Moonbox
-
Posts
8,464 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
Actually, the entire issue was no compromise from the Tory side even when Ignatieff said he was willing to work to a solution. You do remember that, right?
I said it was a positive move. It was. Some extra people are going to be getting help. You can criticize if you want that it wasn't enough, but it's not hurting people who lost their jobs due to the recession.
The Tories kept saying any change was too expensive and stalled all summer until the Liberals simply said there was no progress being made.The Tories said the proposed Liberal changes were too expensive and if you look at them they're pretty hard to justify.
There was no headway being made on the panel. No compromise at all.Nobody expected any. Ignatieff agreed to the panel to make it look like he was doing something rather than just backing down quietly like Dion. It was same with the budget. Quarterly 'reviews' were the condition for approving the budget?
-
and if one has lost their job, principally due to the recession... and one doesn't have a work history of 7-10 years (maybe new to the workforce... duh?)... let them eat Conservative cake!
Hey it's a positive change. You can complain that it wasn't enough but at least it wasn't TOO much, which was what the Liberals were bringing to the table.
Those new to the workforce still could get EI providing they worked the minimum # of hours. If they haven't been able to hold down a job for a long time that's not really the recession's fault. EI was never meant to be long term income. It's a stop-gap for people to find new work after a layoff, not something they can mooch off of consistently like many do right now.
-
Was I talking to my employer? No. It's to bad you weren't my employer in this Matter because this is what would happen to you were...
As per section 2 of the charter
It doesn't matter if you were talking to your employer or not. Like he said, you're paid to go to work and do your job and keep your mouth shut.
Section 2 of the Charter doesn't stipulate that you can express your political/racial/religious beliefs on private property within the workplace while you're working and cause disruptions. It says you have the rights to think what you want to think and communicate those freely in public, in groups or in the privacy of your own home.
I can't go into a cathedral and loudly rant about how evil I think the Pope is and how everyone should convert to paganism. It's idiotic to think I could. I'd get removed, and no lawyer in the world would support me, nor would the Charter.
Saying you 'weren't talking to the guy' is equally stupid seeing as though you're clearly talking loud enough for him to hear and I'm sure you weren't making any attempt to avoid him hearing. Given your history on this board I'm less than certain your discussion with him was tame and I highly doubt this is the first problem you've had with him.
If you are a corporation you are required by law to retain a lawyer. Lawyers now a days are not cheap and in the end I will win and you will pay dearly $$$$$Haha, go for it. A corporation can more easily pay lawyer fees than you. Plus, there's no way you'd win. You don't know anything about law.
So if this employer wants to dance we will dance.
It would be interesting to see what sort of case you'd present to the judge....
-
Gérer à l'ensemble du pays ne se compare pas à gérer seulement une région. Par exemple, si l'Alberta avait son propre parti tel le Bloc, je suis certaine que son chef serait aussi efficace que Duceppe à revendiquer pour le bien exclusif de cette province.
Running a national party is a lot different than one focused on one province alone. If Alberta had its own Bloc-style party, I'm certain it's leader would do equally well focusing exclusively on the province.
I totally agree.
Je ne crois pas que Duceppe est le politicien parfais que tu nous présente. En grande mesure, les "chicanes" dont tu parle sont une réflection de la diversité de chacune des régions du Canada.I don't believe Duceppe to be the perfect politician that you present him as. The shit going down in parliament right now is more a reflection of regional diversity in Canada than anything else.
Again, I think this is exactly our problem these days. Too many of the parties today are focusing on appeasing specific groups and nobody is focused on the country as a whole. The Bloc, more than anyone, is responsible for Canada's political instability. Turning roughly 1/5 of Canada's seats away from national interests and towards Quebec exclusively makes it almost impossible for anyone to get a majority. If that's the way politics are going to work now, we're better off having no national parties and having province-only parties for every different region. At least then if Quebec wants something done they have to negotiate in good faith with the other parties rather than seeing how much they can get for Quebec alone.
