jbg Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 IT head not impressed.. That's better. At least I can know the allegedly offending post. And I still don't see what's so "gutter" about that. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 IT head not impressed.. That's better. At least I can know the allegedly offending post. And I still don't see what's so "gutter" about that. Since no doubt maybe not Mulcair, but certainly his buddies, admire Merah's actions in France. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
cybercoma Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 The job of business, any business, is to make money. Inefficiency costs money. Time costs money. The more elaborate regulatory processes you saddle industry with, the less profit there is, and the less likelihood that industry will grow and prosper. So certainly safety is important. Certainly environmental concerns are important. I just have very little confidence that an NDP government will put my care or interest into ensuring such expansions of existing regulations are done with the interests of industry in mind. How many NDP types here, for example, think that the best answer to the emissions of the Alberta energy sector is simply to close it down? And Mulcair? As far as I know he is no friend of Alberta's energy sector. Is he a friend of any other sector he thinks might be a polluter? Will his new environmental rules care much for what profits those industries can make? I don't have a lot of confidence they will. The problem in business terms is that the cost of pollution and an unsafe work environment are externalized by the companies. They don't directly incur those costs, rather they download it to government to clean up or to the taxpayers/health insurance industry to deal with. It's easy to say there shouldn't be stricter regulations on environmental degredation and safety reasons because it would cost businesses more, but if they're not going to pay for it when they cause the problems, someone else is going to have to bear the burden of the cost. I don't know what direction the NDP is going to choose to take, but I strongly favour making businesses pay the real cost of their operations, rather than externalizing those costs to government and employees. I don't blame the businesses at all. If they don't have to pay for something, why would they? However, countries around the world, not just ours, need to begin putting a price on our environment and the safety of employees, so businesses will start considering the true costs of their operations. Quote
bleeding heart Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 The problem in business terms is that the cost of pollution and an unsafe work environment are externalized by the companies. They don't directly incur those costs, rather they download it to government to clean up or to the taxpayers/health insurance industry to deal with. It's easy to say there shouldn't be stricter regulations on environmental degredation and safety reasons because it would cost businesses more, but if they're not going to pay for it when they cause the problems, someone else is going to have to bear the burden of the cost. I don't know what direction the NDP is going to choose to take, but I strongly favour making businesses pay the real cost of their operations, rather than externalizing those costs to government and employees. I don't blame the businesses at all. If they don't have to pay for something, why would they? However, countries around the world, not just ours, need to begin putting a price on our environment and the safety of employees, so businesses will start considering the true costs of their operations. Well said! It's not about inventing new costs; the costs are already present. It's about who should pay. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Topaz Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Just heard on TV news, the Tories are bringing out their attack ads on Mulcair tomorrow. Now that Canadians know exactly what and how the Tories works, all theses attack ads on either opposition party, hurts them more than the party they are attacking especially, since there's no reason for doing it and past polls show Canadians do not like these ads. Go ahead Tories, hang yourselves! Quote
capricorn Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 If the NDP want to form a Federal government they will need to move to center right on economic and financial matters because that is where Canadians are. Somehow, Mulcair will have to move right toward the centre in order to, as he put it, "reach out" to the 60% who didn't vote for the Conservatives. That seems inevitable but in the process, he risks alienating the NDP base. One need look no further than what Olivia Chow said as to which direction Mulcair should steer the party. “In the NDP, unity is in our DNA,” Ms. Chow said. “We have a leader who will move us forward, not right or left.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-pitches-unity-tackles-tory-attacks-at-first-ndp-caucus/article2380671/ If that is truly Ms. Chow's outlook of Mulcair as leader, she is in for a rude awakening. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
