PINKO-LOONY Questions.........
foamy
The following batch are a tad more contoversial and subject
to personal interpretation. Let's see how our loony our loony-
left are:
*****************
Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
*****************
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. [ strongly agree ].
*****************
Jews surely have to take some of the responsibility
for their persecution over the past 2000 years.
[ strongly agree ] { In my interpretation I took the conflict
with Pallestine today as being included in ' persecution ' }.
****************
The rich are too highly taxed. [ strongly disagree ].
****************
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. [ strongly agree ].
*****************
All theatres and museums that can't survive on a
commercial basis deserve to perish. [ strongly agree ].
{ Put this answer because the question is so poorly worded
it deserves just as rediculous answer }.
****************
Good parents sometimes have to spank their children,
to teach them right from wrong. [ strongly agree ].
******************
Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
******************
Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
to eat. [ strongly agree ].
*******************
No broadcasting institutions should receive public
funding. [ strongly agree ].
******************
Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
*****************
In criminal justice, punishment is as important as
rehabilitation. [ strongly agree ]. { in fact I'd say
it's more important but didn't get that option :-) }.
******************
Some people are naturally unlucky. [ strongly agree ].
{ and visa versa }.
******************
No one chooses their country of birth, so it's absurd to be
proud of it. [ strongly disagree ].
********************
The growing fusion between information and entertainment
is a worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span.
[ strongly agree ]
*******************
It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's
going too far. [ strongly agree ].
******************
Class background determines peoples' consciousness
more than their membership of a particular nation.
[ strongly agree ].
********************
Controlling inflation is more important than
controlling unemployment. [ strongly agree ].
********************
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
[ strongly disagree ].
*******************
It's a sad reflection on our society that something
as basic as drinking water is now a consumer product.
{ strongly disagree ].
*********************
Protectionism is sometimes a necessary element in trade.
[ strongly disagree ].
********************
Abortion, when the mother's life is not threatened,
should always be illegal.[ Strongly disagree ].
{ although I am not pro abortion, I believe there are
other reasons which could make abortion justified }.
********************
Education should involve enabling children to develop
their own personality. [ strongly agree ].
*********************
The freer the market, the freer the people. [ strongly agree ].
*********************
The only social responsibility of a company should be
to deliver a profit to its shareholders. [ strongly agree ]
{ and obey the law }.
**********************
From each according to his ability, to each according to
his need is a fundamentally good idea. [ strongly disagree ].
{ if this means a mandated transfer }.
**********************
If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity
rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. [ agre ].
{ have no idea what the question means }.
***********************
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher
standards of medical care and education. [ strongly agree ].
{ another pooly worded question }.
***********************
Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different
sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [ duh ].
**********************
The most important thing for children to learn is
discipline. [ disagree ] { but only because it's probably
not THE most important }.
***********************
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only
different cultures. [ strongly disagree ]. { Websters: lacking
complex or advanced culture }.
***********************
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated
within their new country. [ strongly disagree ].
************************
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance
easier, people who haven't done anything wrong shouldn't
be worried. [ disagree ].
***********************
Lonnie
only agree or disagree to pushes you further away from the centre.
"foamy" <fo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:P_NL9.239095$ka.57...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
dondo
"foamy" <fo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:P_NL9.239095$ka.57...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> .......batch II.
>
all of your questions (i know there are some moderate ones)? I only
went strongly one way or the other if I got an immediate *tweak*
in the brain pan. I also found it interesting that they deliberately
did not include a neutral component - were you using the agree/
disagree answers as your neutral and then when you felt something
was definitely true or false you went with the "strongly" option?
I will have to mull over your answers and come up with appropriate
responses, but I was curious how you perceived what each category
was representing, because for me strongly meant that it could be no
other way and of those I had maybe ten/twelve (if I remember
correctly)
d
foamy
"Lonnie" <rockf...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Jim, just the fact that you strongly agree or disagree to questions I might
>only agree or disagree to pushes you further away from the centre.
I actually don't understand the distinction between ' agree ' or ' strongly
agree ', so I choose ' strongly ' just for the heck of it.
To me ' agree ' is an absolute and ' greatly ' adds nothing to it.
My answers could have been more reflective of my opinions if I had
options of: agree / the wording of the question is innane / disagree.
Jim
Lonnie
wouldn't doubt if they scored just the Strongly agree/disagree answers and
ignored the rest - that is, you are rated by the things you feel most
strongly about only.
Go back and sit on the fence for every thing. Don't feel strongly about
anything, but just agree and disagree - where before you strongly
dis/agreed. See how it changes your score.
"foamy" <fo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:YJOL9.182796$ea.37...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Lonnie
Nope - I was wrong. Took it again, and scored almost exactly the same.
This time though, I didn't express any strong feelings, just agreed or
disagreed.
In the end, it made no real difference.
foamy
, "Lonnie" <rockf...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Nope - I was wrong. Took it again, and scored almost exactly the same.
>This time though, I didn't express any strong feelings, just agreed or
>disagreed.
>In the end, it made no real difference.
Maybe it just spits out a numer or two :-)
I took it again and only answered agree or disagree and scored:
2.50 / 0.31
However, I noticed some new questions. I bought a new mouse
today because my old one was double clicking when I was single
clicking. Maybe the first time I skipped over a page when clicking
next. lol
Jim
Lonnie
I noticed some new questions, too.
>
> Jim
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>All theatres and museums that can't survive on a
>commercial basis deserve to perish. [ strongly agree ].
>{ Put this answer because the question is so poorly worded
> it deserves just as rediculous answer }.
... this...
>No broadcasting institutions should receive public
>funding. [ strongly agree ].
... and this?
foamy
>, zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the Apocalypse) wrote:
>Do you think there is any correlation between this...
>.... this...
>.... and this?
No. But I'm curious what you mean by correlation ?
Jim
rorytait
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse <zo...@ninthbit.com> scribbled:
: Do you think there is any correlation between this...
foamy
rorytait <im_...@fis.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>Touche... (can't get the accent in ASCII, sorry)
Touche ? lol, hardly.
Jim
Eugene Chan
--Eugene
--
Reply to eugene DOT chan AT telus DOT net
"rorytait" <im_...@fis.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:atoiss$596$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
b8
I was thinking similarily. A good society has some "higher cultural"
institutions and a great society has a pretty large buy-in of these
institutions. A crappy society only keeps what "sells"..... and these
days what sells is a vapid lot of shit (including "news" "ET" and
"reality" tv) CNN "the most respected name in news" has fortune
tellers and mediums on twice a month for crap sakes... without things
like the CBC (minus the leaves coverage), libraries, national
galleries and fringe fests we are doomed!!
