Jump to content

M.Dancer

Member
  • Posts

    20,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by M.Dancer

  1. This little blurb from the CBC needs an explanation since I am at a loss myself to come up with one. If anyone here can explain the CEO's comment, I would appreciate it.

    No simple answer...but a strong CDN dollar buys more (employees..) overseas than it does here...

    Sales from Canadian companies' operations abroad grew at twice the rate of those at home for much of the last decade, at the expense of manufacturing jobs at home but giving the firms a competitive edge in the face of a strong dollar.

    The findings, from research conducted by Export Development Canada, would also suggest Canadian firms have indeed taken steps to become productive and tap new markets, especially among emerging economies.

    While exporting those goods manufactured abroad may be more competitive at a lower foreign exchange rate.

    "This is a reflection of Canadian companies jumping on the bandwagon and adapting new ways of doing business -which means moving away from a model solely based on exports from Canada," Jean-François Lamoureux, trade analyst at Crown-owned EDC and head of the research efforts.

    So while goods manufactured in Canada for Canadian conumers are unaffected, goods manufactured in Canada for overseas markets are at a disadvantage.

    An example of how this is unfolding would be a company such as Research In Motion Ltd., which has a factory in Hungary to sell its BlackBerry devices into the Asian and European markets.

    http://www.cme-mec.ca/?action=show&lid=JCKNC-E742G-1W6JA&cid=DP714-GVF6E-CBRD3&comaction=show

    Obviously Smart Tech's market is greater outside of Canada..so the choice is, have a Canadain company do this, or surrender the market to foreign firms.

  2. That it was being practiced does not necessarily mean that it was condoned by Jesus.

    Possibly, but given that he never spoke out against what would have been an anceint tradition that had been practised by their most honoured patriarchs and heroes....you cannot possibly know he did not condone it

    What....don't you even know why Jesus was lambasting the clergy of the day???

    Of course I know, I already said it was irrelevant to the discussion.

    One of the reasons Jesus had a lot of enemies was due to Him speaking against some of the traditions and practices of the people - which were being condoned and perpetuated by the Pharisees!

    Undoubtably. Interestingly enough, the authors of the gospel failed to mention anything about polygamy.

    What do you think your example about resurrection was all about? The Saducees questioning His authority!

    Neither the saducees, or the pharisees or jesus had any authority. They had another motive. The same one we have here.

    And why do you think they were questioning His authority?

    Because He's telling them they're doing things wrong!

    Gosh..how many other things did he say were wrong, but were never thought important enough to mention?

    That's the problem when you guys just pick and choose any verse you want to use in the Bible. You don't use it in its proper context.

    Please...your hypocrasy here is flabbergasting!

    It's important to read and try to understand the Bible.

    Oh please do one day...so I won't need to school you!

  3. Yes I know that. Two events that our military was involved in. I want you to explain how we fought for our freedom there. You know, how "we fight wars overseas so we don't have to fight them here..."

    :rolleyes:

    Did I claim that FRY was where we were fighting for our own freedom?

    ....you know, when they did fight for our freedom, one of the freedoms would have been a Liberal education....don't let their sacrifice be in vain...

  4. This must be what you're referring to.

    Take note of the subject title of this portion. This is about the resurrection of the dead. Not marriage, or polygamy.

    Just like you, the Saducees rejected belief in the supernatural, especially angels and resurrection of the dead.

    With "Moses said...," the Saducees were referring to the practice of "levirate marriage" which called for an unmarried brother to take his brother's widow for his own wife.

    The absurd hypothetical case given by the Saducees attempts to discredit the legitimacy of the resurrection. This extreme example must've been thought by them to be the ultimate proof of the foolishness of the doctrine of resurrection.

    Take note of Jesus' reply.

    “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

    He then explained that in the resurrection, men do not marry. They are asexual like the angels.

    Yes yes yes...and that is neither here no there...what is important is that was the normal practice of the day, and given an opportunity, Jesus does not condemn a man having two wives.....no if he divorced one of those wives and married another...well, that would be adultry!

  5. I fail to see how I am misrepresenting. I have even been quoting the sections of the Constitution I refer to. You just fail to understand how the laws of Canada work. That isn't my fault.

    You fail to see that healthcare and education is the responsibility of the provinces and you condone the encroachment by Ottawa into provincial jurisdiction. And you make it sound like it is their right.

    It isn't. Quebec knows this. But why you haven't argued that Quebec's moves are illegal is a mystery. probably because the NPD hasn't discussed the issue with you...only Harper commenting that Alberta should exert their jurisdiction...which is some how scary scary woo woo...

    I think it should be left to the courts....

  6. We "may" have. Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie thinks we may have not!

    "Years ago our television screens were dominated by pictures of Kosovo-Albanian refugees escaping across Kosovo's borders to the sanctuaries of Macedonia and Albania. Shrill reports indicated that Slobodan Milosevic's security forces were conducting a campaign of genocide and that at least 100,000 Kosovo-Albanians had been exterminated and buried in mass graves throughout the Serbian province. NATO sprung into action and, in spite of the fact no member nation of the alliance was threatened, commenced bombing not only Kosovo, but the infrastructure and population of Serbia itself -- without the authorizing United Nations resolution so revered by Canadian leadership, past and present."

    You realize that Bosnia and kosovo are two separate events?

    But then again, there is much you don't recall you say..

  7. It was initially reported that way - at least by some of the media.

    link

    Suspected gangster Mark Duggan, 29, fired a handgun at an armed cop, whose life was saved when the bullet hit his radio.

    link

    The suggestion was that officers could have come under fire from a minicab carrying Duggan. Much of this assumption came from the fact that a bullet had lodged in a police radio worn by an officer at the scene – raising speculation he might have been fired at from the vehicle.

    link

    When he was killed last Friday, police claimed they had returned fire after Duggan had shot at them.

    Yep....those suggestions certainly were made...but not by the police who did not comment and would not comment until the facts were known.

  8. link

    "shots were fired and a 29-year-old man died....It is believed that two shots were fired by a firearms officer....A non-police issue handgun was recovered....An officer's radio which appears to have a bullet lodged in it has also been recovered."

    this implies that the police were shot at.

    by the way, having a gun does not warrant being executed. i wonder why you're so quick to jump in there for big brother. the government does not need a marketing department when they have people like you.

    So no proof regarding your claim? No surprises because I happen to know your claim is baseless....

    You are correct...having a gun does not warrant being shot at...unless the constable feels threatened then all bets are off..the right to use deadly force is a given.

    A darwin award winner.

  9. There was certainly some insight added. Was it deep enough ? Maybe not but an entire thread of sniping on it is pretty tiresome.

    How about this: is this the beginning of the revolution ?

    No, multiple threads on the same subject adding nothing to the debate is definitely not the beginning of the revolution...in fact, I am sure that the revolution began and ended october 23, 2001

  10. You're in the media biz aren't you?

    Maybe that's why you would rather post your mockery than try to add any kind of substance to the issue.

    Yeah...that's it...lets call a shallow, cursory look at a handful of hooligans trying, to look deeper ...

    ....at least the Guardian wasn't so pretentious to call their passing glance "looking deeper" :lol:

  11. Yah Social transfers and Equalization are again right there in the Constitution. The Health act was created to address the idea that each province should have "comparable" levels of programs. The health act is there to say what comparable means. So yes when breaking it you are breaking the Constitution.

    the constitution which gives provinces the sole jurisdiction over healthcare...

×
×
  • Create New...