KUDOS TO OUR HARPER!

[Guest Peeves]

Suck that up you left wing whiners. Glad he got a majority, 'cause the NDP and Liberals wouldn't do it, they have shown a record of entitlement...Ok there was that Bev Oda anomaly...

http://www.thestarph...0362/story.html

"Stephen Harper tightened his own belt this week, voluntarily - and quietly - accepting a pension cut that will likely cost him more than a million dollars.

The prime minister doesn't need our sympathy. He'll still have a very comfortable pension, but he deserves credit for showing leadership and finally scraping some of the gold off of MPs' gilded pension plan. MPs passed a bill on Friday that will see all of them start to pay more for their own retirements, ending a system where they paid just $11,000 a year and could look forward to an average pension of $54,693 a year beginning at age 55.

MPs qualify to collect after just six years of service, which means that Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre qualified for a pension at age 31. For every dollar that MPs or senators contribute to their pension, taxpayers pony up $23.30, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which has been pushing this issue for decades.

In changes that will be phased in, to spare the cohort now warming the chairs in the House of Commons, MPs will contribute $39,000 a year to their pensions, and they won't be able to collect until they turn 65.

Harper, who did not need to do this, took a look at his own entitlements and decided to put another hole in the belt."

Read more: http://www.thestarph...l#ixzz29rNPer1z

Edited October 20, 2012 by Peeves

[betsy]

Yeah! I heard that yesterday in Power Play. A journalist even said Harper deserves a star for that!

They calculated that depending on how long he'll sit as PM and when he'll retire....he could lose between 1 to 2 million!

Way to go, Mr. PM.

Edited October 20, 2012 by betsy

[GostHacked]

It's simply because there is no money to pay out these pensions. They all know that and now that it will eventually effect them they are going to try and do something about it. This is not leadership. This is damage control.

[Guest Peeves]

It's simply because there is no money to pay out these pensions. They all know that and now that it will eventually effect them they are going to try and do something about it. This is not leadership. This is damage control.

You might say it isn't leadership but it certainly is a move by a leader.

You may say it's damage control, but it's a move in that direction by a leader.

Hurrah Harper, leading in damage control and fiscal tightening of pensions for those at the trough.

[GostHacked]

You might say it isn't leadership but it certainly is a move by a leader.

You may say it's damage control, but it's a move in that direction by a leader.

Hurrah Harper, leading in damage control and fiscal tightening of pensions for those at the trough.

It's a way to save face when crunch time comes. I guess I should applaud the move, but my distrust of Harper makes me think otherwise.

[bleeding heart]

I like the move, whatever intentions might undergird it.

I think that's part of the point of democratic politics: we demand certain behaviour from the government...but we can't demand intentions.

Incidentally, I enjoy the OP here: the Left-obssessives are getting more and more fun to watch, quite dramatic at times. (Kraychik remains the Queen of this phenomenon, however.)

Edited October 20, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Peeves]

I like the move, whatever intentions might undergird it.

I think that's part of the point of democratic politics: we demand certain behaviour from the government...but we can't demand intentions.

Incidentally, I enjoy the OP here: the Left-obssessives are getting more and more fun to watch, quite dramatic at times. (Kraychik remains the Queen of this phenomenon, however.)

"Left -obsessives", aka The right or correct natural order.

[bleeding heart]

"Left -obsessives", aka The right or correct natural order.

Yeah....that, or sad neurosis.

[Topaz]

There's always two ways to look at a PM actions. Did he do because he thought it was only fair OR did he do it because after all, he will be leaving the PMO and doing this will affect the future MP's and PMs than him. Yes, he will lose 1-2 mil but he still has 4mil. in pension and since he is PM, this will open more doors for him to a millionaire job, so he doesn't lose either way. Besides, that he had to do something positive to correct the screwup of the minister of agriculture.

[Mighty AC]

Good for Steve-O, it is the right move and it will save a couple of bucks. I just wish he didn't taint it by bundling it in an omnibus bill. Now if he really wants to save money trim the 38 member cabinet down somewhere near the 25 Chretien ran with. I wasn't a Chretien fan, but during a tough financial time at least he ran a lean government.

[cybercoma]

He took the pension part out of the omnibus bill...

Now for the rest of the crap that has nothing to do with the budget.

[Guest Peeves]

He took the pension part out of the omnibus bill...

Now for the rest of the crap that has nothing to do with the budget.

You thiink he's the first to propose an omnibus bill?

[cybercoma]

You thiink he's the first to propose an omnibus bill?

Yes. I don't think anyone else in the history of Canadian politics has ever done this.

Edited October 21, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest Peeves]

Yes. I don't think anyone else in the history of Canadian politics has ever done this.

Swell.

