takeanumber

Oh, so there's the justification. I wish Alberta could 'opt out' of making equalization payments. And 'opt out' of EI to keep money from flowing into deadbeat Quebec communities. I don't see anything wrong with opting out. But it's a two way street.

Supposedly, based on a sliding scale, the higher the unemployment rate, the shorter the span of weeks. EXCEPT: In special designated regions, in which, amazingly, the scale becomes far, far more generous. These special regions are largely in Quebec and Newfoundland.

What's wrong with it? Uh...this is the problem with the Realist thesis. It just doesn't capture the ethical problems of Imperialism. There is plenty wrong with it.

The media was totally asleep on this one. I'm glad that the NYTimes apologized and we're going to see more 'vigilence'. But there Bush goes again, raising the terror level, for political gains. It's just sick what he's doing. Just sick. And the media is still eating it up. lol.

EI is a transfer payment. It's all big one account. It's not part of any CHST transfer, but it's a transfer nevertheless. It's the worse form of transfer to, given the damage it does to wages and it retards mobility of labour. ------------------------------------- So, if I got your arguement right, nobody in Calgary should earn any money from any of the they do for the oilpatch, buuuut, somebody in Quebec, who works 16 weeks and then gets paid for the last 36 through EI should earn money because....they're entitled to get money that they never earned. I see. I'm sure there's always some reason somebody can fish up for why they should benefit year after year after year after year after generation after generation from somebody else's labour. What's yours?

Stoker is wrong when it comes to economic self determination. That's called Imperalism Stoker. And we all know it. Taking your metaphor about the homes and applying it to human rights abuses stands though. I really don't think Bush went to war in Iraq because of human rights though. He went out of selfishness and started using the liberal arguement only when it was convinient. (As did most of the feces chucking Cons in Canada...changing their logic only after the facts on the ground didn't mesh with their realist world view.)

Idealist: It's my capital that is being used to extract that oil. Moreover, the oil just doesn't pull itself out of the ground. There's work to be done in arranging financing, accounting, and making technological advantage. Calgary pays more taxes out towards leduc than leduc pays out to Calgary, anyway. So your logic works to bolster my case. Somebody who pays 25 cents into a program and gets 1 dollar back at the expense of somebody else, and then tries to, meekly, justify it, clearly knows that what they're doing is wrong. It's called EI, it's not called "Have-Not Status Quo Stabilization Rip-Off the System Fund" Tell me, why is it right for somebody to get 1 dollar out for every 25 cents that goes in, year in and year out, for two generations?

Hey Idealist: If you're locking your kid in a crib and making him eat his feces, or if you're wailing and raping your wife...you better believe that I'm going to come over to your house. It doesn't matter that you're 'contained' within your house. What you'd be doing would be wrong, and since I had the ability to drag you out into the street, I'd do that to liberate the family. (speaking metaphorically) You CAN be liberal and not be an evil lying feces-chucking Conservative AND have a sense of morality to defend people who can't defend themselves.

Decentralization to Quebec is about taking more money from Alberta and Ontario and spending it without federal guidelines. Transfer payments are about equalization of existing services. Alberta sure as hell doesn't want to pay to put Quebecois kids through daycare when Alberta can't even afford to put its own kids in daycare. Ontario sure as hell doesn't want to pay out equalization funds to New Brunswick, which were intended to be used for healthcare, but ended up going to lawn equipment. I don't think that the have-not's 'get it'. They get sooo many tax points, and they still demand more money from Ottawa. Yet...what they won't acknowledge, is that they get MOST of the money that they give Ottawa back, PLUS more money that comes from Alberta and Ontario. And then they demand MORE MONEY, making it seem as though its their money, but in reality, they just want yet more money from Alberta and Ontario. Clean up EI first. Then clean up those bogus rural development schemes. Clean up the patronage. Then we'll talk about getting the have-not provinces back onto their feet.

Yes, the rules are different for Quebec. The number of weeks you have to work in order to qualify for EI varies from province to province. In alberta, it's 45 weeks. In urban Quebec, it's 25 weeks (if I can remember correctly, it's around 25). But in rural quebec, the rule changes, just for them and Newfoundland. In those regions, the provincial unemployment rate isn't the standard that's used. Nope. Just for them, it's based on some formula determined by some (read: Quebec) minister. So, they only have to work 16-18 weeks to qualify for EI benefits for the rest of year. What a great deal! And we have the spectre of seperatism to thank. So, I repeat, why does a lumberjack or a fisherman in Quebec deserve to get, year after year after year, paid out 1 dollar for every 25 cents they put into the system. Does being Quebecois or Newfoundlander make you entitled? Because it sounds like you feel as though their entitled to that treatment. ----------- Farmers are seasonal workers, but generally do not qualify for EI. Lumberjacks, fishing industries, some mines, are also seasonal. There are also whole communities which, after the mine closed, they're kept alive through EI subsidies, and other scams, when the market should have cleaned out the town. Again, what makes dead communities in Quebec more special than those in albert? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

Only somebody who agrees with the policies of Klein would say so.