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>No. But I'm curious what you mean by correlation ?
The usage of "correlation" was a bit sloppy, but I didn't want to
spend forever looking for the right word esp. when I was supposed
to be working :-)
The survey statement says: "The growing fusion between information
and entertainment is a worrying contribution to the public's
shrinking attention span."
This suggests that the "worrying contribution" is something to be
combatted. But how can it be combatted without using public funds?
If you leave it up to market forces, then the media is forced to
give the public what it wants to stay afloat, and if what the public
wants is the "growing fusion"...
foamy
b8 <nomor...@bassistforhire.com> wrote:
>I was thinking similarily. A good society has some "higher cultural"
>institutions and a great society has a pretty large buy-in of these
>institutions. A crappy society only keeps what "sells"..... and these
>days what sells is a vapid lot of shit (including "news" "ET" and
>"reality" tv) CNN "the most respected name in news" has fortune
>tellers and mediums on twice a month for crap sakes... without things
>like the CBC (minus the leaves coverage), libraries, national
>galleries and fringe fests we are doomed!!
Interesting theory *cough*.
Jim
foamy
, zo...@ninthbit.com (Lone Locust of the Apocalypse) wrote:
>The usage of "correlation" was a bit sloppy, but I didn't want to
>spend forever looking for the right word esp. when I was supposed
>to be working :-)
>
>The survey statement says: "The growing fusion between information
>and entertainment is a worrying contribution to the public's
>shrinking attention span."
>
>This suggests that the "worrying contribution" is something to be
>combatted. But how can it be combatted without using public funds?
>If you leave it up to market forces, then the media is forced to
>give the public what it wants to stay afloat, and if what the public
>wants is the "growing fusion"...
Not a damn penny of public funds should be spent imo. We see all to
easily what public funds gets you. An effin CBC, an effin million dollar
3-color striped piece of effin plywood et al. PBS doesn't receive a cent
of public funds and produces ' quality ' programming. If it wasn't for the
effin CRTC and the government shoving shit down our throats we have
to pay for on our cable bill, quality programming could be subsidized by
subscribers. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to design and pay
for a tailored cable package. It's a Canadian problem, not a problem
faced by our neighbors to the south. You could watch non-government
subsidized quality programming for days and not run out. All the arts should
be funded by patrons or their own sources of revenue. I have yet to hear a
cogent argument defending using taxpayer money to pay for a product
they would walk across the street to attend for free.
Jim
T. Chan
the Apocalypse) wrote:
>The survey statement says: "The growing fusion between information
>and entertainment is a worrying contribution to the public's
>shrinking attention span."
>
>This suggests that the "worrying contribution" is something to be
>combatted.
This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say the survey was
full of loaded statement. They package-deal the statements.
"The growing fusion between information and entertainment is a
worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span."
There are two assumed premises here which are far from axiomatic:
1. There is a growing fusion between information and entertainment.
2. The public has a shrinking attention span.
If you actually disagree with the veracity of these two claims, do you
agree or disagree with the statement quoted? I didn't see any on any
of the questions the option to choose "I believe the statement has
faulty premises and I therefore cannot agree or disagree with the
statement."
But how can it be combatted without using public funds?
>If you leave it up to market forces, then the media is forced to
>give the public what it wants to stay afloat, and if what the public
>wants is the "growing fusion"...
How does public funding solve the (supposed) problem? Basically,
instead of Joe Public supporting culture by paying out of pocket, you
have some government-funded academic critic telling us what great art
and culture is. There are the same know-nothing snobs telling the CBC
to show less hockey and more Emily of New Moon.
--
Self-indulgent homepage warning:
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
Alan Jackson
> *****************
> Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
I would agree (with the question, not Jim.)
> *****************
> The enemy of my enemy is my friend. [ strongly agree ].
Disagree.
>
> *****************
> Jews surely have to take some of the responsibility
> for their persecution over the past 2000 years.
> [ strongly agree ] { In my interpretation I took the conflict
> with Pallestine today as being included in ' persecution ' }.
Disagree, though I didn't take into account today's conflict with
Pallestine - for which there is plenty of blame to go around.
> ****************
> The rich are too highly taxed. [ strongly disagree ].
Me, too.
>
> ****************
> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. [ strongly agree ].
Strongly disagree
>
> *****************
> All theatres and museums that can't survive on a
> commercial basis deserve to perish. [ strongly agree ].
Disagree
> ****************
> Good parents sometimes have to spank their children,
> to teach them right from wrong. [ strongly agree ].
Disagree
>
> ******************
> Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
Disagree
>
> ******************
> Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
> to eat. [ strongly agree ].
Disagree.
>
> *******************
>
> No broadcasting institutions should receive public
> funding. [ strongly agree ].
Strongly disagree. The CBC, for all its faults, is one of the institutions
that helps Canadians, from across the country, feel as though they have
something in common.
>
> ******************
>
> Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
Nope. Its barbaric, and besides the U.S.A., every western nation has
realized it.
>
> *****************
>
> In criminal justice, punishment is as important as
> rehabilitation. [ strongly agree ]. { in fact I'd say
> it's more important but didn't get that option :-) }.
Disagree
> ******************
>
> Some people are naturally unlucky. [ strongly agree ].
> { and visa versa }.
Strongly agree
> ******************
>
> No one chooses their country of birth, so it's absurd to be
> proud of it. [ strongly disagree ].
Disagree
> ********************
> The growing fusion between information and entertainment
> is a worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span.
> [ strongly agree ]
Strongly agree
>
> *******************
> It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's
> going too far. [ strongly agree ].
Strongly agree.
>
> ******************
>
> Class background determines peoples' consciousness
> more than their membership of a particular nation.
> [ strongly agree ].
Agree
> ********************
>
> Controlling inflation is more important than
> controlling unemployment. [ strongly agree ].
Strongly disagree. They are probably of equal importance.
>
> ********************
>
> Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
> [ strongly disagree ].
Disagree
> *******************
>
> It's a sad reflection on our society that something
> as basic as drinking water is now a consumer product.
> { strongly disagree ].
Strongly agree
> *********************
>
> Protectionism is sometimes a necessary element in trade.
> [ strongly disagree ].
Disagree
> ********************
>
> Abortion, when the mother's life is not threatened,
> should always be illegal.[ Strongly disagree ].
