KeyStone

Yeah, that is what I mean. Teachers don't make 60,000 in 10 months, and then claim EI in the summer months. They have their pay rationed out, so that they get paid equally in all 12 months. Educational assistants is another area where change should be made then, if what you say is true. There is no reason that they should get insurance for something they know very well is going to happen.

Seasonal workers who continue to draw upon EI year after year, are abusing the system. Yes, they pay into the EI system, but they take far more out of it, than they put in. No private insurance company in the world would insure workers for unemployment when there is 99% certainty they would be laid off. Now, I don't have a problem with helping people that need help, but this isn't the case here. Many of these people earn 40-60K a year in the months that they do work, and then get EI in the months that they don't work. Why does someone on seasonal umemployment deserve to be making more in the offseason, than soneone workking full-time at 7-11? Why do seasonal fisherman deserve a four-five month paid holiday, whereas teachers ration out their pay to get paid all year round? Given that we know that the work is seasonal, these companies should estimate the total annual pay of the employees, and then hold some back, so that they can get paid regular paycheques throughout the year. It is an unfair system, that panders to the fact that Atlantic Canada are swing votes, any one of the three parties could win the seats with the right policies.

Alright, I'll admit that there has been some intimidation of political opponents. But, you have to realize that there are unusual circumstances in Venezuela. Firstly, the media, the US consulate, and the opposition all conspired to have an illegal coup, physically removing Chavez from office, and they would have succeeded if it were not for the people rising up in millions to demand his return to power. The leader of the Honduras was not so fortunate. Secondly, the elites tried to destroy the country by having massive strikes all around, and forcing their workers to do the same. These strikes were not aimed at better wages and benefits for the workers, but instead were aimed at sabotaging the country to oust Chavez. These people were so reluctant to see the status quo changed, that they would rather destroy their own economy than endure Chavez to lead. it's like this. The country can make 100 Billion dollars, and have 90 billion in the hands of the top ten percent, and 10 billion in the hands of ninety percent. Or they can make 90 billion dollars, and have 30 billion in the hands of the top ten percent, and 60 billion in the hands of the other ninety. So, the third option is forget about the poor. Let the foreign companies control it all and take all the profits, and hope that some of the money trickles down. Geez, that worked so well for the last thirty years. Let's try it some more. Why exactly do you think people were so hungry for a leader like Chavez in the first place? Do you know how much oil companies were paying in royalties for the Orinoco oil? One percent. Sure, they paid some of the local immigrants a few dollars a day to work in the fields, while paying foreign workers ten times as much. Venezuela can do much better than that by managing it themselves. And yes, I do think oil is a cash machine. Instead of giving foreign oil companies $50 billion, he now gives them $20 billion, and he can just invest the other $25 billion himself. (the other $5 billion represents productivity loss). Sure, you can look, and say the country is less productive, but for ninety percent of the people, they are better off. Quote You also seem to be perpetuating the myth that if the wealthy get money, they will automatically invest it to create jobs. That's BS. They might invest it elsewhere. They might not invest it at all. If you give that same money to the poor, a much greater percentage of it will be spent in the local economy. The myth is that foreign multi-national companies will reinvest in ways that will help the people of Venezuela. They could invest in other countries, or bring in more foreign equipment and workers, none of which really helps the people of Venezuela, unless they are getting a big piece of the profits. Sustaining the kind of growth that they have had, would be insane. No economy could manage that. Any country would be thrilled to have 23% growth over the past three years. You're really trying desperately to find some economic indicators that the economy is collapsing, here aren't you? You do know that Chavez has been in power long before these three years of declining increases? No, his policies are making the elite poorer than they were. The lower class which now have free healthcare, free education, maternity leave, unemployment insurance, are doing better than ever. But feel free to paint the picture of abject poverty as the result of Chavez coupled with armed guards forcing people to vote for him. It seems that you are determined to believe that at all costs. Ignore the fact that GDP went up nearly 50% in the 5 years from 2004-2008 Ignore the fact that the poverty rate decreased from 55% to 27% since Chavez took office. (does not even include free benefits) Ignore the fact that social spending is now three times greater (adjusted for inflation) per capita. Ignore the fact that income inequality has declined significantly. Ignore the fact that enrollment in schools has doubled. Ignore the fact that infant mortality rates have declined by over 30% Instead focus on the Western media 'sky if falling' in Venezuela headlines, just as you're told to.

