Moonbox

It doesn't matter what he has to offer. All he has to do is listen to his handlers, stay positive, and be good looking. People for some reason revere his father's name and as long as Justin listens to his handlers and doesn't say the stupid garbage that his brain regularly comes up with, his smile, good looks and last name will bring him to a majority. Voters are THAT stupid.

There is no expectation. Sometimes the USA asks for our participation, and sometimes we say no, with the worst consequence being they're briefly disappointed in us until they realize we said no because they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Multilateral intervention may, as you say, imply more legitimacy for intervention, but you over-simplify it. Having noticeable allied combat formations on the ground, such as the Canadian participation in the ulcer that is Afghanistan, meaningful lightened the overall burden for our allies. You may not think so, but there are worthwhile examples of military intervention by NATO and the UN, and by shirking our responsibilities there and watching countries like Poland step up and do what we were too whiney/wimpy to do ourselves, we bring our own values into question along with our commitment to our allies

Ask Kosovo or Albania.

I'm not sure why you added 'but' in your sentence. It seems as though we're 100% in agreement. I don't think you're suggesting that Canadian nukes would qualify as a useful contribution to NORAD or NATO.

This election didn't have anything to do with immigrants. It wasn't even a rural vs urban affair. Tim Hudak flopped in every part of the province. Large, medium and small cities voted against him. Ethnic voters in Toronto didn't like him, nor did WASP communities like London, K-W/Cambridge, Guelph, Barrie or Kingston. Even rural voters were upset with him, but they'll vote PC no matter what because it's the only party that doesn't essentially defecate on them or, at best, completely ignore them. The fact that Hudak failed so miserably in the face of so many large, public and expensive Liberal scandals, shows us just how incompetent his campaign really was. It's hard to conceive of any way to have blown this election any harder than Hudak and his campaign did. I thought John Tory's shotgun-in-mouth was something I wouldn't see again for 25 years. Hudak managed to somehow one-up that in 7. It was unreal watching the whole thing unfold.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you need to re-evaluate your own extension of logic there Bonam, or failure thereof rather. To get you started, ponder on the obvious difference between a conventional military and then a nuclear missile, particularly in their practical and intended uses. Can we patrol our borders with nuclear missiles? Can we go on UN or NATO missions with them? Can we deter violence within our own borders with atomic weapons? The FLQ crisis would have been over pretty quick with a hydrogen bomb amirite? Being responsible and paying the buck to defend ourselves and fulfill NATO missions is not the same thing as feeling safe under the umbrella of US nuclear deterrence.

This thread made me lol as soon as I saw it. Nukes? For what purpose? As it stands our fate is pretty much sealed with that of the USA, and they have more nukes than the world could handle as it stands. They're not going to nuke us, so why would we need any nukes ourselves?

He's a federal isn't he? Either way, he'd be a great candidate. He's principled (lost a cabinet position for standing up to Harper), obviously very smart, charismatic and sitting as an ethnic minority MP in a VERY white rural riding.

The Liberals, by far, had the most widespread support in the election. They took northern rural ridings, they took Toronto, they took the suburbs of Toronto, they took smaller urban communities...pretty much everything except for southern ontario farmland and the smattering of DT Toronto and armpit communities/neighborhoods that went to the NDP. The Tories took what, like 2 or 3 urban ridings? Toronto rules the province because over half the population lives there or nearby. That's just how it is. Any party that wants to win is going to have to compromise with that fact. That doesn't mean you have to pander to Toronto (plenty of people still voted Conservative in Toronto). That just means you're not going to stand a chance running AGAINST the beating heart of the province.

I don't like any of them.

No. He'll hold his riding in Ontario as an MPP and disappear quietly, hopefully never making himself a visible part of the overall party again. You're not a swing voter and you take an interest in Canadian politics. Most people (as in +90%) are at best only minutely interested in what's going on at Parliament Hill and Queen's Park. The vast majority of the electorate literally does NOTHING more to make up their mind on who they'd vote for by the TV commercials they're forced to sit through while watching The Big Bang Theory and maybe the odd clip on the morning TV news while they're eating their cereal. When these barely interested voters make up their minds, it's not on the basis of understanding of who stands for what and what they plan to do. It's on whether or not the mish-mash of media images (probably for a combined total of 10 minutes worth of slogans, TV clips and commercials) made a good or bad impression them. One of my best friends was over for dinner last week and we talked about the election. He sometime likes to talk politics but doesn't really follow them or make any effort to stay informed, and I usually just keep quiet and listen. Anyways, my friend HATED Dalton McGuinty and was seemingly outraged by all the wasteful spending over the last 10 years. He used to speak of how good things were when Mike Harris was in charge. When we talked about this election however, he said he was voting for Kathleen Wynne. Why? He just didn't like Hudak. "He's such a dweeb." were his exact words. Billions of dollars of wasteful spending, higher hydro bills and a sinking credit rating were all overshadowed by doltish country 'charm'.

