Trial-and-Error
-
Posts
106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Trial-and-Error
-
-
I read an article from the Globe and Mail a few days back ..not sure if McSquinty is thinking about it but do you think its time to pull provincial funding for catholic schools?
I believe so!
There should be no funding for religious schools in a secular society
just my opinion
what is yours?
edit: I believe there are provinces who have pulled funding for Catholic schools
That is a no brainer. Not only should funding be withdrawn but all Catholic and other religious schools should be taxed for messing up the brains of their students. We're going to pay dearly down the road because of what tommyrot is being thrust into their impressionable heads. Moreover, while we're at it, all churches and properties and income of said churches should be taxed. Look at the Catholic church, for instance, they are sitting on untold wealth while millions among their flock of sheep go hungry every day. While I would never ban belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or the little munchkins that live in the forest, if any group would rise up and form some kind of a congregation around their fantasy, I would not be giving them any tax breaks. So why should it be different for churches who support a fairy god?
-
Yes, I'm aware. Nonetheless, when a party controls the presidency as well as both houses of congress, they can often do quite a lot. Obama squandered that opportunity, by trying to achieve bipartisan compromises during the early part of his term. That was certainly a noble goal, but naive. He should have tried to implement as much of his agenda as possible while the Democrats had the power to do so.
Absolutely! I mean, c'mon, look at the horrific legislation Georgie Pordgy got through when he didn't have the whole enchilada and when he did, he took no prisoners. And Barrack don't got no Cheney running interference. Still, Barrack missed the boat big time. But then, I think it is entirely possible that he like Georgie is only the titular head. In fact, I think the public would be mortified to learn what the real deal is in politics on both sides of the border. That's why I've given up listening to the news--which it is NOT--it is only that which they want us to think that we know. We in the West live in the lands of smoke and mirrors.
-
What's there to agree with? I don't understand his point.
His original point was that he disagreed with spending 850,000 on a bloody ceremony to "honour" those Canucks who fought in Libya--who engaged in murder and maiming--a celebration of inhumanity to man. He kind've thought that the money could be put to better use. So, I agreed with him and as far as the spelling was concerned, I was able to overlook it cuz I understood what he was saying. I am a spelling/grammar critic no more--well, not on forums. I used to engage in that myself but then I reexamined my motives and found them to be welllllll just a tad supercilious. (Joking, just joking). How about a tad elitist (with no justification!!)
-
Tsk, tsk, tsk, cybercoma, you are ignoring what you had said in another thread about that poster being a troll. Don't feed the trolls!
Public service growth far outstrips population rise, notes show
The Harper Government ballooned the public service so they could slash it and look heroic. The sort of cartoon politics that appeals to the low-grade intellect of the Canadian fringe right who only have the capacity to understand politics in terms of slogans.
You're gooooooood! "...in terms of slogans." HEHEHEHEHE
-
After ramming the Omnibus Crime Bill through the House then realizing they needed to add amendments, it wouldn't surprise me if this government has continued its habit of act-first-questions-later politics on this one too.
Cybercoma, in my opinion, it is rare that mistakes are made. We may attribute bad legislation to "mistakes," but it is very deliberate. And that's what angers me the most. These so-called mistakes are by design. And one more thing, I believe strongly that conspiracy in government is the norm; it is not the exception. Far too many people have it backward. Once we have that one clearly understood, everything else falls into place and makes sense. Take 911 for instance; identify all that has happened since, and Eureka, the puzzle is solved. We may not like the picture it forms, but damn it does make sense.
-
For the love of god Topaz. What the hell are you even talking about? It's going to cost us billions in pensions and benefits? REALLY!?!? Do you even know what a billion is???
1000 million....or 1,000,000,000. They're proposing to add 26 new seats to the legislature. Even for this to cost us ONE billion, that's going to mean around $35 million PER new MP in costs. If we're talking BILLIONS, then you're saying that it's going to cost $70+ million per new seat.
From what I've read, this is going to add $15-20 million per year in extra legislature costs.