-
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories
I have seen quite a lot more of the first ad this weekend.
The English ads continue to look like they are avoiding a more negative spin.
These ads are the exact same garbage that people were making fun of Harper for last election. Ignatieff has just exchanged a sweater and fireplace in the background for a forest. It's just drivel and tripe. Pretty much ALL election ads are garbage meant to influence the dumb and the uninformed.
-
It is so obvious you get your income from the taxes of this country.
I think its time Canada replaces the maple leaf on the flag to a blood sucking mosquito. Yep, ship all of Canada's resources to other Countries for their benefit all the while bringing in people to drive down wages and working conditions.
What way to build a prosperous Country. You better stay working for the government because if it weren't for your welfare paycheque you would likely be getting a real welfare cheque.
Yep, sounds like you were being perfectly rational and reasonable...
Yep, all your problems are the Liberals and Conservative's fault. Nothing to do with you....
-
And you can ask your employer not to deduct EI form your pay....
I can't tell if you're joking or not...
-
Except you're wrong, and it's been proven in a court of law. The only thing that was done was raising the rates without going through parliament. Why was that wrong? Because the judge said it was a tax. It's not anymore.
You're not understanding what he said. The last few governments hid the fact that EI was used as a tax and not as the 'insurance' it was supposed to originally be.
-
Well, you don't technically have to have a job.
In which case I really don't pay any taxes at all do I? I net out earning money from the government, don't I?
I'm essentially a social leech and the government is paying me.
House and car insurance are different in that there are third party interests at stake that require you to be insured. I need house and fire insurance as a term for getting a mortgage. I need car insurance in case I run someone over with my car.
I need to pay EI so....that a bunch of people can work for the summer and then collect EI in the fall and winter...great.
-
False. It's insurance, separately accounted from general revenues. If your house or car insurance goes up, that's not a tax increase. If the cost of operating EI increases, so do the premiums, just like any other insurance.
An insurance that you cannot opt out of, which by default means it's a tax.
My house and car insurance are optional in that I don't have to own a house or car. They are expenses added on top of owning something and they are their to insure my property and myself against liability.
EI may provide insurance, but the funding of it is tax. I have no choice in the matter. It provides very little to no benefit to probably a majority of the population and there are a lot of people, myself included, that would prefer not to pay into it, or be eligible for it, if I had the choice.
It's a tax.
-
EI is a tax. Plain and simple.
-
I just love when people throw this one around. Would you mind adding "intolerant" so he can have as cool a signature as I do?
I have my doubts if what is written is what was said, but on the face of it, he did nothing wrong. Posters here talk about stereotyping and making assumptions and then decry them as unfair and racist. Well, what if Whowhere was a muslim and the other guy was white? Ten bucks says your opinions would do an about-face in a nanosecond.
He said nothing wrong. This is assuming that what is written is what was actually said. In large corporations, Human Excuses has a lot of stroke to run with things that don't matter and I can see this actually happening.
I've followed whowhere on this forum for awhile. He only posts to tell us how evil immigrants are, how he lost his job to immigrants, how the world is trying to sell him out etc and how none of this is ever his fault.
Personally, I have a LOT of anti-immigration sentiments and I think that affirmative action is an abomination. I do believe that minorities exploit the system and it pisses me off to no end. On the other hand, given whowhere's posting history I find it VERY easy to believe he would have said something innappropriate. Look at the thread title. It's par for the course for him.
-
Apologies, it must have been cut and paste error.
No worries
Well, that's an interesting argument. My agression should be allowed to continue, because stopping it would be too much cost - to me. Or because .. whatever. Maybe, because I don't want (to stop it) in the first place. That's a position of an agressive side, and of course, if it doesn't need peace and not preparted to make steps toward it, of which bringing to halt all major hostile and agressive acts is the first priority, then no peace is possible.You're just being trite and oversimplifying (rationalizing in a vacuum again). The distinction of different TYPES of aggression has to be made here. You could reasonably argue that people building homes and communities on their own initiative across borders that were never recognized is not really aggression at all.
