err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded CBC: CSIS head says Canadians fighting in IraqThe head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) says Canadians have joined the insurgency in Iraq. James Judd, the director of CSIS, revealed Thursday evening that some of the foreign fighters in Iraq battling coalition troops are Canadians. He said there aren’t many, but more are expected to join.
Speaking to reporters at a break during a security conference in Montreal, Judd was asked if Canadians were in Iraq fighting against the American-led coalition. “Yes, I believe so,” he said. He said there weren’t many, “we’re talking single digit numbers.” But he said “we’re aware of several others who are contemplating leaving.”
If the US shoots and paralyzes one of these Canadian terror supporters, will the Canadian taxpayer, again, be forced to pay for this terrorist's medical bills and therapy for the rest of his life?
Let Osama pay his bills.
I think that when someone is defending their own country, it is not correct to call them "terrorists". For instance, if the USA were to invade Canada (because of Carolyn Parrish, certainly not for our oil), and we fought back, would we be counted as terrorsits ?????
PS. Osama didn't invade Iraq... The USA did....
-
It's pretty simple, so you should be able to understand it. Those who have an income pay income tax. Some of that income tax goes to help those who don't have income. The percentage of taxes deducted from your paycheque probably don't fit your description:Does it not make logical sense to you that if you have a position that Canada helps Canadians first, that you should also logically support that Ontario should put Ontarions first, and that each should put his family first? If you agree that that is your position, why is is a stretch for you to understand that the government forcing an individual to contribute to welfare is taking away the individual's ability to choose to spend those funds on his family first?the government is taking away the individual's ability to choose to spend those funds on his family first..If you are making so little money that you can afford nothing after your are taxed, then you obviously aren't in a position to be helping your sister (or anyone else) very much, are you... Other people's taxes will have to do that then....
And it's a good thing... Since you aren't in a position to help your sister, isn't it nice that our welfare system is able to ... I think that's great...
I think that once our welfare system is restored to its former leverls so that none still have to rely on charity, it will be a wonderful thing....And these charities send cheques to every single person who needs financial assistance???? Not just 'some of them', or 'a lot of them'. How do they get all the names and amounts required to sustain... do they work closely with the government ?? I was unaware of the comprensive program that you suggest exists.... Could you explain how this system works ???Of course there is no such comphrensive program. There is no need for it today. The government already supplies generous welfare benefits, so there is no need for a charity to step in.
-
fellowtraveller,
Your right about this ruling,it's called the Rand Formula of 1945.
The rational for the principle was that every employee benefited from union representation.Including those who don't want to belong....
-
I think that maybe you should read other people's posts before you criticize them. Black Dog's point is important, and not contrary to your statements, so I'll quote him for you:It is naive to believe that Desjarlais's situation is not related to her vote against SSM.NDP policy requires its members to support equality rights. That is one plank in the platform, and there's certainly room for debate on many other issues.She knew her parties stance on SSM. She could have abstained and lived happily ever after. She chose to put her political life with the NDP on the line for SSM and paid the price. By taking such a rigid stand against her own party, Dejarlais herself put social issues before the interests of working folks.
The NDP requires its members to support equality rights... This involves a lot more than just refraining from calling ethnic people racist names. The vote in question was one that centred on equality rights, something that the NDP stresses. As such, her vote is, in the party's eyes, similar to taking the side of an outspoken racist. Thus, it is simple to see why she was rejected by the party....
-
I think you could say that about a lot of Reform/Conservative candidates....If he were to win a seat, it would show the complete and utter stupidity of that riding! -
Canada helps Canadians first... I don't see anything wrong with that at all. And I suspect that you are just trying to be argumentative for arguments sake.... You don't want our government to help anyone, and you find a problem with my suggesting that it is natural for them to help those in their own house first.... duplicity in your position... or is stupidity a better word...err, are you blind to the fact that you are arguing contradictory positions. On one hand you are arguing that the "system attempts to ensure that all those who need help can get it", yet in the same breath you argue and defend that at the macro level, it is "natural" that Canada put its own needs first ahead of others. See the contradiction yet?
