Ed Stelmach rumours
Canuck57
Good news as this will help the Wildrose Alliance get off to a good
start. Nothing like having a hypocrit buffoon as your opposition in an
election.
Bet future polls show Wildrose Alliance in contention for the next
government and the Liberals are going to get kicked out of opposition by
the PC Party. LMAO.
The Doctor
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
For the latest World News go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/ - Lest we forget 2009 .
Canuck57
> In article <WYoJm.25283$1g6....@newsfe10.iad>,
> Canuck57 <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Looks like it is rumoured Ed Stelmach got 78%!!!
>>
>> Good news as this will help the Wildrose Alliance get off to a good
>> start. Nothing like having a hypocrit buffoon as your opposition in an
>> election.
>>
>> Bet future polls show Wildrose Alliance in contention for the next
>> government and the Liberals are going to get kicked out of opposition by
>> the PC Party. LMAO.
>
> Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Or more victories for the Wildrose Alliance?
Or the fact that with another viable alternative the Liberals will be
squeezed out of opposition heading for their 100th anniversary in Alberta?
gordo
wrote:
There are now three conservative parties in Alberta so the only real
alternative is the NDP.So get going wild whatever and liberal
conservatives or vice versa.
Dudley Hanks
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WYoJm.25283$1g6....@newsfe10.iad...
Assuming you're right, how will that help Albertans?
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Or, they "come up the middle" and form the next government due to the
conservative split...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
Wishfull liberal thinking. People move to Alberta to get AWAY from
Liberal governments.
Canuck57
It sure hasn't hurt Albertans to be Liberal free since 1921. And in net
debt, the only province without a net debt so far. Fast Eddy, red tory
is now going to get the heat to turn that deficit course around PDQ if
he wants a job in 2 years.
It will help Albertans as I believe Danielle Smith and the Wildrose
Alliance will stand for Alberta first, not be old boys club. They will
not be idle and hot air on the Ottawa front. Being from Alberta, by
Albertans is very good. I have no problems with regional parties and
think it is a big plus.
Does not hurt that Wildrose isn't red tory, it is conservative.
Dudley Hanks
Currently, in Canada, i rather doubt that government partisanship plays in
the decision to relocate for most people.
Most major moves would more than likely be based more on economic benefits
and personal / environmental preferences than who is governing either the
region being left, or the region being moved to.
It's just too bad most Albertans think that their red-necked individualism
is the reason for their good standard of living, instead of the current
demand for their natural resources.
Take Care,
Dudley
gordo
wrote:
Now just what the heck does conservative mean? Does it mean that
conservation is important?No way.Does it mean that the people with
money are important.Oh Yes.That is what conservative means in
Alberta.Does it mean that homeless people in the capital will get
help?Not so far.Does it mean that the bottom line means that those in
most of need get help.Not in Alberta.The old boys club is the
petroleum industry and they are so well financed that democracy does
not exist in Albera.The wild rose whatever is just another clone of
the republican party.The big players in Alberta are the oil
companys,If you are successful at fighting them ( the oil industry )
then prepare yourself for assassination or another alternative learn
and vote.
Dudley Hanks
I guess you haven't made the link that far right = old boys club?
Given the Wild Rose Party is farther right than the PC's, that party is
likely to form the patronage network even faster than it took for the PC's.
Perhaps you think you'll be included?
Given your earlier statement about it not hurting Alberta to be Liberal free
over recent political history, I should state once again, it is our
resources, not our politicians that have given us what we've got.
We'll see how your rugged individual spirit helps you when the oil runs
out...
At least Red Tories have a social conscience...
Take Care,
Dudley
frederick
>>It will help Albertans as I believe Danielle Smith and the Wildrose
>>Alliance will stand for Alberta first, not be old boys club. They will
>>not be idle and hot air on the Ottawa front. Being from Alberta, by
>>Albertans is very good. I have no problems with regional parties and
>>think it is a big plus.
>>
>>Does not hurt that Wildrose isn't red tory, it is conservative.
>
> Now just what the heck does conservative mean? Does it mean that
> conservation is important?No way.Does it mean that the people with
> money are important.Oh Yes.That is what conservative means in
> Alberta.Does it mean that homeless people in the capital will get
> help?Not so far.Does it mean that the bottom line means that those in
> most of need get help.Not in Alberta.The old boys club is the
> petroleum industry and they are so well financed that democracy does
> not exist in Albera.The wild rose whatever is just another clone of
> the republican party.The big players in Alberta are the oil
> companys,If you are successful at fighting them ( the oil industry )
> then prepare yourself for assassination or another alternative learn
=========
Don't you see--The wild Rose Party is just the Conservative Party in
transition. This tactic has taken place several times during the past
40 years.
Dudley Hanks
"frederick" <harv...@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:E7-dney8zd8u_2vX...@posted.sasktel...
I'm not so sure I'd go that far, but it definitely is an attempt by the far
right to force the Party from the right of the middle...
And, if a more theocratical powerbase is achieved at the same time, they'll
like it all the better...
Take Care,
Dudley
The Doctor
If the green and NDP vote merge with the Liberals.
The Doctor
You miscounted! The Alberta Liberal PArty is progressive and not
conservative.
Canuck57
I have been in Alberta for good and bad times. In fact when I moved
here we were heading into bad times, 1980... Will not be long for 3
decades, but I in reality 2 decades as I was absent working abroad.
The only place I would move back to in Canada is Alberta, and have lived
in 4 provinces and visited them all except for Atlantic Canada.
There is a good spirit here, and even in bad times it is better here
than good times elsewhere. Higher education on average, more involvement
in politics, less give-me and more about the opportunities.
Very few Canadians know what government in Canada really costs them.
And most will like sheep accept the only thing they have ever known, CBC
and BS. More Canadians should really travel, and I don't mean 2 weeks
in Mexico. Canadians are managed herd of peoples.
Canuck57
Perhaps they should. Migration is in our history since we swung in
trees. If a person has evolved into a mushroom and can't move, they
have the right but shouldn't ask others to pay for it.
> Most major moves would more than likely be based more on economic benefits
> and personal / environmental preferences than who is governing either the
> region being left, or the region being moved to.
My move was social and economic. I was aware early in life to be in a
city of welfare, minimum wage, poor job prospects but always seemed to
have a job, even put myself through college. On graduation I took 3
weeks off, thought about life and could not see a future for me there.
And local politics made me sick, dripping wet nany state stuff. Well, I
saw and was part of that nanny state and got as far away from it as I could.
Inside of 3 years my entire family moved out west except for my Dad.
Mom, brother, sisters and even many cousins all came west. None have
returned. Even the socialist one admits they can't make a decent living
there any more but otherwise would return.
It isn't that people want to leave, it is however recognizing that you
can stay in the local town, have the local "family" business tell you
how lucky ou are to have a near minimum wage job and ride you hard, or
you can get off your ass and go to a place with more opportunities to
develop yourself. Alternatively, join up in a local business with a
union, but drive through Ontario/Quebec and see where that has landed many.
> It's just too bad most Albertans think that their red-necked individualism
> is the reason for their good standard of living, instead of the current
> demand for their natural resources.
Having a society that recognises individual self worth, generates
opportunities for individuals is where it is at. Liberal-socialists can
try to motivate a mob with socialism, but at the end of the day the
individual, not the mob has to be happy. And eastern mobs are not happy.
Every province has resources, the question is if local government is too
paraciticial preventing their development or not. Ontario has tons of
mines, forrest, and even oil and gas. Yet they import iron from China,
import paper from South America and housing timber from BC. Oil and
gas, hell, can't find people to work, move and would not screw you at
the union table. They don't even use western oil as Ottawa/Ontario
invests in GM bailouts and not pipelines so the import from Arabs. Plus
infrastructure costs are silly in Ontario.
Until Ontario/Quebec realize their attitude sucks, it isn't going to
change for them.
Canuck57
Look conservative and liberal up in the dictonary. It has noting to do
with important people. But practicing conservative people tend to fair
much better in a depression, it is why so many that went through the
dirty thirtys were frugal.... and eventually wealthy. Sure beats being
in debt on retirement. Or a job loss equates to a lost home and bankruptcy.
I guess then you have no money. And the homeless, "Get a job!". If you
feal so strongly on homeless, take one or two in for Christmas. Lock
the liquer cabinet, hide the money and hope not too much is missing.
Canuck57
Hardly. While I will agree the old boys club tends to be conservative,
a conservative isn't neccessarily a old boys club member.
> Given the Wild Rose Party is farther right than the PC's, that party is
> likely to form the patronage network even faster than it took for the PC's.
> Perhaps you think you'll be included?
Yep, and that is what is refreshing about them. They are not red-tory.
(Liberals in blue suits). All parties have patronage, but newer parties
have less back room allegences and ghosts to hide.
> Given your earlier statement about it not hurting Alberta to be Liberal free
> over recent political history, I should state once again, it is our
> resources, not our politicians that have given us what we've got.
The fact remains, of all of Canada, Alberta is in the best fiscal shape
and liberals never had a chance to screw it up. I don't think it is a
coincidence. Albertians don't want to leave a legacy of debt to their
children like Liberals will do. While liberals elsewhere will see what
they want to see, it is liberalism and liberal debt that milks peoples
wealth from them.
> We'll see how your rugged individual spirit helps you when the oil runs
> out...
Oil isn't going to run out any time soon. It is only a mater of how
much it costs to get it, and it is highly unlikely to be less expensive
going forward.
China now outsells the US in auto sold. Figure that into the equastion.
> At least Red Tories have a social conscience...
Yep, to 30%++ raises for the executive while stiffing others for a 1%.
Can't manage a government budget and Edmonton is out of control.
Freaking arrogant hypocrit Ed is.
Dudley Hanks
"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:hd6lvh$ls7$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
the Liberals holding the balance of power.
For Alberta, that would be a great start...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
I've got a few years on you: I've lived in Alberta for about 5 decades.
On the whole, it's a great place to live, but the red-necks need to learn a
bit about humanity...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
I'd say you've got it back-asswards...
A province full of independant spirited blokes won't suddenly produce a
healthy economy if there's nothing to work with. But, a province full of
resources is going to attract all those "resourceful" types, since they
recognize they can make a living there.
Once the oil drys up, I doubt you'll see much difference in the spirit of
people living here, in Toronto, or in Newfoundland.
By discrediting their integrity, you are doing Eastern Canadians a huge
disservice. I'd bet that psychologists, sociologists or whatever 'ologist
you might care to talk to will verify that a cross section of the population
of every region will yield similar statistics for motivated / unmotivated
people, people with a social conscience, religious beliefs, etc. The only
thing which is different is that some regions have better opportunities than
others, due to the presence of exploitable resources.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
You assume a homeless person is homeless because he chooses to do nothing,
because he is lazy.
You have no understanding of society, or humanity...
Take Care,
Dudley
PS: Are you Christian?
frederick
> I'm not so sure I'd go that far, but it definitely is an attempt by the
> far right to force the Party from the right of the middle...
>
> And, if a more theocratical powerbase is achieved at the same time,
> they'll like it all the better...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>========================
===
When one has lived under one type of government all his life I guess he
begins to think that is all there is in the world . I have seen them all !
There is such a thing as the Political spectrum which is depicted by a
half moon with the parties placed as pie shapes showing the left side
ideologies on the left and right side ideologies on the right .
Furtherest left is Communist - maxist parties. Then is the social
ideology of the NDP. Spread accross
the center area is the liberal idology to the Far reight is the
Conservative party. Far away from all social conciousness far away from
all libera actions. They are people who are concerned with corporate profit
at any cost..Filling their wallets comes before spcial action . Are you
sure that you are really a Conservative ? ?
Dudley Hanks
When I was young, my father was rather negative in his opinion of
politicians, while I was young and optomistic. Peter Lougheed and his young
guns were aiming for big change, and I was behind them all the way. I even
predicted the first big PC landslide (I was 4 seats off) when the PC's all
but erradicated the opposition...
Now, I've seen what happens to any political party that runs unopposed for
too long, as was the case with the Social Credit in my father's day.
Political ideology is not the root of political integrity; having to prove
yourself is...
You seem to confuse personal conservatism with political Conservatives...
To be frugal, to live a life based on community service and initiative are
good things, but they have nothing to do with Conservative parties.
Conservatives are not interested in "conserving" anything other than their
position of wealth and privilege; and they're not about to share with
Sugarbear...
On the other hand, Liberalism has nothing to do with the "nanny state."
Liberals simply believe that all participants should have a say in where
their society is heading, and what is done with its resources.
If you take a given political system and take it to its political extreme,
in which system will the society as a whole be better off?
In the case of a Conservative state, the powerful will have everything, and
the less advantaged will have nothing -- does feudalism ring a bell?
In the case of a Liberal society, yes, the poor will be living off the
state, but how does that hurt the country as a whole? The rich maybe have
to plate their toilets instead of having solid gold ones. And, maybe they
drive their Rolls an extra year before dumping it for a new one, but the
poor are kept healthy, happy and ready for work -- when their are resources
enough to warrant employment for them.
What do you do with the poor in bad Conservative times? "Let the bastards
freeze in the dark?"
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
I think you're a bit off on the Alberta PC party. I wouldn't classify it as
a full-fledged "Conservative" institution...
It's probably closer to the Liberals than they'd care to admit...
Actually, I'm kind of eclectic in my political attachments:
I like the Progressive Conservatives on the fiscal front. They are careful
when funding social programs, but they do try to help as much as they can.
Unfortunately, though, when a more rightwing member of the party gets hold
of the purse strings, bad decisions are made.
The Wildrose Party will be much tighter with social (read seniors)
programs...
I like the Liberals when it comes to funding cultural institutions / events.
Any society governed by a Liberal government will tend to have a rich
cultural heritage to attract / enrich members...
I like the New Democrats when it comes to building strong communities.
Their commitment to funding education, healthcare and looking after the
disabled is often emulated, though never duplicated, by other parties...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
Act of deperation?
The Doctor
It would be weird be nice.
Dudley Hanks
deperation???
I'd say that forming the Wildrose Party is an act of "desparation" on the
part of Alberta ultra right wingers who don't seem to have a shred of social
conscience, and who'd rather see oil revenues in their RRSP's than on the
table of somebody living under the poverty line...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
I can just imagine what a field day the media would have televising the
arguments between the "conservative" members over social / health care
programs, education curricula, and business matters...
The Liberals would come out looking like the only party with any amount of
common sense and concern for average Albertans...
Take Care,
Dudley
gordo
wrote:
The dictionary has no bearing on politics in Alberta but money sure
does.I was a young boy in the dirty thirties and saw misery and
poverty.I left Alberta after living there for over half a century.Your
disregard for the plight of the poor is a true conservative view Oil
is a natural resource belonging to all Albertans and this is measured
in the billions.The poor have never shared in this great wealth as the
oil giants rip apart the land,spew out their toxic wastes into the air
and waters and take the profits south.
Canuck57
Go ahead. But my bet is you will look like Taft did after the last
election. Sorry loser with his tail between his legs.
Short of Jesus Christ or some divine intervention, Liberals have no
future in Alberta. Like the dinosaurs, on their way out.