Once he started calling them Jewish Uncle Tom's. He had pretty much lost his claim to not be a bigot. Looks like he would like to narrow Jew's into two categories. 1) "Real Jews" - who support Israel, increased settlements, and have no sympathy for Palestinians 'because they are evil Ay-Rabs" and 2) "Uncle Tom Jews" - clearly if they don't agree with the aims of Israel, they aren't real Jews.

I know you didn't like the result, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Venezuelans like him. Every international organization of any credibility certified the elections as fair. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. You have some good points, but denying his rightful democratic victory is just flailing desperately. There is nothing wrong with some doing better than others, but it is the degree of disparity which defines a nation. Chavez would rather see the wealthy have twenty times the wealth of the poor than 5000. Yes, there are those that demand to make tens of millions a year, and Chavez won't tolerate that. If they leave the country, no great loss. You also seem to be perpetuating the myth that if the wealthy get money, they will automatically invest it to create jobs. That's BS. They might invest it elsewhere. They might not invest it at all. If you give that same money to the poor, a much greater percentage of it will be spent in the local economy. Fine. Venezuela's GDP is still soaring. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal that they left. OK, the consensus seems to be that Canada is growing. That is the problem with projections, I suppose. Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that this negative GDP is indicative of Chavez's failed economic policies, and a precursor to economic collapse. But, if this small downward movement is so bad, wouldn't the previous give years of massive GDP growth, indicate successful economic policies? Your cherry picking of the data seems a little inconsistent. If decreasing GDP means bad governance, it should stand to reason that increasing GDP means good governance? But not to you, I guess. You can only see the bad in Venezuela - just like most of the Western media and corporations. Let's wait and see what the real numbers are for 2010 and 2011, before hitting the panic button. The IMF and World Bank aren't huge fans of Venezuela. Venezuela is also dependent on other countries to buy its oil, but there seems to be no shortage of bidders. He does not need massive foreign investments. The money that was previously going to MNC's in the form of oil proceeds, is now being channeled back into the country, allowing for the creation of school, hospitals, infrastructure, and a growing number of state-run manufacturing facilities, allowing Venezuela to become independent from Western companies. Seriously. Stop and think. Look at the previous GDP numbers. Venezuela had massive growth. You seem to just dismiss this. Now that they have a small drop, you think the economy if falling apart, and it is proof positive of economic failure of his policies? I mean, if you can't recognize this, I might as well talk to a brick wall. I'm not saying you need to agree with everything I say, but at least look at the numbers, before you just agree with the corporate viewpoint. Incidentally, my 'spin' is quite different from what Chavez is saying, who doesn't really seem to care what the West thinks and doesn't make any effort to appease them. Wow, it is amazing how many errors you can have in one sentence. 1) Corporations may have their own agenda, one of which could be to destabilize Venezuela as they are proposing a new economic model which shuts out a lot of Western countries from making huge profits in Latin America. 2) Chavez is not a dictator, by any stretch of the imagination, but I see you swallow and repeat the lines of Western media. 3) Yes, his neighbour outperformed him this year. It is like saying that San Francisco Giants are a much better team than the Yankees, because they won this year. Who would you put your money on next year to win the World Series? Spend some time and research what is going on in Venezuela, by going to blogs, forums and reading other sources of media than just financial papers. The Western media hates Chavez. Peter Munk suggested we kill him off. If you actually saw the vast improvements to the quality of life for most Venezuelans (no, not the rich elite, who moved to Canada to avoid sharing), you would understand a little better. People are not that stupid to vote in a leader who makes things much worse for them. And yet, you choose to believe Western media that Chavez is a horrible leader, rather than the people of the country who live there, and experience life under Chavez personally.

It sounds like you're really more of a Ron Paul Libertarian than a leftist. While some of the moral issues can waver, the key criteria about being left, is not crying that taxes are too high.

