jdobbin
-
Posts
21,438 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jdobbin
-
-
Just another of those things people suggest the government do....how much will this one cost?
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.
-
Perhaps Dobbin, you could have taken his comments in the spirit that they were intended. Quebec has roughly 25% of the population and they are getting 25% of the funding. Stated or not, it's a rough percentage of the population and your article says "fair share". I see nothing dishonest about that.
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.
-
Suppose the cable companies said "Fine, we won't carry you any more". That would pretty much wipe out any station now, right? Does that mean the cable companies ought to be able to charge the TV networks for carrying their shows? Of course, the government again insists cable/satellite carry these stations.
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.
-
Yes, dishonest as always.
Note that the OP does not cite the dollar amounts of the programs in Quebec, which are in line with the percentage of population, or that the Quebec government has stated they are content with the administration.
No surprises here.
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.
-
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/drive-a-car-find-a-job/article1317518/
Despite their recent reputation as environmental scourges, cars are still tremendously useful things. This is particularly so when it comes to getting off welfare and into work. Policies that reduce access to cars among low-income or unemployed people make it tougher to find work.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.
-
It's just one of Dobbin's half-truth, negative ad-style hit pieces. You don't actually think he'd be completely honest do you?
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.
-
What you're seeing is the default forum template. I will be working on the forum templates over the next few days and the forum should be properly integrated into Maple Leaf Web's design shortly.
Thanks for your work. Hope the integration goes well. It will look similar to what we had before?
-
The headline is grossly misleading - irresponsible actually. Quebec always wants to do things a little differently.....sometimes it works, sometimes not. As the article says:
It is why the deadline was an issue. Also as the article says.
-
Since Montreal municipal politics have political parties, and since we vote for mayor and then for council representatives (as well as borough mayors and borough reps), it is quite possible that Bergeron will be mayor but his party will not have a majority on the council.
Nope again.
-
My first guess is that she'll win despite the baggage of her past. (Tremblay's scandals are too much and Harel has name recognition.)
Nope.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2170911
Montreal's incumbent mayor, Gerald Tremblay, whose administration has been dogged by corruption investigations and allegations of unethical behaviour for much of the past year, won a third term running Canada's second-largest city after a hotly contested election on Sunday night. Main rival Louise Harel said shortly before 11:30 p.m. she congratulated Mr. Tremblay on his win but urged his administration to make sure "Montreal reclaimed the place it must have in the world." -
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091101/national/stimulus
In order to figure out how that money is being distributed countrywide, The Canadian Press developed a computer program to work with the government's only public national picture of all the stimulus programs: the interactive map at www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/map.asp that displays Ottawa's individual budget announcements.By taking the data that supports that map, the analysis was able to count, locate and evaluate 4,833 projects that have been announced coast-to-coast. Far fewer than 10 per cent of those projects are in Quebec, Canada's second most populous province.
Of the 4,833 projects published on the government's centrepiece map as of Oct. 25, less than 300 are in Quebec. Ontario claims more than 2,500, while Alberta and British Columbia both have more than 300 each.
This figures in with some other independent analysis of the spending.
Quebec may not get their project money before the deadline.
-
Okay, that's five times now you've evaded the question.
I thought the answer was obvious by now.
Since you don't know what the Liberal Party thinks of Copenhagen, or at least, don't want to say, what do YOU think? Should we sign it?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.
-
Jdobbin, I truly hope that your master Ignatieff runs the next election on wantingto let convicted criminals out of prison sooner and quicker in order to save a few dollars. Yes money trumps public safety in your eyes. Seriously he'd be handing Harper his majority if he did that. Please email him and tell him to make that a Liberal party plank. "Early release for all convicted felons" and "Non earned Parole for all" and let's not forget "Easy access to bail across Canada for violent offenders!".
I really hope you master runs on a plan of a return to the death penalty and imprisoning children in this election.
This will be a wonderful win fall for the Tories, it would be like Moses parting the Red Sea. It would be perfect. Please push Ignatieff and your local MP's to run on this, it will be wonderful.Please push your party to fight an election on a return of the death penalty and criminalizing abortion. It would be perfect.