Canuck57
For the ones I see downown, it is because they choose to drink, drugs,
scavange but how dare they do something for someone else besides utinate
on their path way. Fortunately it is getting cold and most are making
their way to the coast. Most chose the lifestyle by the way they have
lived leading up to their current state.
I have more than you know. Why don't you take in a couple of bums
yourself instead of asking for others to pay for it? Are you too above
that? You don't like getting your own hands dirty? Personally, they
have one redeeming value, a reminder to society that drugs, bug talk BS,
booze, more drugs fry your mind and lots of examples why not to abuse
it. For those to stupid to learn, they become examples.
I will be there when they want a hand up, but when they want a hand out
f'off comes to mind.
Canuck57
Liberals have much more to learn, pandering begets more of bad behavior.
If we really cared, they would go to a detox labour campe for 2 years
where working 5 days a week is required to exit. No pandering, no
expensive crap at all, just make them get used to working.
In fact expand that program to natives that get convicted 19 times of
DWI that kill people. Lock them up, and until they are worthy of
society to take anotehr chance on them. And forget the expensive
liberal coddling, does not work. Alabama crime went down when they
brought back the ball and chain. Massachusetts eliminated increasing
welfare for mothers for more illigitimate children while on welfare, and
illigitimate chile births went down 68%.
Coddling does not work. It is Liberal bullshit. Make it legal to shoot
criminals dead in the act of a crime and watch crime drop.
The Doctor
REcall Laurence Decore?
The Doctor
I heard that when Nancy MacBeth lost her seat.
Canuck57
Dream on. More like 1 or 2 liberals to join the 1 or two ndp in the
corner. While the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance decide who rules and
who is opposition. But I will say this, Ed and the PC Party better
watch out, the more people look at Dannielle Smith and the WRP the more
they will like. A real good track record and loaded with experience.
Not a unemployed Taff consultant Liberal that is for sure.
Canuck57
You mean in massive debt like the other Liberal provinces?
Did you know the Ontario government is about to run out of cash?
Canuck57
Red-Tory finally came out of the closet to be a Liberal. Been down hill
ever since.
Canuck57
But at last Alberta will and does change. Nothing worse that voting for
some party, any party that is screwing up. Dump them PDQ and move on.
> Political ideology is not the root of political integrity; having to prove
> yourself is...
Agreed, Thieves in any party I am sure. But you have to be a real dumb
ass to keep voting for a party or representative that is not in your
best interests, lies, or screws your consituancy over.
> You seem to confuse personal conservatism with political Conservatives...
Conservatives are considered center to center right. Nothing else truly
right exists in Canada. Just middle to left. Socialistic whiners and
control freaks.
> To be frugal, to live a life based on community service and initiative are
> good things, but they have nothing to do with Conservative parties.
> Conservatives are not interested in "conserving" anything other than their
> position of wealth and privilege; and they're not about to share with
> Sugarbear...
And what makes liberals better? Debt? Sorry, historically
conservatives are generally much better at fiscal managment. Period.
> On the other hand, Liberalism has nothing to do with the "nanny state."
> Liberals simply believe that all participants should have a say in where
> their society is heading, and what is done with its resources.
Uh? Turdeau said nobody has to work! Bugger set up whole generations to
still pay the bastards debt. Made big fat obease government craddle to
grave mentality. Touble is they don't leave any part of Canada free of
this bullshit. A Liberall/Socialist free zone is needed, where workers
don't need to be encombered by the taxes for the idealistic liberal BS.
Yes, I associate Liberalism with losers because I realize the cost of
the idiots that propel it.
> If you take a given political system and take it to its political extreme,
> in which system will the society as a whole be better off?
Best governments covers the basics for everyone and no more. They don't
get into taxing people to support select businesses. They don't pass
racist laws, hey don't tax one group differently than the next. Good
federal governmetn should not care which province you are in or from, or
what race you are, you should be equal but are not. The system has been
corrupted and needs a massive house cleaning.
> In the case of a Conservative state, the powerful will have everything, and
> the less advantaged will have nothing -- does feudalism ring a bell?
Nope. You have never been nor tried a conservaive state in Kanada.
In a conservative state, people learn to work and accumulate. They
accumulate more because the don't have to support the lazy. Want to
smoke pot and get fired? Why should the state pay you EI?
In fact whole generations of families are now welfare and EI abusers.
Used to be when you got hungry enough someone would give you a hand up.
But if you wanted an hand out you might get the boots.
And there was no federal income tax in 1900, yet they had sewers,
schools, roads -- but didn't have big corporations like banks sucking
through the tax system like an overweight pig. Didn't incarcerate bad
kids either, took them to the back forty and they couldn't sit for a
week. And they repared for the damages much like slaves until repaid.
Very few re-offences. Tough but highly effective and effiient.
> In the case of a Liberal society, yes, the poor will be living off the
> state, but how does that hurt the country as a whole? The rich maybe have
> to plate their toilets instead of having solid gold ones. And, maybe they
> drive their Rolls an extra year before dumping it for a new one, but the
> poor are kept healthy, happy and ready for work -- when their are resources
> enough to warrant employment for them.
First off rich do not really live in Canada. Maybe physically, but rich
invest from offshore. More tax friendly. You could tax 1% of the
richest in Canada 100% of their earnings and it would keep parliament in
session for a term.
Rich in Canada might mean your house is paid for. Or you have more than
a $100k net worth to your name. 80% are so far in hawk it isn't funny.
Rich didn't force the debt on those stupid sheep.
> What do you do with the poor in bad Conservative times? "Let the bastards
> freeze in the dark?"
Sadly, yes. In good times they didn't get a job and my house is full
and I feed my own. Like a Liberal, I want others to pay for it. Not
steal it from my family.
The Doctor
LEt me see . Klein loses seats and double Liberal presense. Hmm .
Dudley Hanks
Kind of reminds me of Mulroney just before he got axed...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Last time I checked, Texas still has crime...
And, you'll note I don't spout statistics very oftenn, especially when it
comes to social matters, even if they support my argument. That's because
statistics prepared by Liberals in Liberal areas tend to support Liberal
policies, and Conservative statistics prepared by Conservative bureaucrats
in Conservative areas tend to support Conservative policies. They aren't
worth the paper their printed on, or the pixels that display them.
The thing about Liberals is they want to help; Conservatives want to
punish. I'd rather help than punish. And, you can't help somebody if you
don't take the time to understand what's going on.
Yeah, you can say the homeless are lazy bums, but that tells me more about
your attitude than it does about why somebody is down on their luck.
But, taking the time to work out a workable program would take too much
cerebral effort for you RightOffs...
Take Care,
Dudley
PV
{Applauds Very Very Loudly!!!!!!}
Well written indeed
--
PV
Stupidity is a condition
Ignorance is a choice
Canuck57
> LEt me see . Klein loses seats and double Liberal presense. Hmm .
But kept liberals out of the top spot for over a decade! Your point?
One think I did like about Klien, he did know how to get under a
liberals skin pretty good. Ever want to bring out hate seathing from a
liberal, just say Klien was the best premier we have had in my lifetime.
Liberals get pretty skank when they have to watch fiscally prudent
governance when all they see is a huge credit line to spend.
Canuck57
Difference between Ed and Mulruiny abound. Mulruiny is a ethically
corrupt POS. Ed, is a buffoon. I believe Ed is a great guy, probably
honest as it gets too, his problem is leadership. And leading in
government means you have to hold a line he isn't holding. If you leave
government to free run, it will burn through cash like water goes in a
sink hole.
If Ed wants the next election to work for the PC Party he had better
shake some civil servant ass starting right at the top of Edmonton. And
if he ses them do a knee jerk, fire them. He needs managers that manage.
Anyone can find a liberal that knows how to spend.
As for Liberals, the free opposition ride is over. One of Wildrose or
PC will win, the other will oppose and the liberals will once again
whine like spoiled shits that they can pile debt on Alberta once again.
Dudley Hanks
I wouldn't go that far. Kline was also responsible for the PC Party not
pushing the abortion issue, a real hot spot with the Conservatives...
And, I guess you forgot that debate where Kline and Decore spent all their
time explaining how they were going to out cut each other...
Given the way the PCs, both federal and provincial, have been taxing and
spending, that stereotype is wearing a bit thin...
Perhaps you can think of something fresh and original...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
While Texas still has crime, they have a lot less per capita in areas
such as home break ins and rape. The lady might be carring a snubby
bought by hubby to blow the nnob of a would be rapist. Or if you break
in and someone sends you back out the door with a 45 slug in your
forhead they will unlikely get charged.
> And, you'll note I don't spout statistics very oftenn, especially when it
> comes to social matters, even if they support my argument. That's because
> statistics prepared by Liberals in Liberal areas tend to support Liberal
> policies, and Conservative statistics prepared by Conservative bureaucrats
> in Conservative areas tend to support Conservative policies. They aren't
> worth the paper their printed on, or the pixels that display them.
It doesn't have to be statistics. Politicians twist them all the time.
I can tap into some personal experiences like when I lived in Norway.
There, DWI over 0.06 is 2 years, no probation or BS. That is if you
don't hurt anyone.
Not one oil patch worker of some 80+ going to a party even attempted to
drink then drive. Try that in Edmonton or Calagary, 1/2 will.
> The thing about Liberals is they want to help; Conservatives want to
> punish. I'd rather help than punish. And, you can't help somebody if you
> don't take the time to understand what's going on.
Want to help? Not intellegenetly. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions. Touble is idealistic marginally rational liberals don't
think wih their heads (unless it is between their legs).
> Yeah, you can say the homeless are lazy bums, but that tells me more about
> your attitude than it does about why somebody is down on their luck.
They are, and don't care about others. For if they did, they would pull
their own weight.
> But, taking the time to work out a workable program would take too much
> cerebral effort for you RightOffs...
Workable program would be labour camp. Cut off fom liquer, drugs,
prostitution, pandering and BS. Skip the feel good crap and be honest
with them. Here is going to be your cleanup call. No tollerance for
crap. You will learn to work and contribute. You will get up at 5am
and you will make your bed. For if you don't, we will wait until you are
hungry enough to do it or are about to die. If you wait until you are
about to die, we will revive you and put you in a 6x6 padded cell for
the rest of your life. No TV, no T-bones and luxuries at all.
Your day to learn to become a productive member of society or die has come.
The facility will have public showers, public sleeping rooms and
resemble more like an army barracks than club med.
Dudley Hanks
So, Eddie should fire some people? Like the AHS bureacrats who helped the
flames jump the line?
Okay, so he can fire when he has to. He needs to keep a lid on spending,
like not starting the hospital in Sherwood Park because there isn't enough
cash at the moment?
Ok, so he can make financial decisions...
Any other kneww-jerk criticisms?
You're being too hard on Eddie; he's doing a fair job, given the economic
situation. Your precious Wildrose Alliance would probably outspend him if
they were in power.
Precedents of new Western parties abound where they promised everything and
then did bigger flip-flops than the Chretien GST maneuver... Remember
Preston Manning and the "When we get to Ottawa, we're gonna get rid of that
pork-barrel pension"? Boy, they really showed Albertans they meant
business, RIGHT?
A minor cabinet shuffle is all Eddie needs to do to keep the Province
afloat. it won't be long till oil prices rebound (you heard it here first),
and the Provincial Treasury will be out of the red.
Regarding those managers you so liberally criticize, do you have any
concrete suggestions on how they can do a better job?
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O1oKm.14370$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
>> The Doctor wrote:
>>
>>> LEt me see . Klein loses seats and double Liberal presense. Hmm .
>> But kept liberals out of the top spot for over a decade! Your point?
>>
>> One think I did like about Klien, he did know how to get under a liberals
>> skin pretty good. Ever want to bring out hate seathing from a liberal,
>> just say Klien was the best premier we have had in my lifetime.
>>
>> Liberals get pretty skank when they have to watch fiscally prudent
>> governance when all they see is a huge credit line to spend.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. Kline was also responsible for the PC Party not
> pushing the abortion issue, a real hot spot with the Conservatives...
What is to push? Let the woman decide, it is her body not yours. There
are hose of us that respect others peoples right of choice. Are you so
insecure about your own values you feel the need to push them on others
to justify them?
> And, I guess you forgot that debate where Kline and Decore spent all their
> time explaining how they were going to out cut each other...
Never followed Decorump. Liberal is all I needed to know. At least
when Klien was a Liberal he decided it wasn't right and switched.
> Given the way the PCs, both federal and provincial, have been taxing and
> spending, that stereotype is wearing a bit thin...
Technically, there are not very many federal CPs, in your ignorance you
mean Conservatives.
> Perhaps you can think of something fresh and original...
Beter than not thinking at all.
Canuck57
Yep. And yep.
> Okay, so he can fire when he has to. He needs to keep a lid on spending,
> like not starting the hospital in Sherwood Park because there isn't enough
> cash at the moment?
Possibly. Why build a new one when you can't staff the ones you got
with nurses and doctors? (Sorry, we don't need more administrative
staff in a bloated beurocracy).
> Ok, so he can make financial decisions...
You mean he should. But not based on scape goat mentality. Go right at
the cause.
> Any other kneww-jerk criticisms?
Hardly alone, or Glenmore would be PC.
> You're being too hard on Eddie; he's doing a fair job, given the economic
> situation. Your precious Wildrose Alliance would probably outspend him if
> they were in power.
Can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. Ed is botching it
big time.
> Precedents of new Western parties abound where they promised everything and
> then did bigger flip-flops than the Chretien GST maneuver... Remember
> Preston Manning and the "When we get to Ottawa, we're gonna get rid of that
> pork-barrel pension"? Boy, they really showed Albertans they meant
> business, RIGHT?
Yep, but Preston never became PM. If he had, and then didn't keep his
promises then I would agree. But many of the Reform days like Day are
just opportunistic bumb buddies just like the Chretien Liberal crony club.
> A minor cabinet shuffle is all Eddie needs to do to keep the Province
> afloat. it won't be long till oil prices rebound (you heard it here first),
> and the Provincial Treasury will be out of the red.
I would say not enough. You need to pull in the departemnt heads and
tell them to think and provide effective governance and not just budget
bullshit with a liberal twist. And ask them to get the lead out of
their asses.
Then in 3 months, fire the ones that didn't get the message and have
screw ups all over. People inside know who these bozos are.
> Regarding those managers you so liberally criticize, do you have any
> concrete suggestions on how they can do a better job?
1) Tell, not ask accounting for a 10 or 15 year budget graph of each
department. Include growth in spending. If they can't tell you this,
fire and replace.
2) Have each and every department present a one page brief on what they
do for Alberta and send it with a hiring freeze. One page, no more.
Include cost, head count at the bottom.
3) Forget more MLA's, big expensive mouths and no real value for more,
redraw the lines on the map to accomodate. MLA's don't like it, tough
shit. Hell, on an annual basis part time employees put in more hours of
real work. That 1/3 no tax on income hypocracy - send Harpo/Iggy/Laytoon
a challenge to lose it nationally.
4) If a provincial department runs out of money before end of term, the
department top dog gets the axe and the department is on a temporary lay
off until the next budget cycle.