cybercoma Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Obama didn't win by appealing to the centre. The fundamental problem with the Left vs Right argument is that it ignores the largest untapped contingent: the engaged vs the disengaged. That's how Obama won. Mulcair's going after the progressives that have given up voting, but remain politically engaged in other ways. Problem is he's going to have to work on being inspirational. Edited March 25, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Argus Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Just heard on TV news, the Tories are bringing out their attack ads on Mulcair tomorrow. Now that Canadians know exactly what and how the Tories works, all theses attack ads on either opposition party, hurts them more than the party they are attacking especially, since there's no reason for doing it and past polls show Canadians do not like these ads. Go ahead Tories, hang yourselves! I'm somewhat confused about why you think it's somehow unfair and sleazy and rotten and mean for the Conservatives to try to make the opposition look bad when the opposition spends all its time and efforts trying to make the Conservatives look bad. Could you try to clarify that for me? Did Mulcair and the other candidates not make all kinds of nasty statements about the Conservatives? Was that sleazy and unfair and mean-spirited too? Edited March 25, 2012 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Left, Right, Centre... haters gonna hate. Quote
WWWTT Posted March 25, 2012 Report Posted March 25, 2012 Problem is he's going to have to work on being inspirational. This I believe is something all leaders face regardless of what party they are from. It can be argued that whomever does this best will get the most support at the polls! I know Jack was able to finally pull it off! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
bud Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Is Mulcair going to surrender his French citizenship? Or is Canada to have a PM in Waiting who is the citizen of another country? why does this matter? i didn't know it was against the law to have dual citizenship. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
stopstaaron Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 I'm somewhat confused about why you think it's somehow unfair and sleazy and rotten and mean for the Conservatives to try to make the opposition look bad when the opposition spends all its time and efforts trying to make the Conservatives look bad. Could you try to clarify that for me? Did Mulcair and the other candidates not make all kinds of nasty statements about the Conservatives? Was that sleazy and unfair and mean-spirited too? technically you are right, its certainly fair for the conservatives to attack the people whom constantly attack them However conservatives shouldn't go after someones dual citizenship.. the guy whos basically responsible for harper being the leader of the CPC is American..tom flanagan, also tony clement one of harpers more important cabinet ministers has dual citizenship with the U.K AND Cyprus.. and there are more people in Harpers party who have dual citizenship with other countries .. I don't see the CPC asking these guys to renounce their citizenship in the other countries ..but if he wants to go that route, fine I won't vote for NDP if Mulcair is a French citizen I guarantee you that.. but he might piss off his French supporters if he does Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
CPCFTW Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 The problem in business terms is that the cost of pollution and an unsafe work environment are externalized by the companies. They don't directly incur those costs, rather they download it to government to clean up or to the taxpayers/health insurance industry to deal with. It's easy to say there shouldn't be stricter regulations on environmental degredation and safety reasons because it would cost businesses more, but if they're not going to pay for it when they cause the problems, someone else is going to have to bear the burden of the cost. I don't know what direction the NDP is going to choose to take, but I strongly favour making businesses pay the real cost of their operations, rather than externalizing those costs to government and employees. I don't blame the businesses at all. If they don't have to pay for something, why would they? However, countries around the world, not just ours, need to begin putting a price on our environment and the safety of employees, so businesses will start considering the true costs of their operations. Well said! It's not about inventing new costs; the costs are already present. It's about who should pay. Gee that would be a swell idea if companies weren't aware of the obvious solutions: 1. Ship jobs overseas. 2. Raise prices. It's funny that the left always trumpets making companies pay for externalities when it is the most regressive way to deal with the issue. Who is most impacted by layoffs and higher prices? I'll give you a hint: it isn't the 1%. The best way to deal with these issues is to reduce corporate taxes to 0% and minimize regulations to get every able-bodied person working and paying taxes. Foster competition to ensure that prices are minimized. Then use progressive taxation to subsidize the elimination of negative externalities by paying the costs for the companies. As evidenced by v-here's earlier post, it wille be those earning over 100k who are paying for over 80% of it. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Is Mulcair going to surrender his French citizenship? Or is Canada to have a PM in Waiting who is the citizen of another country? We've had it once before. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 When they ship enough jobs overseas for $2/day, they'll no longer have a customer base. Either they'll start shipping jobs back to NA or they'll have to begin selling to their employees that are making peanuts. Sorry, but the blackmail isn't going to work. They've gotten their way for the last 30 years and it still hasn't stopped them from shipping the jobs overseas. Enough is enough. They've created the economic hardships and they've downloaded the costs onto the taxpayers and those who still have jobs to pick up the tab. It's time they start paying for the problems they cause. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 ..... They've created the economic hardships and they've downloaded the costs onto the taxpayers and those who still have jobs to pick up the tab. It's time they start paying for the problems they cause. No problema....gonna start by bringing American jobs back from overseas Canada. Wanna buy a locomotive? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bryan Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 all theses attack ads on either opposition party, hurts them more than the party they are attacking especially, since there's no reason for doing it and past polls show Canadians do not like these ads. Go ahead Tories, hang yourselves! How do you figure? They've been doing it for a while now, and have seen increased support (more votes, more money, and more seats) in five consecutive elections. Quote
Bryan Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 However conservatives shouldn't go after someones dual citizenship.. the guy whos basically responsible for harper being the leader of the CPC is American..tom flanagan, also tony clement one of harpers more important cabinet ministers has dual citizenship with the U.K AND Cyprus.. and there are more people in Harpers party who have dual citizenship with other countries .. I don't see the CPC asking these guys to renounce their citizenship in the other countries ..but if he wants to go that route, fine There's a substantial difference, none of those guys are running for Prime Minister of Canada. We've had it once before. Turner was appointed by his own party though. He didn't fare so well with the voters. Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 There's a substantial difference, none of those guys are running for Prime Minister of Canada. The PM isn't the only guy making the decisions.. he has people around him advising him giving their opinions .. therefore u have dual citizens influencing the prime minister of Canada no way you can argue that man Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
MACKER Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) The PM isn't the only guy making the decisions.. he has people around him advising him giving their opinions .. therefore u have dual citizens influencing the prime minister of Canada no way you can argue that man It is times like this I am reminded how stupid nationalism is. Advice is advice is advice. It is either good or bad, who the hell cares where it comes from. It should not be where someone is born or where they choose to pay taxes to and what priveleges they opt for but rather the quality of their information so as to proove iself to be useful in bettering ones people, and humankind in general. It is for want of a giant hammer that one may smack against others heads to remind them that we are all flesh and blood, and that we share the same ground both born from it and return to the womb everlasting. Nationality should only be about economics, not information. If we first provide for poverty the borders can be removed and we call live in unity. Nationality should only be seen as a point of organization. It is all make believe. Culture ought be preserved for benefit of perspective and containing those things which make survival better adapted for humankind. But anyone who can give good advice has already been washed pure of the corruptions of humanity. Edited March 26, 2012 by MACKER Quote
stopstaaron Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 I wonder if other countries allow their political party leaders to have dual citizenships can u imagine a canadian being the PM of Britain?! hahaha Quote Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.
bleeding heart Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) Gee that would be a swell idea if companies weren't aware of the obvious solutions: 1. Ship jobs overseas. 2. Raise prices. It's funny that the left always trumpets making companies pay for externalities when it is the most regressive way to deal with the issue. Who is most impacted by layoffs and higher prices? I'll give you a hint: it isn't the 1%. The best way to deal with these issues is to reduce corporate taxes to 0% and minimize regulations to get every able-bodied person working and paying taxes. But companies would still shift jobs overseas, because it would still be cheaper. So why wouldn't they? Edited March 26, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
CPCFTW Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 But companies would still shift jobs overseas, because it would still be cheaper. So why wouldn't they? Less jobs would be shipped overseas obviously. Quote
bleeding heart Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Less jobs would be shipped overseas obviously. How do you know? How many less? Geez, you want to gut regulations (you never said which ones, btw: safety?), decrease taxes to zero, and so on.....without the faintest clue how much, if any, positive net effect it will have? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
PIK Posted March 26, 2012 Report Posted March 26, 2012 Nah, that was all Layton's personality and his willingness to fight through cancer so that he can fight for Canadians, it had nothing to do with Mulcair Jack should have come clean to canadians about his cancer. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.