "How are the kittens doing? She says, "Fine." Then, smirking, he nudges Layton with his elbow and asks the little girl, "And can you tell us what kind of kittens they are?" She replies, "Conservatives." Abashed, Martin says, "But three weeks ago you said they were Liberals!" "I know," she says. "But now their little eyes are open."

I still haven't heard about my damn hat. Was that just an empty campaign promise? And it was supposed to be blue. My poor, missing, blue hat. Bad Kimmy, no vote, bad.

I will agree that Mansbridge was tougher on Martin that Paulie-boy expected. Or I expected. Now that was funny. (Funny-ha ha, not funny-weird). But on most nights, I tune in to hear what is going on in "the enemy camp" because that is all I hear about. And how Harper is scary.

Still time to get in? CPC's 153 Lib's 71 BQ's 54 ND's 30 Closest without going over, right? If there's a tie, the opposition numbers count second?