5) See 2) If the descriptions are late, pull their funding and send
them home without pay until you get it. Then go through one at a time,
visit the deparment and ask for a tour. Make a decision if this can be
compacted, more efficient, cost effective etc. Get your hands dirty.
There might be three departments doing the same thing, collapse them to
one for efficiencies. Maybe a defunct department, downsize.
6) Take a look at some of the big "buddy" contracts like Telus. I am
sure there is mega lard in there. Find out what they can't cut their
costs and act accordingly.
7) Take stuff like PCs as in computers, become entertainment for many a
chair mushrooms. Get a detail of the firewall logs and internet proxy
systems and look for paterns of equipment and moral abuse. Fire them.
Maybe even look at fat contracts like Microsoft and let some open source
like Open Office replace $500-1000 Microsoft ones. Add up schools,
univercities and an army of civil servants I am sure this is 8 or 9
digits or more. Possible outsourcing if they can't get real can deliver
more than excuses tallent. Maybe even make employees supply and support
their own.
8) Ditto 7 but with expense accounts. Include MLAs in this.
9) Look and cut pork spending. Every government has it. Just is Ed
looking in the right places or that trusting of the civil servant
departemnt heads? Grants and slush to private interests no more.
10) Quit pissing on little people for big people mistakes. Don't be a
panzi with Ottawa. Of every $1 in taxes taken out of Alberta by Ottawa,
only 22 cents comes back. Push Ottawa that they need to come up better
than that or you will take it to the people. Get Ottawa to kick for
east west through Edmonton and Calgary like they do for Thunder Bay,
Hamilton, Toronto, Montral, Quebec, Hull/Gatinu etc.
Canuck57
But still, why does he feel other people should pay for it? Too good to
take in some bums on his own? Too good for that? Or wants others to
pay for his ideals without regard to theirs?
Perhaps well written it is hollow. And the reality is not pretty, but
he doesn't see it. Thinks we all need to slice our financial wrists for
junkies, crack heads, whinos and ex-house thieves because they don't
have a car to haul your stuff in. These are not upstanding people
wanting a hand up, these are people who take, take, take and find
themselves in the bottom looking for handouts not hand ups.
How far is enough, $100, $1000, $10000, $100000, $1000000 ???
Got billions for banks and GM, and can't feed our own. Sorry, people
are hypocrits.
I still stand by it, you do-gooders, what have you done that is a
tangible real benefit in helping bums? Show up an help cook turkey at
thanksgiving at a hostile/kitchen or sit at home thinking people, other
people should pay more taxes so you feel good. Or maybe you are a
sucker and kicked $5 for the bums next bottle or fix.
Dudley Hanks
>>>>>>> Alliance will stand for Alberta first, not be old boys club. They
>>>>>>> will not be idle and hot air on the Ottawa front. Being from
>>>>>>> Alberta, by Albertans is very good. I have no problems with
>>>>>>> regional parties and think it is a big plus.
Yeah, it's a big plus in PROVINCIAL politics... Got news for you, in
Provincial politics, they're all regional parties... :)
So, we should quit pandering to the oil companies? Or, just the homeless?
>>> If we really cared, they would go to a detox labour campe for 2 years
>>> where working 5 days a week is required to exit. No pandering, no
>>> expensive crap at all, just make them get used to working.
>>>
>>> In fact expand that program to natives that get convicted 19 times of
>>> DWI that kill people. Lock them up, and until they are worthy of
>>> society to take anotehr chance on them.
Why just the Natives? Why not those radical RightOffs who run around with
their hunting rifles in the back window of the pickup truck (all year
round), and who get just as many impaireds?
And forget the expensive liberal coddling,
>>> does not work. Alabama crime went down when they brought back the ball
>>> and chain. Massachusetts eliminated increasing welfare for mothers for
>>> more illigitimate children while on welfare, and illigitimate chile
>>> births went down 68%.
Did they really? Or, did the statistics just get skewed? Did you count
them yourself?
>>>
>>> Coddling does not work. It is Liberal bullshit. Make it legal to shoot
>>> criminals dead in the act of a crime and watch crime drop.
>>
>> Last time I checked, Texas still has crime...
>
> While Texas still has crime, they have a lot less per capita in areas such
> as home break ins and rape. The lady might be carring a snubby bought by
> hubby to blow the nnob of a would be rapist. Or if you break in and
> someone sends you back out the door with a 45 slug in your forhead they
> will unlikely get charged.
Actually, that's not true. Even in Texas, you'll get charged if you shoot
an unarmed theif in your home. Even if the theif is armed, it is my
understanding your life has to be in danger before you can justify using a
weapon on an intruder. That means the weapon has to be pulled and pointed
at you... And, your prints better not be on the theif's gun, and it better
not be wiped clean, or you're up shit creek...
And, about those statistics you like to belch:
True, Canada has about twice as many rapes as the States, per capita, but
the States has about 4 times the murder rate, so, where's the deterrent?
>
>> And, you'll note I don't spout statistics very oftenn, especially when it
>> comes to social matters, even if they support my argument. That's
>> because statistics prepared by Liberals in Liberal areas tend to support
>> Liberal policies, and Conservative statistics prepared by Conservative
>> bureaucrats in Conservative areas tend to support Conservative policies.
>> They aren't worth the paper their printed on, or the pixels that display
>> them.
>
> It doesn't have to be statistics. Politicians twist them all the time. I
> can tap into some personal experiences like when I lived in Norway. There,
> DWI over 0.06 is 2 years, no probation or BS. That is if you don't hurt
> anyone.
>
> Not one oil patch worker of some 80+ going to a party even attempted to
> drink then drive. Try that in Edmonton or Calagary, 1/2 will.
>
Personal anecdotes are nice, but hardly relevant... How do I know you're
telling the truth? Is drinking less socially acceptable there? More
acceptable so there isn't as big a thrill? Are the workers from the same
demographics and backgrounds? Besides, pot is the biggest substance found
in the blood of Norwegian impaired drivers... I bet you didn't know I knew
that...
(Comparisons get so messy...)
>> The thing about Liberals is they want to help; Conservatives want to
>> punish. I'd rather help than punish. And, you can't help somebody if
>> you don't take the time to understand what's going on.
>
> Want to help? Not intellegenetly. The road to hell is paved with good
> intentions.
Ah, how trite... (but it sounds SOOO cute!)
Touble is idealistic marginally rational liberals don't
> think wih their heads (unless it is between their legs).
Oh, even cuter!
This from the guy who says Norwegian drivers are SOOO good because they get
blitzed instead of drunk when they drive...
>
>> Yeah, you can say the homeless are lazy bums, but that tells me more
>> about your attitude than it does about why somebody is down on their
>> luck.
>
> They are, and don't care about others. For if they did, they would pull
> their own weight.
I'm blind. Am I not pulling my own weight because I'm not employed
full-time? Does my government pension mean I'm a slug?
I know aNative fellow who busks downtown all the time. He's partially
sighted, meaning his vision is about 20 / 200, is he a "drain on society"
because he can't find work in a VERY competitive labour market? Or, does it
just mean he has to work slower, so employers can't be bothered with him?
Like I said, if you don't take the time to learn about the people, your
opinion is worth shit...
>
>> But, taking the time to work out a workable program would take too much
>> cerebral effort for you RightOffs...
>
> Workable program would be labour camp. Cut off fom liquer, drugs,
> prostitution, pandering and BS. Skip the feel good crap and be honest
> with them. Here is going to be your cleanup call. No tollerance for
> crap. You will learn to work and contribute. You will get up at 5am and
> you will make your bed. For if you don't, we will wait until you are
> hungry enough to do it or are about to die. If you wait until you are
> about to die, we will revive you and put you in a 6x6 padded cell for the
> rest of your life. No TV, no T-bones and luxuries at all.
Pretty harsh measures for a half-blind Native fellow who employers won't
hire even though he took every rehabilitation program there is, would you
not agree?
>
> Your day to learn to become a productive member of society or die has
> come.
This is why the Wildros Alliance will fade into the wild blue yonder like
all the other bastardized, half-thought-out "I've got a simple fix for
everything" group that's popped up in the past 500 years...
And, I'll fight it tooth-and-nail every step of the way...
>
> The facility will have public showers, public sleeping rooms and resemble
> more like an army barracks than club med.
Will it provide white canes? Guide dogs? Puffers for those with chronic
lung conditions? translators for the deaf? Will it assign work loads based
on physical limitations? etc...
Get back to me when you grow a brain...
Take Care,
Dudley
http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
>
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:O1oKm.14370$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
>>> The Doctor wrote:
>>>
>>>> LEt me see . Klein loses seats and double Liberal presense. Hmm .
>>> But kept liberals out of the top spot for over a decade! Your point?
>>>
>>> One think I did like about Klien, he did know how to get under a
>>> liberals skin pretty good. Ever want to bring out hate seathing from a
>>> liberal, just say Klien was the best premier we have had in my lifetime.
>>>
>>> Liberals get pretty skank when they have to watch fiscally prudent
>>> governance when all they see is a huge credit line to spend.
>>
>> I wouldn't go that far. Kline was also responsible for the PC Party not
>> pushing the abortion issue, a real hot spot with the Conservatives...
>
> What is to push? Let the woman decide, it is her body not yours. There
> are hose of us that respect others peoples right of choice. Are you so
> insecure about your own values you feel the need to push them on others to
> justify them?
Better cancel your membership with the Wildrose Alliance, you won't fit in.
They're mainly social conservatives, meaning NO abortion...
>
>> And, I guess you forgot that debate where Kline and Decore spent all
>> their time explaining how they were going to out cut each other...
>
> Never followed Decorump. Liberal is all I needed to know.
Obviously, you didn't know enough...
At least
> when Klien was a Liberal he decided it wasn't right and switched.
Very little difference between Liberals and Alberta PC members... Not much
of a switch...
>
>> Given the way the PCs, both federal and provincial, have been taxing and
>> spending, that stereotype is wearing a bit thin...
>
> Technically, there are not very many federal CPs, in your ignorance you
> mean Conservatives.
At least I spelled it properly...
Granted, the feds are Conservatives; I just have trouble remembering with
all the name switches... Once they decide what they are, maybe I'll be able
to keep it in mind...
>
>> Perhaps you can think of something fresh and original...
>
> Beter than not thinking at all.
Your statements about labour camps fixing the welfare problem tells me
everything I need to know about how much you think...
Dudley Hanks
>> and then did bigger flip-flops than the Chretien GST maneuver...
>> Remember Preston Manning and the "When we get to Ottawa, we're gonna get
>> rid of that pork-barrel pension"? Boy, they really showed Albertans they
>> meant business, RIGHT?
>
> Yep, but Preston never became PM. If he had, and then didn't keep his
> promises then I would agree.
Oh, you don't get off that easy...
Preston and HIS reformed alliance promised that they would OPT OUT of the
pension as opposition members. But, when the time came to put up or shut
up, they shut up. Every one of them took the pension they had campaigned so
fiercely against...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Check out my web site, and you'll see what I do to help where I can...
http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
You can take your foot out of your mouth, any time ... :)
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
Doesn't really mater, but to show how justicce is in Canada, do you
think you could get away with 19 DWI charges, be unde rthe age of say 40?
Justice in canada is about economics more so than keeping drunks, be
they white, native or other off the road. Can they fine you? Or does
the government bail you out? It really shouldn't mater, get convicted
and here is the time. But in reality it maters who you are working for,
how good is your laywer and are any political favors owing.
> And forget the expensive liberal coddling,
>>>> does not work. Alabama crime went down when they brought back the ball
>>>> and chain. Massachusetts eliminated increasing welfare for mothers for
>>>> more illigitimate children while on welfare, and illigitimate chile
>>>> births went down 68%.
>
> Did they really? Or, did the statistics just get skewed? Did you count
> them yourself?
Actually they are not skewed. Got that while living in the USA. Some
tried to make Alabama out as the wrong way to go found out that crime in
that state is below regional and national averages.
>>>> Coddling does not work. It is Liberal bullshit. Make it legal to shoot
>>>> criminals dead in the act of a crime and watch crime drop.
>>> Last time I checked, Texas still has crime...
>> While Texas still has crime, they have a lot less per capita in areas such
>> as home break ins and rape. The lady might be carring a snubby bought by
>> hubby to blow the nnob of a would be rapist. Or if you break in and
>> someone sends you back out the door with a 45 slug in your forhead they
>> will unlikely get charged.
>
> Actually, that's not true. Even in Texas, you'll get charged if you shoot
> an unarmed theif in your home. Even if the theif is armed, it is my
> understanding your life has to be in danger before you can justify using a
> weapon on an intruder. That means the weapon has to be pulled and pointed
> at you... And, your prints better not be on the theif's gun, and it better
> not be wiped clean, or you're up shit creek...
I remember a English tourist peeping tom stuck his head in a window and
got it shoot. No charges were ever laid. Big international stink though.
> And, about those statistics you like to belch:
>
> True, Canada has about twice as many rapes as the States, per capita, but
> the States has about 4 times the murder rate, so, where's the deterrent?
Mostly drugs. When living in the safer part of Milwaukee, the racial
areas had shoot outs all the time, much like Toronto and Vancouver.
Are we keeping guns from people so as not that they can protect
themselves? Also take a look at Canada long list of "missing" people
and add that to the death list, starts to look a little more equal.
>>> And, you'll note I don't spout statistics very oftenn, especially when it
>>> comes to social matters, even if they support my argument. That's
>>> because statistics prepared by Liberals in Liberal areas tend to support
>>> Liberal policies, and Conservative statistics prepared by Conservative
>>> bureaucrats in Conservative areas tend to support Conservative policies.
>>> They aren't worth the paper their printed on, or the pixels that display
>>> them.
>> It doesn't have to be statistics. Politicians twist them all the time. I
>> can tap into some personal experiences like when I lived in Norway. There,
>> DWI over 0.06 is 2 years, no probation or BS. That is if you don't hurt
>> anyone.
>>
>> Not one oil patch worker of some 80+ going to a party even attempted to
>> drink then drive. Try that in Edmonton or Calagary, 1/2 will.
>>
>
> Personal anecdotes are nice, but hardly relevant... How do I know you're
> telling the truth? Is drinking less socially acceptable there? More
> acceptable so there isn't as big a thrill? Are the workers from the same
> demographics and backgrounds? Besides, pot is the biggest substance found
> in the blood of Norwegian impaired drivers... I bet you didn't know I knew
> that...
> (Comparisons get so messy...)
If you travel to norway, don't DWI -- or you will be short 2 years.
>>> The thing about Liberals is they want to help; Conservatives want to
>>> punish. I'd rather help than punish. And, you can't help somebody if
>>> you don't take the time to understand what's going on.
>> Want to help? Not intellegenetly. The road to hell is paved with good
>> intentions.
>
> Ah, how trite... (but it sounds SOOO cute!)
Wilfred Chamberalain, peace with honor. Keep point leading to WW II.
But if he pushed, took the hard line Adolph may never have acheived what
amounted to a dictatorship for world dominance.
> Touble is idealistic marginally rational liberals don't
>> think wih their heads (unless it is between their legs).
>
> Oh, even cuter!