Topaz is this another case of you just wetting your pants over anything the Cons do, and then making all sorts of shit up to get other people on your side?
Also, for the record, yes, I think the majority of Canadians support making representation more fair. Maybe not Manitoba. Sorry.
Oh, for the love of gawd, Moonbox, get a life. Topaz is absolutely correct, we need fewer representatives. Not more. For the population of our size, we are over-governed by a bunch of money grabbing thieves. I don't trust any of them. They will do anything to get elected. They will humiliate themselves, they will lie, cheat, do anything at all to achieve power. And we need more to join their ranks. Are you kidding me? Anybody who thinks politicians are there for our benefit, give your heads a shake. They are the dregs of society and while occasionally one comes along that shows some promise, they are cowed by those already there. If government were run on the up and up, I doubt you'd get many who'd want to step up to the plate to get elected. After all what would be in it for them? And then, we have the senate--a joke at best; at worst, sheer theft of the taxpayer. And we don't have the collective good sense to demand change. Anti-regressive conservatives? You bet! But do I think the Liberals are any better? If they are, not by much. The NDPers? Not bloody likely but so long as they are in the opposition, they can talk the talk. The entire system stinks. Canada the true north strong and free. Gag me with a spoon!! and to the south, "...with liberty and justice for all.: Does anyone actually sing or recite this tripe any more? But I digress. Moonbox, we do NOT--I repeat--we do NOT need even one more politician--not one. As for your criticism of Topaz' figures, who cares. He made his point. Not another red cent for more reprobates.
-
Think about this. The conspiracy theory is that he US and Canada will have to join as one because of the amount of debt each country has. Well the US really has theirs but we in Canada don't ...as yet. Slowly the harmonizing of the US and Canada is coming together and Harper's spending hasn't really started..yet. Billions on jets, prisons, bridges, helping their own special groups, all going down the road to NAU. So just keep your eyes and ears open and lets see by the time the Tories are done , what exactly Canada looks like, especially the health care system.
You, Topaz, are spot on IMNSHO. Our health care system was working swimmingly in the 70's and 80's and then ever so slowly things began to change until today our health care system in no way resembles that which it once was. For my money, it has since been monkeyed with and re-designed to fail. What do people do? They get fed up and say well, this universal system of health care is no longer working, let's bring in the American system. They don't think about why it's failing; they only know they're not receiving the medical attention they feel they should. The health care industry is chomping on the bit (they're already here in B.C. and Alberta--probably in more provinces as well). If we are ever to get the health care system back on track, it will require that everybody demand a fast turn-around from the dismal failure it now is. But you know that not everyone gives a damn. Again, it all comes down to how deep your pockets are--and if they're deep enough you don't have to worry about how much health care costs. It's the old tried and true adage, divide and conquer. The sickness-for-profit industry (including the doctors most of whom are over-paid as it is) are poised for a full frontal attack coming soon.
-
Taxing the 1%: Why the top tax rate could be over 80%
Because it makes no difference to economic growth... there is no correlation between cuts in top tax rates and average annual real GDP-per-capita growth since the 1970s. For example, countries that made large cuts in top tax rates such as the United Kingdom or the United States have not grown significantly faster than countries that did not, such as Germany or Denmark. Hence, a substantial fraction of the response of pre-tax top incomes to top tax rates documented in Figure 1 may be due to increased rent- seeking at the top rather than increased productive effort. Naturally, cross-country comparisons are bound to be fragile, and the exact results vary with the specification years, and countries. But by and large, the bottom line is that rich countries have all grown at roughly the same rate over the past 30 years – in spite of huge variations in tax policies.
Using our model and mid-range parameter values where the response of top earners to top tax rate cuts is due in part to increased rent-seeking behaviour and in part to increased productive work, we find that the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83% – as opposed to 57% in the pure supply-side model.
Up until the 1970s, policymakers and public opinion probably considered – rightly or wrongly – that at the very top of the income ladder, pay increases reflected mostly greed or other socially wasteful activities rather than productive work effort. This is why they were able to set marginal tax rates as high as 80% in the US and the UK. The Reagan/Thatcher revolution has succeeded in making such top tax rate levels unthinkable since then. But after decades of increasing income concentration that has brought about mediocre growth since the 1970s and a Great Recession triggered by financial sector excesses, a rethinking of the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions is perhaps underway.