Strongly disagree.
>
> ********************
>
> Education should involve enabling children to develop
> their own personality. [ strongly agree ].
Agree
>
> *********************
>
> The freer the market, the freer the people. [ strongly agree ].
Disagree.
>
> *********************
>
> The only social responsibility of a company should be
> to deliver a profit to its shareholders. [ strongly agree ]
Strongly disagree.
>
> **********************
>
> From each according to his ability, to each according to
> his need is a fundamentally good idea.
Strongly agree. Communism, in theory, is a good idea. However, human
nature makes it nearly impossible.
>
> **********************
>
> If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity
> rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Strongly agree
> ***********************
>
> Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher
> standards of medical care and education. [ strongly agree ].
> { another pooly worded question }.
Strongly disagree. A person's wealth should have no bearing on the kind of
medical care they recieve.
> ***********************
> Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different
> sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [ duh ].
Strongly disagree
> **********************
>
> The most important thing for children to learn is
> discipline. [ disagree ] { but only because it's probably
> not THE most important }.
disagree, same reason as Jim.
> ***********************
> There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only
> different cultures. [ strongly disagree ]. { Websters: lacking
> complex or advanced culture }.
Strongly disagree
> ***********************
> First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated
> within their new country. [ strongly disagree ].
Strongly disagree
> ************************
> Although the electronic age makes official surveillance
> easier, people who haven't done anything wrong shouldn't
> be worried. [ disagree ].
Disagree
> ***********************
--
"You gotta love livin', baby, cause dying's a pain in the ass."
Frank Sinatra
foamy
>, "Alan Jackson" <ajb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Here goes...
>
>> *****************
>> Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
>
>I would agree (with the question, not Jim.)
Name one please.
****************************
>> Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
>Disagree
You'll change your mind in a couple months when Canada is
turned into a third world Country if the Canadian gov't goes
through with just the de-criminalization of pot.
****************
>> Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
>> to eat. [ strongly agree ].
>Disagree.
I'm quitting work tomorrow, when will you be over with dinner ?
We can set up a schedule good for both of at that time.
***************
>> No broadcasting institutions should receive public
>> funding. [ strongly agree ].
>Strongly disagree. The CBC, for all its faults, is one of the institutions
>that helps Canadians, from across the country, feel as though they have
>something in common.
Puleese.
***********************************
>> Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
>Nope. Its barbaric, and besides the U.S.A., every western nation has
>realized it.
Since Olsen isn't working will you be taking him dinner too ?
Jim :-)
Alan Jackson
> >Here goes...
> >
> >> *****************
> >> Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
> >
> >I would agree (with the question, not Jim.)
>
> Name one please.
Its not really a controversial question. Canada, like all other countries,
do have things unique about them that the people living there happen to
like. The fact that we all hate Toronto, for one. ;-)
> ****************************
>
> >> Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
> >Disagree
>
> You'll change your mind in a couple months when Canada is
> turned into a third world Country if the Canadian gov't goes
> through with just the de-criminalization of pot.
I agree with you, Jim. I disgaree with the legalization, whilst you
"strongly disagree". I think small possession of small amounts should be
decriminalized, though. Go after the trafikkers and growers, instead.
> ****************
> >> Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
> >> to eat. [ strongly agree ].
> >Disagree.
>
> I'm quitting work tomorrow, when will you be over with dinner ?
> We can set up a schedule good for both of at that time.
Yeah, I struggled with this one, too. I think the question is slightly
misleading. Most people want to work. But even the laziest S.O.B should be
able to go down to the soup kitchen, if that's what they choose to do.
> ***************
>
> >> No broadcasting institutions should receive public
> >> funding. [ strongly agree ].
> >Strongly disagree. The CBC, for all its faults, is one of the
institutions
> >that helps Canadians, from across the country, feel as though they have
> >something in common.
>
> Puleese.
I stand by this.
> ***********************************
>
> >> Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
> >Nope. Its barbaric, and besides the U.S.A., every western nation has
> >realized it.
>
> Since Olsen isn't working will you be taking him dinner too ?
I really don't care if Olsen lives or dies, but its not up to the state to
play god. Spending the rest of his years confined behind bars, no matter
how "luxurious" the cell, is a greater punsihment than the relief of death
for scum like him.
db
>
Alt 130
é
(have to use that one at work all the time)
db
db
> In article <gpUL9.240755$ka.58...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca
> >, "Alan Jackson" <ajb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Here goes...
> >
> >> *****************
> >> Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
> >
> >I would agree (with the question, not Jim.)
>
> Name one please.
>
> ****************************
>
> >> Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
> >Disagree
>
> You'll change your mind in a couple months when Canada is
> turned into a third world Country if the Canadian gov't goes
> through with just the de-criminalization of pot.
We sure are winning the drug war now, aren't we? Dang if we don't almost
have it licked. No matter though, it's largely a tempest in a bong-
possession would just be officially overlooked as opposed to unofficially
overlooked. Cops are worried though cuz they think they'll get less funding
and less justification for search and seizure. Not sure why- they still
have RIDE programs to facilitate 'reasonable suspicion.'
Anyway, the US will step in, pressure DFAIT and it will get nixed. It will
become a trade issue and we don't win those (other than in those kewl free
trade arbitration courts which are for show only).
>
> ****************
> >> Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
> >> to eat. [ strongly agree ].
> >Disagree.
>
> I'm quitting work tomorrow, when will you be over with dinner ?
> We can set up a schedule good for both of at that time.
Badly worded question, borrowed right out of the Common Sense Revolution
cookbook and usually used to dramatise an issue into a 'full blown welfare
epidemic' which doesn't exist. Define 'able to work.' Depending on the
definition (and it would be on a case by case basis), I could agree or
disagree with the statement.
>
> ***************
>
> >> No broadcasting institutions should receive public
> >> funding. [ strongly agree ].
> >Strongly disagree. The CBC, for all its faults, is one of the
institutions
> >that helps Canadians, from across the country, feel as though they have
> >something in common.
>
> Puleese.
>
> ***********************************
I have a hard time (su LB) with this one too. I hate parts of the CBC but
like other parts. I do like PBS programming but do we really want Colleen
Jones on primetime TV every few weeks begging for money "to keep these fine
programs on the air" ?
>
> >> Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
> >Nope. Its barbaric, and besides the U.S.A., every western nation has
> >realized it.
>
> Since Olsen isn't working will you be taking him dinner too ?