>
> This from the guy who says Norwegian drivers are SOOO good because they get
> blitzed instead of drunk when they drive...
Not saying the drivers were good, just sober and a whole lot less deaths
due to alcohol.
>>> Yeah, you can say the homeless are lazy bums, but that tells me more
>>> about your attitude than it does about why somebody is down on their
>>> luck.
>> They are, and don't care about others. For if they did, they would pull
>> their own weight.
>
> I'm blind. Am I not pulling my own weight because I'm not employed
> full-time? Does my government pension mean I'm a slug?
Different, you likely can't or could not control the cause of your
blindness.
Trouble is far too many take from the limited resources of social
assistance are really robbing those who really need it.
> I know aNative fellow who busks downtown all the time. He's partially
> sighted, meaning his vision is about 20 / 200, is he a "drain on society"
> because he can't find work in a VERY competitive labour market? Or, does it
> just mean he has to work slower, so employers can't be bothered with him?
So you found one native with a disability, justifies the $9 billion that
Ottawa forks out in what is really native welfare. At 20/200 I would
say he alone qualifies for social assistance. But how many natives have
it that bad at 20/200?
Far more have a story like. I can't find a girlfriend as they will not
live on the reserve eh. Because my father will not leave them alone,
not even to pee on the floor. Slaps her around when she tries to use an
almost empty bottle eh.
Take a look at stas can, some interesting stats that there are reserves
where no woman will travel (unaccosted).
> Like I said, if you don't take the time to learn about the people, your
> opinion is worth shit...
Worth precisely the same as yours. No less and no more. The strengh of
a news group is it isn't lilly white Liberal clensed like CBC or other
media.
>>> But, taking the time to work out a workable program would take too much
>>> cerebral effort for you RightOffs...
>> Workable program would be labour camp. Cut off fom liquer, drugs,
>> prostitution, pandering and BS. Skip the feel good crap and be honest
>> with them. Here is going to be your cleanup call. No tollerance for
>> crap. You will learn to work and contribute. You will get up at 5am and
>> you will make your bed. For if you don't, we will wait until you are
>> hungry enough to do it or are about to die. If you wait until you are
>> about to die, we will revive you and put you in a 6x6 padded cell for the
>> rest of your life. No TV, no T-bones and luxuries at all.
>
> Pretty harsh measures for a half-blind Native fellow who employers won't
> hire even though he took every rehabilitation program there is, would you
> not agree?
You make it sound like every bum is a blind native. Like a irrational
liberal, you changed the paradyme finding one exception in many
thousands. Thus it justifies the waste for all.
Might I suggest the other thousands on welfare, social assisance or
whatever that could work to leaving more money for the blind man
actually are so selfish they don't care. Does not mean putting more
money into is the answer.
>> Your day to learn to become a productive member of society or die has
>> come.
>
> This is why the Wildros Alliance will fade into the wild blue yonder like
> all the other bastardized, half-thought-out "I've got a simple fix for
> everything" group that's popped up in the past 500 years...
Actually, the Wildrose Alliance is actually too tame for my liking, far
to much closer to the center. I like far right
conservative-libertarianisn. But given they are the closest to my
belief, they get my vote.
> And, I'll fight it tooth-and-nail every step of the way...
It is your right. I gave $300 to WRA. Tax deductable you know. And you
better catch up...
>> The facility will have public showers, public sleeping rooms and resemble
>> more like an army barracks than club med.
>
> Will it provide white canes? Guide dogs? Puffers for those with chronic
> lung conditions? translators for the deaf? Will it assign work loads based
> on physical limitations? etc...
>
> Get back to me when you grow a brain...
Again, like a Liberal irrational fool, you equate one exception in
thousands as somehow the norm for all.
When 3000 bums in Calgary are all decrepid native 20/200 (blind and
sober) I will support putting them all on social assistance.
But that is far from the norm. Far, far from the norm. Hey, why do not
his native clan take him in? Hell, natives get $9B/year from Ottawa.
Maybe those liberal voting slugs don't care in a world of liberal
hypocracy.
Dudley Hanks
You're a waste ...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
[ snip ]
Think what you will, no changing the stupid.
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Think what you will, no changing the stupid.
You're positive proof of that little maxim... :)
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:...
Just curious, Knuck, why'd you snip all your handiwork? Ashamed of what you
wrote?
Mayby there IS hope ... ...
Take Care,
Dudley
>
Canuck57
I often trim as to not waste the readers time.
But I don't remember writing "You're positive proof of that little
maxim... "....
Canuck57
As a prospective Liberal convert, yep, I would be a waste of time.
Canuck57
I should get myself in gear and create a blog.
No foot in my mouth. Watched my grandmother get pretty poor care, blind
from glacoma and withdrew inter herself. Remember walking by welfare
protestors dressed pretty good as to visit her, and turn her in the bed
so the sores wouldn't get so bad. They didn't have the staff nor cared.
So many take from those that need it most. And it isn't that the system
doesn't have the money already, it is where it is going is the real issue.
And one blind native in 3000 bums... lets talk about the others. I have
no problem, and in fact support care for blind, parkinsons, and a host
of creal consitions I can't spell. But having the excuse "My mom was on
welfare, and it is all I know", or too lazy to work, or a bottle is more
important doesn't cut it. Neither does bank, GM and corporate bailouts.
Imagine if just 5% of the bailout bonanza went to caring for those in
need. Even a leftist-socialist should see that equation.
Dudley Hanks
>>> take in some bums on his own? Too good for that? Or wants others to
>>> pay for his ideals without regard to theirs?
This is exactly the reason why the government needs to tackle the issue...
Left to true charity, the job just won't get done...
I agree whole-heartedly that truly magnanimous acts help more than a cheque
cut from public funds, but personal stereotypes just get in the way...
People are afraid to take in strangers because of the news report the night
before that showed some home invaders killed a family, or some other person
got aids and it must have happened when they donated blood. Or, there's the
latest pandemic floating around. Fears get in the way.
Even if people could get over their own little barriers, there's the whole
thing about helping in the most effective way...
Like yourself, I detest welfare scammers. But, rather than advising people
to just write off the panhandlers and bums, I have a few rules I use to
guide my giving:
I never give cash to a begger; instead, time permitting, I either offer to
take the individual to a nearby coffee shop for a cup of java and a
sandwich, and use the time as an opportunity to get to know the person, or I
tell them to call 211 and ask for a councillor. I figure I'm gonna get my
money's worth for those tax dollars, and I trust the professionals will help
the person more than I can.
I have a few charities I WORK with as well as donate to: Guide Dogs for the
Blind, Dogs With Wings, Childfind, the CNIB, the CCB (Canadian Coalition of
the Blind), the Youth Emergency Shelter and Rooftops (an organization
dedicated to providing clean housing in third world countries). I also live
in a cooperative housing organization which dedicates 1/3 of the units to
low-income families (Keegano Housing cooperative Ltd.).
I donate more time than cash.
If the person seems particularly stressed, I will call a religious advisor /
councillor (or other councillor) for them on my cell, and wait for help to
arrive.
>>>
>>> Perhaps well written it is hollow. And the reality is not pretty, but
>>> he doesn't see it. Thinks we all need to slice our financial wrists for
>>> junkies, crack heads, whinos and ex-house thieves because they don't
>>> have a car to haul your stuff in. These are not upstanding people
>>> wanting a hand up, these are people who take, take, take and find
>>> themselves in the bottom looking for handouts not hand ups.
I've been there myself, and I did want a hand up. The government gave it to
me, and I know others who have been helped as well. I know the system isn't
perfect; I know some abuse it; but, I also know that the government
doesn't blow it's own horn...
When charities are doing their fund raising, they parade countless
individuals in front of prospective donors, hoping the stories will bring in
more cash. A family helped by a government program, isn't pressured to
"come to a meeting and just share a few words of thanks with a few others."
They just quietly move off the welfare role and get on with their lives. I
could outline a few cases that started in our low-income units and are now
full-fledged members in the housing cooperative...
If you dig deep enough in Stats Canada's database, and if you are good with
math, you might be able to figure out how many people are helped... But, to
most the rewards of the program go largeley unnoticed...
>>> How far is enough, $100, $1000, $10000, $100000, $1000000 ???
The number keeps changing, due to economic conditions, how proactive the
government is, what local charity initiatives are on-going in the area, and
many other socio-economic factors... Whatever the figure, it is seldom
enough...
>>>
>>> Got billions for banks and GM, and can't feed our own. Sorry, people
>>> are hypocrits.
>>>
I prefer to think of them as well-meaning, but largely ineffectual...
>>> I still stand by it, you do-gooders, what have you done that is a
>>> tangible real benefit in helping bums? Show up an help cook turkey at
>>> thanksgiving at a hostile/kitchen or sit at home thinking people, other
>>> people should pay more taxes so you feel good. Or maybe you are a
>>> sucker and kicked $5 for the bums next bottle or fix.
>>
Now, there's something we can agree on... We pay enough in taxes, never
give cash! That's where the problem gets encouraged... If those who need
help could not find enough cash on the street, then they would have to go to
the government for help, where they'd get counciling and rehab as well as
monetary assistance.
But, and I have to criticize my own advice, not giving can also result in
higher crime as some of these people have become gun-shy due to problems
with past programmes. It's a dicey situation with no easy solution...
I still enjoy just having a coffee and a sandwich with a bum every now and
then. You never know what you'll learn...
>> Check out my web site, and you'll see what I do to help where I can...
>>
>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
>>
>> You can take your foot out of your mouth, any time ... :)
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> I should get myself in gear and create a blog.
Would love to read it. Hey, I might even give you some space on mine...
Might be a nice counter point to my Liberal whining...
>
> No foot in my mouth. Watched my grandmother get pretty poor care, blind
> from glacoma and withdrew inter herself. Remember walking by welfare
> protestors dressed pretty good as to visit her, and turn her in the bed so
> the sores wouldn't get so bad. They didn't have the staff nor cared.
So sorry to hear you had to go through something like that. My wife and I
are currently coping with something similar... It's tough...
I guess, it's easier for me because I can't see what those darn protestors
are wearing... :)
>
> So many take from those that need it most. And it isn't that the system
> doesn't have the money already, it is where it is going is the real issue.
We're not that far apart hear... If we could truly separate the abusers
from the users, life would be great... But, I'd rather help one of the less
less fortunate, than to cold-heartedly turn away somebody who truly could be
helped...
>
> And one blind native in 3000 bums... lets talk about the others. I have
> no problem, and in fact support care for blind, parkinsons, and a host of
> creal consitions I can't spell. But having the excuse "My mom was on
> welfare, and it is all I know", or too lazy to work, or a bottle is more
> important doesn't cut it. Neither does bank, GM and corporate bailouts.
> Imagine if just 5% of the bailout bonanza went to caring for those in
> need. Even a leftist-socialist should see that equation.
You had me at 5%!
But, whether we're talking about welfare or corporate fraud, it's the same
issue: some people just want more, and they will do anything they can to
get more...
I just think there's more of it at the upper end of the scale than the
bottom, and the ones at the bottom are less likely to benefit from a "tough
love" approach. There have to be incentives to move along through the
system, your measures are just a wee bit more drastic than I'm comfortable
with...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
>>>> But still, why does he feel other people should pay for it? Too good to
>>>> take in some bums on his own? Too good for that? Or wants others to
>>>> pay for his ideals without regard to theirs?
>
> This is exactly the reason why the government needs to tackle the issue...
> Left to true charity, the job just won't get done...
Maybe the real thing that is going wrong is that the government is
ineffective? Your words are swaying me this way.
> I agree whole-heartedly that truly magnanimous acts help more than a cheque
> cut from public funds, but personal stereotypes just get in the way...
> People are afraid to take in strangers because of the news report the night
> before that showed some home invaders killed a family, or some other person
> got aids and it must have happened when they donated blood. Or, there's the
> latest pandemic floating around. Fears get in the way.
>
> Even if people could get over their own little barriers, there's the whole
> thing about helping in the most effective way...
>
> Like yourself, I detest welfare scammers. But, rather than advising people
> to just write off the panhandlers and bums, I have a few rules I use to
> guide my giving:
>
> I never give cash to a begger; instead, time permitting, I either offer to
> take the individual to a nearby coffee shop for a cup of java and a
> sandwich, and use the time as an opportunity to get to know the person, or I
> tell them to call 211 and ask for a councillor. I figure I'm gonna get my
> money's worth for those tax dollars, and I trust the professionals will help
> the person more than I can.
Didn't know about 211, good to see the service exists. And from what I
here, many of the professionals on the front lines are the best. They
don't make much, but tends to attract the best because of it. My bone
to pick isn't with them, in fact they have my best.
> I have a few charities I WORK with as well as donate to: Guide Dogs for the
> Blind, Dogs With Wings, Childfind, the CNIB, the CCB (Canadian Coalition of
> the Blind), the Youth Emergency Shelter and Rooftops (an organization
> dedicated to providing clean housing in third world countries). I also live
> in a cooperative housing organization which dedicates 1/3 of the units to
> low-income families (Keegano Housing cooperative Ltd.).
>
> I donate more time than cash.
That might be the best of all. When working abroad, my wife could not
work so she worked full weeks for charity. With the lower tax rates, it
was really what she liked doing.
> If the person seems particularly stressed, I will call a religious advisor /
> councillor (or other councillor) for them on my cell, and wait for help to
> arrive.
Hope it doesn't happen too often.
>>>> Perhaps well written it is hollow. And the reality is not pretty, but
>>>> he doesn't see it. Thinks we all need to slice our financial wrists for
>>>> junkies, crack heads, whinos and ex-house thieves because they don't
>>>> have a car to haul your stuff in. These are not upstanding people
>>>> wanting a hand up, these are people who take, take, take and find
>>>> themselves in the bottom looking for handouts not hand ups.
>
> I've been there myself, and I did want a hand up. The government gave it to
> me, and I know others who have been helped as well. I know the system isn't
> perfect; I know some abuse it; but, I also know that the government
> doesn't blow it's own horn...
Government always blows it's horn. But it is the people that make the
difference, not the government. Charity might have been better off when
there was no income tax.
> When charities are doing their fund raising, they parade countless
> individuals in front of prospective donors, hoping the stories will bring in
> more cash. A family helped by a government program, isn't pressured to
> "come to a meeting and just share a few words of thanks with a few others."
> They just quietly move off the welfare role and get on with their lives. I
> could outline a few cases that started in our low-income units and are now
> full-fledged members in the housing cooperative...
But I kind of hate it when they knock on the door or phone 5 minutes
after I am under the sheets. In fact, I never give over the phone, or
at the door. I go to them. Which reminds me, it is that time of year.
> If you dig deep enough in Stats Canada's database, and if you are good with
> math, you might be able to figure out how many people are helped... But, to
> most the rewards of the program go largeley unnoticed...
A good top level study is this link:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxdollar06/text/html/taxdollar06_-eng.asp
When most people drill into it, and dig onto the items you can see how
little money actually makes it back to people on a national scale and
proportional way. For example, one province gets more in transfers than
all others combined!
>>>> How far is enough, $100, $1000, $10000, $100000, $1000000 ???
