Moonbox

We've posted and discussed a ton of facts and statistics (Michael especially) from StatsCanada, the HRDC, the OECD, as well as various newspapers and think-tanks. All of them objectively supported what you've denied, or outright dismissed what you've claimed. Your refusal to participate in these fact-based discussion is your own fault, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. It just means you didn't like what was uncovered.

Except not at all. You take small truths and stretch them out to mean far more than they actually do. No, your nut-job theories are nutty all on their own. Hillary Clinton never said that the USA or the Saudis are friends of ISIS/Al Qaeda, nor did she say anything about rogue-US intelligence masterminding the 9-11 attacks. You said those things. Quoting a youtube video that's splicing video and then spinning clips of Hillary Clinton speaking, unfortunately for you, does not erase those hair-brained statements. Oh I have no doubt of that, none at all.

No, the truly pathetic thing is how you've not been able to provide one legitimate source or citation for ANYTHING you've said after 12 pages, and how you've insisted that your self-professed martyrdom qualifies as anything even resembling a reasonable, fact-based discussion. Your entire argument in the whole thread can literally be summed up as: "Education is important and teachers are really smart. Our job is really hard and we work even harder. Trust us." No facts, no objective third-party references, no statistical comparisons...just repeated claims that you're all saints and you deserve to be paid more. Like I've said, for someone claiming to be a highly-intelligent educator, you're failing miserably to demonstrate it!

The decision has, for all intents and purposes, been made. Nobody has a realistic alternative to the F-35. The plane remains, despite its flaws, as the best option overall. I think the program was a mistake from conception but that doesn't really matter now. We're going to have to spend billions on planes in the near future so we might as well spend it on the plane that's going to stay relevant the longest. I was thinking about it earlier and what I find really funny is how people of various political slants can rail against relatively reasonable military spending programs, yet give a free-pass to billions wasted on nothing for scandals like Orange and gas-plant cancellations in Ontario. On the one hand we spend $5-10 billion extra nationally on the best fighter available over 30 years, ensuring our air force remains as capable as it can be for as long as possible. On the other hand we have incompetent provincial governments flushing billions down the toilet for absolutely nothing and getting re-elected. That's thread-drift I guess, but it's worth considering for context and comparison.

I think you have English vocabulary problems exacerbating your poor reasoning skills and your nut-job theories. It's not brain-tumors either, but I still support efforts to prevent and treat them. and this is all of the evidence we need to confirm you're not a rational or reasonable human being.

No, I was fully expecting you to bring up these examples. Your logic is as bad as it is predictable. Counting drug-related deaths in the US/Canada as victims of the direct or indirect victims of the cartels supposes that if the cartels were dismantled, there would be no drug abuse. As even you would probably agree, that's not the case.

One more page and this is officially the longest thread on MLW. Don't stop now!

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is, which is what was being discussed. That's completely deranged. I'm not even going to comment on how idiotic that statement is. Such juvenile, broken logic can't even be reasonably argued against. Just wow.

Your beliefs are noted, but foolish. It was a rhetorical question and there was only one right answer. 9-11 was not a singular event. We've seen similarly-motivated attacks, attempted attacks and threats of attacks all over the world. because it's non-lethal. It's also been used only a handful of times in North America and its effects can be mitigated by plugging your ears. There we are. Now we have your angle. 9-11 was deserved then. That's what you're saying, right? I think we're done here. Obviously you have zero understanding of history. Libya was a terrible place and it was mostly because of Gaddafi. He was a raving lunatic and the uprising was a result of that, not of UK meddling.

60+ years and counting with no moves yet...As Argus said, that's preposterous, gibbering, idiocy. No, it could be said that there are people within Saudi Arabia and Jordan that are friendly to them. Saying Saudi Arabia is friendly to ISIS when they're actually at war with them is moronic. If you consider Saudi Arabia to be friendly with ISIS because they may be getting funding and recruits from among its people, you probably consider the United States friendly to them as well for the same reason.

So none then. Good to know. The cartels caused tens of millions of casualties in Canada and the US? Please explain. This is like going to see the carnival oddities.

You're citing a website run by teachers that allows them to download worksheets and lessons so they don't have to prepare their own... Half the information on it is categorically false (like salaries and workday hours) and the rest of it is just the self-congratulatory and self-promoting BS of a few teachers who managed to put some pie-charts and graphics together. This is literally the most biased, least reliable source you could have cited and it's pathetic that you don't realize that. That's an astoundingly stupid citation. Without entering the realm of full-on troll, you could not have posted a more incompetent reference for your argument.

If you live in an alternate reality, sure. The 90% public support you're quoting is pure fantasy, because the Liberals were re-elected in BC. Those are the same Liberals who fought the teachers in court and attempted to subvert public bargaining to impose contract conditions on them. The public, as we can see, renewed their mandate...in the real world at least. I'm not really sure what happened in your fantasy world. The amount of foolish things you say on this forum is astonishing. Nobody needs to be bashing teachers with you around as their spokesperson. Your critical thinking skills are so bizarre you can't help but embarrass yourself and your profession.

