Visionseeker

Good. Would you care to make/repeat them here?

Releasing reports when the public is unlikely to pay attention is to bury them under a thin level of cover. This cover is easily and opportunistically uncovered during an election. It is often better to inoculate yourself by putting the issue in the open. At a minimum, you can assess the public’s attitude, at a maximum, you render the item as old news. This is quite simply, terrible political strategy.

Yep. As I suspected. Opinion passed on as fact. Your link can be summarized as follows: The AGW crowd has it wrong. Here are 5 areas I identify as wrong. Full stop. No evidence, no inquiry. Just a Riverwind type announcement we are all to hold as truth. You really need to work harder on this.

What then, do you propose we do with you? Maybe because Xul is a thoughtful, skilled person whose penchant for enquiry will greatly compliment the Canadian fabric? His insistence is a mark of entrepreneurialism that I frankly welcome. And your valued contribution to this country would be...? Xul is a human being entitled to basic respect and decency. An entitlement I must take great pains to offer you. Go ahead and say it. Hell, argue that the sun revolves around the earth for all I care. Either way, you reveal your ignorance. Indeed. We can all look forward to the brown shirts coming out of the closet to set us all straight. You're not the least bit interested in a discussion that leaves you appearing as the north end of a south bound horse, so lets drop the "open discussion" trollop shall we. Xul is welcome provided he meets the civil and employability tests our immigration system applies; as for being a Canadian, he will choose when the moniker applies, not you. What paper do you have that argues otherwise? Lastly Mikedavid, I'd like to point out that both names in your username are of Hebrew origin. But I guess you can blame someone for that too.

This is an excellent summation of murder sentencing and parole eligibility criterion. Too bad that most here can’t see past their penchant for a pound of flesh to read the lesson, let alone allow it to sink in. Bon courage FTA. Bon courage.

I just love the anecdotal arguments used to reject so called “global warming”; particularly those that emphasize a certain region experiencing cooler than usual temperatures. It’s like Caesar citing the lack of smoke in the Agora as proof that Rome isn’t burning. The environmental phenomena at issue is more aptly described as climate change due to global warming. The theory does not pretend that all parts of the globe will simultaneously experience constant rising temperature trends, but rather that in the aggregate, global temperatures are rising. These aggregate increases are adversely affecting more sensitive ecosystems and promise to elevate and accelerate rain cycles in some regions while contributing to prolonged droughts in others. Saying it’s cooler than normal in Anchorage is by no means a repudiation of climate change. In fact, the unusually cool Alaskan summer might serve as further evidence that this region is beginning to directly experience some amplification effects noted in climate change theory. But what I find particularly amusing about this piece is the oblique recognition that human behaviour directly affects our climate: while we are invited to raise our sceptical eye towards the notion of human inspired climate change (i.e. it’s colder than usual in Alaska); we are also told to note that pro-environmental changes in human behaviour in Europe (reducing emissions) may be responsible for “half” of the rise in temperatures on the continent. So what this piece tells me is that the author has a poor understanding of climate change theory, but accepts the notion that reducing emissions affects the environment – albeit in a manner inversely anticipated by climate change theorists. Regardless, the piece you offer is ironically supportive of climate change theory.

It's understandable avoidance behaviour for a majority government capable of timing elections, but electoral suicide when presiding over a minority conch. Trying to bury this stuff as it piles up gives too much fodder when your opponents pull the trigger. The CPC is making a disastrous mistake here. You have to let steam escape. They choose to keep the lid firmly clasped and, as is the case with such matters, it will blow at the least opportune time.

This is the one issue that really baffles me. I mean Harper & Co are supposedly a smart bunch, why then didn’t they mea culpa when this first came out? They would’ve taken some lumps then, sure. But it wouldn’t have taken them out. Betting that the wider electorate will swallow this trite argument that Elections Canada is biased against the CPC is really rather foolish. They’re approaching an electoral contest were they’ll be objectively pegged as cheaters. That stuff sticks.