>
> The number keeps changing, due to economic conditions, how proactive the
> government is, what local charity initiatives are on-going in the area, and
> many other socio-economic factors... Whatever the figure, it is seldom
> enough...
There is no reason the number keeps going up faster than income.
Percentages should be fixed and government lives inside this.
>>>> Got billions for banks and GM, and can't feed our own. Sorry, people
>>>> are hypocrits.
>>>>
> I prefer to think of them as well-meaning, but largely ineffectual...
I must admit, you do assume the best of people. Problem is be it they
corrupt, or be they well meaning and can't see the obvious bailout
waste, then they must be hypnotised stupid.
>>>> I still stand by it, you do-gooders, what have you done that is a
>>>> tangible real benefit in helping bums? Show up an help cook turkey at
>>>> thanksgiving at a hostile/kitchen or sit at home thinking people, other
>>>> people should pay more taxes so you feel good. Or maybe you are a
>>>> sucker and kicked $5 for the bums next bottle or fix.
>
> Now, there's something we can agree on... We pay enough in taxes, never
> give cash! That's where the problem gets encouraged... If those who need
> help could not find enough cash on the street, then they would have to go to
> the government for help, where they'd get counciling and rehab as well as
> monetary assistance.
Depends who, to individuals I never give cash for the same reasons you
do. To true 3rd party registered charities with high outputs and low GA
costs, I do give cash, sort of. Cheque or cc. A few other criteria I
include is non-denominational.
> But, and I have to criticize my own advice, not giving can also result in
> higher crime as some of these people have become gun-shy due to problems
> with past programmes. It's a dicey situation with no easy solution...
>
> I still enjoy just having a coffee and a sandwich with a bum every now and
> then. You never know what you'll learn...
Can't say I have done that. Probably best that I do not try to either.
>>> Check out my web site, and you'll see what I do to help where I can...
>>>
>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/index.html
>>>
>>> You can take your foot out of your mouth, any time ... :)
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>> I should get myself in gear and create a blog.
>
>
> Would love to read it. Hey, I might even give you some space on mine...
> Might be a nice counter point to my Liberal whining...
Winter is coming, if not 1/2 here. Usually pick on something like this.
Might write my own portal or use some open source.
>> No foot in my mouth. Watched my grandmother get pretty poor care, blind
>> from glacoma and withdrew inter herself. Remember walking by welfare
>> protestors dressed pretty good as to visit her, and turn her in the bed so
>> the sores wouldn't get so bad. They didn't have the staff nor cared.
>
> So sorry to hear you had to go through something like that. My wife and I
> are currently coping with something similar... It's tough...
I have more similar experiencs like that. But it is one that burns in
my memory.
> I guess, it's easier for me because I can't see what those darn protestors
> are wearing... :)
There are advantages to every situation. Bet you listen 5++ times
better than the average person. When you have a disability, and I have
never met a perfect person, you tend to develop your strengths where you
can. Most people anyway.
>> So many take from those that need it most. And it isn't that the system
>> doesn't have the money already, it is where it is going is the real issue.
>
> We're not that far apart hear... If we could truly separate the abusers
> from the users, life would be great... But, I'd rather help one of the less
> less fortunate, than to cold-heartedly turn away somebody who truly could be
> helped...
To seperate the abusers from those in need takes an experienced and
caring realist. Not someone on an inflated payroll, but someone
commited be realistic.
>> And one blind native in 3000 bums... lets talk about the others. I have
>> no problem, and in fact support care for blind, parkinsons, and a host of
>> creal consitions I can't spell. But having the excuse "My mom was on
>> welfare, and it is all I know", or too lazy to work, or a bottle is more
>> important doesn't cut it. Neither does bank, GM and corporate bailouts.
>> Imagine if just 5% of the bailout bonanza went to caring for those in
>> need. Even a leftist-socialist should see that equation.
>
> You had me at 5%!
Makes me sick thinking about it.
> But, whether we're talking about welfare or corporate fraud, it's the same
> issue: some people just want more, and they will do anything they can to
> get more...
Anything for money then is the issue. Sell your soul? Sell you self
esteme? Look yourself in the mirror? Probably a little sociapathy for
many that just take when they shouldn't.
> I just think there's more of it at the upper end of the scale than the
> bottom, and the ones at the bottom are less likely to benefit from a "tough
> love" approach. There have to be incentives to move along through the
> system, your measures are just a wee bit more drastic than I'm comfortable
> with...
Agreed. Corruption at the top costs a lot more.
Think, for what GM, Chrysler, Canadian Banks and other corporate sized
welfare cases cost Canadians this year, if it were put in a bank GIC at
3.0%, it could fund charites with $3 billion per year every year into
perpetuity.
Maybe the real issue is government isn't doing well at caring. Maybe
people need to take this back from government. Here is an idea.
Say every person in Canada who file income tax gets to also file one
more piece of paper where you can list up to 5 charities. 5% of all
taxes collected go to the registered charities people vote for. If a
person does not file, then it is still charity to the average vote of
everyone.
In essence, a fixed 5% of government revenue is directly decided by the
people, for the people and no government GA of 25 1/2% No skiming it
for GM, RBC, CIBC, CBC or others. No government slug playing favorites.
One thing I noticed about Americans is they were much more charitable.
And I fgure there were two huge reasons for this. First their
disposable income after taxes was generally much higher than Canadians.
Second, it has better tax deductability.
And many of the organizations are locally run, highly efficient, no 7
digit administrators or expensive overhead. Highly responsive to local
needs too. Government, by Canadian standards in proportion to their
consituant does not do much. And when they do it usually fails.
Just a thought... and I just pulled 5% off the top, I have no clue what
would be right. But it comes from the government abck to the people in
a fixed immutable rate against the income of the people. The idea is to
prevent government saying they need more for the good stuff while
spending/skiming it for the bad stuff. And later coming back for more,
and more and more like we are sheep to abuse.
Canuck57
So we should vote for proven crooks in NDP/Lib/Con? Ok, maybe they were
hypocrits, Day sure tunred out that way.
But why not just vote for someone else and turn them over like diapers
until a good one comes?
Canadians have far too much stupid patience with their representation.
Dudley Hanks
Ah, something else we can agree on... Only problem is, Who to vote for when
they're all the same...?
Personally, I'd love to see a whole crop of independants get the nod, but
I'm guessing the lack of leadership would create even more chaos in
Ottawa...
I liked your idea of a percentage of taxes being voted on, but didn't have
time to fully respond (have saved it and will repost in a day or two)...
The other thing is, with less party discipline, we'd end up with more
corporate influence (hate to use that corruption word), as is evidenced in
States government...
And, effective recall provisions would result in decision-makers so gun-shy,
absolutely no creative thought would be put into programme development
whatsoever...
There's always that "rep-by-pop" thing, but I think we've got enough parties
already.
I've wondered why we can't encourage more altruistic action on the part of
corporations... Sounds silly, I know, but, think about it...
Let's say there is a muffler or brake shop, and let's ay the owner put's in
one bay more than he normally would... Well, he get's a tax credit for the
additional startup costs, as long as the bay is staffed by disabled
workers... The return on the work done in the bay would be less than the
other bays, so an additional tax credit (equivalent to the lower profit
generated) would then be used to offset the amount of taxes paid on the
other bays each year. The disabled workers wouldn't be looked down upon
because the net return on their work would financially be equivalent to all
the other workers, and their would be less people on the welfare /
government pension roles, and the disabled workers would end up with a
higher standard of living than they would have just as wards of the state.
I know this sounds a lot like "affirmative action" programmes of yester
year, but the amount of tax dollars affected would be more closely tied to
the free market system, as opposed to an arbitrary amount of tax credit
simply for hiring a disabled worker to do jobs nobody else wants to do. It
would also encourage the development of real skills among the disabled and
specialty technologies in the industry itself to facilitate the inclusion of
these special needs workers.
Take Care,
Dudley
Roy
> > Dudley Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> >> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
> >>news:hd6lvh$ls7$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
> >>> In article <PrqJm.51020$Db2.50067@edtnps83>,
> >>> Dudley Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> >>>>news:xIpJm.25291$1g6....@newsfe10.iad...
> >>>>> The Doctor wrote:
> >>>>>> Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Looks like it is rumoured Ed Stelmach got 78%!!!
>
> >>>>>>> Good news as this will help the Wildrose Alliance get off to a good
> >>>>>>> start. Nothing like having a hypocrit buffoon as your opposition in
> >>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>> election.
>
> >>>>>>> Bet future polls show Wildrose Alliance in contention for the next
> >>>>>>> government and the Liberals are going to get kicked out of opposition
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>> the PC Party. LMAO.
> >>>>>http://www.calgaryherald.com/
>
> >>>>> Or more victories for the Wildrose Alliance?
>
> >>>>> Or the fact that with another viable alternative the Liberals will be
> >>>>> squeezed out of opposition heading for their 100th anniversary in
> >>>>> Alberta?
> >>>> Or, they "come up the middle" and form the next government due to the
> >>>> conservative split...
>
> >>>> Take Care,
> >>>> Dudley
>
> >>> If the green and NDP vote merge with the Liberals.
> >> I think it would be funny to see a PC / Wildrose minority government with
> >> the Liberals holding the balance of power.
>
> >> For Alberta, that would be a great start...
>
> >> Take Care,
> >> Dudley
>
> > It would be weird be nice.
>
> Dream on. More like 1 or 2 liberals to join the 1 or two ndp in the
> corner. While the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance decide who rules and
> who is opposition. But I will say this, Ed and the PC Party better
> watch out, the more people look at Dannielle Smith and the WRP the more
> they will like. A real good track record and loaded with experience.
>
> Not a unemployed Taff consultant Liberal that is for sure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
==
Dannielle Smith is really in the pocket of the "oil and gas
industry"...do not vote for this wretch.
==
Dudley Hanks
"Roy" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51ccbf9c-ae8a-426b...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
You don't seem to be very good with basic math....
If you take the Conservative vote and split it between each of the PC and
Wildrose, in many ridings, Cons will poll lower than the unchanged Liberals
and ND's...If the Libs and ND's get their vote out, they very well could
finish with a much larger number of seats...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
At least the money goes insid the province. Vote for Lib/NDP/Cons it
goes to the east via Ottawa.
You never have bothered to listen to her have you? Just another sexist
bigot? Probably liberal too.
Canuck57
Possible yes. And in some ridings, yes. But to happen in 50% of the
ridings??.... hope the Liberals like punishment... getting close to 100
years and no Liberal government in Alberta.... ;)
I think the Liberals too said the same thing about the Reform party
splitting the vote. Just more Liberal rant as maybe at the peek, it
amounted to 2 or 3 seats in all of western Canada and later lost.
Finally a party right of center, they have my vote and my annual
politicial donation money. NDiaPers, no one takes them seriously.
Canuck57
>> But why not just vote for someone else and turn them over like diapers
>> until a good one comes?
>>
>> Canadians have far too much stupid patience with their representation.
>
> Ah, something else we can agree on... Only problem is, Who to vote for when
> they're all the same...?
Almost 50% of the population couldn't get off their butts to vote. They
in reality don't like any of their choices. NDP, Lib or Con, not enough
to get them out to vote. But it actually contributes to our poor
quality of representation.
As it is the <insert party here> lifer that does vote. They don't vote
with thought or an open mind. Often it is a simple as I am Liberal or I
am Conservative, and that thought process has nothing to do with the
would be representatives morals, honesty, integrity or honor. With
many, a MP could just outright lie to their constituants and come down
with a majority vote.
What if every passive and disgruntled voter showed up and voted for an
independant, a small party or an alternative it would turn Canada's
political landscape on i's ear. Reform got started this way as did the
Bloc. Want a change, stop voting for the same old shit. It is really
that simple.
I am in Calgary SW, I could have voted Harpo in the last election. But
I didn't because of his Trust lie. It cost mostly Canadian investors
investing Canada some $30 billion in lost capital. Capital not there
today for Canadian business to employ Canadian people. Boy, could
Ontario use a $30 billion dollar capital investment right now....
Harpo's lie screwed many in his own riding. Going after mostly western
trusts and leaving eastern REITs alone smacks of kissing the easts ass
at the expense of the west, his riding. Further, many of the people who
got screwed in his lie and tax grab were seniors on fixe incomes. Many
who can't live on a 0.25% interest rate. Even government has leaked now
that all things are being accounted for it was a bad move.
But government tax greed killed the goose. Many of the same companies
are now owned by foreign companies in complicated tax arangements that
mean the government will not see ANY taxes for decades. And those lost
taxes will not fund roads, health care, social assistance, education or
nothing... not even GM or RBC.
> Personally, I'd love to see a whole crop of independants get the nod, but
> I'm guessing the lack of leadership would create even more chaos in
> Ottawa...
That is why I vote independant or for small parties. They are much less
likely to carry favors not in our interests. Is it harder to corrupt 3
hand picked leaders like Iggy, Harpo or Laytoon? Or Harder to corrupt
100 independents?
> I liked your idea of a percentage of taxes being voted on, but didn't have
> time to fully respond (have saved it and will repost in a day or two)...
You sparked my thought on this. I am not anti-charity. I give a
percentage of my income each year to one or another. But know many in
Canada can't afford this luxury.
But a decent society would give a percentage, a fixed percentage of the
societies wealth to charity. And let the people control it, not some
pupet PM in Ottawa, but the people. It would go a long way to
correcting some of the real wrong ways of today.
> The other thing is, with less party discipline, we'd end up with more
> corporate influence (hate to use that corruption word), as is evidenced in
> States government...
I think less. It is harder to buy 100 independant people than one idiot
at the top. Majority party politics tends to have the most corruption.
Take ad-scam... majority... no accountability and to stand up to
Chretien would be political suicide at the time.
> And, effective recall provisions would result in decision-makers so gun-shy,
> absolutely no creative thought would be put into programme development
> whatsoever...
You bet. Recall DOES work. Saw it happen in the US. A state rep got
some favors for voting for a sales tax no one wanted for a county next
doors stadium. 6 months later he was recalled and replaced. Ended his
political career to ignore his constituants wishes.
> There's always that "rep-by-pop" thing, but I think we've got enough parties
> already.
One strength I like about the US republican system is you can vote for
senate, congress and president independantly of the other. Allows
voters much more latitude on picking bettere reprentatives.
Case in point, say I love my MP but hate the party leader. Who do I
vote for? Americans have no such dilema.
> I've wondered why we can't encourage more altruistic action on the part of
> corporations... Sounds silly, I know, but, think about it...
Simple, there is no reward in our current society for honour, integrity
and morality. Nice guys don't make it to the top. Only sociopaths that
can do the nasty work and somehow live with it. Oh, there might be
exceptions, like the MP who commited suicide yet had everything going
for him. Fat government partially tax free cheque, expense account,
indexed fat full pension in 6 years... maybe the guilt caught up to him.
> Let's say there is a muffler or brake shop, and let's ay the owner put's in
> one bay more than he normally would... Well, he get's a tax credit for the
> additional startup costs, as long as the bay is staffed by disabled
> workers... The return on the work done in the bay would be less than the
> other bays, so an additional tax credit (equivalent to the lower profit
> generated) would then be used to offset the amount of taxes paid on the
> other bays each year. The disabled workers wouldn't be looked down upon
> because the net return on their work would financially be equivalent to all
> the other workers, and their would be less people on the welfare /
> government pension roles, and the disabled workers would end up with a
> higher standard of living than they would have just as wards of the state.
