Bryan

Because it's what he actually said. The best case you could spin it would be that he meant that the union comes first, and children and their education are not their primary concern. In that case, you could perhaps say that there is concern for the children, they just don't come first.

Effective at union activism, without concern for the children or their education.

I'm not messing with you, you're just not thinking your position through. What you quoted is completely irrelevant, and easily disproven. Almost all businesses and public facilities of any stripe (including government institutions) engage in systemic discrimination all of the time. Think about it for a second. Even a place that has a dress code is discriminating against anyone who doesn't have or can't afford those particular clothes, even more so against anyone who has a strong aversion to them. It doesn't take long at all to find several cases of daily discrimination that is perfectly legal in just about any setting. TWU is not discriminating against any PEOPLE. No specific person is told they can't go there because of who they are. TWU only lists a set of expected BEHAVIOURS that are appropriate for people on their campus. That is perfectly legal, and constitutionally protected.

"I bought a Slurpee, not because I love 7-11, not because Slurpees are the best, not because of the staff, and not because of the decor -- but rather I bought that Slurpee because I was thirsty, and it was nearby." What were the factors that I felt were important in my decision to buy a Slurpee? What were the factors that I did not feel were important in my decision to buy a Slurpee?

That isn't even remotely true. Almost every business or service discriminates in some manner over something.

He was detailing that they have other priorities, that the power of the union takes precedence over the students or their education.

For the love of god, it's EXACTLY what he DID say, you even quoted it.

There's more to it than privacy, it is a sanitation issue. I grew up in a very rural area, up north. We had no running water, and only a wood stove for heat in the winter. An outhouse was still considered a necessity to keep the excrement and the smell well away from the cabin. That's why the lack of toilets of any sort are jaw dropping to Canadians -- we would always have some semblance of one even in places where it would not affect other people, never mind where it clearly does by having everyone walking in each others crap.

Where is the lie? That link confirms what I just said.

Most jobs have a required on the job learning curve. It might be at your desk, it might be in a classroom. It's still a benefit to be paid to get a certification.

Not all of the time. I agreed with your assessment of the woman who was suing the family of the kids she hit with her car. I've agreed with other things you've said on other subjects as well Currently, in this thread, yes. Your position is not based on reality. You've been attempting to qualify that position by posting things that are not true.

You keep posting things that are patently false. I have no problem discussing anything with you, if you stick to things that are real instead of how you wish they were.

Any job can let you go if you aren't working out.

On the job training is not an education requirement, it's an employment benefit.

He's already the greatest we've ever had by a pretty wide margin.

Go back and look at the numbers EKOS has posted in comparison to: a) almost anyone else's polling the actual votes They consistently glossily under-report the actual CPC support. Last Federal election, EKOS' final poll gave the CPC 34 (they got 40). In the real world, EKOS' current numbers mean that CPC is at least tied if not slightly leading.

Federal revenues are up, and so is program spending.

Taxes are lower now than they were under the Liberals, period.

EKOS is the one company everyone needs to ignore outright. Their actual errors are consistently several times higher than their stated MOE. They have been the least accurate of all of the pollsters in the past several election cycles. There's actually a pretty accurate formula you can do you adjust EKOS' numbers to make them reflect what you'd actually get: take 5% off of the Liberals and add it to the Conservatives.

Go for it. I heard what he said. You can contort logic all you want to defend the unions, but you'll just be doing the same thing that he did in the video.

You're completely full of it SmallC. The Liberals shuffled deck chairs. They made announcements that gave the appearance of doing something, yet had little positive effect. They downloaded a tremendous amount of the fiscal responsibility to the provinces who in turn raised taxes there -- there is only one taxpayer. More tax is more tax regardless of what pocket it comes from.

I stand by the quote you just posted. You have no grounds to make the claim that any one person is not allowed in. A restaurant that does not allow smoking, is not disallowing people who smoke. They are not allowing that behaviour while patronizing their establishement. TWU is not saying anywhere that someone who has or likes to do any of the things in the code of conduct is not allowed to enrol. They are only saying that those who go there agree not to do them while students. It's huge difference.

Martin was a buffoon who had no idea what he was doing.

Martin promised a lot that he never delivered on. To say anything else is to be far less than honest.

Absolutely. Lower GST, lower income tax, lowered starting tax bracket, significantly more tax credits -- especially for the things that really make budgeting for families very difficult (like child care and sports). The average working family benefitted tremendously from the CPC's tax policies.