Hmmm ... food for thought.
Well, it would be nice; however, I'll not be holding my breath for a change to come. If anything, I predict things are going to become far worse. The super rich believe in their heart of hearts that they can win the squeeze they have on us. And those few rich who've come forward to say they believe they should be taxed--that they should pay be paying their fair share. What do they take us for? Fools? Well, okay, they may have a point. But where have these guys been over these past many decades? Why they've been busying themselves with their accountants looking for-------yes, that's right----------every possible tax deduction loophole. But they are worried not about paying their fair share but about the world's 7 billion population and are working on "a fix" for that. All these excess people don't bode well for the environment and how can the super rich enjoy their lives to the fullest when the environment is under seige? Stay tuned.
-
When will Canada demand respect from the US? Canada should go on strike!!
http://m.ctv.ca/toronto/20111207/Harper_border_security_deal_Obama-111207.html
While Canadian news outlets were doing a full-court press to cover the new border deal with the United States, it appears that the response south of the border could better be defined as "meh."
Stephen Harper met U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House Wednesday afternoon, but there was no pomp and ceremony planned – no state dinner and apparently no photo op in the Oval Office.
As well, a search of two major U.S. newspapers - The New York Times and Washington Post - yields nary a word about Harper's visit.
But for navel-gazing Canadians, at least the Times was still playing up its recent story on NHL tough guys and brain injuries.
On CNN's website, Obama's schedule is posted, noting a 2:15 p.m. "bilateral meeting" with Harper followed by statements from the two at 3 p.m., before Obama heads off to a campaign event at 4:35 p.m.
A White House agenda posted online simply states "the (Oval Office) meeting is closed press."
That led Washington's WTOP Radio political commentator Mark Plotkin to suggest to CTV News Channel the prime minister was apparently given a choice between an Oval Office photo op, or public statements with the president afterward.
Andrew MacDougall, associate director of communications with the PMO, declined to answer whether Harper was given a choice, but did reply in an email to CTVNews.ca confirming meeting times.
But Plotkin decried his country's apathy toward its northern neighbour.
"This is the same country that seems to be continually snubbed by this president," he said.
"I must wonder why no state dinner for this prime minister? They had a state dinner for Mexico – nothing for Canada. I think you're treated quite shabbily by this administration," he said.
Does Mexico get better treatment because of the large Hispanic voting community in the U.S.? Do the Democrats play up this connection?
If there's any political gain in today's announcement for Obama, who faces an election in 2012, it's telling America he's tough on border security in the south and north, Plotkin added.
That aside, he said Harper's visit is still being treated like a diplomatic and political "quickie."
"There is no fanfare, there is no buzz, there is not even information that he is here in this city," he said.
"Why do you stand for it?" he added, exasperated.
Oh, too funny. Uncle Stevie not being served his din-din at the White House. This is meaty stuff to be sure. Notwithstanding what we may think of ourselves, in the scheme of things we're a blip on the U.S. radar screen--and the Yankee administration believes we should be damn grateful for that. So let us stop our whining and give thanks to the fairy god.
If we ever had real autonomy from the U.S. I'd be surprised. But it's for damn sure, we don't have it now. When Obama wants Stevie, he reels him in and when he's done he removes the hook and pops the "little" guy back into to the water to swim home. Uncle Stevie is obviously unperturbed by this, so I'm guessing he's getting what he wants out of the relationship. And let's face it, isn't that what really counts? Just as Georgie had and has great disdain for the American plebes, Uncle Stevie thinks pretty much the same about us. Why, we're nothing but a bunch of orphans flailing about, giving our opinions and hoping that we will be heard. Gawd, we ARE a pitiful lot. Still this orphan Annie gots her priorities and I dunt give a whit about how Uncle Stevie gets treated south of the border.