The outsiders may attempt to convince hostile sides that pursuing peace is in their long term interest, or they could withdraw their support from all parties involved in hostilities, and let them come to that understanding on their own terms, but what they shouldn't do, in the way of practical work for peace, is to throw their support on any one side, ignoring their agressive behavior, or trying to rationalize or excuse it.A useless argument. The people trying to negotiate peace are in a terrible position to do so. A US, British or even Canadian backed peace effort is laughable because we were the people that parachuted the Jews into Israel. Of course we support them because we made them. You can't have a baby in a den of wolves and then not defend it. It's a completely irrelevant argument.
Of course, it's not an iron and stone rule, simply a very logical conclusion that while stones and kicks are thrown around, there wouldn't be much room for sensible, responsible negotiations. Just what we see.No, it's an bad conclusion that logic, history and the real world do not support whatsoever.
No that would be the starting point. The goal of process would be to create conditions where both sides could exist in peace and reasonable prosperity.It's not a starting point. It's the goal. Peace is the goal. That's what we have to assume Israel wants. If you can't offer peace than you're not offering anything and the negotiation process is a waste of time. To say that peace talks and negotiations can't happen before aggression is halted and reversed is stupid because in the real world that's how peace talks and negotiations have been happening for thousands of years. Ceasefires and peace are ALWAYS negotiated while fighting is going on and in the past it often took weeks/months for news of a treaty to arrive in an extended conflict.
No, of course not. Only by establishing a level of trust, parties can begin to believe that peaceful coexistence is possible. Such trust is hardly possible when sides are involved in active hostilities.Utter crap taken from a completely delusional point of view. Your definition of 'aggression' in this conflict is Israeli settlements vs Arab violence. Eliminating one form of 'aggression' would displace hundreds of thousands, cost billions and billions and take months. Eliminating the other form of aggression requires simply not pressing 'launch' buttons. If you want to talk about trust then Israel is in the position to trust less because your proposal has much to lose for them and nothing to lose from the other side. Why should they trust the Arab side would commit to peace, or even peace talks, when the Arabs themselves say they won't?
Honestly, there's no point in arguing any further with you. You're not arguing from a practical or rational point of view. There's only ONE way that peace can be achieved in this conflict:
Both sides have to want it - PERIOD. They have to indicate they want it and they have to talk about how they are going to achieve a LASTING peace and what would be required to make it happen. If they're not willing to talk about or at least commit to the GOAL of long term peace, the entire process is a sham, which is currently the case. You can cry and bleed out of your eyes about how nasty a conclusion this is, but peace is an impossibility unless both sides are willing to commit to the PROCESS. Right now one side is refusing the process outright and the idea of lasting peace they say is not possible while the other side exists.
-
As it is known today is the day planes were flown into the twin towers killing more than 3000 people. This event has led to countless Canadian and Nato forces deaths in Afganistan and Iraq. I made a comment about this being September 11th and it happens I am working with a guy who came from Iraq. This guy called me racists and went and complained to the supervisor. This supervisor called me in I guess to hear my side but it was obvious to me this supervisor was probably angling to make something of this.
He called you a racist because you are. You're a bigoted, ignorant racist and you blame your many problems and failures on minorities.
It's never occured to you that you just might be an idiot and your life sucks because you make it suck for yourself, has it?
-
And, nobody could deny the fact, that till now, nothing, zero, of real practical act has been done about the expansion of settlements, and you yourself stated that such act wouldn't be wise. Wouldn't it mean that your position would remain unchanged, and nothing will be done again, and again, while settlements continue to grow, as they do even now?
And of course, the 70% increase in illegal settlements (and counting, daily) is also a fact of reality, rather than "personalization".
So could it be that this complain is in fact a way to reconcile the idea (of "peace" and "good" what we do) with the reality that wouldn't really match it - by blaming the messenger for "personalization"?
You've failed, once again, to explain why Israel should have ANY interest in dismantling the settlements. ZERO. None.