I' m not really sure why you're comparing Chavez to Mussolini. Granted, being popular does not make one right, nor does being democratic. But I am not sure what evil it is that Chavez is perpetuating that people need to dismiss his democratic credibility. Yes, he makes deals with China, Iran and Russia. But, they act the same as any foreign MNC, abiding by the percentage that he allows. China and Russia are naturally allies, as they are sympathetic to his goals, and want him to succeed in Latin America. Iran is an ally only because of OPEC familiarities and the common enemy of the United States, who persecutes them both unjustly. The Western corporotocracies do all that they can to see Chavez fail, as they fear his ideas compromise the Western dominance over Latin American peoples. So, Chavez is left with few powerful governments he can turn to for assistance. The US pushed Cuba into the same corner, when Cuba sought the aid of the Russians, after the US stripped them of all allies and trade partners. It looks as if they have not yet learned their lesson.

Perhaps, 'likely' would have been a better word than 'true', if you want to get pedantic. But it seems fairly obvious given the Liberal demands in QP that the Conservatives spend money to get out of the recession when the original Conservative plan had been to do nothing. I'm hoping you are familiar with that, and won't ask me to go through the Hansard logs to prove it to you.

When the disparity of wealth is such that your upper class owns their own personal jets, but your lower class can't read and barely has enough to survive, something needs to change. Besides which, most of the gains of the poor have come at the expense of multinational and foreign corporations. Hahaha! Yes, clearly your two examples demonstrate that appealing to the poor can never work. Now, go tell that to Chavez as he starts his 12th year in office, after winning the last four elections. Sure, but this isn't exactly the same thing now is it? Chavez has simply changed the formulas, so that they rich can not prosper the way they used to. He has taken over some land owned by people who had done nothing to develop it in the past ten years, and given compensation. He has also given compensation when taking over businesses, where there was a lack of competition in that business. Again, he gave compensation. I do agree that the takeovers have been both excessive and unpredictable creating a economic climate of uncertainly, which discourages investors. In the case of the oil industries, he asked for the state to be a 50% partner. Most of the companies agreed, as even 50% was huge profit. The greedier ones such as Total SA and Conoco-Philips felt it wasn't enough and left, . He still works with a number of foreign companies, who accept that a large part of the proceeds from the oil should be going to the Venezuelan people. He is also getting Venezuelan people trained to do the jobs by encouraging foreign companies to hire locals instead of foreigners to do the work. Not to mention he can just buy the equipment, and there are many governments willing to assist him, such as China and Iran. LOL! You're hysterical. Watching you grasp desperately at anything that could be seen as an indicator that the sky is falling in Venezuela is comical. Venezuela has had one of the highest GDP growth in the world over the past five years. Yes, they have had one negative year (2010) of 1.2%, preceded by five years of astounding growth. Meanwhile, Canada's GDP is set to shrink at over two percent. Here are the last five years: 2005: +16.8% 2006: +9.3% 2007: +10.3% 2008: +8.4% 2009: 4.8% 2010: (projected): -1.5% (Canada -2.4%) Do you mean why would any country/organization on the planet want to keep the population of a country uninformed and uneducated? Hmm, maybe so that the country is dependent on the West to extract their raw materials? Maybe so that the uneducated people are dependent on the West for telecommunications, engineering, construction, irrigation You are doing a fine job of cherry picking economic data. I love how sheep such as yourself, not only believes the spin, but repeats it verbatim. The opinions of economists are generally for sale to the highest bidder. Show me another country other than China that rivals Venezuela's economic growth in the past five years. They are one of the best in the world, and you're crying about one year where the GDP fell marginally. Regardless of whether the economy might have grown more under a different economic environment, what good is it to have the economy grow an extra ten percent, if the wealth is still in the hands of a wealthy ten percent. There is a value to the lack of disparity between rich and poor, the accessibility of education and health care to all, and an increasing independence that Venezuela has on the West.