As for the border deal,the hackles on the back of my neck spike and I wince whenever government tells me that its latest agreement with the U.S. will be in this country's best interests. Ohgoodgawd, where does it all end. Trust me, we don't want to know!!
-
virtual keyboard.
But to the haters try to fixate on the issue, not the messenger,
Slightly different situuatuin from when my posts were being edited externally. (also note my computer was bluescreened while mentioning that my posts were edited externally, and still may be to insert typos. Now I have a keyboard now that is virtualized,
I am definately being hacked but the typo's are predominantely my own now.
The non physical key touch keyboard is absolutely horrible due to bad engineering,
I'm with you, William. Of course, I'm a pritty gud spellir myself and I hav a convinshunal keybored, so I dunt have the same prublems that you do. Hell, I don't care how you spell, just so long as it's not so bad that I really don't understand what it is that you are saying. So far, so good. I'm getting the message. Keep up the good work, cuz I agrees with you.
-
So killing grass would get me arrested in your world? Glad I don't live in it.
I don't have to pay this money to re-sod the park so I don't give a hoot. Just thought I'd bring that information forward.
It is interesting that people call into question the actual cost of re-sodding the park. I would probably call it into question to, just about anything a public servants do is overpriced an not very efficient.
Especially you, Boges. All those right of Centre require exposure to science and to the humanities. Knowing how bleach adversely affects the soil is important for you to know. And in my world, we pay to educate you. We would not take the easy way out and have you pay for damages. It is more important to us that you know why what you did was wrong--you were being injurious to the environment and by extension, injurious to yourself, me and everyone else.
But then, too, under my type of administration, you would have learned all this by now so you wouldn't have poured bleach onto the grass in any event. You see we're very much into putting our monies into preventing problems; into researching where potential problems might lie; into helping people be the best that they can be--not the worst.
You could do far worse than living in my world.
-
If only people got this enraged over our tax money being used to bail out and subsidize private companies.
But yes... let's fight over people protesting the billions we give away to private corporations. Yes, let's fight about the grass the protesters stood on instead.
Because that makes absolutely no sense, and that is what the elite would rather us do. Fight ourselves for the scraps...
EXACTLY AND WELL PUT! Another voice of reason!!!!
-
So it's impossible that left wing protesters trashed a park they were camped out in for 40 days. It has to be a right-wing conspiracy.
Well, yeah, ooookay, let's go with that.......if you're talking about trashing. Guys on the left would never set out to trash anything. It's not in their nature. If you mean, that by pitching tents, the hidden grass was unable to avail itself of the light and thus expired or seemed to have expired, that's not trashing. I'm just happy the protesters had a "roof" over their heads. I'm not at all concerned about the grass. If the grass doesn't grow back, the weeds will take over. In any event, by the time spring rolls around, there'll be something for the groundskeeper to mow.
-
Probably, but it's an unneeded drop in the bucket.
If I went to a public park and started pouring bleach on the grass would the City just eat the cost or send me a bill?
Ohmygawd, how could you even provide such a heinous supposition? Are you from the far right? Anyone from the left would never even think of anyone pouring bleach into the soil--they are sensitive to these things. Still, if we must let's go with your scenario...............
If caught, you're going to be arrested and when you come before me (I be the judge), you will be required to research bleach and the harm it does to the environment. You are placed in custody until the assignment is completed. Bye Boges.
-
Evidence?
Evidence? You're killin' me. I'm playing a numbers game here--a game of probabilities. The far right is rarely if ever responsible for doing good--for anyone but themselves. Responsibility for doing bad? Heaps of examples, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite chapter and verse. Instead, I suggest that you turn off your tv set; grab your reading glasses and read; observe what's going on around the world; think; then connect the dots. oil procurement through war, environment devastation, deregulation of necessary resources, torture for flawed info, killing, maiming, stealing, lying--everything that is the antithesis of being a good public representative resides on the right of Atilla the Hun. Mind you, the political boundaries these days have become hazy, indeed, but among the public at large, those on the left and far left are far more benign than those on the right and the far right. It is written, you know.
-
Evidence?