-
No, actually I'm not. I'M not a party hack. I already gave my somewhat cynical opinion on what the Tories are up to with their climate stance. I merely asked you, as a dedicated Liberal, to explain on this thread about Copenhagen, what your party's stand is. So far you have evaded the question three, four times now?
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/
Mr. Ignatieff, in a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, laid out a three-pronged approach to making Canada a global leader in clean energy by investing in new technologies and new industries; by upgrading the energy infrastructure through a so-called “smart” energy grid, and by making the federal government – the nation’s largest employer and customer – a model of environmentally responsible behaviour.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.
-
Actually that was a concern voiced by a police officer in Saskatchewan who said:
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.
Did that change your view or should we dismiss this concern as "right wing"?I can come back with police chiefs saying the registry is useful to them. Does that mean they are left wing?
-
Once again, you have failed to enuncate the Liberal Party's position on Cophenhagen. Is that because they HAVE no position?
One again you are deflecting from the Tories who are now in government.
-
Yes. The science is far newer and more nuanced, and, as with anything adopted by zealots, the science has become twisted in many ways, to suit their agenda.
So we can see with the people who raise doubts on the dangers of smoking.
I'm still waiting for cites and quotes on that. You still looking?Think you have had one already. You just don't see happy with it.
It is well documented that large industries make use of PR flacks to make their positions seem better, and to lobby government in order to make more money. The climate science industry is now extremely large and employs all of the same strategies. It lies fluently and withour remorse, as admitted without shame by its standard bearer Al Gore.And I was going to say that the same flacks are hired by the people who make denials on smoking and climate.
But I'm still waiting for the cites from the numerous climate science doubters who believe cigarette smoking is safe.Don't think I made that claim. I said they raise doubts on the science.
So what? They're right. In most cases you can't prove whether a person who got lung cancer did so because of smoking or because of other reasons.Without actual citations I'm just going to write off your words as out and out fabrications which you wrote simply because you thought it made for a better case.
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.
-
Your own cite says no such thing. It says he doubts the science behind second hand smoke, which is quote a different thing.
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
These interests, says Hoggan, deployed strategies developed in Big Tobacco's campaign against the anti-smoking movement. Purported research documents were commissioned with the aim of raising questions about climate change science even though their own scientific advisers knew that science to be sound. Meanwhile, he says, a select group of free-market think tanks implemented the strategy and in the process deliberately polluted public discourse on the subject.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
Many of the same people who told us not to worry about tobacco smoke and asbestos are now telling us not to worry about climate change. -
I'm sorry, was that meant to be an answer to my question? I take it from your evasiveness that Ignateiff has not yet developed a plan, and, as for Copenhagen, he has not yet run throught he complexities of the polling results which will determine what his position ought to be. Correct?
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.
-
Who does? Who doubts the dangers of cigarettes? Even the cigarette manufacturers will not say that smoking is safe.
They don't argue it's safe. They argue the evidence that they cause harm is not conclusive.
Who? Let's see the citations. And from now not twenty years ago.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.
-
Even the actual climate scientists who actually believe in it won't commit to anything beyond that they "believe" the "preponderance of evidence" "suggests" that man-made CO2 emissions are "partly" to blame for rising temperatures - though they can't say how much.
And this the argument made by people on the science of smoking.
-
And what is Ignatieff's plan? Does Ignatieff think we should sign onto Cophenhagen and start shipping billions of dollars to the UN?
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.
-
Here is probably one of the most up to date mapping of the stimulus package.
http://maps.webfoot.com/demos/CanadianStim...anStimulus.html
Conservatives represent 46% of the ridings, but 51% of the projects are in Conservative ridings. Also, Ontario has 39% of the population but 53% of the projects; Québec has about 24% of the population, yet only 8.2% of the projects. -
You are right. Harper is wasting money on this CO2 crap because there are a large number of clueless people in this country that have been brainwashed into believing that it is possible to "do something". His only virtue is he is probably spending less money than the libs would. I would love to see a politician which guts enough to tell people that they have been lied to and there is no way to reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining anything close to the standard of living we have today. Unfortunately, such a politician would not last long in office because CO2 has become a religion in this country and telling people that the have been lied to about CO2 is as pointless as going into a church and telling the people that they have been lied to about god.
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.
All those damned cable and tv tax commercials
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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.