I agree with Stoker on this one. If you were against the war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, you're an anti-liberal. There were so many so-called liberals who were saying that we should't go in and fight Baa'thism because we had Saddam contained. Really? At what cost to the civillians. Sounds awfully convinient to me that they should continue to suffer because for us, Saddam isn't a problem. And what of Iraq firing on UN airplanes enforcing the no-fly zones. How convinient that those facts are ignored. You know, can you be a liberal and still hate bush for how he lied to the world and squandered the cred. that we need to fight terror and totaltitarian regimes. You can be a true true liberal and support the war on humanitarian grounds, which were the grounds that I supported the war on. I'm angry at Bush for doing what he did precisely because I'm tough on terror. Yes, I am holier than a Republican. Yes, I am tougher on terror than a pussy willow Canadian Conservative. Personally, I'm disgusted at anti-liberals of both political stripes.

Not nearly as close minded as Cons.

You confuse the term 'farmer' with 'seasonal worker'. I'm talking about people in resource communities who refuse to move once the resource goes dry. I'm also talking about resource communities where wages used to be high enough to keep people there. What happened was that people started abusing the EI system. They got greedy. And then wages fell because of labour hoarding. Are seasonal workers in Quebec and the Maritimes to blame? You're damn right they are. Moreover, I'm french, so I'm certainly not racist. Why is it that when you say how it is in rural Quebec, you get called a bigot? A spade is a spade. It's always Quebec who is the first to demand more money from the EI fund, even though they get one dollar out for every quarter they put, in spite of that, they still demand more money. So tell me, why should a worker in Calgary, who moved from his homeland to come work in Calgary, have to pay money to subsidize the lifestyle of somebody who refuses to do the same? Tell me, what makes those seasonal workers and those dead communities entitled to my EI money? (And why an Albertan can't access EI when they need to use it, but when it comes to a Quebecker, well, the rules are totally different, because, well, you're from Quebec and you're special because you've been hard done by. And by the way, Alberta wasn't even a province when those things were done to Quebec, an inconvinient fact for you, no doubt.)

You said it Kidd. And yes, genocide dates well back before Stalin and Hitler. For somebody who knows oh-so-much about life thousands and thousands of years ago, you sure don't see past it. It was your logic Kidd, that since something has been going on for thousands of years, it should stay the same. I noticed that you didn't address rape, slavery, and the Geneva Convention. But I suppose those are harder to defend using your past logic. You're retreating. It's nice to see.

He'd never win in any other province. He's a reflection of Alberta.

I'm afraid not. In fact, all of the transfer payments received by Quebec, if you looked at the figures (which I don't think you have) is from Alberta. Ontario pays for the rest of Canada. Needless to say, Alberta is tired of paying for the Quebec lifestyle (especially through EI) and Alberta is tired of the attitude it gets from Quebeckers. It's a fact. I'm really not sorry that reality doesn't gel with your Quebec-Centric view of the world, but then I suppose you can do the Quebec thing and point back to some past injustice. What's the flavour of the week? Oh, I think I'll try, um, the JCPC decision on Labrador. Next week? Why, it's going to be loud complaints about the 'night of the long knives'. And the week after that? Let's return to our old standby, the injustices done by McDonald during his first term. And the Bloc was in fact complaining when the Federal government was scalling back the sponsorship program prior to all the scandals. It was in fact quite loud. ------------------------- On this next point. Ahem. Let me fill you in on how these job training programs work. The province of Quebec is responsible for welfare. So anybody who is rural and out of work, or, worse, a seasonal worker who doesn't get enough hours to qualify for EI, goes on the province's purse. So then, the province will coyly hire there people for a 'job training program', that lasts suspiciously, as long as it taks to 'fill somebody up' to the minimum number of hours required to qualify for federal EI. In this way, they qualify for EI, and the province doesn't have to pay for them for the rest of the year (often, they go on EI for 30 weeks, work for 12, and do the government program for 10 weeks, thus bringing them to 22 weeks, and qualifying for EI. It's a scam. Worse, it lowers seasonal wages in rural quebec. Now if you don't agree with the concept of 'labour hoarding', you're at odds with 60 years of econcomics. What's worse, is when supposedly educated Quebeckers refute these facts, and then failing to refute them, refer back to past injustices. You know, it's happening in most have-not provinces, but it's the Quebec example that is the most gauling because they have a political party that is constantly demanding more money for EI and seasonal workers. And that's sick. They only pay 25 cents in for every dollar they get out. Why should an Albertan have to pay a rural Quebecker because that Quebecker doesn't want to move to the big city and get a real goddam job and get off EI? Tell me, why should the Albertan subsidize that Quebeckers way of life. EI is insurance. It's not a program to prop up economically dead communities. I'd like to see you refute those principles without refering to any past, grave, injustice.