Oh, puhleeese. I'm looking at probabilities here and the political far right are rarely responsible for good. So don't bug me.
-
Do they really need to re-sod the park? Did they intend on re-sodding the park anyway? I suspect the costs are being inflated to continue the attack on Occupy.
Hear. Hear
-
Re-sodding is just stupid, wasteful and damaging to the environment.
Chances are the grass will grow back, or a sprinkling of seed would do it.
Re-sodding is absolutely ridiculous.
Btw, I believe the unions did offer to help with the cost. I'd rather occupiers volunteer to spread grass seed, though, as that's all that's needed.
Hear. Hear.
-
And how much of that was caused by the little Fifis and their toxic urine? How much was caused by regular hobo damage or, God forbid, the ruinous Ultimate players?
So many questions, so few sensational answers.
I say the little fiffis are to blame--and yes those little buggers do have toxic urine. So you can take that point. Hobos could do some damage, but hey, they shouldn't be there in the first place. They should be safely in their homes they do not have. I'll take that point. But me thinks you also think they should have homes. As for the ruinous Ultimate players. Never. They're the good guys. Can we share a point here?
-
Yeah because Urine and Ultimate players block out the sun like rows of tents and Yurts.
Poor baby, you need to rearrange your priorities. Besides, I bet it's not the protesters doing damage but rather a bunch of paid hooligans masquarading as protesters who're the culprits. Well, it wouldn't be the first time. Just be aware that I have my eye on you.
-
Actually I doubt it. The grass on lawns is far from natural. Weeds will likely take over. Now, personally I like weeds, but maybe that's just because I am too lazy to deal with them.
Doubt all you want. I'm glad you like weeds. I'm learning to like them myself--a whole lot actually. It costs money to maintain grass, so dang, if the protesters didn't do us another favour if you're right that weeds will take over. But Jacee is also correct. If they're gung ho on keeping their grass, get the grass seed out and scatter. Either way, I don't care. Just keep this movement growing--t' hell with the grass.
-
$20,000-$60,000 to repair the damage done to the park by the Occupiers. Paid by the Toronto taxpayers of course.
Guess the Ford's will have to close another pool.
Good job!
Pittance. Harper paid gawdknowshowmuch to build a lake to impress those he hobnobs with these days -- So spare me. These great "upstarts" are worth the price. So, you Torontonians, grab your chequebooks!
-
Trial-and-error, I love your whole post and welcome you to the board. Keep posting!
The issue of Canadian bank bailouts is still secretive in Canada, and needs to be exposed. We're paying for it. We have a right to know and a responsibility to act on the information.
Boges, I get it. However, I disagree to some extent: The OCCUPY movement would never have had the impact it is having without the in-your-face occupations of the parks. It may not last forever, but it was a necessary initial tactic.
Now the movement is mostly moving indoors to more traditional operations, consolidating national and international connections and coordinating actions.
The occupations were just the vanguard, to test public support ... which is HUGE ... and to be a very public face and gathering place. It also made very public the development and implementation of the direct democracy general assemblies that anyone can participate in. It's unique, organized, possibly slow (as democracy is), and because it is/was out in the open, literally, in the parks, people learned a lot about it very quickly.
Those who criticize protesters and defend the 1% would criticize no matter how the movement operated. Those who focused on the problems of drugs, alcohol and violence that accompanied the homeless people into the OCCUPY camps are grasping at straws because those problems happen on the street everyday and they don't pay attention then. The homeless people, more even than the occupiers themselves, epitomize the deep fractures in our society, where those with good fortune come to believe they are more deserving, and dismiss those less fortunate to 'deserve' their punishment.
It isn't so: A human being is a human being and those who are 'left behind' are the signal that something is terribly wrong. The rapidly increasing wealth of the 1% is being taken from the rest of us, and the cracks in the system are now exposed. We face a further round of 'austerity' cuts in services, with the most vulnerable among us already in dangerous circumstances, postsecondary graduates lacking opportunities, older workers unemployed and considered unemployable, the elder population about to increase dramatically, putting pressure on the system that will open more cracks and fissures that vulnerable people will fall through ...