Well, I agree with you on the first point. And I partially agree with you on the second point. It is true that the Liberals would have spent as much, if not more. It is also true that our national debt as compared to GDP is better than many countries. However, there a few things, I would like to point out. The spend your way out of a recession approach works best in a closed economy. This way the 'pass the buck' mentality works, and money is circulated throughout the economy. However, in an era of globalization, our borders are extremely porous, and aside from the single cycle of government spending, leakages are immense and much of that money will be stimulating someone else's economy. The US stimulus probably did much more good to Canada than the Canadian stimulus did. Now, if we are simply doing our share to stimulate the global economy fine. But let's not pretend that the injection of government spending had a massive effect on our own economy. Secondly, the way that the money was spent has to be questioned. There were some good initiatives aimed at boosting home sales such as the renovation tax credit. However, the tax reductions were completely unnecessary. Taxes are paid only after all the costs are covered, and all employees are paid. No business ever went banrupt because income taxes were too high. If they really wanted to help struggling businesses, they should have reduced payroll taxes and subsidized workers comp premiums. Thirdly, the arbitrary handing out of monies to start-up companies and various half-baked initiatives was disproportionate. Instead, this would have been a great time, to increase funding to various infrastructure projects such as subways, roads, sewage, power lines etc. Then, the money is spent, spread across many people - and we have a tangible benefit, and a better infrastructure empowering all businesses.

I know you are not exactly a political scholar, but surely even you must realize there are more ways to influence an election than just voting. Let see, Many First nations were completely exterminated by European settlers. In the Gulags, it is estimated that twenty million died (mostly Ukrainians). About 250,000 Roma died in the holocaust or 25%. While this is not as many as the Jews, their persecution continues to this day. They still have no homeland, and continue to be driven out by nations such as France and Italy who create racist laws specifically targeting the Roma. The point is that there is no specific formula to determine what group has been persecuted the most, nor is there a way to determine how much past persecution should influence present protections. Therefore, the claim that Jewish people are the most persecuted, and should therefore be provided with special protections, including protection from having the Jewish nation criticized is flawed. Good, you are starting to recognize the parallels then.

I see that Islamaophobic fearmongering is perfectly accepted by our national newspapers and our intelligence community. Try sticking the word Jewish in there, instead of Islamist, and see the complaints and 'hate crime' accusations roll in.

Ignatieff is doing what polticians in opposition do. They criticize every move the current government makes. If Harper comes out tough against the Chinese, Iggy says they should be soft. If they're soft on the Chinese, Iggy says they should be hard. I believe Harper is doing the right thing here. Criticize the Chinese publicly, regardless of whatever backlash we get. Besides which, even though China is a big trading partner, we give them mostly raw materials, and they give us mostly finished goods. Therefore, they need us a lot more than we need them. Harper knows this, and our economy is well prepared to suffer a decline in trading relations with China. In fact, in many ways we would welcome it as a form of protectionism that the WTO can't object to.

So, the UN would matter if they accepted Canada, but since they didn't accept us, they don't matter? I think there is a little story about a fox and some grapes that would be appropriate here. Neither Portugal or Germany are current bastions of anti-semitic hatred, yet they were voted in. There are a number of reasons why Canada was denied: Our opposition to any sort of banking or financial transaction tax Our staunch efforts to defeat any environmental advancements Our dismal record when it comes to animal rights Our one-sided 'We agree with Israel no matter what' approach. Personally, I didn't want Canada in. Lately, it seems Canada is on the wrong side of everything.

What a tremendous load of nonsense. If we didn't want the seat, we shouldn't have campaigned so vigorously for it. Obviously it is a disappointment to the Conservatives. To say otherwise, is just like a eight year old, saying baseball is a stupid game anyways, after losing 18-0. As for Harper's role in Canada's economy, it's negligible. Our banking system, and regulatory safeguards have been set up this way for some time. Harper can take zero credit for that. All he did, was manage to undo eight years of consecutive Liberal surpluses and debt repayment in a single year, and put Canada in such a deep financial hole, that we aren't likely to even balance the budget until 2014 or later, all the while racking up massive debt. If you actually believe the article you read, you either aren't Canadian, or just believe everything the Conservatives tell you.

