Bob Macadoo

Yes it depends how it's done, that's the whole point. I mean I'm this gainfully employed individual but I sure would like to have the gov't give me a grant to retrain like they're giving to those factory workers whose plant shutdown. I mean we're equal, we'll both have the same economic benefit to society.....why not me too. IMHO affirmative action is no different. Somebody has had to ration a benefit. We could offer this benefit to all poor people and go belly up or we could offer it to a select group who statistically dominate this group and hopefully rectify a generational problem. It would be great if in these interviews we could ask, "Hey Native.....is your family rich?" "Oh they are.....well then could you send in that fella out in the hall with the Lee jeans and the 'Who Farted!!??' T-shirt? I bet his socio-economic situation is not due his parents just being sent to catholic schools off reserve to be abused. Oh we'll poor's poor am I right?"

Right, you believe the Bosses should get their money back whether its all of it 50% of it or whatever, no matter the situation or realistic forecast for next fiscal year. My expectations are different than your expectations which is why you'll donate $100 to the CPC for a $25 tax break. I do believe middle class would not expect the money back if a logical, realistic goal was set aside for the money to benefit the public. however if they see it spent on Gazebos and Fake Lakes they sure as hell would prefer an extra Timmie's. The entire basis of elections. Agree to disagree.

This is the premise you argue against, you don't want the employee to keep the remaining balance (it's not profit) to benefit the boss (eg. A new jobs plan, lower debt servicing, etc.). IMO elections aren't based on hopes, they are based on meeting expectations for the remaining balance.

Actually your analogy is inaccurate. In this case do you cut you employer a refund cheque and say "Thanks Boss but I covered all my expenses this year (Monthly debts, vacations, TVs, etc.), you can have the rest back. Don't worry it looks like I won't need it next year too, could you reduce my salary accordingly? Thanks see you on Monday." Personally I'd prefer to take that "undeserved" extra cash lay it down in an investment and after it matures plop it as a lumpsum on my mortgage or an F-35 whichever is cheaper, but I'm some economic illiterate so what do I know.

You are endemic of those who have a passive aggressive detest for bilingualism. It shows by your misunderstanding of what the state of bilingualism is presently. I'm an Anglo who felt it necessary to expand my linguistic skills, not for employment as you seem to lament people for, but for personal pursuit. Just because someone is bilingual doesn't mean they enjoy speaking it. It may require more concentration than they are willing to give at that moment, even though it might offend your sensibilities. I would tell you if you are being constantly excluded from conversations stop looking externally.

The problem with those items submitted by the CTF is that they are reactive rather than proactive. It's on the assumption that most everyone is not "on the take". Those actions would serve as deterrents for a minority but how do you address the majority? There needs to be a culture change and IMO that means a overall behaviour shift from a change in daily life.

The guy writes the Tory "Daily Letter to Raise Cash" to the huddled masses who don't read past the Tory talking point. Better to patronize teenagers and treat them like its QP. If someone asks you a thoughtful question bafflegab them with distracting speech that has nothing to do with the subject and then state how much better you are better off than a decade ago. Just don't ever...ever express your thoughts because that might not play to the panderers who will fund your re-election campaign. Politics 101.

The problem isn't disagreement with that its all the cooks wanting to add extra ingredients to the soup at the same time. If you open the constitution you open the constitution.

Given the ongoing saga of expense abuse by members and senators, disrespectful decorum by members to the parliamentary process and each other, and the rhetorical nonsense we allow these citizens to get away with in respect to these matters we need to make changes soon. Real change is required and I've long since abandoned the naive notion of dramatic shifts (eg. PR, Senate abolition, etc.) Let's develop incremental changes that work within the existing framework, maybe we can boil these frogs before they notice they're cooked. I'll go first..... I saw a preview for a show on Amazon.com http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/11/07/alpha-house-john-goodman-amazon/ for a show regarding US senators who dwell together while in DC which is based on real life http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/congressmen-house-inspire-tv-series-article-1.1364145 and then I read this article in Time http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/16/women-are-the-only-adults-left-in-washington/ and thought how refreshing an attitude in a Capitol supposedly more vitriolic than ours. It leads me to a what I think is a novel suggestion; Legislate Members/Senators through Internal Economy and House Procedure Committees that all living expenses will only be paid if you submit to common housing (eg. Military PMQs but Ottawa posh) while in Ottawa with alternating party rooming. Cabinets housed with Shadows, etc. If you don't like it pay your own freight. I don't think you'd need any constitutional amendments for that. In the end you'll save expense budget monies, I think you'll naturally achieve more respectful decorum as you're not more likely to defame someone you know personally, and if not parliamentarians will be spending more time with their constituents as they'll want to avoid Ottawa when not in session. Comments or Next suggestion?

Are you saying Chris Christie should open his personal wallet to Snooki and the Situation so they can rebuild their seaside shop?

I see stories every other day with Sandy and before them Katrina victims with their hand out looking for gov't bailout. Too bad those minuscule GDP countries don't subsidize their citizens like we do.

As can be seen even in the conservative ranks people aren't willing to go along with the idea of Alta making all the policy decisions either. See convention delegate voting. Regional representation is obviously a universal tenet, only willing to be sacrificed by those who think they have the biggest toys and/or any other phallic reference you wish to make.

No smart arse they are comparably less expansive countries that are homogeneous in nature. However if you are interested in modelling those countries they use proportional representation to properly reflect their constituency. Want to go there?A senate is imperative to provide regional representation to our diverse and separated population. As much as people would deny, an Albertan and a Newfie are nothing alike, unless Mike from Canmore would like to be the butt of a lot of jokes instead. If the only criteria for eliminating legislative body parts was perceived fraud and laziness, parliament could be reduced to the PM and his PMO........oh wait scratch that.

I think one of the things we're missing in all this AWesque banter is there used to be a time that gov't funded research for research's sake and private capital funded enterprise for profiteering. Now corporations get to sit on their stockpiles while tax money pays for what should be an accounting line on their ledger. Now you have people already starting to believe that's the way it's always been so why fight it.

"Don't have a cow man!"

If you haven't got that gist from every Israel / Palestinian post made you haven't been paying attention.

I'm an agnostic believer in the word "douchy". I have yet to see evidence that its a real word, but I haven't read all the dictionaries int he world to know for sure.

He should receive no further punishment than if he lied on his CV. Other than what punishment Elections Canada imposes.I know it's the sweetheart-est of deals but its still a compensation investment. The worst I could think is to impose a fine for every year he served as a cheat.

(Cont'd)...or democrat, or faith healer or communist less.

I don't equate a winged spirit with a dental fascination against a moral/cultural set of values prophesied by a Canaanite some 2 millennia ago. One has societal value the other is worth about $2. You figure out which is which.

But it's OK to take shots at their _________ for yuks? (Insert cultural dress, political ideas, music taste, educational level, etc.) Why is this item sacred so to speak?

So only disrespect with regards to religion should be considered the "original sin"?

As I said earlier one should look into the TFD union contract. I do believe termination was dramatic but most likely that's the way the discipline section is structured. The TFD must fire first then negotiate a lesser term later with the union. Such is the way of a poorly structured contract.

Actually this I could get behind. I have no issues with confidentiality so long as it can be stated what the confidentiality is in regards to. Simply state "we cannot release the research at this time because we are negotiating economic development deals and the results could positively/negatively affect the outcome." At least we then know the pragmatic reasoning rather than the blind ideological faith we as the public are supposed to maintain now.

It is you who became ridiculous; none of what you stated above was forwarded by me. I gave you a reasoned response you chose to ignore it.