The question, really, is how would things have turned out without these measures? Are you a big enough goof to suppose that 9-11 was a singular and isolated incident, and deeper security measures were not required? You could make a case that they went too far, but going back to the pre-Sept 11th days is not a realistic option. What are you basing that on? Media coverage of Ferguson? I wonder how white cops treated black people in the 50's.... You make light of the threat of terrorism because of how unlikely it is you'll be hurt by them, but then you're fearful of the virtually non-existent (and extremely vague) threat of the government interfering with your personal freedom? Interesting logic. A real issue, sure. Closer? Maybe geographically, but otherwise no. The drug cartels are not encouraging, nor undertaking, indiscriminate violence against the general population - at least not in Canada or US . Forget just ISIS, tell me how many World Trade Centers, Pentagons, subways, theatres, Parliament Hills etc the cartels have attacked.

They did not. The teachers backed the Liberals in a big way and will continue to do so. The NDP are more or less reviled in Ontario (unfairly I might say), so the teachers have the option of backing the Liberals or watching the PC's take over.

/yawn. We've heard all of your angsty anti-Western ramblings before. I'm pretty sure nobody here advocated installing dictators, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It appears to be more of your demented moral relativism, where you're essentially saying, "Well DUH! Café shootings in Australia and school shootings in Pakistan are all the result of western imperi....." *barf* The thought is too stupid to even complete.

One of the stupidest, most nonsense things you could have possibly said. Good job. Why are you talking about 'reality'? Your version of reasoning operates outside its scope. There was no hyperbole. You just aren't good at interpreting written English. If you knew what ISIS' goals were and how tolerant they were of non-adherents to their crazy brand of wahhabism, you'd have a clue. Nobody said it was. Unless you're a wahhabi Muslim, however, ISIS poses a threat to you, however impractical that may be. That you exist and you don't adhere to their beliefs is enough to make you a target. They don't care about your bleating and complaining over the Western way of life. I can assure you, however, that the drug cartels in Mexico don't give a whiff about you, or me, or 99.9999% of Canadians and Americans. They're not even on of the biggest 1,000,000 threats to your person or livelihood.

Good job on the thread necro.

but hopefully you're not dumb enough to believe that, as this is standard propaganda from groups like the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas etc. While I'd never deny women and kids die as the result of an attack, they're collateral victims that result from guerrilla combatants hiding among them. The Taliban did this because the Pakistani army is fighting them, not because the Pakistani army sent special forces to murder the Taliban's women and children.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In your own ham-fisted way, maybe. Sure, these 'some people' indeed exist and pretending that terrorism is a purely Islamic phenomenon is pretty stupid. It's equally stupid, however, to pretend that the Islamic brand doesn't constitute the most clear and present danger to on the geo-political scene. Their threat is an existential one and their violence is far more indiscriminate. It's sad that you can't see the difference between cartel and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Obviously neither hold any real moral advantage, but the former has far more narrow goals, ideology and reach, whereas the latter poses an existential threat to the majority of the world and targets indiscriminately.

Wynne has literally no reason to not be tough with the public sector unions. The Liberals were already in hot water prior to the last election and it's only got worse for them since. The auditor general's report came out recently and it was scathing. There's also 3+ years until the next election, so any labour disputes right now will be forgotten by that time, while the growing public debt will not be. Additionally, the ETFO is running out of friends at Queen's Park. If the Liberals get tough, where are the Teachers' votes going to go? Obviously not the PC, and they swore off the NDP back in the early 90's, so getting tough with Teachers is a political no-brainer right now.

What's the point? I'm with Shady on this one and don't think Big Guy really has a clue. We know only too well that terrorism isn't reserved for Islamic extremists. We have a long history of it in Canada and the US. We've had eco-terrorism, the FLQ, people try to blow up the House of Commons and all sorts of bad stuff. The Americans have had Oklahoma City and the unabomber. No Arabs there, but all terrorism. The common theme was that they were all politically motivated. This, as far as we know so far, is just a guy snapping and killing his family. Terrorism =/ killing a bunch of people. Sometimes killing a bunch of people is just killing a bunch of people.

Like TimG says, he's a figurehead of the movement. It's not that people are mistaking him for a scientist, it's that he goes around the world as a high-profile advocate attempting to scare people and influence their behavior, but at the same time he's profiting heavily off of his advocacy and not practicing what he's preaching. This is why he shouldn't be taken seriously, not because he's not a scientist. He never pretended to be.

You can say you're whatever you want to be on the internet. Whether or not he's a teacher doesn't make much difference to me. If he's not, that's just sad. If he is, that's also sad, but more because he's demonstrating what sort of 'brilliant' minds we have making $90-100,000 per year.

Michael it's rhetoric. It's pretty clear what PIK is saying. He's saying they're not credible scientists and their hypocrisy is often galling, particularly in Mr. Gore's case, who I'm surprised has even an ounce of credibility left.