Like flies to...However, if I were to apply the logic you've espoused continuously on this forum to you, I would hope for your sister's sake she has other relatives too....you couldn't really help yourself and take another shot at me even when we are discussing a hypothetical behaviour, can you?
And these charities send cheques to every single person who needs financial assistance???? Not just 'some of them', or 'a lot of them'. How do they get all the names and amounts required to sustain... do they work closely with the government ?? I was unaware of the comprensive program that you suggest exists.... Could you explain how this system works ???Did you mean "Dilutes the funds collected ??" Some of the taxes collected to pay to run the system, certainly, but it runs a system that can fairly help everyone... not just those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are people who can afford to work for free....What I meant is that a substantial portion of funds collected are siphoned off to cover overhead costs instead of going to intended recipients. Your statement above, assumes that the limit of charities' reach is its own neighbourhood. This is untrue. Many charities reach span both national and international borders in reaching those in need.
-
They aught to check the definition of UNANIMOUS!!! If the MAJORITY of employees wanted to join the union, it is a bit of a stretch to say that seven (out of hundreds) constitutes a MAJORITY. It is a bastardization of the truth.... no... it's an outright LIE.Free the Lively SevenTheir unanimous opposition didn’t matter to the Union or the CIRB. There was no vote. There was no hearing – just the way unions like things to go.The CIRB forced unionization on these women in their workplace because over 50% of employees in eight branches in and around Sudbury signed union cards.
They can look for a job at a non-union shop if they don't want the rights and benefits that the union will guarantee them.....These courageous women want the law to protect their Charter Right to Freedom of Association, which includes the right to freely choose to associate with a union -- or NOT!
Like the law will protect them in event of a bank merger that throws half of them out on the steet.....They want the law to protect them, as members of a free and democratic country, from being pressed into unions, forced to pay dues and be subject to discipline for not toeing the union line. They want the law to protect their wishes and their privacy at home.
If it offends them so much to be part of a union shop... they do have choices... Too bad for them... they couldn't force their values on the majority of employees who chose to become a union shop....Why are there no rights to NOT join unions? -
A lack of knowledge period!!! Wouldn't you say...The notion that there's relatively a significant amount of corruption in Canada when compared to the US betrays a lack of knowledge of US politics. -
As for the others, a friend and I have been looking into a windmill scheme.
Convert most of the fixtures in the house to 12V.
Run a windmill using a car alternator.
Set up a bank of car batteries, anywhere from 12-20 of them, wired parallel.
It wouldn't take me completely off the hydro grid, but I estimate it would reduce my hydro consumption to around 40% of what I use presently.
I'm lucky in that I live high on a hill where prevailing west winds blow almost constantly.
Check these guys out: AltEnergyStore.com
-
Lets hypothetically suppose that you are unable to help your sister, because you are a derelect, or have polio and are in a wheelchair, yourself a dependent on the system... How would you help her then..... The current system attempts to ensure that all those who need help can get it... not just those with (employed) big brothers.... Would you want her to suffer ???What has Argus got to do with it? So your argument is that I should take care of the needs of my family first and once I am satisified I have taken care of my family then I can decide to take care of others???? I agree. Funny then, that the government does not permit me to decide to use my funds to take care of my family but instead forcibly takes away my power to decide by confiscating income to fund general welfare. (ie the government decides that I must put the welfare of strangers before my family).Let me give you an example. Let say my sister is in dire need, and I want to help her because she is family. I would like to dontate that part of my income which would normally go to pay for welfare, go to her instead. I don't really have that choice do I?
However, if I were to apply the logic you've espoused continuously on this forum to you, I would hope for your sister's sake she has other relatives too....
