Moonbox

everyone...like the auto industry where Toyota enjoyed a $37/hr labour cost advantage over GM prior to the recession? Yeah that worked out perfectly from everyone...especially the US and Canadian taxpayers who had to bail out CAW/UAW pensions...

Certainly there are some things the government doesn't need to be involved in, but infrastructure ownership is not one of them. The efficiency advantages of privatization will be offset by the inevitable push for shareholder returns so as tax payers we'll end up paying more, not less. The problem with Ontario hydro costs are mostly to do with our governments' baffling incompetence. It could easily be fixed with a touch of integrity and realism (Tim Hudak could would have done it if he wasn't such political dolt), but Kathleen Wynne is taking the easy way out. Rather than take the axe to a bloated Crown corporation themselves, they're going to pass the buck and let the private sector do it for them. A privatized corporation, however, has zero interest in providing competitive power rates to Ontario.

In fairness, not really. The 407 sale should never have become a private asset. As I said, it takes very little to "improve" on the fiscal incompetence of the last decade. Bob Rae literally looks good by comparison. So yes, in the strictest sense, this lousy budget is an improvement over the even worse ones before. *slow clap*

Okay, probably. That means it's the least horrible out of a 12+ year run of absolutely horrible budgets. What's worse it's borrowing from Flaherty's book and selling lucrative public assets to the private sector for short term politics.

It was more than fair for them.

You don't have to be a hack for any particular party. You can just be a hack dissenter/complainer. Everyone's a millionaire on the internet. I'm glad you are too!

Yes you do. You always come back, but you have a fairly consistent habit of disappearing for a thread page or two once someone has posted something that makes you look stupid. The trenches? Excuse me while I puke. 6 hour work days and 10 weeks of holidays ain't the trenches. but you're pitifully and shamelessly biased. Your lack of intellectual integrity in this debate (shifting stories, refusal/inability to cite your claims, outright lies) is so blatant that when you try to suggest we should trust anything you say I can only laugh. Whether or not you're actually a teacher, you've lost all credibility. Ones who are as full of BS as you? Absolutely. We bash the teachers because we know what they're paid and we know how hard they work. You making up imaginary hours and work loads doesn't change that.

Lousy teachers generally keep their jobs all the way to retirement. The turnover rate for full-time contract teachers is practically nothing. That's all of the indication we need as to how effective disciplinary measures are. There are little/no consequences for poor performance, thus the bar stays artificially low. We don't need all of the info to pass judgement. We have more than enough already.

No it's not. It's ridiculous. It's almost as arbitrary as picking the candidate who's the most attractive or whose name sounds the coolest. Power's never unchecked in our system of government, so try again. I don't need to go any further than your post here. You're attempting to tell us that voting purely for the purpose of achieving a minority is an intelligent way to vote, irregardless of the platforms, promises or records. All of this is based on the idea that you're preventing imaginary unchecked power and that the outcome of minority government is automatically superior. Right... Okay...low value voters...but not you. No, you're the diamond in the rough here. even better...why don't we have a checkbox that says "Vote however is most likely to force a minority for life" box, so you don't feel left out!

Personally I see this being more out of necessity than anything. Let's face it, the CPC has some pretty marginal characters from the far right scattered amongst its more nominal ranks. Short of Justin Trudeau, you're rarely going to get the sort of gem quotes you'd see from some of those yokels. I think some MP's are more trustworthy in that regard than others. Just looks at idiots like Maxime Bernier and Eve Adams for examples of the type of people he's working with.

They're a joke. Without any sort of accountability (ie. 99.9% job security, guaranteed paid raises) the whole purpose of performance measurements is lost. Right, but collective bargaining is something altogether different in a public sector monopoly.

Interesting how your story changes! From prior discussions you claimed this was average! IIRC your claim was that you work closer to 70 hours/week! Maybe you should learn what a proper citation is before you say stuff like that. It's something you learn in post-secondary, and the fact that you clearly don't understand this fairly basic academic concept speaks volumes towards the quality and/or quantity of your education. You'd think that constant reminders from the rest of the board (and the moderator no less) would clue you in, but maybe your education wasn't so good after all... Interesting criticism coming from you, since that seems to be your M.O. any time someone's proven one of your ridiculous claims to be false. You tend to duck out of the thread for a page or so until people have moved on, only to embarrass yourself later.

You're in the system, thus you see things with a deeply personal bias and you fabricate/massage the facts so that they present your profession in the angelic fantasy image that you'd have us to believe. Your personal bias is so shameless and oblivious that at this point I don't think you could have less credibility. Case and point: Here we have you telling us you're working on your Master's in Teaching, but you're also apparently teaching full time. Based on what you've told us before (specifically that you work 60+ hours a week) and that your Masters courses are (quoting you) "rigorous", you start to paint the picture of a guy who's totally BS'ing everyone.

Is that so? ...Wait for it everyone... LOL! So, to sum up: You agree that most voters aren't voting particularly intelligently, BUT you think that the ones here are particularly dumb AND that of course doesn't apply to you. Funny. From experience I'd say you're one of the less reasonable people on this forum. Your goofball voting strategy is a testament to that.

I would say +80% of voters are voting almost entirely on emotion. Let's face it, most people are nowhere near as interested in the issues as we are on this board, and even here we see a LOT of emotion and personal bias.

So are you suggesting that just because it's not easy, we shouldn't even bother? Are you suggesting that iron-clad job security and little/no performance expectations are reasonable? We don't even need to get into the unjustified compensation, let's just talk about job security and performance expectations. Hint: In the private sector, performance measurements are also difficult.

I think it's an exaggeration to call it a nightmare... Certainly Eve Adams is a joke and it's an even bigger joke that the Trudeau is even looking at her, but nightmare? Nah.

Well, there's probably more honorable Senators than dishonorable ones. Either way, the fact that scum like Wallin can keep their Senate positions even AFTER essentially criminal conduct is a pretty damning indictment of the institution.

and that's pretty much all there is to the story people. Realistically, there should be no possible way that Wallin could keep her seat in the Senate. It's the same story for Mike Duffy. They're total creeps with not an ounce of integrity between them. Even if it wasn't fraud in the strictest sense (which it appears to be), it was a gross abuse of the intended nature of the system and the confidence that Canadians place in them and the useless institution that is the Senate.

Speaking of meme generators, well done with the Fox News cliché. For you this is one of those instances where the more you say, the more you're going to embarrass yourself.

If there was any worthwhile argument to be had here, I might bother. I don't need sources to tell you that referencing opinion blogs is foolish. That should be self-evident. Since, however, you clearly don't realize this, it's unlikely that anyone's going to be able to engage you in any sort of intelligent and productive debate.

If you say so, though I can't really take anything you say seriously. You're referencing opinion blogs. The fact that you don't realize how worthless they are for a debate like this speaks volumes about how reasonable and thoughtful a human being you are.

I don't know. You should ask the goof who's posting garbage anti-war.com articles as worthwhile citations. My favorite part of the article was: "Sunni and Shia got along relatively well" in pre-Bush Iraq...which is 100% bologna and ignores the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians Saddam murdered during his rule. Yeah...things were just peachy before the US came...for Saddam and his friends.

What way of life is that? Please, explain that, and then explain how fantastic things were prior to us "destroying" it. Well, when the threats are explicit and the deaths are real, it's not really 'perceived' anymore. Good try though.

Who cares who he says he's speaking for? By that juvenile logic I am accountable for what white-supremacists say because they "speak for whites" and...well...I'm white. Do you have any other advanced concepts like this you'd care to share?