The current system of power-by-wealth via corruption of our democracy, ie, by bending the political will of our governments - regardless of political party - to serve corporate interests over the interests of ALL Canadians ... that system is no longer acceptable, no longer viable: It only leads down the road of increasing public discontent, activism, and ultimately civil disobedience, disorder, and a complete breakdown in 'civil society' - rioting, looting, and pre-dominance of an underground economy.
Those who denigrate the OCCUPY movement might want to reconsider: Would they rather deal with an open, democratic movement that respects expression of ideas and seeks cooperative common solutions ... or the rapid expansion, indeed takeover, by the underground economy?
Don't be too bothered by the lackeys of the 1% who malign the OCCUPY movement: They're just stooges following orders blindly to ingratiate themselves to the 1%. They do it out of fear of the wealthy and powerful, because they know their wrath and try to avoid it.
The Occupiers, however, have no fear of the 1% or their stooges, and persist with direct democracy because Canadians see themselves as a democracy and have those values. It is a very mainstream movement. It's the power cabal of the 1% and their bought-and-sold-out politicians and other lackies that are out of step with Canadian values.
Arrived home in the wee small hours the other morning thinking I could squeeze in one more activity and respond to your post, Jacee. What was I thinking? No sooner had I logged in and readied myself for action, I found my eyes losing their focus and my normally nimble fingers slacking off shamelessly. The brain was quickly shutting down and fighting its loss of stamina due to the years I had packed on to it was not an option. So I hied myself off to bed.
But now I'm back at the starting line.
Jacee, many thanks for your very kind words and welcome. Seems that we are in synch on the various issues you raise. Certainly the points you make are worth remembering. I was particularly touched by your insights on poverty in this land of plenty. It seems that in any kind of financial crunch, the already disenfranchised are made to be the first to suffer the harsh effects. As if that weren't bad enough, they become the inevitable scapegoats of the problem. Were it not such a heartless, boldface lie, it would be effing funny. And I agree, too, that the Wallstreet movement belongs in the public arena and that we should be exceedingly grateful to those who are putting their very beings on the line for the rest of us who can't or won't participate. However, if the Movement participants are successful, the rest of us will gladly benefit.
And now, Jacee, I'm about to indulge myself in something many will find outrageous— especially in light of just how far out I am going. But here we go just the same. Caveat: It's just a surmise nonetheless.
Given that violent crime rates are decreasing what could be motivating Harper to build more prisons? You can say anything about dear Stephen except that he's stupid and ill informed. He knows full well what the stats are on crime. So, could it be............is it at all possible................probable even...................that he needs places in which to incarcerate dissenters? Aware of just what additional legislation he plans to bring in and aware that the vast majority will take umbrage, and anticipating the growth of the WS movement, he brings in legislation that will see more prisons built.
Think everyone, since 911, a lot of things have come to pass that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. As you should know, the U.S. Constitution has all but been canabalized; the media is now in the hands of a few; there is little independent reporting going on and being presented in mainstream media; the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have been without proven public cause; and now we're hitting on Iran. Canada's anthem is not O Canada but “I Will Follow You” and it does follow the dictates of the U.S. Either covertly or openly. Now, throw in this rather nasty business of submitting to the indignities of being zapped or groped at airports. Are they kidding me? That I should attend an airport to be groped, zapped or both? Not on your life. I will pay the price by eliminating all trips which must of necessity involve airports. Yes, folks, I, in my own small way, am standing firm and wish to hell others would follow suit. But invoking and practicing principles is not my only gig. I can also practice pragmatism which I do now by granting exceptions to those who must use air travel as part of their jobs. For all others who refuse to follow my example, I ask as a bare minimum that you acknowledge the fact that you allow yourselves to be herded like so much cattle and sheep.
This crap is unheard of in a democratic society. And yet, people are buying into it on one level or another. Great stuff, cuz there's more to come. And the flavour will be the same. As for the new prisons, for now I'm just surmizing that Harper is preparing for something quite nefarious—something we refuse to even contemplate. I don't look at things that way. I prepare myself for the worst but hope like hell for the best.