The single unifying characteristic of the great prime ministers has been the ability to believe in one principle one day and then turn around the next, and with equal gusto, support the opposite principle. (See: Trudeau, wage and price controls) (See: Chretien, 1991/1995 comparison) (See: Klein, any year) I believe that you can be a Harperite-Dayite theocratic government supporter and still believe that you're a Canadian nationalist, because being a Con already requires quite a bit of mental gymnastics (or utter lack of intelligence) to justify simultaneous authoritarian and libertarian positions on everything. So yes, having seen Cons perform the mental gymnastics on this board, I believe it. They really don't think that Mulroney sold us out, and don't see a problem with Harper getting into bed with Bush. If anything, they long for those days again.

Sorry, I won't ever vote for a party that smacks of Mulroney. Most Canadians won't either. We got long memories here in Canada. That's why we still make fun of Clark, and that man screwed up long before Mulroney decided to pimp us out to the Americans, who promptly turned us on our backsides and rammed us without lube. I won't for Harper. He's too much like Mulroney. I didn't vote for Charest. He's WAY too much like Mulroney (even today.) Let's get back to nationalism. You can be a Liberal and be a nationalist. You can be a free market liberal and still be a nationalist. You can even be a firewaller, and still be a nationalist. Things I'm most proud of about Canada: 1. We went to war to defend our freedoms, unlike Sweeden and Switzerland, and we did a damned good job at it. (See Vimy, Dieppe, Moreil Wood, Pascendale, Hong Kong, and the rebellion of 1837 for our brightest momments.) 2. We stayed out of wars that did not advance our own freedom. (See Iraq, Vietnam.) 3. We're multi-cultural. We're not xenophobic pricks like the kind they got in France or Austria or the Netherlands. Well, we have a few xenophobic pricks here in Canada, mainly second generation American immigrants, but they eventually go back home because they miss their church and the Republican party. 4. We fess up to our mistakes. (See: Japanese internment, aboriginal betrayals, residential schools, etc.) 5. Peacekeeping. 6. Holding high the banner of human rights. 7. Solid commitments to social mobility in 9 of the 10 provinces. (Alberta exempted: where it is generally believed that since the world needs ditch diggers, those who are poor should eternally be poor and have no chance of working their out of the gutter regardless of how hard they work, because it's the fault of poor people that they're poor. Oh, and that Aboriginals shouldn't have their status cards revoked and should go work in the ditch along with the other poor people, but only after they're sexually assaulted and humiliated, because they have to be held down someway.) 8. Rarely resorting to violence to settle political disputes. 9. Living in the shadow of an elephant or a donkey, depending on who's in power in Washington. 10. Beer.

Gettymander is the Albertan term for Gerrymander. Alberta is the largest market for 'smokeless' tobacco in the world. (I knew somebody who started it at age 14. Died of mouth cancer at 20. I see a lot of Skoal chewed, thank you.) Actions speak louder than words. The fact that Ontario punished the Liberals without throwing them out for a set of equally illiberal anti-human rights bastards, shows a fair amount of intelligence. They could have returned the Libs to a majority government, and chose not to. Now when you compare that to what a majority of Albertans do when Klein does similar (or worse) things, well, who's dumber? The people of Alberta for always cheering on the Premier's behaviour or the people of Ontario for voting Liberal? Clearly, not all Albertans are evil. A full 30 percent vote liberal and another 15 percent would vote against the PC's if there was something else to vote for. But, I must say, a majority of Albertans, the people who support that anti-semetic teacher in central Alberta, the Wiebo's, the Ramsey's, the people who support Ramsey (who's soft on Child abuse again? Martin, oh gosh, I coulda swon it was Harper for standing by Ramsey for so long), and not to mention that a lot of Albertans supported eugenics and the residential school system. (Hitler wanted a similar system in place for the Ukraine, and actually did implement the Albertan eugenic system). Well then, you got one seriously sick society. Attitudes towards the homeless, people with disabilities, and worse of all, the general disdain for social mobility, are all features of the Albertan culture that actually angers me. Now what do I do about it? I post here on these boards. I write a lot of satire. And I do a few other things politically to get things to change. You know, the problem isn't Klein inasmuch as the problem is with Alberta. Klein is a direct reflection of Alberta society, and that's probably the saddest aspect of all.

