Bryan

What are you smoking? a/ The trans person was asked to leave the bridal shop because patrons were uncomfortable with his/her presence. b/ Men were asked to leave a public pool because patrons were uncomfortable with their presence. Either exclusion to accommodate discomfort IS legitimate, or it's not. If b/ is acceptable, then so is a/.

Why does the owner of the company (the one taking the real risks) not have the kind of freedom the workers do? It's ridiculous that they have to allow a union if they don't want one on their property. THAT is a lack of freedom.

I agree, I never see posts here that would so much as get a warning on any other site I go to. I always wonder what happened.

That's not how it shakes out though. The wages are not high enough to make up the difference. People in places with lower rates on unionization have a higher standard of living because they have more of their own money left after paying for basic things like food and shelter. Like I said: When you adjust for cost of living, lower unionization results in better incomes.

Only until someone decides to use the term "scentphobic".

That may be easier said than done. If it was either all dispersed undocumented or just not spent under the previous government, there's nothing there for this government to find.

Those are also some of the most expensive places to live in the world. When you adjust for cost of living, lower unionization results in better incomes. "Right To Work", even more so.

There seems to be a misconception that a business being unionized automatically means higher wages. That is not a given either. I mentioned earlier that I have worked for several unionized companies. At one of those, the company was unionized while I was working there. The union (a very big one with over 200,000 members) was giving us all the same lines you always hear unions give about how they can bring us hyperbolic increases in wages, benefits, and job conditions. At the time, I should have realized that the company could never afford such things, but I was a young, naive liberal who believed the ideals the unions was selling. The end result was some serious fiscal slight of hand by the union. One one side, they were able to truthfully say that the hourly wage did increase (albeit far less than the amount they PROMISED to get us to sign on). The part they didn't want to talk about though was how the rest of our compensation package (uniform allowances, shift premiums, etc) went down, AND we now had to pay union dues. The bottom line was our take-home pay went down, not up.

My personal hostility towards unions is primarily from having worked several union jobs. I'll take the word and actions of a corporation over that of a union any day of the week. Unions reward laziness, institutionalize inefficiency, kill profitability, and force people to join against their will. They turn the employee-management relationship into one that is adversarial, when they should see each other as part of the same team with the same goals. Unions are a job killing parasite. I particularly dislike public sector unions. Because governments can't just shut down if they can't afford operational costs, unions are actually holding the taxpayers hostage with each negotiation. People who don't make as much money as the govt. employees are expected to dig into their pockets to pay for the demands of people who are already better off. It's robbery.

An appropriate response to the Federal policies of the time.

I have to wonder.... why is it that the AG is just now getting around to auditing the funding for a program set up 12 years ago? Is there a reason that the audits weren't done at the time that the Liberals actually allocated it? Compare this to the audit on the F-35, where the AG railed hysterically about money that had not even been spent (no contracts were even signed yet). There is a clear double standard when it comes to the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Liberals in power? Look away. Conservatives? Take the real number, double it and add 30, then shout that from the rooftops.

There's nothing out of context about the quotes of Justin on his opinions of Quebec vs. the rest of Canada. He's said the same things many times in many ways, it is exactly what he said and meant.

The programs that the missing was allocated to were set up in 2001. Who was in power in 2001 again?

Now you're lying too. Also not a surprise.

As usual, the union is lying. Big surprise. There's nothing in the ad that disparages public school teachers. Trudeau was a part-time drama instructor at a private school where kindergarten tuition is $14,500 a year.

James Hansen and intelligence are not words that go in the same sentence together. The guy is a liar and a fraud. If our government is ticking him off, that all by itself means we're doing the right thing.

That's ridiculous, they did no such thing.

If you believe that, what you're saying is you believe Trudeau himself to be beneath contempt.

I love how the left keeps saying these ads will backfire on the Conservatives. Now where have I heard that before..... A Short History of Backfiring Reporters http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/a-short-history.html

As an "Attack Ad", it's pretty tame. It's nothing like the ones you see in the states where over-the top accusations are leveled at opponents. All the Conservative ads do is present footage of the opponent speaking. Actually, the National Post is the one lying, again. Selly is the one being selective about the full text, where Justin clearly says those views which were his fathers are also his own. If you don't like that one, just wait. There are MANY examples of Justin outright saying that Quebecers are better than other Canadian, that Quebec should separate, that Albertans are bad for Canada, etc, etc. It's recurring theme whenever you let him speak his mind.

To me, this seems way too small, and way too amateur to be Al Qaeda. It looks a lot more like a loner/first timer.

Political calling is just one of their services, they're a general telemarketing centre. People hate telemarketing, and it's getting harder and harder to make a buck doing it. Heck, I am a Conservative supporter, and it really pisses me off when these guys keep calling me. I very specifically will not donate if they call me, even if I was planning to otherwise. It's been almost a year since my last donation, only because they can not or will not go more than 60 days without harassing me for the next one. My personal time frame is 90 days. If they don't bug me for 90 days, then I'll send it in. Every call I get resets that clock.

Maduro wins in Venezuela: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-venezuela-election-idUSBRE93C0B120130415

Yep. It's the soft racism of low expectations.

I was including the IT departments, since, not being on site, all they really are is call centres. Anyone who has had to deal with them knows, the service is horrifically bad. It's not worth the trouble. That's why I made a pledge a few years ago, never to work for a company that didn't have its IT people in the same building. So far, that's made my life a lot easier, because I can actually get my work done, and keep the clients happy. Happy clients puts food on my table.