That's a poor excuse and demonstrably untrue. Rob Ford may be an idiot and people may not take him seriously, but the whole time Toronto was watching him unravel he was still enjoying strong support simply because he was sticking to his mandate and because the city was tired of David Miller type spending. The PC's were also enjoying strong support prior to the election, and steadily dropped in the polls and then were obliterated in the election, and Rob Ford had nothing to do with that. This wasn't a matter of Stephen Harper or Rob Ford tainting the Conservative brand. This was Tim Hudak running a comically incompetent campaign and not having a clue what Ontario voters outside of rural Southern Ontario cared about. In Tim Hudak's case, maybe. Your point would also be supported by Michael Ignatieff's spectacular crash and burn. That ignores, however, how many economists, lawyers, large business owners or career public servants (people who've never needed to worry about their jobs) who DO get elected and who DO connect well with voters. Being an economist doesn't make it impossible to being in touch with the electorate.

John Tory was both likable and very competent (aside from that issue). If not for the faith-based schooling issue, he'd have won in a landslide, but unfortunately that's a good example of how quickly a campaign can run off the rails by not staying on message and carefully watching what you say. 'Likability' also isn't all there is to the story. Kathleen Wynne isn't particularly likable. She's an uncomfortable speaker herself and that's compounded by an atrocious smile and a face only a mother could love. She doesn't have much more charisma than Hudak. What she does have, however, is enough common sense not to say anything particularly stupid and a campaign team far more in touch with the voters and reality.

You see a portion of reality - the parts that support your livelihood. It's pretty obvious you're not seeing the rest of it. You see the BC government's moves as a great injustice. The BC government sees it as a very fair, practical and pragmatic way to reduce expenses and something that will ultimately please future voters. Ask Mike Harris how going tough on teachers went over in Ontario in 1997. That was reality.

So the election is over now and the Liberals predictably won. I can't say I predicted the majority, but I'm not at all surprised either. From the very beginning, this was an election that should have been impossible for the Liberals to win. We saw billions wasted on scandals, horribly implemented and expensive/ineffective green energy policy, a bloating public service sector and massive deficits with no real plan to tackle them. The Liberals had so much crap piled up that even a light gust of wind could have buried them. What happened instead was pure comedy. Imagine Kathleen Wynne left standing under a 20 foot pile of teetering manure. In drives dopey Tim Hudak on a bulldozer, ready to shove the pile over on the hapless Wynne. Certain that she has no chance to escape, Timmy Hudak drives full-speed into the pile, grossly misreading which way it was leaning and toppling it over on himself. Kathleen laughs, relieved that someone has dealt with all of that manure and glad that she's now safe. The whole election unfolded like a cartoon. Tim Hudak was an obvious dud in the last election. He couldn't connect with voters and he couldn't capitalize on what should have been an easily winnable election. It wasn't a matter of experience. It was a brutal combination of voters not liking him, not trusting him and not liking what he had to say. In 2011, he ran on a fluffy campaign of "Change" (thanks Obama). Unfortunately, he didn't have the charisma to drive such a vague message home, and it floundered in a string of gaffes. Going after new immigrant tax credits in Toronto, where the largest share of Canada's immigrants live, was a PERFECT way to cement himself as a villain in that city. On top of that, it wasn't even an issue that Ontario voters were concerned with, so not only did he earn the mistrust of Toronto and minorities in general, he also managed to showcase his campaign of "Change" was full of change that voters didn't even want or care about. Fast forward to 2014 and you have Tim Hudak (2.0). He's a better public speaker. He has a platform that voters can connect with, and he's making every effort to deliver his message clearly, honestly and consistently. Except none of that was actually the case. Although technically he was a better public speaker this time around, he was still poor overall. His folksy and well-rehearsed debate performance didn't come off as genuine and his promise to resign after eight years (two full terms) if he didn't meet his job targets was laughable. Every voter saw it for the empty promise it was. The Liberal record was so poor, however, this was still a winnable election for Hudak if he could communicate a sensible and honest platform. It is, after all, always about the economy, so presenting a job creation platform was certainly one that could resonate with voters. Incredulously, however, the Ontario PC's came up with a double-dose of stupid by promising not only 1,000,000 new jobs (easily discredited simply by knowing Ontario's unemployment rate and population) but also of CUTTING 100,000 public sector jobs. Needless to say, this seemingly confusing contradiction left the average voter baffled. At the same time it gave his opponents something solid to attack him with. The Liberals and their union supporters took this gift from the Heavens and proceeded to dismantle any credibility Tim Hudak had left. 1,000,000 jobs was a lie, regardless of how you spin the numbers or terminology. Even if those numbers made sense, promising to cut 100,000 public sector jobs as part of your job-creation strategy is so painfully dense from an image perspective that you can only shake your head in wonder. At the end of the day, voters were presented with an uncomfortable and unlikable leader shouting obviously dishonest slogans, making proclamations that voters found not only confusing, but also downright scary. Good riddance to Tim Hudak, and hopefully good riddance to the brass at the Ontario PC party.