No, not just the Chretien Patronage (of which rural quebec and urban Quebec alike relished...go back and read some of the Statements by Members in 2002 about the grand prix funding clawbacks; the Bloc was complaining the loudest. If you check the editorial pages, you'll likewise see moaning.) But patronage in the form of rural development scams, the paving of roads where roads need not be paved, job training scams designed to provide just enough employment so that these people qualify for EI for the rest of the year (and thus draw 1 dollar for every 25 cents they pay into it.) Let's face it, most Quebeckers arn't mad about the sponsorship scandal itself, they're just mad that they got caught. And no, they wern't being bought with their own money. They were demanding money from Alberta/Ontario to fund their cultural events all along. Now, let's address the frankly hillarious retort to my "it's always easier to be loose with other people's money" line. To say that Alberta should be grateful that they have enough money to give to the have-not provinces to sqander (and BTW, it's to the tune of 4100 dollars per person, per year, whereas Ontario gets pumped for only 460 dollars per person per year), is simply disgusting. How does the fact that one province earns more gives another province the right to take that money, and instead of spending it wisely on equalization of services, it's completely blown on such ridiculous paving scams as is the case in Prince Edward Island, or, to prop up dying rural communities...communities that need to suck up the fact that the natural resource is gone and it's time for them to move on..instead of leading a subsidized existance. Exactly. It's a preposterous right. And worse, the right doesn't exist. So, maybe it's time to wean the truly enfant terrible off the teet and start feeding on pablum. It's time to work on confederation, and perhaps, if need be, Alberta/Ontario should have a greater say as to how their money is being spent in Quebec and the other have-not provinces. I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars to subsidize the lifestyles of people in Chicoutimi. And no, I'm not Conservative, I'm simply a free market liberal. Time to move to big city and get a real job, Pierre. Time to start paying full price to get into the Grand Prix.

What do you mean by give back? I mean, only two provinces, Ontario and Alberta, give more than they get back. So basically, by saying that Quebec and the other 7 have not provinces should be given 'back' more money, you're saying that Alberta and Ontario should give them more money. No thank you. Alberta and Ontario already give enough. Here's a tip: why not reduce waste and all those patronage programs for rural quebec? That might free up some money. Unless of course, waste and patronage are reflective of the have not provinces. It's always easier to be loose with other people's money.