Did you mean "Dilutes the funds collected ??" Some of the taxes collected to pay to run the system, certainly, but it runs a system that can fairly help everyone... not just those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are people who can afford to work for free....In a voluntary system, many will get help, but not necessarily all. In the public system, there is a mechanism for distribution which is not necessarily present in a voluteer syustem.Cutting financing to buy food isn't 100% compensated by having someone go to the food bank to get a replacement... Especially if that person is in a wheelchair, or has several dependants.
Actually I would contend that a charity system can be more efficient as a distribution mechanism then a govenmental system. A government incurs considerable overhead (even more so than a charity) which dilutes the funds distributed.
Well, having a cheque delivered in the mail, (or direct deposit into account) certainly opens more options to the poor... like affording a bus or taxi to the store... Like ordering delivery (if housebound)....What are you saying, that someone in a wheelchair or dependants can't make it to a foodbank? If so, how do they make it to the supermarket?Considering you're Mr. pro-choice (at least the choice not to help people), you should be able understand that some of the less fortunate might also like some choices...
-
And did you notice that provinces like Ontario rely on large amounts of transfer monies that were taken from Ontario in the first place ???... It's not a "handout" as your Fraser Institute would portray it... In fact if you listen to Dalton McGuilty, Ontario pays $23 Billion more than it receives.... I guess that makes our big government "really dependent"...Did you notice from the graphs that there is a relation of BIGGER government BIGGER spending in the economies and those provinces that rely on support and transfer monies in Canada are even BIGGER?
And did you notice how their 'objective' report didn't state how many more people in these 'better' states don't have any health care... and how many live in abject poverty... but the rich are richer... that's true...Did you also notice that Ontario government spending is bigger than most of the States and rank at the bottom 20%
Is the high death rate of 2000/state per year of people who die just because they couldn't afford the treatment for their afflictions not weigh in as a factor in determining 'success'. Does the number of people working for slave labour rates, living in abject poverty in slums not weigh in in the determination of success ???(hint maybe it ain't about the general public interest but, how big we can grow government) or maybe we want to follow economies that actually have successes.
Your narrow interpretation of a 'better standard of living' applies only to those at the top. Reducing services for those at the bottom is how you are suggesting to improve the standard of living at the top... But it doesn't improve the overall standard of living.... certainly not for the poorer classes....Look you want to have an economy that is growth oriented and one that produces, you want a better standard of living, the first thing in to downsize the government. The burden exist with the people when governments are big.
Just what government are you talking about... Ontario's Liberals have only added taxes for citizens, and haven't undone any of Mike Harris' tax breaks for the rich.. or corp Ontario.... Paul Martin has continually cut corp Canada's tax rate... So exactly what country or province is it that you and/or the Fraser Institute refer to in your statement...No country can improve their social standards by asking its citizens or companies to pay more taxes which is what this government is doing
Did you come up with the 20% figure... or maybe Preston Manning, or the Fraser Institute, or perhaps the tooth fairy... While some 'think tank' might suppose that should be the case, we have to deal with realities.Next spending on social services should be less that 20% of GDP current levels are somewhere around 68% (add health, welfare and education) - why would you encourage welfarce and other social hand outs when people need to go to work, plus why not give some options to folks who can contribute and pay for their own services as in health care and education.At home, we can have the same kinds of goals, putting away, say 30% of our take-home income every month (another tooth-fairy number)... However, when little Johnny comes home saying that the dentist said he needs braces, and the Ford dealership says your car needs new rotors all the way around... Should you forsake your kid's teeth and car safety to adhere to some 'ideal target' or do you 'do the right thing'....