Not enough PR to attract real money. GM, $13 billion... now that gets
Iggy, Laytoon and Harpo going...
But I agree with you. Canada investing in Canada, what a novel concept.
Tell that to Iggy and Harpo who just sent $2.6 billion to some African
banks.... Tells you where Ottawa is at.
In your scenario, the money is spent here an has at least a guaranteed
partial return in lower social assistance costs, provides a service and
builds our society. Plus, it costs peanuts compared to big corruption
like banks, GM, Chrysler, African banks and every other hyper fat blood
sucker out there. I can't remeber the name of the company, but it
started like this in the US and made all sorts of money at what they did.
> I know this sounds a lot like "affirmative action" programmes of yester
> year, but the amount of tax dollars affected would be more closely tied to
> the free market system, as opposed to an arbitrary amount of tax credit
> simply for hiring a disabled worker to do jobs nobody else wants to do. It
> would also encourage the development of real skills among the disabled and
> specialty technologies in the industry itself to facilitate the inclusion of
> these special needs workers.
I don't believe in affirmative action as it was implimented in the US.
Turned out to be a big mess. Although some parts were good.
I would rather see the government assess the disabled worker, apply a
subsidy to the wages and let the business decide how to use the
situation. Seriously. Even allow the disabled worker the freedom to
quit without loosing it all. But not to subsidize it to a point where
they are hired for the money.
Or quite litterally, have the government hire them by law if they are
functional. The disabled people I have met in my lifetime tend to be
better at customer service and work ethics than many a abled. They
certainly on a whole try harder.
Then when I call the CCRA I will get someone nice and knowledgable.
Another related falicy we have is retirement or maternity, why is it all
or nothing? Why not a 4 day work week? Or even 3? Why is it so stuck?
Personally, I would quit my current job to go elsewhere for 4 day work
week. But in my profession, it is unheard of. But I digress.
Dudley Hanks
How so?
Lougheed fought Ottawa pretty fiercely to keep funds in Alberta, did he not?
Political parties are separate entities at the provincial and federal
levels...
It is not uncommon for provincial and federal parties of the same stripe to
disagree on regional issues...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
You discount the core of the system...
If it weren't for the ND's splitting the left vote, we'd have aLiberal
government, federally, at the moment.
Granted, I don't see the Liberal party governing Alberta any time soon, but,
that's more due to the fact the PC's are actually quite leftist for a
government of Cons... So, a lot of Liberal voters vote for that party
instead of to the less experienced Libs...
But, remember you heard it here first... We could very likely see a
minority PC government in the next election, with the Wildrose group as
opposition and an invigorated Liberal bunch holding the balance of power...
That scenario can only help the Liberals in the long run, since true
Liberals will see that their interests are increasingly ignored by a more
right wing government. In that case, they'll cast their vote in following
elections for a party they can identify with more closely...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>>> But why not just vote for someone else and turn them over like diapers
>>> until a good one comes?
>>>
>>> Canadians have far too much stupid patience with their representation.
>>
>> Ah, something else we can agree on... Only problem is, Who to vote for
>> when they're all the same...?
>
> Almost 50% of the population couldn't get off their butts to vote.
ND votes...
They
> in reality don't like any of their choices. NDP, Lib or Con, not enough
> to get them out to vote. But it actually contributes to our poor quality
> of representation.
>
> As it is the <insert party here> lifer that does vote. They don't vote
> with thought or an open mind. Often it is a simple as I am Liberal or I
> am Conservative, and that thought process has nothing to do with the would
> be representatives morals, honesty, integrity or honor. With many, a MP
> could just outright lie to their constituants and come down with a
> majority vote.
Like Harper's little fixed election legislation? Or, Chretien's little
"I'll get rid of that nasty GST!" claim...
>
> What if every passive and disgruntled voter showed up and voted for an
> independant, a small party or an alternative it would turn Canada's
> political landscape on i's ear.
Would it make much difference? We'd end up with a Prime Minister governing
a tiny little government group of MP's / MLA's, facing off against a
disorganized horde of independants who wouldn't be able to agree on what
they want, let alone whether the government's policies were any good...
Given that scenario, I'm guessing the government could pass just about
anything it might please...
Take Care,
Dudley
The Doctor
Roy <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 9, 6:15=A0pm, Canuck57 <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote:
>> > In article <HgLJm.52054$PH1.913@edtnps82>,
>> > Dudley Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>> >> "The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
>> >>news:hd6lvh$ls7$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...
>> >>> In article <PrqJm.51020$Db2.50067@edtnps83>,
>> >>> Dudley Hanks <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>> >>>> "Canuck57" <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:xIpJm.25291$1g6....@newsfe10.iad...
>> >>>>> The Doctor wrote:
>> >>>>>> In article <WYoJm.25283$1g6.19...@newsfe10.iad>,
>> >>>>>>> Looks like it is rumoured Ed Stelmach got 78%!!!
>>
>od
>> >>>>>>> start. =A0Nothing like having a hypocrit buffoon as your oppositi=
>on in
>> >>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>> election.
>>
>> >>>>>>> Bet future polls show Wildrose Alliance in contention for the nex=
>t
>> >>>>>>> government and the Liberals are going to get kicked out of opposi=
>tion
>> >>>>>>> by
>> >>>>>>> the PC Party. =A0LMAO.
>> >>>>>> Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
>> >>>>>http://www.calgaryherald.com/
>>
>> >>>>> Or more victories for the Wildrose Alliance?
>>
>be
>> >>>>> squeezed out of opposition heading for their 100th anniversary in
>> >>>>> Alberta?
>e
>> >>>> conservative split...
>>
>> >>>> Take Care,
>> >>>> Dudley
>>
>> >>> If the green and NDP vote merge with the Liberals.
>> >>> --
>ith
>> >> the Liberals holding the balance of power.
>>
>> >> For Alberta, that would be a great start...
>>
>> >> Take Care,
>> >> Dudley
>>
>> > It would be weird be nice.
>>
>> corner. =A0While the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance decide who rules and
>> who is opposition. =A0But I will say this, Ed and the PC Party better
>> watch out, the more people look at Dannielle Smith and the WRP the more
>>
>> Not a unemployed Taff consultant Liberal that is for sure.- Hide quoted t=
>ext -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Dannielle Smith is really in the pocket of the "oil and gas
>industry"...do not vote for this wretch.
And a few other people Stelmach wants shut up.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010
Dudley Hanks
>>> corner. =A0While the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance decide who rules and
>>> who is opposition. =A0But I will say this, Ed and the PC Party better
>>> watch out, the more people look at Dannielle Smith and the WRP the more
>>> they will like. =A0A real good track record and loaded with experience.
>>>
>>> Not a unemployed Taff consultant Liberal that is for sure.- Hide quoted
>>> t=
>>ext -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>=3D=3D
>>Dannielle Smith is really in the pocket of the "oil and gas
>>industry"...do not vote for this wretch.
>>=3D=3D
>
> And a few other people Stelmach wants shut up.
> --
It's kind of interesting that Albertans as a whole are viewed as red-necked
RightOffs, but that's not really the case...
The reason why the PC party is so left (for a group of Cons) is that the
majority of Albertans are borderline Liberals...
Now, if the PC's start drifting right, in order to appease the ultra
RightOffs who might jump ship and swim over to the WRA, another segment of
the party will be forced to vote for the Libs... because the PC party will
no longer represent their core values.
This means the PC's, right now, are facing a two-flanked threat. A way must
be found to appease the RightOffs without taking the party, as a whole,
closer to the right-wing fringe...
I really doubt you'll see Liberal membership / representation drop. I'd
guess it'll go up... How much? Who knows, but the presence of the WRA can
only mean that the Liberal Party, one way or another, will end up with an
enhanced role in provincial politics.
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
Doubtful. Perhaps a few more seats as opposition, granted.
> Granted, I don't see the Liberal party governing Alberta any time soon, but,
> that's more due to the fact the PC's are actually quite leftist for a
> government of Cons... So, a lot of Liberal voters vote for that party
> instead of to the less experienced Libs...
Agreed, the PC party is sort of center, but under Ed has shifted left.
Which has the right shifting to Wildrose Alliance.
> But, remember you heard it here first... We could very likely see a
> minority PC government in the next election, with the Wildrose group as
> opposition and an invigorated Liberal bunch holding the balance of power...
Possibly. But doubtful. If Glenmore is any indication, it might be a
PC majority much smaller than they are used to, a strong Wildrose
Alliance and Liberals/NDP on the back benches with a few more seats.
And I am not sure of the PC Party or Wildrose, could be the other way
around. Alberta has historically mad hard and fast shifts. Much
depends on how many tiems Ed sticks his foot in his outh between now and
the next election.
And the Liberal/NDPs are broke.
> That scenario can only help the Liberals in the long run, since true
> Liberals will see that their interests are increasingly ignored by a more
> right wing government. In that case, they'll cast their vote in following
> elections for a party they can identify with more closely...
Might actually keep them alive. Came pretty close to getting wiped out
last time.
Canuck57
>>>> Dream on. =A0More like 1 or 2 liberals to join the 1 or two ndp in the
>>>> corner. =A0While the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance decide who rules and
>>>> who is opposition. =A0But I will say this, Ed and the PC Party better
>>>> watch out, the more people look at Dannielle Smith and the WRP the more
>>>> they will like. =A0A real good track record and loaded with experience.
>>>>
>>>> Not a unemployed Taff consultant Liberal that is for sure.- Hide quoted
>>>> t=
>>> ext -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> =3D=3D
>>> Dannielle Smith is really in the pocket of the "oil and gas
>>> industry"...do not vote for this wretch.
>>> =3D=3D
>> And a few other people Stelmach wants shut up.
>> --
>
> It's kind of interesting that Albertans as a whole are viewed as red-necked
> RightOffs, but that's not really the case...
>
> The reason why the PC party is so left (for a group of Cons) is that the
> majority of Albertans are borderline Liberals...
That I differ with. Many of the imports to Alberta like me, came here
because it wasn't Liberal. Being from Ontario, I could see no future
but taxes, more taxes and crappy wages unless you were a good little
union suck. I wanted better and moved. I stayed as it wasn't Liberal.
Not all of us want a nany state and it's associated taxation costs.
> Now, if the PC's start drifting right, in order to appease the ultra
> RightOffs who might jump ship and swim over to the WRA, another segment of
> the party will be forced to vote for the Libs... because the PC party will
> no longer represent their core values.
Ed is a red-tory, closet Liberal. That is why his support is discipating.
> This means the PC's, right now, are facing a two-flanked threat. A way must
> be found to appease the RightOffs without taking the party, as a whole,
> closer to the right-wing fringe...
Yep. Can't sand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I don't want to see
this province take the Ontario/Quebec/BC route to enslave people for
huge debt. Imagine all the social services that are not being had for
the tax buck because of debt!
> I really doubt you'll see Liberal membership / representation drop. I'd
> guess it'll go up... How much? Who knows, but the presence of the WRA can
> only mean that the Liberal Party, one way or another, will end up with an
> enhanced role in provincial politics.
I will hand it to Liberals, wishful thinkers. Liberals got less than
33% of the vote in most ridings, that leaves lots of room for a
comeptative shift, Liberals to the left with promises of debt, PC Party
in the middle acting like Liberals. And a refreshing choice to the
right of center, Wildrose. My money is in the later.
If on the chance liberals get elected here, I will be one of the first
to emigrate. I would rather be poor and blind in Costa Rica than poor,
frozen and blind here.
Canuck57
>> Almost 50% of the population couldn't get off their butts to vote.
> And, I'd bet the majority of those people are lower income, read Liberal /
> ND votes...
Doubtful, I would put my money on uncommited. That is why they don't
make the effort.
> Like Harper's little fixed election legislation? Or, Chretien's little
> "I'll get rid of that nasty GST!" claim...
Take your pick. But I never have really agreed with government paying
parties. But ti was in at least equal and proportial to voter support.
In that respect, if it cuts down corporate bribery, OK.
But Liberals being broke make a big stink as they need the cash for
their next apyments. They failed to mention that little point. Iggy
didn't get elected at a convention because they couldn't afford it.
Something to do with bad credit. And if they can't make a small party
budget work, what makes anone think they can make the biggest government
in Canada work?
>> What if every passive and disgruntled voter showed up and voted for an
>> independant, a small party or an alternative it would turn Canada's
>> political landscape on i's ear.
>
> Would it make much difference? We'd end up with a Prime Minister governing
> a tiny little government group of MP's / MLA's, facing off against a
> disorganized horde of independants who wouldn't be able to agree on what
> they want, let alone whether the government's policies were any good...
I bet it would. Aussies make voting an obligation and you need a good
excuse not to vote. Even if all you do is scrach the vote...you have to
vote or get fined.
> Given that scenario, I'm guessing the government could pass just about
> anything it might please...
In essence, without recall, the Canadian system elects 5 year dictators
when a majority governmetn is had. I can't say I trust any of Iggy,
Laytoon or Harpo, so a minority government suits me fine.
Dudley Hanks
If you've ever read anything by Joseph Schumpeter, you'd be watching the
news with great interest. He's one of Alan Greenspan's university
professors, and it's uncanny how his teachings are so evident in everything
that's going on, from the huge corporate bailouts to increasing health care
coverage in the States...
If he's right, you can look forward to more Liberal policies no matter where
you live, and your trust in gold won't do you much good...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Hey, there's another thing we can agree on...
Minority governments have always served Canada well...
Regarding money management, I still say the Liberals have the better
record...
Trudeau took it from $18 billion to $200 billion. The Conservatives then
took that to about $560 billion, before the Libs got it under control and
cut it down to, what, about $480 Billion? Now, the Cons are skyrocketing it
with record deficits...
Makes Trudeau look like a spendthrift...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
> If you've ever read anything by Joseph Schumpeter, you'd be watching the
> news with great interest. He's one of Alan Greenspan's university
> professors, and it's uncanny how his teachings are so evident in everything
> that's going on, from the huge corporate bailouts to increasing health care
> coverage in the States...
Can't say I have. The last time I read or watched anything Greenspan
was Greenspan himself. He admited letting debt growth go uncontrolled
with artifically low interest rates set the US up for the recession. He
said this would last a decade or more to unwind.
I prefer more basics, like Ron Paul. He predicted the recession right
down to a tee in 2003. He even cited debt, including government debt to
be the cause. Congress and the senate chose to ignore his message.
> If he's right, you can look forward to more Liberal policies no matter where
> you live, and your trust in gold won't do you much good...
Gold in your hands sells anywhere. South America, Africa, Asia... even
Chinese like it. Even the mafia will take it in trade I am sure. And
since you can't just go out to the back yard and trivially grow it, it
will retain value where as the curency itself will not.
In Roman times, a first class business toga and sandles cost an ounce of
gold, today it still buys a good business suit and loafers. But paper
currency from the period is absolutely worthless. This has survived
time like no other.