Go back to my post in page 81 of this thread and let's examine your broken logic and reasoning on the subject shall we?
-
As for the economy, Canada was in deficit BEFORE stimulus spending. Argument shot down.
Canada's revenues were sinking well before the stimulus spending. We went into deficit originally because our tax revenues disappeared. You didn't shoot down anything. A little more thought into the issue might have helped.
As for the gun registry, I support the idea. I like the idea of having a national databank with every firearm in it. What, are the Conservatives SOFT ON CRIME?You can like the idea all you want. We have about a decade of proof to show it doesn't work and just costs crazy amounts of money.
As for turning EI into modernised welfare, this is GARBAGE. Michael Ignatieff only wanted to TEMPORARILY decrease the hours needed to qualify for EI by like a weeks worth of work time. He also wanted to make it even across Canada.What Ignatieff wants to do is garbage. If someone can't show they worked a decent amount before they claim EI they shouldn't get it. If you've been out of work for the better part of a year, that's too bad. EI was not designed as a recession fighting tool. It was designed a short-term solution for hard working people to keep their houses while they look for new jobs. Economic paradigm shifts were never really what it was meant to protect against.
Why should a woman in Ontario be denied EI with almost 900 hours of work when most people in the country would have been accepted nearly 300 hours earlier? It isn't fair and that's what he wanted to address. However, I guess you don't care. I bet you're from Alberta. Can't let those Liberal liars in Ontario get any more of my hard earned cash! Unbelievable.Hey good question! Why DO most people in the country qualify for EI after only a few months of work? The solution shouldn't be to offer blanket coverage of absolutely bullshit EI eligibility, but rather turn EI back into what it was meant to be. NOBODY should get EI after a 9 week work year. NOBODY.
As for the arctic, he hasn't done shit. He shows up, rids on a ski-doo, eats seal meat and then leaves. The one thing that the north desperately wants is a commercial port that would cost $50,000,000 to build. It would make things a lot cheaper in every respect and would make life a lot easier and spur a lot of new work. They got their $50,000,000 as essentially a welfare cheque, certainly not for the harbour. As someone who hates the idea of welfare shouldn't you be outraged by this?The presence and intentions of Canada's leader in and of itself is a step in formalizing our claim over the Arctic. Sure, more could be done, but it's more likely to get done under Harper than under Ignatieff.
Oh, and nice rant btw.
-
Big salaries maybe.
Could be a lot of things.
-
You gotta admit that is a huge increase year after year.
Depends on what the money was actually spent on. I wouldn't mind seeing that.
-
Yeah the CPC is the old Reform. It's not like the PC party swallowed up the reform, it was the other way around.
-
BC, it seems you don't understand the isolated reality of living in the north. Hell, we don't even get bus service here.
Probably explains why you're so keen on provincial welfare spending....
-
Right, vote against our principles so you can have some stability (because Canada is simply buckling under the pressure of elections).
Our principles?
-
This is a bunch of people choosing to live in back-asswards communities out in the middle of nowhere.
I'm sure if people need to get out of town the occasional bus could come grab them, but sending a giant bus regularly to go pick up a handful of people is nothing but a waste of money unless there is enoug people to pay for them.
Go drive up there yourself to get them if you feel so strongly about them. They NEED you.
-
So you figure that I am intelligent and wise - but am long winded?
.No comment, no comment - YES.
Harper assisted in the killing of our soldiers for no good reason...he must step down. How was that?Now work on your critical/objective thinking. There are a myriad of problems with pulling out immediately from Afghanistan. You can chew on that by yourself though because that gets us way off topic.
-
Harris was a mean son-of-a B but he knew what had to be done - he did it - and he moved on. He never asked to be liked. History will show that he actually saved Healthcare and Education in Ontario.
A lot of smart people appreciated his no-bullshit approach to things. I'd vote for him again and so would a lot of people.
NDP can expect a bumpy ride
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Jdobbin where would you be without the Toronto Star?