>
My views on capital punishment are well known. I just want us to be honest
(the Carlin philosophy).
db
Peca Fan
wrote:
>"The growing fusion between information and entertainment is a
>worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span."
>
>There are two assumed premises here which are far from axiomatic:
>1. There is a growing fusion between information and entertainment.
>2. The public has a shrinking attention span.
>
>If you actually disagree with the veracity of these two claims, do you
>agree or disagree with the statement quoted? I didn't see any on any
>of the questions the option to choose "I believe the statement has
>faulty premises and I therefore cannot agree or disagree with the
>statement."
I don't see a problem at all with that question. If you don't believe
there is a fusion, then clearly it can't be a contributor, therefore
the statement as a whole has to be "disagree". Similarly, if you don't
believe there's a shrinking attention span, then the fusion which you
do believe in can't contribute to something that doesn't exist, so
once again it's "disagree". If I don't believe in either of the two
things, then I'd say you'd switch to "strongly disagree".
--
Peca Fan
"I'm going for fearsome here, but I just don't feel it. I think I'm just coming off as annoying" - Rex, Toy Story
rorytait
subscribe to cable (why would I pay for all that shit when what I want is
about five channels: A&E, History, Discovery, Bravo, SportsNet? Besides,
if I was watching that much TV I wouldn't have time left over to talk to
youse good folks (oh yeah, that's why I'm in grad skool...heh)
But...despite its faults, I agree that a publicly-supported non-commercial
broadcaster is an important alternative. PBS doesn't have the resources to
provide programming and distribution to the entire nation... and we're
talking a BIG country here, which has some very remote inhabitants (unlike
the states, where most of the population is close to a major centre).
That being said, the public model of broadcasting is grounded in the
social and technical era of the mid 20th century: most remote areas now
get their TV from satellite (where they're watching the Detroit
channels...grrreat). It's definately time to rethink the entire system.
Oh, and I enjoy Mark Rothko's paintings and belive "Voice of Fire" was
actually a very astute investment.
foamy <fo...@shaw.ca> scribbled:
: Not a damn penny of public funds should be spent imo. We see all to
foamy
, "Alan Jackson" <ajb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >Here goes...
>> >
>> >> *****************
>> >> Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
>> >
>> >I would agree (with the question, not Jim.)
>>
>> Name one please.
>
>Its not really a controversial question. Canada, like all other countries,
>do have things unique about them that the people living there happen to
>like. The fact that we all hate Toronto, for one. ;-)
Read the question please. Toronto hardly qualifies as a ' virtue '. :-)
Please name one virtue unique to Canada. There should be no
controversy regarding the question, it was one of the few questions
where there was only one ' correct ' answer.
>I agree with you, Jim. I disgaree with the legalization, whilst you
>"strongly disagree". I think small possession of small amounts should be
>decriminalized, though. Go after the trafikkers and growers, instead.
I'd legalize it tomorrow if the states did--my objection is not with
respect to pot itself, although like everything else from slot machines
to aspirin ancillary problems arise with legalization. But I've never felt
the fact some individuals will misuse a product is justification for denying
the majority who won't. I just believe it's economic and social suicide
given the American position, to mess with the laws at this time.
>> ****************
>> >> Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
>> >> to eat. [ strongly agree ].
>> >Disagree.
>>
>> I'm quitting work tomorrow, when will you be over with dinner ?
>> We can set up a schedule good for both of at that time.
>
>Yeah, I struggled with this one, too. I think the question is slightly
>misleading. Most people want to work. But even the laziest S.O.B should be
>able to go down to the soup kitchen, if that's what they choose to do.
More or less agree with you in practice, but for the life of me
I can't find an argument which justifies the position, " I don't
want to work--you feed me. ".
>> ***************
>>
>> >> No broadcasting institutions should receive public
>> >> funding. [ strongly agree ].
>> >Strongly disagree. The CBC, for all its faults, is one of the
>institutions
>> >that helps Canadians, from across the country, feel as though they have
>> >something in common.
>>
>> Puleese.
>
>I stand by this.
The CBC, with the exception of those who don't have access
to other stations, is watched by literally NO ONE. [ well perhaps
figuratively--since you watch.:-) ]. With the exception of HNIC it
can't draw flies, and I can't think of a single unifying aspect except
one. It brings us all together in mutual hate and disgust for the way
our money is wasted.
>> ***********************************
>>
>> >> Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
>> >Nope. Its barbaric, and besides the U.S.A., every western nation has
>> >realized it.
>>
>> Since Olsen isn't working will you be taking him dinner too ?
>
> I really don't care if Olsen lives or dies, but its not up to the state to
>play god. Spending the rest of his years confined behind bars, no matter
>how "luxurious" the cell, is a greater punsihment than the relief of death
>for scum like him.
I could care less about what he would consider greater punishment,
and only the punished knows which he / she would find more severe,
all I want is revenge. Kill the mofo, and I'd volunteer to do it.
Jim
foamy
Negligée ?
Jim
foamy
"db" <d...@hdtv.com> wrote:
>Anyway, the US will step in, pressure DFAIT and it will get nixed. It will
>become a trade issue and we don't win those (other than in those kewl free
>trade arbitration courts which are for show only).
Yep.
>> ****************
>Badly worded question, borrowed right out of the Common Sense Revolution
>cookbook and usually used to dramatise an issue into a 'full blown welfare
>epidemic' which doesn't exist. Define 'able to work.' Depending on the
>definition (and it would be on a case by case basis), I could agree or
>disagree with the statement.
Ditto. And also define , ' and do not ' [ work ]. Do not because they
can't find work ? Or do not because they choose not ?
>My views on capital punishment are well known. I just want us to be honest
>(the Carlin philosophy).
>db
Ditto. The questions of deterrence et al are irrelevant to me. I simply
want revenge, don't believe there's anything immoral or unethical
in revenge, and think the pricks should be vaporized.
Jim
foamy
rorytait <im_...@fis.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>But...despite its faults, I agree that a publicly-supported non-commercial
>broadcaster is an important alternative. PBS doesn't have the resources to
>provide programming and distribution to the entire nation... and we're
>talking a BIG country here, which has some very remote inhabitants (unlike
>the states, where most of the population is close to a major centre).
Well help me understand Anthony. What does the CBC provide which
is unavailable elsewhere and of benefit to Canadians ?
>Oh, and I enjoy Mark Rothko's paintings and belive "Voice of Fire" was
>actually a very astute investment.
Aren't you missing something here ? Like about four hundred smilies ?