And should these priorities be some 'ideal target' or should it reflect the reality of our situation and 'doing the right thing'......Re-establish priorities then allocate the spending - very much like businesses we can encourage maximum result with less cost. -
Belinda seemed to be strong-willed and somewhat progressive in direction. Harper continually rejected any input that she had into party policy and tried to downplay her... He was probably jealous of her for one of many possible reasons. Needless to say, her positions, that she was elected for, weren't being listened to by Harper.... So she left to where she might have influence.... It sounds to me that she is more closely following the wishes of her constituents than the "party"... Or perhaps you think that when people voted for Belinda, they were really voting for Steven Harper???If Belinda followed the wished of her constituents (who voted for her as a conservative,not a Liberal) she would have taken a position of an independent and left her constituents to vote in the next election for her as a Liberal.
Should I suppoose from your post that I was correct, and that saying stupid things is part of your party's policies...
Calling yourself an NDPer I suspect you know even less about the NDP platform. Based on your posts in the past,spewing negatives about the other parties is the NDP platform.I suspect that you haven't looked at and don't know what they offer... they're just commies, aren't they Argus.. -
Individual crime non-related to the public office should be considered differently from crime relating to the abuse of office.Why doesn't Sven count? Theft isn't a crime? Or, he was, and sadly likely will be again, an MP for the CCF/NDP/Neverhaveoreverwillformgovernment/NDs....You just cant seem to get Sven off your mind... I've seen you talk about him quite a bit.... I wonder how I should interpret that....
-
This is pretty ripe coming from Argus... I take it from your naive perspective that you do not have a family.... Because if you did, (and you were anyways normal) you would tend to the needs of your family first. Most people know this, and I'm sure you do... I cannot imagine that you are really as naive as your post would suggest, so I have to conclude that you are just trying to be aggravating..When there are limited resources, it is natural to assist those in your own home before helping outsiders.If you'll remember at our last federal budget, Jack Layton and the NDP had to twist Paul Martin's arm to increase foriegn aid...
Interesting argument you make. So its ok and "natural" for Canada to be selfish and only look to helping those at home when CANADA determines it has limited resources? So why is it that what applies on a macro scale would not apply on a micro scale?
If the shoe fits...So I guess you identify the fact that you are cheap and uncaring, and would prefer that only other people help. This theme has stuck with you like flies to ... well, you know what I mean.Again no logical argument from you, just insults. That #2.
In a voluntary system, many will get help, but not necessarily all. In the public system, there is a mechanism for distribution which is not necessarily present in a voluteer syustem.As you pointed out, society saw that Mike Harris was unduly punishing the poor, and so the public acted by trying to help the poor, and more importantly, by getting rid of Mike Harris, who was causing so much pain. The 'voluntary aid' system cannot be administered in as well as a public system, ensuring that all that need help receive it. I think you'll find that Ontarians don't want mean-spirited people like Mike Harris in a position to hurt our weakest.You don't address the point. Leaving aside that we disagree on why the public voted the PC out of power, the public DID help the poor via charity. Why is that any worse a way to help?
Cutting financing to buy food isn't 100% compensated by having someone go to the food bank to get a replacement... Especially if that person is in a wheelchair, or has several dependants.
The public gave him the boot... big time...
How so have they demonstrated that?And the rest of the public seems have demonstrated that they disagree with you.... in Mike Harris's case...
No, because it is fact.Because you say so?
It's hard to accept your radical views as realistic, credible, or sane...I have told you why the public voted the way they did, yet you refuse to accept it. -
And that's why Belinda jumped ship, because what she saw as the wishes of her constituents weren't being considered at all by Steven Harper... So instead of being pushed down by Harper, she left for a party she believed she could make a difference in...I don't regard political correctness as a core principle. In any democratic group the core principle should be to represent the interests of your constituents. If you don't follow that core principle you won't be a representative for them - hence the NDP's continued failure.Come to think of it there were big issues of this nature within the Reform/Conservative party when looking for a leader, and then again in several ridings' nominations.... And with the Liberal party in Brampton.... So I hardly see how you can single out the NDP as the only party that does this...