Gee even the Liberal one Harper attacked?

"That the House agree with the comments of the Right Honourable Member for Calgary Southwest on March 25, 1994, when he criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles and dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.”

or this ?

https://www.google.c...Code of Canada,

[scribblet]

Trudeau had an omnibus bill and the the Liberals had an omnibus bill in 1994

[Bonam]

Incidentally, I enjoy the OP here: the Left-obssessives are getting more and more fun to watch, quite dramatic at times. (Kraychik remains the Queen of this phenomenon, however.)

I dunno about "left-obsessives", but it is fun to watch the HDS sufferers:

It's a way to save face when crunch time comes. I guess I should applaud the move, but my distrust of Harper makes me think otherwise.

[Guest Peeves]

Trudeau had an omnibus bill and the the Liberals had an omnibus bill in 1994

And Dalton left us with an ominous bill in 2012

[cybercoma]

Swell.

Gee even the Liberal one Harper attacked?

or this ?

https://www.google.c...Code of Canada,

Apparently you have a hard time picking up sarcasm.

[wyly]

they still get a years salary if they're fired, who the hell else gets that?...lose their seat/fired they can have the standard severance the rest of us rest of get, generally a week for every years service(if your very lucky)...

[Fletch 27]

This guy is a leader... Again, the lefties here think there is another burried motive in this... Maybe its just been very visible and very clear when the NDP have stolen from us or robbed us blind.. They cant get over this new way of conducting parliament..

[Guest Peeves]

Apparently you have a hard time picking up sarcasm.

Yup, especially when it comes from the left as there is seldom any deviation in position. I suggest you use a ~ tilde in future so I can spot the attempt.

[Mr.Canada]

I have two portraits in my den. One is of the greatest leader of our time General Franco and the other is of PM Harper. They will go down as the two great men of history. PM Harper is akin to Canada's father and we his children. Now let's all gather around Papa Harpers feet as he tells us great stories of how we beat the communists, socialists and Liberals and how to keep the wolves at bay. it's time for Harper to outlaw all other political parties and make the Conservatives Canada's ruling party. PM Harper could get a military uniform and start taking steps to expand Canada's borders beyond North America. We need a place to vacation PM Harper please start there.

[cybercoma]

Yup, especially when it comes from the left as there is seldom any deviation in position. I suggest you use a ~ tilde in future so I can spot the attempt.

I'll be sure to do that~

[Black Dog]

I have two portraits in my den. One is of the greatest leader of our time General Franco and the other is of PM Harper. They will go down as the two great men of history. PM Harper is akin to Canada's father and we his children. Now let's all gather around Papa Harpers feet as he tells us great stories of how we beat the communists, socialists and Liberals and how to keep the wolves at bay. it's time for Harper to outlaw all other political parties and make the Conservatives Canada's ruling party. PM Harper could get a military uniform and start taking steps to expand Canada's borders beyond North America. We need a place to vacation PM Harper please start there.

~?

Please?

[Guest Peeves]

~?

Please?

Many years ago..14 +, at the IMDb Internnet Movie Data Base...

http://www.imdb.com/

we had many posters..then about a hundred that were regulars. (there's thousands there now in a dozen subject chat rooms), that responded in sarcasm/joke etc..

Even some subjects were posted in fun or jest, sometimes mistaken as real or factual when they were like Onion pieces.

It was unanimously agreed that when some post/poster was not being serious there would be a tilde in the post. ~

So If I were to be sarcastic about Bud, I might say, "Boy, that Bud goy is certainly a mensch." ~

Or I might post ," The Islamic states certainly are chummy of late."~

A tilde is in general usage to denote approximate.

Grammar: What is the proper use of the tilde "~" as punctuation in a sentence?

I use it frequently before numbers to indicate approximation. (Eg, ~10 Parrots). Is there another use for the tilde?

Share

3 Answers

<a name="answer_676005">

Joshua Engel, Polymath

10 votes by Shannon Larson, Will Wister, Nathan Stephens, (more)

Occasionally it's used as "approximately" is extended to a range, e.g. "8~12 parrots" meaning "somewhere between 8 and 12 parrots, inclusively", but this is uncommon in English. (I've seen it in Japanese, and some American writers have adopted it from there but it hasn't caught on.)

There are a number of technical uses. It means "approximately" in mathematics (much as in English) or sometimes is used to mean "distributed as a function of", and it means "not" in logic (as a synonym for ¬, though some logics use both to indicate different kinds of negation). And Unix users will recognize it as a way to indicate somebody's home directory.

It's best known as a diacritical mark, especially in Spanish (e.g. mañana), but English generally doesn't use diacritical marks. A variety of other languages use it to indicate other pronunciation changes.