My intention is to show the other story instead of accepting at face value, the Israeli apologist version of events. Your intention seems quite transparent and commonplace. Let me sum up your position: 1) Israel is always right. Palestine, Arabs, and Iran are always wrong. 2) The only possible way someone could find fault with Israel is if they hate Jews. 3) Arabs are evil. Persians are evil. Israel and Jews are good. The history of the Jews has been well documented. I'm ignoring Egypt and biblical claims, and focusing more on the Holocaust and more recent events. Yes, it was tragic and horrific and among the worst crimes humanity has ever seen. No, that does not mean that Israel has carte blanche to destroy anyone who they perceive as a threat to themselves, nor does it justify the collective punishment that they are administering on the Palestinian people. Please tell me who you think the most powerful lobby group is in Canada then? In the US, it's the NRA. I know it's easy to dismiss all mention of Jewish influence as conspiracy theory, but their influence can not be denied and Canadian polticians are all too aware of it. There is nothing veiled. I've been quite up front about the power and influence of Jewish lobby groups. When anti-semitic incidents are up threefold because Jewish Canadians are encouraged to report each time they see someone say something bad about Jews on the internet, yeah, I think the threat is overblown. And no, I don't think that Jews outside of Israel are the most persecuted people in the world, despite what we keep being told. If he did indeed kill a small child with the butt of his rifle, he is reprehensible. But, the alleged evidence was classified until thirty years after. There is something suspicious. Of course, when you believe that Jews always tell the truth and Arabs always lie, as most Islamophobes do, you see no reason to question the peculiar events around the trial.

Spare me your histrionics. I never said these things were exactly equal. I said that other groups face persecution and have their lives threatened around the globe. More people around the world are killed for being homosexual (mostly in Arab/Persian) countries than for being Jewish.

I think we both know Bob, that Israel's military capability has advanced far beyond that of all its Arab and Persian neighbours combined. There have been no serious threats to the sovereignty of Israel for some time now. Yes, largely because of Israel's actions and the constant attempt of Israeli apologists to make Israel and Jews one of the same, by using such verbage as the Jewish state of Israel, and Israel, the eternal Jewish homeland. There is no other nation on the planet that seeks to intertwine its religion into its identity as much as Israel does. While this does not make it right that Jews who have nothing to do with the conflict are targeted, it does need to be recognized that those intending to protect Israel from criticism, also assist in endangering the Jewish people. Furthermore, there are many different peoeples around the world killed for their identity - their skin colour, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. This is not unique to Jews. Well actually, there is a good deal of exaggeration going on these days. The various Jewish lobby groups continue to tell us that incidents of anti-semitism are rising dramatically in Canada. What they fail to tell us that an incident of anti-semitism may consist of someone saying 'I Hate Jews' on the internet, or saying 'you stupid Jew' to a kid on the street. We are not talking about swastikas on the side of a house, or synagogues getting firebombed. This is what kids do - they make fun of eachother for being black. hispanic, short, having greasy hair, not having cool enough sneakers, having a stutter etc. Let's not package it all together, in an attempt to make it seem as if each walk to the corner store is death-defying. There is no question that Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic. That is clear, and I have never said otherwise. I have said that he has never suggested destroying all of the Jews or Israel. Yes, I know about the vanish from the pages of time quote, which he has since clarified. Tell them to go over to Gaza, and tell the people there, the sad story of the sacrifices they have made. You have to go back to Israeli apologist school, if you think I am going to feel sorry for the child-murdering IDF because they can't bigger houses, fancier cars, and nicer clothes. If it wasn't for the constant bombing, invasions, blockades and settlements, the Palestinians would be able to be alive, learn how to read, and not suffer from malnutrition. Not over-exaggerated, just exaggerated. Gosh, you're right Bob. Kill as many Palestinians as you need to. We need to make sure that you get those fancy cars, big apartments, and nice clothes. While you are at it, make sure you actively recruit more Jews to move to Israel, so that you have an excuse to push the Palestinians all the way into the sea.

Happy to Bob The lobby consists of a number of organizations such as B'Nai Brith, Canadian Jewish Congress, Jewish Defense League. There are others, but those are the main ones. Now then, as for the influence that they wield, it's difficult to measure. One way would be to catalog and reference all the pandering to Israel that Canadian politicians do. Another would be to look at committees in parliament aimed at preventing hate, and see which groups Canada is aiming to protect? Hint: it isn't homosexuals, homeless people, or women. Another would be to see what motions are being passed in various governments aimed at stifling free speech and the right to assemble: Hint: apparently the word apartheid is hateful. (as is most criticism of Israel). But perhaps one of the most interesting studies, can be found here: 2. “Ranking of DEA Officials of Weight of Inputs (influence) in the Making of Canadian Foreign Policy” (scale of 1 to 7) from a study by John Kirton and Peyton Lyon in the Journal of Canadian Studies, winter, 1992-3. Group Influence Ranking Canadian Jewish Community 5.85 Prime Minister 5.04 DEA 5.04 Israel 4.92 Cabinet 4.68 United States 4.68 Media 4.24 Public opinion 3.58 Business 2.92 United Nations 2.84 Arab States 2.76 Dept. of National Defence 2.58 Other allies 2.5 Dept. of Finance 1.88 Arab/Canadian community 1.8 PLO 1.52 Provinces 1.2