I find it funny how you would use as an example the biggest glaring failure of the RCMP as an intelligence unit to defend the same RCMP for its more over the top intelligence exercises. With all we are learning about operations in the 60s and 70s, how is it that we’ve heard nothing about attempts to infiltrate the FLQ? Well, that would’ve involved relying of French speakers, and the RCMP leadership we had at the time were, to be charitable, anglophiles. In 1974, Maurice Nadon became the first (and only) francophone Commissioner of the RCMP. Before rising to top mountie, Nadon was responsible for “D” branch of “C” Division (Montréal) in the late 60s and early 70s and oversaw the work of Inspector Raymond Parent, the RCMP handler of senior Péquiste strategist Claude Morin – a close confident and advisor for René Lévesque. Nadon implored the RCMP leadership to take radical separatism seriously in the early 60s. His concerns were simply dismissed and he was told to focus on the “real” threat: Vincent Catroni and the mob. It took a personal letter to Trudeau that arrived the day before the Cross kidnapping (“I fear that I’m screaming at walls!”) before he was taken seriously. Nadon was called to Ottawa that October to advise the PM. His subsequent meteoric rise was resented by many in the force and dismissed both within and without as an example of franco-preference. Yet in the end, he was the one who had his shit together.

LOL! It's funny 'cause it's true. If there was ever a concentration of alarmist thought in our government, it sits firmly among the Forces. Now before anyone gets the idea that this is an insult of our military, it isn't. Defence requires vigilance, and prudence requires that shadows be seen where no forms exist. This is why elements of our defence establishment are growing both concerned with, and investigating the potential impacts of global warming. From the sovereignty implications of arctic melt to domestic disaster response capabilities, there is much for our military to be concerned about; and they are growing increasingly concerned.

I underscore the immigrant angle for two reasons: first, we commonly see posts here that deride immigrants as some criminal underclass, this speaks to the opposite equation – thus exhibiting the fallacy of such reasoning; second, one has to wonder whether his ethnic origins weighed into the lack of police protection. In Ottawa, our police were sufficiently troubled by a recent spat of bicycle thefts to mount a sting operation (nabbing something like 16 culprits in the process). If resources are so plentiful that you can conduct bicycle stings, it stands to reason that you could also focus on protecting a repeated victim of theft. I know this happened in the GTA, not Ottawa. But if the relative availability of police resources in the two communities is largely the same, how is it that protecting this guy never hit a priority list?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Here we have a hardworking guy getting screwed by complacent law enforcement. If I were the mayor of Toronto, I’d offer him $50,000 in immediate restitution for poor law enforcement and promise another $100,000 (all out of the police budget) if he keeps his store open for another two years. Meanwhile, my chief of police would have 15 days to provide a plan to tackle the problems in the area with my explicit instruction that if this guy gets robbed again, I will welcome the chief’s resignation. EDITED by moderator: The title of this thread was changed to Immigrant closes store after robberies in Toronto. The original title was Damn Immigrants. The tread was also moved to the "Local Politics" sub-forum.

One of the flip sides http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home When oil tanks, this kind of thing will create serious problems.

IMO, the CPC took the best that the PC and Reform had to offer and consigned it to the garbage bin. As far as mergers go, this one is deplorable. Harper & Co identified a niche and are now stupidly wondering why they're defined by it. I look forward to the day when I once again have a legitimate choice to make come election time.

There's some truth to this... ...A lot, in fact.

Well, what says you?

Sure they could’ve hidden behind parliamentary privileges and said whatever they liked in the House, but the fact is they didn’t. Now Harper is suing them. By not suing the author as well, Harper’s case is weakened from the start. If he loses the suit, he’ll have bigger problems on his hands than he started with. As for the Libs coming across as arrogant, self-centred bullies for GreenShift, I think thou dost project too much. While it is true that the name game doesn't reflect positively on the Liberals, it by no means earns them the attributes more commonly associated with Harper and the Conservatives. You appear to be operating under the assumption that the Liberals did indeed libel the PM - a point which has yet to be proven. Kudos to your professed balance. For my part, I fully support the PM's right to seek redress through the courts. I just happen to think he'll lose here. Interesting point. Seeing as my politics are rather centrist, would this make me cross-eyed?