I wonder if Argus is jealous that the NDP has a sharper candidate than the Reform/Conservatve party...So that even after years of incompetence, corruption and dreadfully boring candidates and platforms from the major parties the NDP still has gained NOTHING. It has yet to come close to equalling the power and respect it held thirty years ago.And I wonder if Argus could inform us of "corruption" within the NDP party (Svend won't count)... and then see if it tallys up with the Liberal scandal or the Conservative's Airbus scandal...
I suspect that you haven't looked at and don't know what they offer... they're just commies, aren't they Argus..."Working class" interests are not limited to social issues,No, but most of the social issues the NDP prioritises are generally way, way down on the list of working class concerns, presuming they're even ON the list.
-
I had seen something similar in the Toronto Star yesterday or the day before. While there are many who think that we cannot rate worse than Turkey or Mexico, they should read about the places where we fail.Out of 30 countries, Canada fared 28th in terms of environmental performance. Turkey is number 1!.Three provinces dump raw sewage into the ocean. Our handling of nuclear waste was rated poorly as well.
Instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying it, we should send a message to our political candidates that we want something done.
PS. Dr. David Suzuki backed the report, so for me, it gives it considerable credibility...
-
That's quite a mouthful coming from someone who begrudges helping ANYONE...Our SOCIETY wants to be fair to those who haven't had the good fortune and opportunities that most of us have been heir to... Our government is (albeit, sometimes begrudgingly) upholding the public's wishes to dispense this assistance to those less fortunate.Interestingly enough, our SOCIETY extension of fairness, seems to stop at Canadian borders. Their is no public will to bring the poor and unfortunate of the rest of the world to the same standard as the Canadian population. BLAH, BLAH... Is a different definition of fairness applicable outside Canadian borders, or is it as a SOCIETY we can have a blatant double-standard when comes to our own self interest?
When there are limited resources, it is natural to assist those in your own home before helping outsiders.
If you'll remember at our last federal budget, Jack Layton and the NDP had to twist Paul Martin's arm to increase foriegn aid...
So I guess you identify the fact that you are cheap and uncaring, and would prefer that only other people help. This theme has stuck with you like flies to ... well, you know what I mean.There will always be a few bad apples, a few who are so mean that they do not wish to give even a scrap to help those less fortunate. Thankfully, that is not the feeling of the majority of Canadians.Whenever government has pulled back its benefits it has offered to the poorer, charity has stepped in. This is demonstrated when Mike Harris cut welfare benefits, the number of food banks skyrocketed. I agree that the majority of Canadians want to help the unfortunate.
As you pointed out, society saw that Mike Harris was unduly punishing the poor, and so the public acted by trying to help the poor, and more importantly, by getting rid of Mike Harris, who was causing so much pain. The 'voluntary aid' system cannot be administered in as well as a public system, ensuring that all that need help receive it. I think you'll find that Ontarians don't want mean-spirited people like Mike Harris in a position to hurt our weakest.
And the rest of the public seems have demonstrated that they disagree with you.... in Mike Harris's case...What I disagree with is that it is the government's duty to do so.
Everybody in our society benefits from it. Everybody pays for it... You cannot say that you don't benefit from membership in our society....If as we both agree, that the majority want to help the poorer, let them do so willingly and voluntarily through charity. And for those who do not, that is a choice of their own conscience. -
If you don't prevent "scabs" from replacing labour, then labour doesn't have a very good bargaining position does it.Unions do not have the right to "resort to violence." Nobody does. They should have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them or what is the point of a right to strike.The need for strikes should have passed long ago in a civi;ized society. It persists only because of the backward thinking of the capitalist structure.
No a union should not have the right to prevent "scabs" from replacing them. The point of a strike is to withhold employment services, in the same way a consumer would boycott a merchant by refusing to shop at an establishment. In a similar anaolgy do you think that if a consumer has a dispute with a merchant that they have the right to prevent all other consumers from shopping at that merchant?
As for your analogy, the relationship between a vender and his client is very different from an employer-employee relationship.