My best friend is a newly hired teacher in Guelph (his third year now teaching grade 6). He creates his lesson plans on Sunday night in an hour or two. There are a ton of available resources for him to draw on, and he most certainly does not have to make all of his worksheets himself. If you look at the average time a teacher spends actually TEACHING students in class (less than 6), and the fact that the majority of that time involves the kids working on their problems and projects alone or in groups, the idea that it takes 3 hours a night to prepare for it is just ridiculous. For the record, spending three hours at a table watching TV, hanging out with you and muddling about on the internet with photos etc is not the same as actually working for three hours. Just a thought.

So, what? Should I have said far, far beyond average? Or maybe far far ever-so-much-further-extra-way-more beyond average? Maybe you would have preferred hyperbole and exaggeration instead of level-headed language I used. Let me know. The median teacher salary is completely useless for the discussion. I don't know how you could even suggest otherwise. $50,000 is almost an entry-level teacher's salary, so that means that there are a lot of new teachers in the workforce.For the average to be $70,000 (with the 50% making $50,000 or below), that means that the majority of the other 50% of teachers are making over $90,000/year. That's basic math. Try it out. Nope. That's another good straw man. I'm saying that the vast vast vast extra vast (better?) majority of private sector workers (educated even) can't make $90,000/year working 9 months a year with a golden benefit package and unmatched job security. They don't even come close. That whole paragraph is just garbage man. You're smarter than that. First, median income is a worthless statistic for this discussion and one that I never even made mention of. Second, even starting teachers compensation packages are worth more than $50,000/year considering they work 9 months and have peerless job security and excellent benefits. This ignores all of the ones making $90,000+ with benefits on top. Third, people need to stop acting like one year of teacher's college (hilariously easy to gain admittance to and even more hilarious to complete) is an impressive academic achievement, along with the occasional continuing education upgrades. Fourth, there are so many people graduating from teacher's college and so many people that want to be teachers, that we could be paying a lot less money to more enthusiastic and probably better overall teachers anyways.

I got a really good laugh out of that. *wipes eyes* Really...thanks for that. That's too funny. On average...right... Man...lol.

Neat testimonials. Too bad they're about as useful and tangible as a fart in the wind. Like I said though, you're only interested in information that supports your personal bias and position. You're a teacher and you're seeing what you want to see.

It's self-confirming bias. He wants to believe it. He needs to believe it. If there was a single little girl carrying a "Support the teachers" sign standing outside a closed school, that would be all the info he'd need to proclaim "Public and God overwhelmingly support the teachers."

Never said they couldn't take vacation. I said that being able to travel for 3 months a year in the summer while being paid is such an amazing privilege that people have very little sympathy for teachers when they're complaining about their salaries and work load. only working 9 months and then complaining about how tough things are for them to the people who work 11+ months a year MIGHT be part of the problem. Because they're one of the most militant and most vocal public sector unions and, again, because they don't work nearly as hard as they say they do. Add up all of the extra-curricular, marking, parent-teacher interviews etc, and only the exceptionally diligent end up working more than 40 hours. If you want to talk about yearly average, when you count vacation most private sector workers probably work an average of 36 hours a week. With the 3 months of vacation teachers get, they end up working around ~27 hours per week on average over the year. They also complain about how tough that is. Ah yes, extra-curricular. The first things teachers in Ontario threaten to suspend when contract negotiations don't go their way. Every job has its challenges. Teachers are not unique with this. What is unique to them is a 9 month work year. They can pretty much shut up beyond that point.

Well you're quoted here saying that. I hope you're right, but I'm almost certain you're wrong. Hudak ran an incompetent campaign on a poorly communicated platform and took an election he'd have to be an idiot to lose, and pretty much lost it.

but still so far ahead of any other available technology in providing clean energy that it's barely even worth mentioning.

Again, nice straw man. I didn't suggest they should make the average. Indeed, I believe they should make more than average. Right now, however, their compensation packages are so far beyond average, and so far beyond their skills and qualifications compared to what they'd make in the private sector, that it's difficult to have any sympathy for them. Yes, my teacher friends tell me about how much money they make, what their benefits are like, and all the travelling they do in the summer.

Sueing? What? Who?