Nail, Head, Hammer ---> BANG! That is precisely the point here. By failing to go after the actual source of the alleged libel (the author), the CPC’s legal strategy comes across as severely wanting if not fatally flawed. As it now stands, the CPC has to prove that the defendants knew the book’s claims to be false when they made their statements and posted the materials under contest. That's going to be a tall order considering the CPC seem disinterested in pursuing the original source of the allegations. It suggests that they don’t take issue with the advanced thesis; rather they simply don’t want the Liberals advancing it. It most certainly does appear like the whole affair is nothing more than a deflection exercise designed to change the narrative from "did Harper know there were bribes being offered?" to "did the Liberals go too far and smear the PM?" Perhaps a tactically sound move in the short term, but political games don't win libel suits and putting off controversies has a tendency of facilitating their growth.

Does the court have the original recording device and microphone to test for base line? If it doesn't, then it will settle nothing. Regardless, the Conservatives will lose unless they come up with more than they have. Based on their complaint, their target should’ve been the author, not those who repeat his assertions.

Your ideological bias renders you blind to the facts: Year--------Revenue---%----------Expenses---% 1993-94--- $128,370-- -nil--------- $170,382---nil 1994-95--- $135,079-- 5.2%-------$172,541--1.3% 1995-96--- $142,510-- 5.5%-------$171,127--(-0.8%) 1996-97--- $152,472-- 7.0%-------$161,369--(-5.7%) 1997-98--- $164,362-- 7.8%-------$160,844--(-0.3%) 1998-99--- $167,543-- 1.9%-------$164,659--2.4% 1999-2000-$178,090--6.3%-------$165,792--0.7% 2000-01--- $193,350-- 8.6%-------$175,202--5.7% 2001-02----$187,647--(-2.9%)----$178,560--1.9% 2002-03----$190,232--1.4%-------$183,264--2.6% 2003-04----$198,547--4.4%-------$189,464--3.4% 2004-05----$211,943--6.7%-------$210,480--11.1% 2005-06----$222,203--4.8%-------$208,985--(-0.7%) Cum. Total-------------56.7%-------------------21.5% Average-----------------4.4%--------------------1.7% Chrétien Total 93-04--45.1%-------------------11.1% Average-----------------3.5%---------------------0.9% Source: Public Accounts Canada (via Library and Archives Canada) http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/publi..._can/index.html You can make a case that Martin largely undid what was accomplished under Chrétien. But the fact remains that under the stewardship of Jean Chrétien, government spending rose an average of less than 1% each year (much less than half the rate of inflation for the decade: 2.4%). The Liberals cut, and cut deep my friend.

deleted The response to the question I was posing was already provided in the thread.

Oh please no, none of that repudiation by deferral nonsense. The fact is that debt has to be serviced and the cost associated with that servicing can literally paralyze the fiscal capacity of the state if the debt rises too high or too quickly. Furthermore, increasing levels of debt represent a transfer of wealth from the generations who have to service it to those who presided over its rise. In effect, if generated by anything other than investment spending for the benefit of those who follow, increasing deficits are nothing more than theft from one’s children. If I understand your point, I am apt to agree with you here. But I do accept the concept of applying deficit spending during economic down-turns for investment purposes (i.e. building new or repairing crumbling infrastructure) as a way of mitigating short-term concerns (unemployment) while preparing for future needs. As noted above, it's really your kids credit card they'd use. But you raise an important point. As the treasury would again appear to be listing towards new deficits, what spending should they cut to right the ship? Which is a statement I find a little too simplistic.

LOL! Now that's funny. And one needs only to look at housing prices in AB vrs almost everywhere else to see that comparatively, the "average" person is better off living anywhere but AB. When the price of oil collapses (and it will, trust me), a whole bunch of Albertans are gonna be pissed and this time they won't have the easy excuse of NEP to blame. I don't begrudge Alberta's oil wealth, but it is wealth built on a single commodity. Any financial adviser worth his/her fee will tell you that diversification is paramount in sustaining a healthy portfolio.

It will get nowhere near that mark. The rise of our dollar is tied to US decline and the price of oil. We have more oil than the US and, as the price of oil rises in US dollars, we absorb more of those dollars when exchanging our oil. Add to this the lack of US exports to us that might balance off the exchange, and our dollars remain out of there hands (exacerbating the comparative value). With a significant drop in oil prices (something we will witness from now through to December and beyond), one arm the currency exchange will relax. I would predict a CND$ at around 90-92 cents US come X-mas.

I am in no way seeking to defend Chrétien with this reply but… The experiences of Linda Keen show that they are capable of coming in a close and reprehensible second.