Sir Bandelot

I dunno, but it sounds nice. Why then did your President need to make the biggest bailout in history? And who's money was it, that they took it from. Not Enron

When the US economy went for a shit, the whole shithouse went down in one go. From what I read, lots of people lost their jobs too. The ones who invested in Madoff may have deserved it, I dunno. When you plant shit seeds, little shit trees grow. But regardless of the system they make for us the proletariat, the elite shitters make their profits. The system itself is just a numbers racket, the game is played a bit different in each, but the point is to make the money flow up, shit rains down.

Each system is open to abuses, whether socialist or capitalist. People who pay their fair share still get screwed. Like the fallout from what Bernie Madoff did, life savings, gone, house, gone. That kind of suffer.

Exactly, the problem is much more entrenched than one mere issue. Even if you cut 10%, blah blah, we know already. But as I already said, there are so many of these apparently insignificant areas of waste, widespread across the whole spectrum of the government budget. That all adds up to a big sh*t sandwich. So yes, it won't matter too much if we cut 5% from the payroll of executives. Maybe we should just cut out the executives, outright, But that alone won't do it. In the end, if you want social programs that let you live in some security and comfortable health, it costs money, and is opened up to abuses. That's why social programs need constant oversight and refinement, and a vast amount of effort, and money goes into that alone. If the alternative is not to have them at all, and you get to save your money, then a proportion of society will still suffer. Who can say which one is better? Actually in a way the premise of the whole debate is non sequitur.

Maybe that was the problem, something in the modifications went wrong. No doubt there will be an investigation. A presidents plane usually gets very thorough safety inspections.

If there is a single large problem then it could be more effectively dealt with. It should also be obvious. Yet generation after generation the issue remains. One can also say that a thousand small abuses adds up to a very big level of abuse. The devil is in the details, as the saying goes... Inefficiency and corruption exist at all levels in government, due to many factors including lack of accountability, and general apathy of all involved including the public. This can only go on so long, of course until the bloated monster raises it's ugly head (no, not you msj...)

Well I heard he ate the raw heart of a baby seal. And demanded seconds...

Because the attention of the public is easily diverted to other issues, by means of entertainment. People are bombarded with more info about Tiger Woods than anything truly relevant. Let them have entertainment... Besides that there is outright lies and subversion of the truth. In the "eHealth" scandal in Ontario, we heard there was going to be an investigation. This appears to have been only said to appease the curious and once the issue has dropped off the media radar, we didn't get to hear much anymore, but the fact is that this investigation has been quietly dropped. There will be no overhaul of the tender process in Cancer Care Ontario, after all. It's evident that the fat cats in CCO and the province all feed from the same dish.

Your last two posts added nothing other than useless ad-hominem garbage. You are allowed to discuss statistics all you want. But if what you say can be disproved, I or someone else should point that out. Getting back to the matter at hand, I reiterate my claim, it's not necessarily a problem with the data itself, its the interpretation of what it means. I have demonstrated one way that looking at one particular data set, and drawing firm conclusions from it can be very misleading. A simpler way to say it is, there are wealthy Jamaicans who are not involved in drugs and gun crimes. There are other factors involved. The naive person would only fixate on what seems obvious and draw wrong conclusions from that. So my role here is only to try and educate, the naive...

Incorrect. You're not sure, what YOU'RE talking about.

Read the post, jack, and refute it. Or is thinking not one of your strong points

As an employee in the health care system, I can tell you that this is DEFINITELY the case. And the most wasteful, sloth excessive spending and money lost is in the higher income managerial sector.

Horse hockey. Even Cheney admits there is no link between Iraq and 9-11. Bush publicly said this as well. Your credibility in these matters is highly questionable. "I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that (Saddam) was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, (but) eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney said." Cheney says Saddam 911 link not found

There's lies, damned lies and then there's statistics. For every statistic someone comes up with, several contradictory conclusions can be drawn. It comes down to how you slice the data. Looking at crime from a purely racial perspective may show that a disproportionate amount of crime is caused by black people. Looking at the data from an economic perspective might show that a disproportionate amount of crime is caused by the lower income class, poor, destitute, drug addicted, regardless of ethnic origin. It may then be demonstrated that visible minorities make up large numbers of these classes. What conclusion do you draw from all these statistics? Only a simpleton would believe that, therefore, the problem stems from ethnicity.

Well done. Thanks for reminding us what really happened. Some say that when it comes to the truth, Shady has blinders on. But in fact he has great vision... revision

No Argus, he never did anything illegal or improper. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080527/bernier_history_080527/20080527?hub=Specials Thats the difference between neocons and real conservatives. They never do anything improper

Those bastards!

By your own words, we do not know what the real problem is, but evidently the Prime Minister found it serious enough to remove her. I doubt it has to do with her husband alone. THe problem must be directly tied to her. She is already gone, booby. Read the news

She is the harlot of Babylon

No, he lost some kind of important government document at her apartment. That seems kind of improper. We never got to know what was in the document, because it was "secret". Sure, you may point out that he was never charged with a crime, so he can hide his transgressions behind that fact. But thats what all Liberals like to say. We real conservatives say, there's the law, and then theres doing whats RIGHT. :angry:

Let's not forget that the CPC Minister of Foreign Affairs Bernier also had ties to organized crime, via his girlfriend who belonged to motorcycle gangs. Harper said that was "none of your business".

I found her comments stupid, equating power struggles among global superpowers to kindergarden antics in a school yard. This shows the shallowness of her level of understanding, and who her target audience is.

No worries, pertty sure you will get it going again!

No, he was still wearing diapers then. Oh, forgot...