A better analogy might be that if you have a dispute with your marital partner, do you think you should have the right to prevent a replacement from going into your bedroom ????
-
Our SOCIETY wants to be fair to those who haven't had the good fortune and opportunities that most of us have been heir to... Our government is (albeit, sometimes begrudgingly) upholding the public's wishes to dispense this assistance to those less fortunate.Why should we consider it fair to subsidize a segment of the population who doesn't contribute to it?There will always be a few bad apples, a few who are so mean that they do not wish to give even a scrap to help those less fortunate. Thankfully, that is not the feeling of the majority of Canadians.
-
Which we can extend to being foresight this time around...A lot of what you are saying is with 20/20 hindsight.
back seats ???2) If the CPC can stay on message they could take a handful of seats in Quebec.
Reagan wasn't quite the warmonger... he didn't invade other countries to get their natural resources....3) Oh I forgot the U.S. didn't have an aggressive President in 1984. Oh wait, Reagan was President at the time... -
And let's not forget labour....
The European Left and the North American Left were not the same before and are certainly not the same now.I think the NDP is a socially democratic party in the roots of the French Socialists and the UK'S Old Labour...The NDP's new support now derives from voters in favour of same-sex marriage, and choice in personal lifestyle. In the US, these voters are Democrats. Whether in the US or Canada, they are typically urban voters in favour of the freedom to choose.
-
He was holding the gun... not bending over...You'll note that your hero, Steven Harper won't dare breathe a word about private health care... do you know why... BECAUSE CANADIANS DONT WANT IT !!! and he'll NEVER get elected promising private health care.Those corporate 'tax cuts' he won by bending over for Mr. Dithers in the spring?
I think he's quite an effective leader, and that's probably why you're in such a huff... And that CBC being too open-minded, won't portray the extreme right wing party as the only "smart" party.... they must be commies.... eh???Because he is an ineffective leader - who has been portrayed as doing a good job by the sad, sad, sad CBC.
Speaking of childish tantrums....Never thought you worked a unionized job. Your childish rantings and ignorant putdowns are symptoms of someone unlikely to be able to hold a long-term, or responsible, position of any kind. -
Rightwing columnist Mark Steyn was profiled today at the National Post for its Beautiful Minds contest (Canada’s most important public intellectual). Steyn is quoted on Canadian healthcare in the article:
“Unlike Britain but like North Korea, in her Majesty’s northern Dominion, the public health system is such an article of faith that no private hospitals are permitted. Canada’s private health care system is called “America”.
Some realities Montgomery... He doesnt stand a chance of winning... sort of like Don Cherry didn't stand a chance of winning the greatest Canadian... but who did... Tommy Douglas ... The guy who is responsible for us having public health care when the Liberals and Conservatives were calling it a "commie plan", etc... And it was in a minority government situation like we have today that we got our health care and many other benefits....
-
They should be... Private companies exist to make a profit... usually a healthy profit (no pun intended)... Thus, if we are to run our own shop it should be cheaper than running one at a profit.If they want private health care, they can go to the USA and get it..... CANADIANS DON'T WANT PRIVATE HEALTH CARE.....What Canadians don't want are private health insurance companies. Most Canadians (excluding union hacks) are not that concerned about private companies delivering health services.
An excellent example of this was today's announcement that the Bruce Nuclear station is going to be re-furbished, and the government has guaranteed them 6.3 cents per kilowatt hour.... as opposed to 5 cents right now.... Our electricity costs will instantly go up an additional 25%... more than the 30% it has already gone up since we've had the pleasure of having "more efficient" private enterprise running our generators...
So if we have to pay more for the privatized health care delivery, there will be either less money for it, or we'll have to pay more for it... Neither option is appealing...
OK... Those who have any forethought disapprove of private health care....So please get you facts right: Canadians want to preserve the system where the gov't is the primary insurer for all Canadians - that's it. Stop extrapolating that desire into a dislike of all private health care.
NDs lose MP Desjarlais.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted