Jump to content

jdobbin

Members
  • Posts

    21,438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by jdobbin

  1. How do you suggest that for cable companies in Canada? Monopolies on cable lines exist in other countries too. It is possible that you can let in U.S. satellites but I doubt that Canadian ones would continue operating. Likewise, the phone companies could be taken over but how does that improve service? The debate in Canada is not unique in Canada when it comes to consumer choice.
  2. The cost of doing nothing probably entails that people take their signals free and that distributors, broadcasters and producers don't make any money and stop the signal. Not sure that is what anyone wants but there is where we are headed.
  3. However, there is a deadline which the Budget Officer and the government of Quebec says could affect the "fair share" that we keep hearing about. At the moment, according to the government's own website Quebec falls below their percentage and the deadline is getting closer. As some of the people in the article has said, no ones knows what the progress is given the deadline.
  4. It is the cable companies that require content and the TV stations that require distribution. Even if the CRTC wasn't involved, you would probably need some oversight to watch for uncompetitive behaviour. The natural instinct for both parties usually is to gouge the consumer while offering very little that that can be defined as Canadian. The country would probably benefit from a complete review of the industry to determine what Canadians want and how best to deliver it. At the moment, people are opting out to pluck the signals from the satellites in an effort to screw distributors, broadcasters and producers. At some point, something has to give.
  5. The Quebec government has asked for an extension and point fingers at the federal government. And where did you see the dollar amount was at the percentage of the population? Even the government website doesn't indicate that. Dishonest indeed.
  6. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/drive-a-car-find-a-job/article1317518/ There is no way to fully turn back the clock on infrastructure that is already in place. What should change is asking lower income people to give up their cars if they receive social assistance. As the Globe points out, if you have a car, you are better equipped to get off social assistance.
  7. It looks like you are the dishonest one here. That headline was word for word what the CP story had. Try to get a grip on your personalizing.
  8. Thanks for your work. Hope the integration goes well. It will look similar to what we had before?
  9. It is why the deadline was an issue. Also as the article says.
  10. Nope. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2170911
  11. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091101/national/stimulus This figures in with some other independent analysis of the spending. Quebec may not get their project money before the deadline.
  12. I thought the answer was obvious by now. Canada should try to achieve an international agreement. This has been the policy of all political parties in Canada. No one is really sure if Harper is committed to that though. We'll see in Copenhagen.
  13. I really hope you master runs on a plan of a return to the death penalty and imprisoning children in this election. Please push your party to fight an election on a return of the death penalty and criminalizing abortion. It would be perfect.
  14. I have said already. Ignatieff would restore the EcoEnergy program that the Tories wound down and move to a tax incentive program on getting cleaner energy and better conservation with present energy users to meet Canada's goal on emissions. The Tories are getting rid of those programs for unknown reasons. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1322087/ I have long advocated a energy grid to bring hydro energy to places that reply heavily on coal. Even for those who don't believe in warming, there is a reason to reduce to coal particulates.
  15. This still doesn't mean the registry is useful as a tool. Running a licence number doesn't mean the old lady it belong to is actually driving the car. It doesn't mean that driver's licences are useless. I can come back with police chiefs saying the registry is useful to them. Does that mean they are left wing?
  16. One again you are deflecting from the Tories who are now in government.
  17. So we can see with the people who raise doubts on the dangers of smoking. Think you have had one already. You just don't see happy with it. And I was going to say that the same flacks are hired by the people who make denials on smoking and climate. Don't think I made that claim. I said they raise doubts on the science. Think I did that already. Milloy's statements on smoking are there for you to look at. You just don't seem happy with it.
  18. Is it? According to who? Milloy has raised doubts on much of the science on smoking. And when he is confronted with peer reviewed work, he raises doubts on the peer review process. It is well documented the use of doubt raised by the deniers on things like smoking and warming. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/book+outl...3760/story.html The tobacco companies continue to argue that their product can't be linked to individual cases of cancer in court cases now. http://www.desmogblog.com/aussie-mp-smokin...ge-doesnt-exist
  19. The Liberals have dropped the carbon tax and have proposed the energy grid comprising of hydro power. This is something different from what the direction the Tories are taking. By all means don't support them if that is your bent but if don't believe that warming is happening, you can't be happy voting Tory either.
  20. They don't argue it's safe. They argue the evidence that they cause harm is not conclusive. It isn't me who posted them. It is other posters here. I only showed that Steve Milloy also doubts the science on smoking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy And this is present day. Go back and read some of the climate threads. The same lobbyists against warming are the same ones lobbying against the science on tobacco.
  21. And this the argument made by people on the science of smoking.
  22. By all means get upset with Ignatieff but if you are against money going to warming, try to remember that Harper is spending billions now. You might keep telling yourself that he has no choice but I have seen no indication that he is about to cancel his ethanol and carbon capture program.
  23. Here is probably one of the most up to date mapping of the stimulus package. http://maps.webfoot.com/demos/CanadianStim...anStimulus.html
  24. Then don't vote for the Liberals. However, don't tell me your vote is for the Tories is not going to end up costing even more money since Harper has ensured his policy is linked to U.S. policy. You have joined the religion along with others warming naysayers with your vote.
×
×
  • Create New...