Doubtful that more liberalism will come to Canada. Canadian governments
are in essense broke. In at least BC, Ontario, Quebec and Ottawa have
not been able to borrow new money for some time. And the longer they go
this way, the bigger the currency crash will be. Think, in 2 years a
litre of gas might be $20 and your utility bills go over $1000.
I suspect China is about to change the rules, they don't want CAD or
USDs any more, they have plenty already and are in fact looking at
unloading it. When they do, hyper stagflation will come hard and fast.
I hope you don't think Obama is going to the orient for rice cakes and
mandarines?
Canuck57
For the most part, yes.
> Political parties are separate entities at the provincial and federal
> levels...
Yes and no, there is a lot of cross polination. Take Charest for a top
dog example.
> It is not uncommon for provincial and federal parties of the same stripe to
> disagree on regional issues...
Depends on the grease under the table we can't see. Take Ed's chirp at
Ottawa in Dec/Jan 2008/9, he all of a sudden became quite quiet. As if
summoned by some hidden force to shut up.
Most government/political dealings are made in advance and in censure,
the rest is PR for our entertainment. Take Iggy, having the opposition
to his leadership step down when they couldn't finance a convention. We
didn't hear it that way from Liberal media, but it is really what
happened. Hand picked Iggy.
Take the Airbus affair and the extradition of Karl Schreiber for
Mulroney's benefit not. Th problem here was both the Liberals and the
Conservatives were caught in the corruption. And Schreiber's attitude
was how dare you extradight me.
Hell, you can have some Asian gang banger convicted of a violent
offence, falsified paper work, and we can't export them back. Yet
Schreiber they rushed out as fast as they could.
But Cons and Libs agreed, he has to go. Mulroney was the 1/2 of it.
Not only did Mulroney take the cash under the table, Liberals paid him
$2.1 million hush which wasn't repaid. Kind of embarasing actually for
the Liberal PM to pay a uilty man $2.1M tax free. Canadians came real
close to finding out how corrupt Canadian politics real is.
And while the Fifth Estate takes credit for it's release of this story,
it was on the Internet at least 8 month before CBC aired it. And it was
uncanny how accurate ethe Internet posts really were. Even the money in NY.
Parties, even opposing parties conspire together is the moral.
Canuck57
> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> Given that scenario, I'm guessing the government could pass just about
>>> anything it might please...
>> In essence, without recall, the Canadian system elects 5 year dictators
>> when a majority governmetn is had. I can't say I trust any of Iggy,
>> Laytoon or Harpo, so a minority government suits me fine.
>
> Hey, there's another thing we can agree on...
>
> Minority governments have always served Canada well...
>
> Regarding money management, I still say the Liberals have the better
> record...
If you add up debt Liberals are far ahead of Cons in this regard. If
you could wipe out Turdeau, I might agree.
If you consider the incoming government has to adjust government and a
one year lag exists in spending changes, makes the liberals even look worse.
> Trudeau took it from $18 billion to $200 billion. The Conservatives then
> took that to about $560 billion, before the Libs got it under control and
> cut it down to, what, about $480 Billion? Now, the Cons are skyrocketing it
> with record deficits...
>
> Makes Trudeau look like a spendthrift...
Not at all. Once you are in debt, not only do you have to keep the
government going AND pay down the debt with service charges. If you
calculate the interest on Turdeaus discretions and add that to the $200
billion he added, you come up with a number larger than todays debt even
with the the Cons $100 billion boondoggle.
$200B * 1.05^30 (5% over 30 years) -> 864 billion.
That is, $664 billion in additional income taxes to serve the debt since
Piere Ellion Ass Hole. Excluding GST.
Also keep in mind $200 billion back then was more like $600 billion in
todays dollars. The uggly part of debt is this. Interest keeps you
from paying it off. The further in debt you are, it is exponential to
how hard you have to work to get out of debt.
That is, twice the debt is 4 times as hard to get out of. When it
becomes impossible to pay, you are bankrupt. In the mean time you are a
tax slave to debt.
What flagrant jack ass Turdeau did was pre-mortgage 30% of every tax
personal income tax dollar for the last 30 years.
Turdeau screwed us all. Just that dumbshit Liberals never figured it out.
Dudley Hanks
I'm curious, do you keep your gold in a safe place? Or, do you just have a
certificate saying you "own" a certain amount of it? If the latter, do you
really think you'll see much of it in the event of a real crash?
Regarding Greenspan, we have different interpretations of his final
musings...
Re: Ron Paul, I understand why you'd like him, but I think you both forgot
why Nixon took the States off the gold standard; either that, or you
under-estimate what would have happened had the standard been retained...
re: current events: Who's view of economics accounts for the States
leaning towards universal health care, Schumpeter's or Paul's? I'll give
you a hint, his first name isn't Ron...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> rest is PR for our entertainment. Take Iggy, having the opposition to his
> leadership step down when they couldn't finance a convention. We didn't
> hear it that way from Liberal media, but it is really what happened.
You have this on good authority? Or, are you assuming this the same way you
assumed I was disappointed at my son's graduation because I was disappointed
in him? :)
Hand picked Iggy.
>
> Take the Airbus affair and the extradition of Karl Schreiber for
> Mulroney's benefit not. Th problem here was both the Liberals and the
> Conservatives were caught in the corruption. And Schreiber's attitude was
> how dare you extradight me.
>
> Hell, you can have some Asian gang banger convicted of a violent offence,
> falsified paper work, and we can't export them back. Yet Schreiber they
> rushed out as fast as they could.
>
> But Cons and Libs agreed, he has to go. Mulroney was the 1/2 of it. Not
> only did Mulroney take the cash under the table,
I suspect that, but have not seen / heard conclusive proof...
Liberals paid him
> $2.1 million hush which wasn't repaid. Kind of embarasing actually for
> the Liberal PM to pay a uilty man $2.1M tax free. Canadians came real
> close to finding out how corrupt Canadian politics real is.
>
> And while the Fifth Estate takes credit for it's release of this story, it
> was on the Internet at least 8 month before CBC aired it. And it was
> uncanny how accurate ethe Internet posts really were. Even the money in
> NY.
>
> Parties, even opposing parties conspire together is the moral.
But, you seem to think business is different? Any time there is cash, lots
of it, there will be corruption... If you have a way to magically control
it, I'm sure you'll get some sort of Nobel prize... Heck, they're giving
'em away on spec, now, so yours might be in the mail... :)
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> Given that scenario, I'm guessing the government could pass just about
>>>> anything it might please...
>>> In essence, without recall, the Canadian system elects 5 year dictators
>>> when a majority governmetn is had. I can't say I trust any of Iggy,
>>> Laytoon or Harpo, so a minority government suits me fine.
>>
>> Hey, there's another thing we can agree on...
>>
>> Minority governments have always served Canada well...
But, if everybody followed your lead and voted independant, or at least a
sizeable chunk of the electorate went down that road, you do realize you're
advice would INCREASE corruption in Ottawa? Since the independants would
hold the balance of power, and since the minority government wouldn't have
to vote with an organized bloc of disciplined MP's / MLA's, and since it
would cost a minimal amount to pay off the independants one by one, your
system would inevitably INCREASE such things as pork-barrelling out-and-out
bribery, and or minimal jiggling of legislation to suit the needs of local
elites. Not sure that's what you want, RIGHT?
>
>> Regarding money management, I still say the Liberals have the better
>> record...
>
> If you add up debt Liberals are far ahead of Cons in this regard.
We'll never agree on that... I fail to see how Trudeau's $182 billion comes
close to the $360+ billion the Cons have incurred since Mulroney took
over... Chretien's time even cut the debt by about $80 billion, which is
something the Cons can't lay claim to since near the beginning of LAST
century...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
>> Most government/political dealings are made in advance and in censure, the
>> rest is PR for our entertainment. Take Iggy, having the opposition to his
>> leadership step down when they couldn't finance a convention. We didn't
>> hear it that way from Liberal media, but it is really what happened.
>
> You have this on good authority? Or, are you assuming this the same way you
> assumed I was disappointed at my son's graduation because I was disappointed
> in him? :)
Nothing to do with your sons graduation. Which is graduation and good
news pure and simple.
It is about what we see from government is for the most part prepared, a
rouse, and not genuine. Often what we see is prearranged.
> Hand picked Iggy.
>> Take the Airbus affair and the extradition of Karl Schreiber for
>> Mulroney's benefit not. Th problem here was both the Liberals and the
>> Conservatives were caught in the corruption. And Schreiber's attitude was
>> how dare you extradight me.
>>
>> Hell, you can have some Asian gang banger convicted of a violent offence,
>> falsified paper work, and we can't export them back. Yet Schreiber they
>> rushed out as fast as they could.
>>
>> But Cons and Libs agreed, he has to go. Mulroney was the 1/2 of it. Not
>> only did Mulroney take the cash under the table,
>
> I suspect that, but have not seen / heard conclusive proof...
What prrof do you need? Every bit is in the public news. Multroney is
PM, leaves Campbell to the wolves. Takes a cash bribe without thinking
to declare it to the CCRA. Libeals accue him of stuff related to it,
Mulroney gets $2.1 million for defamation from the Liberal government,
pretty easily I might add. Years go by. Then the german on a deportee
list sings his song about Mulroney and cash.
Ever wonder why the liberals were so quiet while Schreiber was being
extradighted? Liberals paid Mulroney $2.1... which was never repaid.
Mulroney played them both for fools. If they don't delay it again, the
final commision report is due in May of 2010. How come so long?
And you can't even find out if Mulroney ever did claim it to the CRA.
But they will chase a commoner for $50 but not Mulroney for penalties
and arears on $300,00 cash.
Hell, they are all in on it trying to save face.
> Liberals paid him
>> $2.1 million hush which wasn't repaid. Kind of embarasing actually for
>> the Liberal PM to pay a uilty man $2.1M tax free. Canadians came real
>> close to finding out how corrupt Canadian politics real is.
>>
>> And while the Fifth Estate takes credit for it's release of this story, it
>> was on the Internet at least 8 month before CBC aired it. And it was
>> uncanny how accurate ethe Internet posts really were. Even the money in
>> NY.
>>
>> Parties, even opposing parties conspire together is the moral.
>
> But, you seem to think business is different? Any time there is cash, lots
> of it, there will be corruption... If you have a way to magically control
> it, I'm sure you'll get some sort of Nobel prize... Heck, they're giving
> 'em away on spec, now, so yours might be in the mail... :)
Most business are relatively honest and straght forward and it i why the
country works. But you have me in that many are not. But huge
difference is that the business does not have a fudiciary responsibility
for the country. And most Canadians don't realize it, naive to the core.
And the governemnt has too much cash giving it has this much corruption.
Solution is simple, leave more or peoples money in their pockets. And
vote for someone with some moral integrity and not just the ass wipe
presented to you by a closed group.
Canuck57
Actually, I own very little related to gold, less than 1% via stocks. A
wedding ring. I am putting most of my money on black gold, oil. Gold
is sort of oversold a bit and oil has a better turn around.
If I did do gold, I would buy it and put it in my hands and into the
safety deposit box. I would not trust "certificates". There were
roumors these were oversold and backed by hedge. Too risky.
> Regarding Greenspan, we have different interpretations of his final
> musings...
>
> Re: Ron Paul, I understand why you'd like him, but I think you both forgot
> why Nixon took the States off the gold standard; either that, or you
> under-estimate what would have happened had the standard been retained...
US was in effect off the gold/silver standard long before Nixon. While
he might have made something official, it hasn't been since early in the
1900's since there was enough gold/silver on deposit to back the
currency. You are talking of the Federal Reserve and Bank Act of 1913.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
> re: current events: Who's view of economics accounts for the States
> leaning towards universal health care, Schumpeter's or Paul's? I'll give
> you a hint, his first name isn't Ron...
Don't know Schumpeter. But the Fed getting into health care is a tax
grab. It isn't going into an arms length fund, government wants the
revenue. The same liberal trick pulled in Canada.
Give them health care, jack taxes up the wazoo.
Shift the responsiblity to the provinces which jack the taxes up the
wazoo. And now low service levels.
Then keep the revenue for health care as part of general revenue to
waste, blow on pet projects and play big shot with the GMs, Chryslers
and African banks.
Leaving the middle class taxed to hell, financially weak trying to keep
a lifestyle in which they were raised. And many can't.
US government needs revenue and a direct tax increase would create
riots. So they want the health care as revenue to skim it like Ottawa did.
Americans need to ask why they don't put any health care revenue into a
separate account from government, so that 100% of health care revenue
goes to health care without the accounting trickery. Like they do with
social security, SSN.
It is because the government does not want to account on how the moneys
are used. It is a revenue grab, pure and simple.
And having lived in the USA for 10 years, I can tell you there are many
things in their system that are much better in the US than in Canada.
For example, never once was it hard to find and get a doctor and
specialists took hours to see not weeks and months.
Obama is a marxist-statist. Congress is broke. Makes strange bedfellow
to sell out Americans.
Canuck57
> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:xm3Mm.25312$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Given that scenario, I'm guessing the government could pass just about
>>>>> anything it might please...
>>>> In essence, without recall, the Canadian system elects 5 year dictators
>>>> when a majority governmetn is had. I can't say I trust any of Iggy,
>>>> Laytoon or Harpo, so a minority government suits me fine.
>>> Hey, there's another thing we can agree on...
>>>
>>> Minority governments have always served Canada well...
>
> But, if everybody followed your lead and voted independant, or at least a
> sizeable chunk of the electorate went down that road, you do realize you're
> advice would INCREASE corruption in Ottawa? Since the independants would
> hold the balance of power, and since the minority government wouldn't have
> to vote with an organized bloc of disciplined MP's / MLA's, and since it
> would cost a minimal amount to pay off the independants one by one, your
> system would inevitably INCREASE such things as pork-barrelling out-and-out
> bribery, and or minimal jiggling of legislation to suit the needs of local
> elites. Not sure that's what you want, RIGHT?
The chances of 1 in 400 squealling corruption is a whole lot better than
1:3.
Having independants in Ottawa isn't going to increase corruption at all.
With so many independant eyes a watching, it will decrease corruption.
An independant is much less likely to be cohersed into silence.
People who are against independant representation usually are
anti-democratic. Because this is where democracy really shines. It
isn't one sociaopath egomaniac at teh top calling the shots, it is
300-400 independant people working for their ridings and constiuants.
Case in point, PM Canuck57 decides we spend too much on social services
and need the money for more expensive corporate bailouts. So I tell my
minons to support the cuts. They do or I make their lives hell.
BUT if the independants carried the balance, PM Canuck57 will have to
sell the idea on it's merits as he has not such power over the independants.
See the drift?
>>> Regarding money management, I still say the Liberals have the better
>>> record...
>> If you add up debt Liberals are far ahead of Cons in this regard.
>
> We'll never agree on that... I fail to see how Trudeau's $182 billion comes
> close to the $360+ billion the Cons have incurred since Mulroney took
> over... Chretien's time even cut the debt by about $80 billion, which is
> something the Cons can't lay claim to since near the beginning of LAST
> century...
Probably not. Liberals often do deny what is recorded history. You
have to dig hard, but debt records are a mater of record. You can even
look up patronage appointments and the like.
But people see what they want to see. Optimists are often wrong, as are
pesimists. It is the realist that is in tune.
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> Most government/political dealings are made in advance and in censure,
>>> the rest is PR for our entertainment. Take Iggy, having the opposition
>>> to his leadership step down when they couldn't finance a convention. We
>>> didn't hear it that way from Liberal media, but it is really what
>>> happened.
>>
>> You have this on good authority? Or, are you assuming this the same way
>> you assumed I was disappointed at my son's graduation because I was
>> disappointed in him? :)
>
> Nothing to do with your sons graduation. Which is graduation and good news
> pure and simple.
>
> It is about what we see from government is for the most part prepared, a
> rouse, and not genuine. Often what we see is prearranged.
>
>> Hand picked Iggy.
So, if the Libs couldn't afford a convention, how did they afford that
little gathering in Vancouver, December, 2008?
>>> Take the Airbus affair and the extradition of Karl Schreiber for
>>> Mulroney's benefit not. Th problem here was both the Liberals and the
>>> Conservatives were caught in the corruption. And Schreiber's attitude
>>> was how dare you extradight me.
>>>
>>> Hell, you can have some Asian gang banger convicted of a violent
>>> offence, falsified paper work, and we can't export them back. Yet
>>> Schreiber they rushed out as fast as they could.
>>>
>>> But Cons and Libs agreed, he has to go. Mulroney was the 1/2 of it. Not
>>> only did Mulroney take the cash under the table,
>>
>> I suspect that, but have not seen / heard conclusive proof...
>
> What prrof do you need? Every bit is in the public news. Multroney is
> PM, leaves Campbell to the wolves. Takes a cash bribe without thinking to
> declare it to the CCRA. Libeals accue him of stuff related to it,
> Mulroney gets $2.1 million for defamation from the Liberal government,
> pretty easily I might add. Years go by. Then the german on a deportee
> list sings his song about Mulroney and cash.
>
I'm a little old-fashioned -- believe in innocent until proven guilty in a
court of law...
Once again, corruption just another word for something I don't agree with...
> Ever wonder why the liberals were so quiet while Schreiber was being
> extradighted? Liberals paid Mulroney $2.1... which was never repaid.
> Mulroney played them both for fools. If they don't delay it again, the
> final commision report is due in May of 2010. How come so long?
>
> And you can't even find out if Mulroney ever did claim it to the CRA. But
> they will chase a commoner for $50 but not Mulroney for penalties and
> arears on $300,00 cash.
>
> Hell, they are all in on it trying to save face.
>
>> Liberals paid him
>>> $2.1 million hush which wasn't repaid. Kind of embarasing actually for
>>> the Liberal PM to pay a uilty man $2.1M tax free. Canadians came real
>>> close to finding out how corrupt Canadian politics real is.
>>>
This is something I haven't followed too much, so perhaps you can fill me
in... Why would Libs even want to hush up Conservative cons...?
As far as I know, the defamation money was paid after a court judgement, so
not worth helping Cons...
>>> And while the Fifth Estate takes credit for it's release of this story,
>>> it was on the Internet at least 8 month before CBC aired it. And it was
>>> uncanny how accurate ethe Internet posts really were. Even the money in
>>> NY.
>>>
>>> Parties, even opposing parties conspire together is the moral.
>>
Not saying that doesn't happen, but I'm not sure there's a good reason for
Libs and Cons to con together in this case...
>> But, you seem to think business is different? Any time there is cash,
>> lots of it, there will be corruption... If you have a way to magically
>> control it, I'm sure you'll get some sort of Nobel prize... Heck,
>> they're giving 'em away on spec, now, so yours might be in the mail...
>> :)
>
> Most business are relatively honest and straght forward
Really? Not the ones I've dealt with...
Remember that Canadian who found all that gold in the jungle? Seems he was
good at lacing samples...
Then, of course, there's good ol' Conrad and Hollinger...
Slumlords renting out closets for a percentage of welfare cheques mailed to
his address...
NHL "business" owners who want the public to pay for their facilities...
Cable companies and negative billing...
GM...
AIG...
etc...
and it i why the
> country works. But you have me in that many are not. But huge difference
> is that the business does not have a fudiciary responsibility
What about a social / ethical responsibility?
> for the country. And most Canadians don't realize it, naive to the core.
I'm not sure they're as naive as you think... There's that old saying,
"Democracy is the worst form of government I can think of -- except all
the alternatives..."
>
> And the governemnt has too much cash giving it has this much corruption.
> Solution is simple, leave more or peoples money in their pockets. And
> vote for someone with some moral integrity and not just the ass wipe
> presented to you by a closed group.
Easier said than done... Remember Mulroney and that debate with Turner?
God, he sure claimed to be honourable...
So do the rest...
And, then, there's that thing called intention... It's easy for a
government official to come across as corrupt to one group while looking
like a saint to another...
Take Harper, all the RightOffs think he's great, but he won't even let a
torch ceremony take place in an opposition riding.... Corrupt? Depends on
how you look at it...
As for leaving more in people's pockets... good to a point. But, once you
pass that point, the nation goes to hell in a handbasket real fast...
Basically feudalism would ensue...
I'm a firm believer in, "If you don't like the system, get involved... Do
something to change it..."
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
And, that quick access is exactly why the system isn't working any longer,
or at least part of the reason...
RightOffs seem to think it's a selling point that the rich get quick access
to health care while the poor get nothing... Problem is that there are more
poor voters than rich... So, the system can only mistreat them so far
before they buy back the government with the currency of votes...
Rights can't stand it, but it's inevitable... That bastion of the industry
of illness is heading left...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
>>>>
>>>> If you take the Conservative vote and split it between each of the PC
>>>> and Wildrose, in many ridings, Cons will poll lower than the unchanged
>>>> Liberals and ND's...If the Libs and ND's get their vote out, they very
>>>> well could finish with a much larger number of seats...
>>>>
>>>> Take Care,
>>>> Dudley
>>> Possible yes. And in some ridings, yes. But to happen in 50% of the
>>> ridings??....
I never said they'd form the next government, just that there could be a
minority PC government, with the WRA in opposition and the Libs holding the
balance of power... Doesn't take 50% of the seats for that...
hope the Liberals like punishment... getting close to 100
>>> years and no Liberal government in Alberta.... ;)
>>>
Gotta love that dedication... How many PC supporters would stick around if
their guy wasn't calling the shots?
>>> I think the Liberals too said the same thing about the Reform party
>>> splitting the vote. Just more Liberal rant as maybe at the peek, it
>>> amounted to 2 or 3 seats in all of western Canada and later lost.
That was due more to Preston's popularity, or should I say the popularity
of his dad...
Also, there's that whole, "I gotta oppose Ottawa at all costs!" mentality
out here...
It's gonna be interesting to see how Harper fares as PM if he gets more
seats down east and is seen to pander to Ontario / Quebec in his cabinet
appointments...
It'd be real cute to see Harper take Quebec and Ontario, and to have Alberta
go Liberal red in opposition...
>>>
>>> Finally a party right of center, they have my vote and my annual
>>> politicial donation money. NDiaPers, no one takes them seriously.
>>
>> You discount the core of the system...
>>
>> If it weren't for the ND's splitting the left vote, we'd have aLiberal
>> government, federally, at the moment.
>
> Doubtful. Perhaps a few more seats as opposition, granted.
>
>> Granted, I don't see the Liberal party governing Alberta any time soon,
>> but, that's more due to the fact the PC's are actually quite leftist for
>> a government of Cons... So, a lot of Liberal voters vote for that party
>> instead of to the less experienced Libs...
>
> Agreed, the PC party is sort of center,
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, I didn't want to say they were center...
They're barely borderline Liberal, which still leaves the party rather too
far to the right... Alberta's social and medical spending is the lowest in
Canada, that's not center, that's right wing all the way, they just include
enough leftist planks to appease the moderately right of center Liberals who
like the PC's experience....
but under Ed has shifted left.
> Which has the right shifting to Wildrose Alliance.
>
>> But, remember you heard it here first... We could very likely see a
>> minority PC government in the next election, with the Wildrose group as
>> opposition and an invigorated Liberal bunch holding the balance of
>> power...
>
> Possibly. But doubtful. If Glenmore is any indication, it might be a PC
> majority much smaller than they are used to, a strong Wildrose Alliance
> and Liberals/NDP on the back benches with a few more seats.
>
> And I am not sure of the PC Party or Wildrose, could be the other way
> around. Alberta has historically mad hard and fast shifts. Much depends
> on how many tiems Ed sticks his foot in his outh between now and the next
> election.
>
No matter how you look at it, it's going to be an election to watch...
> And the Liberal/NDPs are broke.
>
>> That scenario can only help the Liberals in the long run, since true
>> Liberals will see that their interests are increasingly ignored by a more
>> right wing government. In that case, they'll cast their vote in
>> following elections for a party they can identify with more closely...
>
> Might actually keep them alive. Came pretty close to getting wiped out
> last time.
Hey, Alberta's a tough nut to crack for Libs, but they've been almost wiped
out before and stuck around...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Not sure what dictators you've been talking to, but you can't usually vote
one out... The fact that, at the end of the five years, they have to have a
few answers is a powerful check on policy initiatives... Why do you think
we have Harper trying to sing his way into the hearts of thesbians, after
his gaffs in the last campaign...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> Given that scenario, I'm guessing the government could pass just about
>>>> anything it might please...
>>> In essence, without recall, the Canadian system elects 5 year dictators
>>> when a majority governmetn is had. I can't say I trust any of Iggy,
>>> Laytoon or Harpo, so a minority government suits me fine.
>>
>> Hey, there's another thing we can agree on...
>>
>> Minority governments have always served Canada well...
>>
>> Regarding money management, I still say the Liberals have the better
>> record...
>
> If you add up debt Liberals are far ahead of Cons in this regard. If you
> could wipe out Turdeau, I might agree.
>
> If you consider the incoming government has to adjust government and a one
> year lag exists in spending changes, makes the liberals even look worse.
I think a better measure is what changes one government makes to its
predecessors policies, and the costs either saved or magnified by the
newcomer's tinkering...
Given Mulroney INCREASED the deficits with his fiscal policies, rather than
reducing them, why should he not have that first year's spending credited to
his administration? He made very little attempt to reduce...
Had his government made an obvious shift in spending, I'd agree with you,
but in my books, he can take credit for it all...
>
>> Trudeau took it from $18 billion to $200 billion. The Conservatives then
>> took that to about $560 billion, before the Libs got it under control and
>> cut it down to, what, about $480 Billion? Now, the Cons are skyrocketing
>> it with record deficits...
>>
>> Makes Trudeau look like a spendthrift...
>
> Not at all. Once you are in debt, not only do you have to keep the
> government going AND pay down the debt with service charges. If you
> calculate the interest on Turdeaus discretions and add that to the $200
> billion he added, you come up with a number larger than todays debt even
> with the the Cons $100 billion boondoggle.
>
> $200B * 1.05^30 (5% over 30 years) -> 864 billion.
>
And, now you can do the same calculations for Mulroney's little $360 billion
contribution over the next 30 years... After all, it's unlikely we'll clear
up either's accounts in our lifetimes, so why should we just draw attention
to Trudeau's figures?
> That is, $664 billion in additional income taxes to serve the debt since
> Piere Ellion Ass Hole. Excluding GST.
>
> Also keep in mind $200 billion back then was more like $600 billion in
> todays dollars. The uggly part of debt is this. Interest keeps you from
> paying it off. The further in debt you are, it is exponential to how hard
> you have to work to get out of debt.
And, I'd think Mulroney's $360 billion would be about the same in today's
dollars... So, at worst, they're both about the same...
>
> That is, twice the debt is 4 times as hard to get out of. When it becomes
> impossible to pay, you are bankrupt. In the mean time you are a tax slave
> to debt.
I've been arguing the pros to debt and letting you do the cons, which you've
done admirably, and I think I should clarify that I am not a fan of debt for
debt's sake. I too would love to see a balanced budget and the elimination
of deficit spending, for most of the reasons you've pointed out...
However, I try to look at things with a wider angle of view and take into
consideration the human factors which lead politicians to spend borrowed
dollars...
As I've said many times, it's just too easy to tar all the politicians with
the same brush and say they're all lazy, incompetant bastards who have their
hands in the till. When in reality they are, mainly, good people trying to
gget the country through some tough times the best they can...
If Brian Mulroney went to Ottawa on a campaign of getting the public's purse
under control, and then nearly doubled the size of Trudeau's legacy,
himself, that alone should tell you it ain't easy to turn the ship of state
around...
You have continually claimed that hardships motivate people to work harder;
I say there's at least as big a chance the hardships will lead to civil
strife... That doesn't seem to concern you. You obviously think that an
iron fist can keep order and keep the country together... I'm not so sure
you're right... And, I definitely don't want to come even close to finding
out...
There isn't much more either of us can say to change the other's mind, so
I'm guessing this thread has just about exhausted itself, but I would like
to point out one thing further...
It's obvious that entrepreneurs get motivated when they think about the
hardships of poverty, and they do something to improve their situation. The
problem with capitalism is that it takes that as an axiom and generalizes
that little bit of trivia over the whole human race...
The fact that people like Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and all of the heros we
heard about during the collapse of the Twin Towers exist tells us, pretty
clearly, that not everyone puts his / her self interest ahead of his / her
neighbours, so that alone indicates a flaw in the capitalistic system...
When you couple the existance of those heros with the observable fact that
people don't always vote for the party claiming the most mathematically
perfect platform, you might even conclude that people don't always recognize
WHAT is in their best interest, let alone choose that path as the best
course to follow...
RightOffs use this as a jumping off point to justify their selfish, greedy
approach of exploitation.
It is all too often heard, "well, what is in it for me?" And, that is
perfectly acceptable when coming from a business man, investor or financial
consultant during discussion of business affairs and personal finances.
This is just a matter of course, and doesn't raise an eyebrow...
But, if a less privileged voter asks the same question, and votes for a
party that gives him / her something other than personal hardships, that's
not acceptable, because it doesn't fit with those nice, tidy RightOff
equations which justify the enslavement of the less intelligent, the less
physically capable, and the less financially motivated... But, hey, don't
you dare subject the RightOffs to tax slavery...
I guess I'll just leave off saying that I view you with at least as much
disdain as you view me, and I hope you someday come to realize that people
matter more than money...
Keep in mind that out of all the biographies I've read, I have yet to read
somebody saying, "God, I wish I'd invested my money better..." It's usually
that they wish they had spent more time being more human...
Take Care,
Dudley
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
==
"oil people" because our present government got a tiny bit more in
royalties and they didn't like it one bit. If I had been Stelmach, I'd
have stuck it to 'em a lot more. They have been BRAGGING for the last
few years of the huge profits that they have made in Alberta...about
time that WE got some of those profits. Geez, do you realize that we
only get 25 friggin cents out of every barrel of oil that goes out of
this province? It is downright sickening to see this happen and our
government is satisfied with that measly return? Its almost criminal
to allow this to go on year after year.
==