I can't for the life of me think that building more prisons has anything to do with incarcerating the run of the mill criminal but rather it's about warehousing political “criminals.” So one and all, bite me for such an outrageous, highly improbable, silly notion. Ready your incisors and attack at will. But catch me if you can cuz I'm outta here.
-
BTW if you think this is a worthy "war" then why praytell aren't you camped out there?
Oh, tiffle, run along and play and be damned thankful that we have people who are willing and able to literally put their lives on the line in order to bring attention to a number of critical issues that plague us today. I bet you're one of those who when anything financially goes wrong with the country point to the welfare people as the problem. Yep, thought so. You must be very young indeed not to have figured out that the real welfare beneficiaries reside at the top of the pyramid--politicians and all those individuals, corporations and banks who are exorbitantly monied and/or supremely connected are the enemy. Your beloved Harper government bailed out the Canadian Chartered Banks to the tune of 75 billion dollars--per capita, the exact same amount as did the U.S. Fun stuff, eh wot? Funnier still is that Harper denies it. Yep, your boy is a real straight shooter--to your balls. And just how many strings do you think were attached to the bailout? Dunt know? Exactly the same number as in the States. ZERO..............cuz the peoples who fill the public troughs with their hard earned money duzn't have the right to know how their monies will be spent by the bankers.
Little wonder that those who go into politics will lie, cheat, steal, throw their mothers to the wolves, whatever it takes to get elected. Whatever for? Well, naturally, they are doing it all for YOU. They luvs ya. They cares for ya. They wants t' help. It's not about them; it's about you. Uh-huh. Sad to say, I could never relate to just how noble they wanted me to see them as. Oh, there are a few good ones, but by the time they are suitably indoctrinated by the incumbents, they soon smarten up. Nothing like peer pressure to keep you in your place. And then after awhile, the vast majority of the few good ones simply settle in and have a right good old time of it. And we who the politicians declare they wants t' help gets to pick up the tab for anything government wants to do. Such a deal. You get democracy now every four years; in the interim, you are persona non grata and not worth a pinch of you know what.
If I had had more than an ounce of larceny in me and could enjoy honing the art of lying, I might just have thrown my hat into the ring. It's one helluva gig. One can only dream of hunkering down with your counterparts in the HoC to set your own salary and benefits package. Then there're the connections you make as you are being courted by all and sundry--certainly nothing to scoff at; besides which that translates into megabucks after you leave government cuz whilst you were there, well, ya done yer duty--in a manner of speaking. And this silly business of answering your critics whilst in office, sheeeesh, I don't think so. Well, not if you're Harper or a member of HIS Cabinet. Ya just tell the press (the guys and gals who speak for the people--Christ, I'm actually choking on this one--to bugger off. The thrill of power must be exhilarating--ya do what you please and bugger the people. YES! Datsa your boy, Boges.
Well, I ain't got no religion and I ain't gots the stomach for skullduggery; and I ain't into hangin' or fillin' up prisons; got no will to send young men and women to fight in unjust, criminal wars so the guys at the top can makes plenty of bucks outfittin' the war; dunt feel creative enough to build bogus lakes for other well heeled World leaders to appreciate on your dime; I dun't want to see the Canadian Health Care system tank out of deliberate mismanagement; I just don't got the right stuff. That's why I'm at the bottom of the heap, which is where you are, Boges, but you don't know it yet. Or maybe yer connected. Oooooh, now there's a thought. Either way, you're on the wrong side of the argument. I know these things.
As for your retort to Rick--Come, come, is that all you've got?
Time to pull provincial funding for Catholic schools?
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Okay, so you didn't comprehend well what you read and yet opted to take an offensive approach in your reply. Not to worry. I obviously hit on a soft spot. Your mistake was inferring something I didn't imply. Where do I suggest that we should pull funding from religious schools to save money? The clue lies in the second half of the sentence and the sentence following. I was engaging in rhetoric, unless, of course, that is disallowed here at Maple Leaf. Over.