Aw, you got me. I can't spell many words. (Rather, I repeatedly mispell key words.) Alright. I can tell you're new to Albertan politics, so let's go through this one step at a time, alright? Drunkards: It's well known, in Alberta, in spite of the media trying to bury it for two days then comming out with the story, that Klein, whilst drunk, told his chauffer to stop at a homeless shelter. He then proceded to stagger in, insult somebody, and then chucked a twenty or a fifty at him, kicked him, and told the homeless man to get a job. A massive cheer could be heard from rural Alberta at the gesture. In fact, most of Calgary Southwest had a BBQ to commerate the occasion. The issue in Alberta, believe it or not, wasn't about the act of chucking money and kicking somebody while they're down, but incredibly, about Klein's drinking. To say that Ralphy should get a pat on the back for changing the subject, and then clean up his drinking, is really quite gauling. A Con might applaud it. What Klein does in his personal life is fine. What he does in public, to a homeless man, is public record. Many rural Albertans still drink and drive. So yes, by and large, Albertans agree with kicking somebody while they're done. It's proven by their response to the incident with Klein. Actions speak louder than words. What did Albertans do to Klein? Applauded. And worse, they didn't even have the morals to feel sick to their stomachs. (Makes you wonder about just what kind of morals are being taught in Churches these days.) Let's move onto Bullying. At a committee meeting, one of the three or four Liberals, a lady, asked Klein to produce a receipt from one of his dozens of junkets. (Klein loves to travel on the public purse, to all sorts of places, like Paris, for instance. What he was doing there, nobody knows.) So then, he said, "What, you don't believe me, you don't believe me, you don't believe me, you don't believe me, you don't believe me?" It took the chair a good twenty seconds before he did anything about the bullying. In fact, some of the Cons were shocked, but by and large, they all agreed with his behaviour. Most of the indigation, again, came from the 30% or so of Albertans who vote Liberal. Most Cons didn't freak out. Again, actions speak louder than words. When Klein freaked out at the media, what did Albertans do? Nothing. Plagerism: Oh, here's another good flap. Klein stood up in the house, and he said something along the lines that the Liberal leader was an idiot (or he was spewing idiocy) and that he had just written a paper on Pinochet and that it was a good thing that Pinochet came along to depose the socialists. And then he tabled that paper. Well, that paper was a research paper the Premier had written that year at Athabasca university. It turns out, the Premier wrote out a ton of stuff in a paragraph, and then wrote 'Internet' in brackets at the bottom. Then provincial officials strong armed the presidents of Universities to say that it wasn't plagerism and then applauded the premier. Well, I'm sorry, but that is plagerism. If you don't quote something properly in an academic paper, especially the way he did it, it's not acceptable. So yes, he's a plagerist. Did Albertans respond? Nope. So they must agree with it then. Gettymandering: The Premier before Klein was Getty. Getty redrew the electoral map so that the rural areas, which make up 45 percent of the population, get 55 percent of the seats. He also redrew some key consituencies to marginalize the Liberals. This insures a PC government everytime. Hence, instead of the word 'Gerrymander', we use the word 'Gettymander" Make sense? Direct Democracy: Ralph Klein does whatever Ralph Klein wants. If he wants to dismiss the democratically elected health boards, he does it. No consultation. The Media The Herald and Sun editorial boards have their heads shoved so far up Kleins ass that it's a wonder that a video of it hasn't popped up on the internet. The media is supposed to act to inform the public, not mislead it. The media (CFCN, RDTV, CFRN, Global Calgary, Global Edmonton, the Sun, Herald) has an unwritten policy of not doing any investigative reporting into Alberta government waste or scandal. They don't do their job. They, if anything, defend anything that the province does, while just implying a bit of skeptsism once inawhile. There is no 'free' press in Alberta. It might as well be run by the province, but of course, that would be against the Charter, so to avoid a repeat of what Social Credit did, it's just easier to co-opt the media. There's no such thing as conspiracy theories though, merely converging goals. The only way to get 'exclusives' from the government is to play ball. Pessimistic: The entire Conservative movement, and the Alliance, and Reform, and SoCred before it, are all the epitomy of pessimism. All wheened off the shrivelled tit of lady Alberta. Hypocritical: (got it right) Yes. I call it hypocritical to say "get the government out of my life" while simultaneously demanding more government in other people's lives. Ie. They're against gun control and seat belts, but, most (a good majority) agree with police CCTV, or with enhanced liscensing. If that doesn't sound like the Alberta you know, from somebody who hasn't heard of Gettymandering, you certainly don't know much about Alberta. If you want to see the future of Canada under a Harper government, look into the Skoal-stained mouth of an Albertan. It's black and filled with puss-filled cancerous legions.

I do consider spreading the un-fact that Iraq and 9-11 were directly linked to fall under the umbrella of 'lying'. I'm glad that Hussein is behind bars. I'm mad that Bush spent so much of America's credibility to put him there. The cost (credibility -- which is soooo important in the REAL war against militant Islamists) was much too high. The case for putting Hussein behind bars could have been made on liberal grounds. But Bush, instead of lowering himself to argue on liberal grounds, decided that he'd spend credibility in its stead. THAT is the real issue here. Don't chuck a red herring into it. You can hate Bush AND hate Hussein at the same time. You can hate militant Islamists AND be liberal at the same time. It's not a case of one or the other. To think so is myopic. Harper, on the other hand, bought into and spread the Bush lie. And then tried to distance himself. You know, Cons love to paint others as flipfloppers, which makes it so angering when they do it themselves, and then get all bitchy about it when you point out their flipflop. Day and Harper ought to be ashamed. But they're not. Being Conservatives, I doubt they know how to feel anything except for rage, self-rightcheousness and arrogance.

Do you think there'd be a need for Ottawa to help the cities if the provinces wern't doing their job? Talk about the pot (the provinces) calling the kettle (Ottawa) black. Alberta, Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick are four prime examples about how provincial governments discriminate against cities in favour of the rural areas. (In terms of voting parity [gettymandering, gerrymandering, and delibera misappropriations] and in terms of finances.).