Newspaper Endorsements

[jdobbin]

Without a doubt, judging by his policy support, Izzy has to be the most 'conservative-right-wing' liberal supporter in the nation.

Had to be. He was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He's dead now but seems to get as much notice as when he was alive.

[Argus]

As one who follows Canadian politics and would like to participate at a Canadian political forum, I must say that your posts at this forum are one of the main reasons I don't bother posting at this forum (there are others as well).

I'll now expect a deluge of thank you notes from the more discerning readers for the excellent job I do.

[M.Dancer]

No, it isn't up to me to prove you are wrong. I never made the claim. You did. I am calling you out on this. Produce the result that led you to this conclusion. I say you are lying and rather than retreating from your claim, you are lashing out.

Given that a corporation is the most common form of business, 90% seems reasonable unless someone can show that greater than 10% of the woprkforce are employed in the public sector.

[Jobu]

Given that a corporation is the most common form of business, 90% seems reasonable unless someone can show that greater than 10% of the woprkforce are employed in the public sector.

Well, I will concede that more than 10% are directly employed in the public sector, but MANY of those jobs would not exist but for corporations. Accordingly, at the very least I stand by the suggestion that 90% of people are emplyed, directly or indirectly, by corporations.

[jdobbin]

Well, I will concede that more than 10% are directly employed in the public sector, but MANY of those jobs would not exist but for corporations. Accordingly, at the very least I stand by the suggestion that 90% of people are emplyed, directly or indirectly, by corporations.

Between 18% and 23% of Canadians have been employed by the public sector over the last 25 years years.

You keep using corporations when surely mean private sector. Perhaps if you defined what you meant by corporation, it would help.

Edited October 14, 2008 by jdobbin

[PoliticalCitizen]

These are the endorsements I have found. Any others?

Well fortunately for the most of us all of these newspapers will not change the most likely scenario of Harper getting another minority, not losing any seats at best.

He BROKE his word on not calling another election and WASTED Canadian taxpayers money on an unnecessary election.

He has also bolstered the ranks of NDP which are certain to try to topple him at each and every confidence vote.

[Jobu]

Between 18% and 23% of Canadians have been employed by the public sector over the last 25 years years.

You keep using corporations when surely mean private sector. Perhaps if you defined what you meant by corporation, it would help.

And perhaps if you addressed the point, which you have apparently agreed to, it would help, dobster.

[jdobbin]

And perhaps if you addressed the point, which you have apparently agreed to, it would help, dobster.

Your point didn't have any amendments where you first made it. It was that 90% were employed by corporations. Period. Full stop. It wasn't true and when asked politely for evidence of that, you replied "sad." Then you said it wasn't the point and said you meant indirectly as well. Certainly that wasn't evidence from your glib reply that this is what you meant and even then you didn't show a link to how you came to that conclusion.

I say around 80% of the workforce is employed by the private sector. Around 20% of the population is employed in the public sector. Those are the historical numbers in the last number of years. A citation was provided and that is when you decided to say you meant public sector people who are indirectly employed by the private sector. Give your head a shake. That would make it 100% then. C'mon, in for a penny in for a pound. All people are employed directly or indirectly for the private sector.

I expect when confronted with numbers you don't wish to provide, you will say anything to justify what you said.

If the moderator has not reminded you of the rules yet, I'm sure that will be coming. Use proper names as a measure of civility or risk whatever action that results from it.

[Jobu]

Your point didn't have any amendments where you first made it. It was that 90% were employed by corporations. Period. Full stop. It wasn't true and when asked politely for evidence of that, you replied "sad." Then you said it wasn't the point and said you meant indirectly as well. Certainly that wasn't evidence from your glib reply that this is what you meant and even then you didn't show a link to how you came to that conclusion.

I say around 80% of the workforce is employed by the private sector. Around 20% of the population is employed in the public sector. Those are the historical numbers in the last number of years. A citation was provided and that is when you decided to say you meant public sector people who are indirectly employed by the private sector. Give your head a shake. That would make it 100% then. C'mon, in for a penny in for a pound. All people are employed directly or indirectly for the private sector.

I expect when confronted with numbers you don't wish to provide, you will say anything to justify what you said.

If the moderator has not reminded you of the rules yet, I'm sure that will be coming. Use proper names as a measure of civility or risk whatever action that results from it.

Actually, the number wasn't the point.

And your babysitter did stop by, thanks dobby.

[jdobbin]

Actually, the number wasn't the point.

It was your point. Just one you couldn't back up.

And your babysitter did stop by, thanks dobby.

I sense you are headed for a suspension or worse. Can't say I didn't warn you.