Have you actually taken a look at what is banned from coming into the Palestinian territory? In addition to weapons, and dual-use items, they also ban items such as chocolate, and jam, pretty much anything that could be used to help develop business and education. So, from a cursory glance, it would appear that they are trying to make life in the occupied territories as miserable as possible. They can't rebuild after Israel bombs. They can't have so-called luxury items, they can't create business, or educate their youth properly.

This isn't war. As much as Israel likes to claim that it is fighting for its very survival, it simply isn't true. The few deaths attributed by rockets, don't come close to the number of Israelis killed in car accidents. Do Israelis live in constant fear of driving? Do they make driving illegal? Do people make grand statements about the auto threatening the very existence of Israel? How many Israelis were killed by rockets in 2010? Answer: 0 How many Israelis were killed by suicide bombers in 2010? Answer: 0 Yet, Israel still feels it has the right to continue to build new settlements, pursue terrorists in the occupied territories regardless of civilian casualties and deny basic supplies to the occupied territories. The Palestinians have two options, as Israel continues to deny them the basics of life. 1) Do nothing. Result: Israel will continue as they are - continually pushing them into the sea. 2) Talk to the UN. Result: US will veto any resolutions in favour of the Palestinians including examining the conditions. 3) Physically Protest: Israel will engage in collective punishment, and use the actions to justify further military action, and denial of rights.

In other words, they don't want to share their wealth. You clearly do not understand the terms communist or dictator if you use them in regards to Chavez. As Israel proves ad infinitum. There is plenty of negative media against Chavez. Yes, he has been hostile against media organizations who participated in illegally overthrowing the government through a military coup. The elections have been certified by the OAS, the EU and the Carter Center. No organization has found fault with the elections in Venezuela. The only ones to find fault were a couple of economists with a strong private-business agenda, and no political system background. True, democracy does not ensure moral decisions all of the time. However, it astounds me the coverage that Venezuela gets when it comes to this sort of thing. Yes, they are marginalizing the upper class which is about 1 percent of the population. What about the lower class that comprises 85% and has been marginalized for the past 30 years? Do they not count? What is so immoral about taking from foreign MNC's and the elite, to ensure universal healthcare, education, literacy, maternity leave, unemployment benefits, reduction of poverty etc. No, Chavez isn't perfect and there are things he could be doing better, but the way the Western media, and corporate shills single Chavez out, even suggesting he be killed, is absolutely outrageous. They are simply upset that he is leading the way in showing Latin America that they can actually extract their own minerals and oil, without giving away 80% of the profits to foreign companies, and that scare the West. We like the Latin American people to be kept in their place. We give them high-tech goods, they give us the minerals and oil, they couldn't get otherwise - and we like them to remain uneducated - as was the main emphasis of the IMF and World Bank until recently.

If the Western world was truly concerned about their freedom, and not simply trying to undermine their economies, they would offer compensation for the skilled professionals that they take - in amount equal to the cost of training these individuals. The US and other Western 'democracies' leech off of countries that provide quality universal education to make up for their gaps in education.

No doubt you are referring to term limits. The first referendum packed a great number of sweeping changes, and was defeated by the voters. The second referendum removed many of those provisions and made ending term limits the center piece. Besides which, the US has various propositions that come up every election. So, it really seems like you're grasping at straws to demonstrate Chavez is undemocratic.

"The Ontario Provincial Police Association and former OPP commissioner Julian Fantino are seeking $92,000 in court costs from the families of two men police shot and killed. Levi Schaeffer and Douglas Minty, one with psychiatric issues the other with intellectual challenges, were shot dead in 2009. In both cases police say the men came at them with a knife." Fantino is a real piece of work who goes after anyone with the audacity to question him. He is currently suing the family of a man with mental health issues that the OPP shot and killed. Apparently, he can't relate to a family wanting answers when their son was killed by police, and there were several irregularities. NO ONE DARES TO QUESTION THE GREAT FANTINO