Jim )
BeerQueen
or maybe
"My dearest Jéan, I do so love the way you run our glorious country. You
never ever have to worry about my undying love and support, you are, well,
just the bestest ever! Love Dean."
That would be my take on it, but I have been wrong before!
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>I have yet to hear a cogent argument defending using taxpayer
>money to pay for a product they would walk across the street to
>attend for free.
I'm not sure there is one, but I've heard people mumble things along
the lines of civic pride in having a symphony, etc., where the benefits
of having one are admittedly indirect at best.
Anyway I'm not so much disagreeing with you as exploring the topic...
I assume you're against using public money to build sports arenas or
otherwise support sports teams?
Mike McGillivray
>
> .......batch II.
>
> The following batch are a tad more contoversial and subject
> to personal interpretation. Let's see how our loony our loony-
> left are:
>
> *****************
> Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
mildly agree
> *****************
> The enemy of my enemy is my friend. [ strongly agree ].
Strongly disagree. Iran used to hate Iraq, while I hate both of them.
> *****************
> Jews surely have to take some of the responsibility
> for their persecution over the past 2000 years.
> [ strongly agree ] { In my interpretation I took the conflict
> with Pallestine today as being included in ' persecution ' }.
Strongly agree.
> ****************
> The rich are too highly taxed. [ strongly disagree ].
Strongly agree. Flat tax for everyone!
> ****************
> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. [ strongly agree ].
Me too
> *****************
> All theatres and museums that can't survive on a
> commercial basis deserve to perish. [ strongly agree ].
> { Put this answer because the question is so poorly worded
> it deserves just as rediculous answer }.
Strongly agree.
> ****************
> Good parents sometimes have to spank their children,
> to teach them right from wrong. [ strongly agree ].
me too
> ******************
> Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
strongly agree. It's no better or worse than alcohol.
> ******************
> Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
> to eat. [ strongly agree ].
me too
> *******************
>
> No broadcasting institutions should receive public
> funding. [ strongly agree ].
me too
> ******************
>
> Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
Bring back Mr Ellis!
> *****************
>
> In criminal justice, punishment is as important as
> rehabilitation. [ strongly agree ]. { in fact I'd say
> it's more important but didn't get that option :-) }.
me too
> ******************
>
> Some people are naturally unlucky. [ strongly agree ].
> { and visa versa }.
strongly disagree. It's not luck.
> ******************
>
> No one chooses their country of birth, so it's absurd to be
> proud of it. [ strongly disagree ].
me too
> ********************
> The growing fusion between information and entertainment
> is a worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span.
> [ strongly agree ]
disagree. people are stupid. this isn't causing it.
> *******************
> It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's
> going too far. [ strongly agree ].
disagree. We need something to talk about in this ng during the summer
> ******************
>
> Class background determines peoples' consciousness
> more than their membership of a particular nation.
> [ strongly agree ].
disagree.
> ********************
>
> Controlling inflation is more important than
> controlling unemployment. [ strongly agree ].
me too
> ********************
>
> Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
> [ strongly disagree ].
me too
> *******************
>
> It's a sad reflection on our society that something
> as basic as drinking water is now a consumer product.
> { strongly disagree ].
me too.
> *********************
>
> Protectionism is sometimes a necessary element in trade.
> [ strongly disagree ].
me too
> ********************
>
> Abortion, when the mother's life is not threatened,
> should always be illegal.[ Strongly disagree ].
> { although I am not pro abortion, I believe there are
> other reasons which could make abortion justified }.
strongly disagree. I'm pro choice all the way.
> ********************
>
> Education should involve enabling children to develop
> their own personality. [ strongly agree ].
me too
> *********************
>
> The freer the market, the freer the people. [ strongly agree ].
me too
> *********************
>
> The only social responsibility of a company should be
> to deliver a profit to its shareholders. [ strongly agree ]
> { and obey the law }.
strongly agree. btw, breaking the law and getting caught should affect
profits.
> **********************
>
> From each according to his ability, to each according to
> his need is a fundamentally good idea. [ strongly disagree ].
> { if this means a mandated transfer }.
strongly disagree too. Jim, how can you disagree here, and yet want to
tax the rich more? taxes are mostly mandated $$ transfer from rich to
poor.
> **********************
>
> If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity
> rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. [ agre ].
> { have no idea what the question means }.
strongly agree. this requires strong laws to ensure trans national
corps operate in humanity's interest.
> ***********************
>
> Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher
> standards of medical care and education. [ strongly agree ].
> { another pooly worded question }.
Strongly agree.
> ***********************
> Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different
> sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [ duh ].
Strongly disagree. segregation builds intolerance
> **********************
>
> The most important thing for children to learn is
> discipline. [ disagree ] { but only because it's probably
> not THE most important }.
I agree with Jim. chills run up my spine.
> ***********************
> There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only
> different cultures. [ strongly disagree ]. { Websters: lacking
> complex or advanced culture }.
strongly disagree.
> ***********************
> First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated
> within their new country. [ strongly disagree ].
strongly disagree
> ************************
> Although the electronic age makes official surveillance
> easier, people who haven't done anything wrong shouldn't
> be worried. [ disagree ].
disagree.
Jim, I'm ascared. you and I agree on way too much here. Are you sure
you are such a pinko bastard? I'm a right wing libertarian.
Darren
foamy wrote:
> .......batch II.
>
> The following batch are a tad more contoversial and subject
> to personal interpretation. Let's see how our loony our loony-
> left are:
>
> *****************
> Our nation has many unique virtues. [ strongly disagree ].
Our nation has many virtues (try a holiday in a kleptocratic third world
shithole), but they are not really 'unique' virtues.
> *****************
> The enemy of my enemy is my friend. [ strongly agree ].
Disagree. Sometimes the best thing to do is support the weaker, to help
them kill each other off. (A US official apparently said about the
Iraq-Iran war of the 80s: 'I hope they both lose')
> *****************
> Jews surely have to take some of the responsibility
> for their persecution over the past 2000 years.
> [ strongly agree ] { In my interpretation I took the conflict
> with Pallestine today as being included in ' persecution ' }.
Agree about Palestine, disagree about the 1950 years of history before that.
> ****************
> The rich are too highly taxed. [ strongly disagree ].
Are you *sure* you're not a pinko loony yourself? Though I also
disagree.... the rich are taxed about right.
> ****************
> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. [ strongly agree ].
Then it never ends.... sometimes you have to ask "why does that asshole want
to take my eye out, anyway?"
> *****************
> All theatres and museums that can't survive on a
> commercial basis deserve to perish. [ strongly agree ].
> { Put this answer because the question is so poorly worded
> it deserves just as rediculous answer }.
I don't think the question is poorly worded... it merely means that you are
opposed to public subsidies for the arts.
>
>
> ******************
> Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
Reasoning? In a free society, you do not need a reason to legalize
something, you need a reason to criminalize it.
> No broadcasting institutions should receive public
> funding. [ strongly agree ].
Not sure I agree when it comes to news programming.
>
> Some people are naturally unlucky. [ strongly agree ].
> { and visa versa }.
Superstitious horseshit.
>
> No one chooses their country of birth, so it's absurd to be
> proud of it. [ strongly disagree ].
Patriotism has been defined as "belief that your country is superior by
virtue of the fact you were born there." It's not absurd to be proud of
your country for other reasons, though.
> ********************
> The growing fusion between information and entertainment
> is a worrying contribution to the public's shrinking attention span.
> [ strongly agree ]
Any connection between this and your previous answers???? Nah.....
>
> It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's
> going too far. [ strongly agree ].
What does 'going too far' mean?
> The only social responsibility of a company should be
> to deliver a profit to its shareholders. [ strongly agree ]
> { and obey the law }.
Agreed.
>
> If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity
> rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. [ agre ].
> { have no idea what the question means }.
It means absolutely nothing. It is a false dichotomy.
>
> Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different
> sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [ duh ].
Duh?? People should keep with whatever kind of people they want to keep
with.
Darren
Darren
> >> Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
> >Disagree
>
> You'll change your mind in a couple months when Canada is
> turned into a third world Country if the Canadian gov't goes
> through with just the de-criminalization of pot.
Ever been to Holland??
Darren
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
connecting this:
>Jews surely have to take some of the responsibility
>for their persecution over the past 2000 years.
>[ strongly agree ] { In my interpretation I took the conflict
> with Pallestine today as being included in ' persecution ' }.
... and this...
>An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. [ strongly agree ].
... but I have no desire to get into such a discussion myself :-)
-- Z.
____
Claiming that sex ed. leads to irresponsible sex is like claiming that \ /
driver education leads to car accidents. [lm...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu] \/
db
"BeerQueen" <four....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:atqjj9$1oksk$1...@ID-75016.news.dfncis.de...
> "My dearest Jéan,
Mon dieu! A francophone you are not!
(the é is like a long 'a' in English, which would make him (with your
pronunciation)- Jane
no matter- he mispronounces, well, everything so I suppose it's fair
db
BeerQueen
"db" <d...@hdtv.com> wrote in message
news:atqrlh$1rpsp$1...@ID-120173.news.dfncis.de...
Rather defensive of Jéan, are we not?
Oui
BeerQueen
> news:atqjj9$1oksk$1...@ID-75016.news.dfncis.de...
> > "My dearest Jéan,
>
> Mon dieu! A francophone you are not!
Forgot to add, actually am a francophone, but a bad one at that. A
testiment to it is I was in an all girls Catholic school run by Nuns. One
such Nun was my cousin, who happened to flunk me in French.
A lot of relatives of mine spoke French as a first language.....but it
skipped me, and my 2 boys are more fluent in it than I will ever hope to be.
Lonnie
>
> "db" <d...@hdtv.com> wrote in message
> news:atqrlh$1rpsp$1...@ID-120173.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "BeerQueen" <four....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:atqjj9$1oksk$1...@ID-75016.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "My dearest Jéan,
> >
> > Mon dieu! A francophone you are not!
>
> Forgot to add, actually am a francophone, but a bad one at that. A
> testiment to it is I was in an all girls Catholic school run by Nuns.
I was too, once.
It was the best two hours of my life.
foamy
mike.mcg...@usask.ca wrote:
>> The rich are too highly taxed. [ strongly disagree ].
>
>Strongly agree. Flat tax for everyone!
>
Ouch ! An unforgiveable typo on my part. I strongly
agree the rich are overtaxed, as is everyone else in
this socialist paradise.
I responded to this post quite awhile ago and had included
an attachment jpeg. I guess shaw blocks them for non-binary
groups.
Jim
Josh Pfrimmer
JP
"BeerQueen" <four....@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:atqs04$1n2vv$1...@ID-75016.news.dfncis.de...
foamy
, Darren <no.e...@thank.you> wrote:
>> The rich are too highly taxed. [ strongly disagree ].
>
>Are you *sure* you're not a pinko loony yourself? Though I also
>disagree.... the rich are taxed about right.
Heh. No pinko here, just a typo. :-)
>> ****************
>> All theatres and museums that can't survive on a
>> commercial basis deserve to perish. [ strongly agree ].
>> { Put this answer because the question is so poorly worded
>> it deserves just as rediculous answer }.
>
>I don't think the question is poorly worded... it merely means that you are
>opposed to public subsidies for the arts.
The manner in which I think it's poorly worded, is just because they
can't survive commercially, doesn't mean they deserve to perish.
I would be happy for them to survive with alternative non-government
funding.
>> It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's
>> going too far. [ strongly agree ].
>
>What does 'going too far' mean?
Sexualizing 6 year old girls.
>> Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different
>> sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [ duh ].
>
>Duh?? People should keep with whatever kind of people they want to keep
>with.
Wonderful sentiment. Unfortunately it has piss-all to do with
the question.
Read the damn question again, and come back and say WE would ALL
be BETTER OFF if different sorts of people kept to their own kind.
Geez.
Jim
rorytait
:>But...despite its faults, I agree that a publicly-supported non-commercial
:>provide programming and distribution to the entire nation... and we're
:>talking a BIG country here, which has some very remote inhabitants (unlike
:>the states, where most of the population is close to a major centre).
: Well help me understand Anthony. What does the CBC provide which
: is unavailable elsewhere and of benefit to Canadians ?
Well my bias is more towards CBC Radio rather than TV. CBC-TV is basically
good for a handful of shows: HNIC, The National, and The Newsroom
(back when it was on). Canada: A People's History was also pretty amazing.
Pretty much everything else on CBC-TV in the last 10 years has been shit,
though.
CBC Radio provides programming to all areas of the country. ALL... which
means in many remote areas, CBC Radio is all you can get. News,
weather...important stuff like that. That's the essential mandate... that
the country is so big, so vast, that we need to have a publicly supported
broadcaster to fill in the holes.
CBC also offers news and current affairs programming that is not based
around ad revenue. Seriously. Outside of W5 (cough), I can't think of any
other current affairs programs on TV or radio that actually deal with issues
in-depth. You may say that CBC is biased because it's government funded
(which I don't think is true, they do a pretty regular skewering of the
gov't); but I think the best part is at least there is some broadcasting
that isn't biased towards receiving ad revenue, which tends to funnel
content into the either "bland" or "sensationalist" streams.
The CBC also produces a lot of programming for northern and native
audiences that would be absolutely ignored by any mainstream media.
The point of the CBC is not that most things should be appealing to most
people, but that they should provide programming to sectors of the
population that aren't served by commercial interests. And I think that's
a good thing.
:>Oh, and I enjoy Mark Rothko's paintings and belive "Voice of Fire" was
:>actually a very astute investment.
: Aren't you missing something here ? Like about four hundred smilies ?
No, I'm not, although I screwed up and thought it was Mark Rothko (it was
actually Barnett Newman... ah, they're both abstract expressionists, how
can you tell them apart...)
Here's a little context (which I'm sure you'll think is bunk):
http://www.bigblackpig.com/faq.html#anyone
Actually, now that I know Voice of Fire isn't a Mark Rothko, it seems like
a little less of a good investment; but still, 1.7mil isn't outrageous
considering what the painting would probably fetch now; in addition it's
generated a ton of press, controversy and dialogue which is great from the
standpoint of public interest (even though most of it was negative and the
gallery admittedly did a lousy job of informing the public of the worth of
the piece, rather than just spouting off a lot of art school blather).
I'll admit I've never seen Voice of Fire in person, which is the only true
way to judge a work of art. However, having seen a number of other large
abstract expressionist and even just impressionist works in person, I'll
vouch for the experience... you have to look at it for about 20 minutes,
but what it does to your senses is amazing.
rory
Victor Alejandro Wainer
No comment.
Victor Alejandro Wainer (A.K.A. Alioscha)
http://www.volaverunt.net
Lonnie
> foamy <fo...@shaw.ca> scribbled:
> :>But...despite its faults, I agree that a publicly-supported
non-commercial
> :>broadcaster is an important alternative. PBS doesn't have the resources
to
> :>provide programming and distribution to the entire nation... and we're
> :>talking a BIG country here, which has some very remote inhabitants
(unlike
> :>the states, where most of the population is close to a major centre).
>
> : Well help me understand Anthony. What does the CBC provide which
> : is unavailable elsewhere and of benefit to Canadians ?
>
> Well my bias is more towards CBC Radio rather than TV. CBC-TV is basically
> good for a handful of shows: HNIC, The National, and The Newsroom
> (back when it was on). Canada: A People's History was also pretty amazing.
> Pretty much everything else on CBC-TV in the last 10 years has been shit,
> though.
>
> CBC Radio provides programming to all areas of the country. ALL... which
> means in many remote areas, CBC Radio is all you can get. News,
> weather...important stuff like that.
Important stuff ?? CBC radio contacted me to do a program out of Vancouver
that was to be broadcast 12 to 2 pm Friday Dec 13th. I don't even know what
it's called . They wanted to feature me as a self made business man, an
artist who is actually making a living with his work, a local success story
who's words of wisdom and hope would encourage scores of others to follow in
his path. I'm sure question one from the audience would have been " by doing
this show, don't you increase your exposure and therefor your chances of
being audited ?". I turned them down, but frankly and station running
features on me can not make the claim of running important stuff.
Stash
>
> >My views on capital punishment are well known. I just want us to be
honest
> >(the Carlin philosophy).
> >db
>
> Ditto. The questions of deterrence et al are irrelevant to me. I simply
> want revenge, don't believe there's anything immoral or unethical
> in revenge, and think the pricks should be vaporized.
>
> Jim
I agree with your answer to the question, Jim, but not the reason.
In my mind incarceration is prevention, not revenge. I also don't see
capital punishment as revenge. I see it as paying a just price for
deliberately taking another human life. Maybe I don't understand
revenge, but in my mind a dead(executed) person does not suffer
revenge. He's just fertilizer.
Stash
Hmmm. Of course then murder/execution would be a tie, and I know
how you hate ties. Not me, though.
S
foamy
rorytait <im_...@fis.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>I'll admit I've never seen Voice of Fire in person, which is the only true
>way to judge a work of art.
Oh for christ's sake. I was going to respond to so much more in your post
but after reading this I'm sorry I can't. A work of art ? It's a 2 million
dollar fucking joke perpetrated on the terminally elite. They could have
saved us the expense by getting out a couple cans of paint and painting
the damn thing themselves.
Jim
db
Have you seen it in person? I have. The lines, they're so... so...
straight. Quite a departure from the French curvists. And the red- it's a
colour that's very hard to describe. It's kind of, oh I dunno... red-ish in
a very post-orangist kind of way. Some say that it represents the blood of
the Algerian freedom-fighters in their struggles against colonialism, but I
tend to agree with Van Cleef in his seminal work "Artistic Impressions for
The Snooty Hoi Poloi", when he said "They paid how much?"
db
dondo
> In article <atq1ba$93h$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>,
> rorytait <im_...@fis.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> >But...despite its faults, I agree that a publicly-supported non-commercial
> >broadcaster is an important alternative. PBS doesn't have the resources to
> >provide programming and distribution to the entire nation... and we're
> >talking a BIG country here, which has some very remote inhabitants (unlike
> >the states, where most of the population is close to a major centre).
>
> Well help me understand Anthony. What does the CBC provide which
> is unavailable elsewhere and of benefit to Canadians ?
A distinct sense of Canadian identity. It was the CBC which unified the
country as a whole through its broadcasting (people may not feel that
way now), it created a coast to coast identity and allowed those in the East
and the West to feel like they were a part of a cohesive whole, a country.
It supported a forum for Canadian voices and without the CBC and CRTC,
our airwaves would have been taken over by American broadcasters. We
simply do not have the financial resources as a country to compete with
the American economy and that includes broadcasters, so we have to become
protectionist (or we will cease to exist as a country) and we have to set
standards which is where the CBC comes in and then the CRTC has to
set limits - like Canadian content, and acquire frequencies (which we had
to fight tooth and nail for in the beginning), because if we don't - we lose
our identity and I for one am not an American and don't wish to be one.
I do not envy the American way of life, I want some guarantee that I will
be able to access Canadian-based programming, I want some protection
for our work-force, and not be sold to the lowest bidder and it is imperative
that the government (us) supports these kinds of initiatives. It's NOT about
saving few f*cking bucks on your cable bill, it's not about getting something
for the lowest price without considering the larger implications of doing
so. Free trade has been the worst thing which has happened to this country
since that time we have lost long-standing Canadian-based shops and stores
(like Woodwards and Eatons [both of which paid a fair living wage unlike
the f*cking Walmarts]), we've lost any advantage we had with regard to
our fish or soft-wood lumber (and now the Americans are accusing us of
adding protections, so the minimal living parity we had - is being thrown
back in our faces as a 19% equalization tariff [where's the f*cking free trade
agreement now?]. Its a slippery slope and the CBC and the CRTC are the
ONLY things maintaining a Canadian identity. The free-market system
does not work when one of the sides is ten times the size (which includes
ten-times the resources, ten-times the buying power, ten-times the greed)
of the other one. (think water and power in the next 20 or so years - Dubbya
will be attacking us next).
The CBC is world reknown because of its uniqueness (and we do live in a unique
country wether or not you are willing to admit it.) and CBC radio has
lauded all over the world. Of course it requires and demands public funding
its the best investment this country has ever made in itself, it created a
forum
where Canadians could be galvanized and talk about things important to
Canadians - that could never have been done with a private institution, or
with a publicly initiated broacaster (like the PBS), because frankly we don't
have the population to support that kind of system, we don't have the
corporate investment, and we wouldn't be to protect our way of life -
because there would be no national voice. It sickens me - what stupid
f*cking CBC/leaves comments were on this board - there are two games,
that's why they have a double-header, so the fans in all parts of the country
get an opportunity to see their regional teams (that's why there's a double-
header now).
Jim your views that things should be able to pay for themselves at all times
is an incredibly naive one (very old-school and very economically based)
because when people make blanket statements about how this or that
shouldn't be funded they are not taking into account what the arts and
things not tied to profit-making actually cost. If the patron who wished
to have the option to see theatre (for example) were to have to pay the actual
cost of a production (per head without any outside support), they would be
paying at least 200 for a show, that they pay 30/40 dollars now they just
wouldn't attend, there would be no arts, no museums, no theatre, no fine-
arts, no funding for the training for the arts - we would have nothing but
economically driven, souless, greed-filled lives, there would be no
creativity, no progress (because no chances would be taken, because
even if some of these places survived (with corporate hand-outs here and
there) they would be performing, or presenting the lowest common
denominator crap, that would appease the most people. Note I say appease
not please, because it would be a compromise all the way. Even with gov.
support and rare corporate sponsorship the vast majority of arts and their
artisans are still on the brink of extinction, if we take these types of
stands
to the degree that you are suggesting we would have no arts in Canada, we
might get re-hashed art type thing from the States, but we would have no
cultural identity, we would have no 'Group of Seven' (world re-known
group of especially expressive landscape painters), we would have no NFB,
we would have no soul and we would have no Canada. That is what public
support of the Arts and the CBC have brought us.
>Oh, and I enjoy Mark Rothko's paintings and belive "Voice of Fire" was
> >actually a very astute investment.
> Aren't you missing something here ? Like about four hundred smilies ?
Actually he's not, because it was an investment, we got it for less than it
was appraised for, the artist has died since and it has accrued majorly in
value. The national Museum has had more vistors because of the press it
engendered (there's no bad press) and even though it appears to be a simple
piece of art (altho i don't believe you wouldn't call it that - because "art
has to
be representational", paint some birds on it -then it's art) it is actually
the
distillation of an artist's career. To fully appreciate this kind of
minimalism,
you have to see where the artist has come from, what his previous works
were, how he came down to choose to paint this and have it represent his
vision.
d
> Jim )
db
"dondo" <dondo1972@(remove)shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7haM9.188060$ea.38...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> It sickens me - what stupid
> f*cking CBC/leaves comments were on this board - there are two games,
> that's why they have a double-header, so the fans in all parts of the
country
> get an opportunity to see their regional teams (that's why there's a
double-
> header now).
wow... just... wow.
I'm not a Sens fan but didja ever take a look at the HNIC schedule for
Ottawa games? In fact, have you actually looked at the HNIC schedule?
oy!
db
db
b8
>.......batch II.
>
>The following batch are a tad more contoversial and subject
>to personal interpretation. Let's see how our loony our loony-
>left are:
>
>*****************
>Our nation has many unique virtues.
a great ethnic mix that hasn't fallen into the flag waving pot, a
great history of battling hard on the ice or on the muddy fields of
europe, an excellent reputation that gets a smile when it's realized
we aren't american while travelling, a strange relationship with
french that should be positive and might be one day, schools of art
and literature past and present that garner world wide acclaim...
gretzky and lemieux and probably lots more....
>The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
you might just like the guy and not find out they are enemies until
later... this is getting awefully close to blind faith..
>The rich are too highly taxed. [ strongly disagree ].
I know you meant agree... They have enough money. they're rich. The
percentage they pay in taxes is much less than what me or you pay...
are you rich?
>All theatres and museums that can't survive on a
>commercial basis deserve to perish. [ strongly agree ].
>{ Put this answer because the question is so poorly worded
> it deserves just as rediculous answer }.
yep poorly worded, but we need art and culture and arts funding,
sports funding (olympics anyone?), is necessary for a good society.
>Marijuana and hashish should be legalised. [ strongly disagree ].
They're the same as booze. I think everyone will get that eventually.
Criminalizing this choice is a waste of money. Fund pot crime
fighting, but stop arts funding? hmmm...
>Those who are able to work and do not should not expect
>to eat.
everyone gets fed or an attempt is made in a civilized society.
it's part of the deal of living with this many people... All those
poor african children with the flies on their faces could probably fit
down mine shafts for some diggin work...
>No broadcasting institutions should receive public
>funding.
>
culture is as culture does... we need "unprofitable" things to be seen
and heard as well as ms. spears...
>Capital punishment should be a judicial option. [ strongly agree ].
this has always been my right wing weakness... if someone killed my
mom, they would die horribly... the system needs some help though...
>In criminal justice, punishment is as important as
>rehabilitation.
not if we're letting them out...
>Some people are naturally unlucky.
how can this possibly be true? you mean like lower IQ? or born into a
poor family? i don't get it...
>No one chooses their country of birth, so it's absurd to be
>proud of it. [ strongly disagree ].
it IS absurd. doesn't mean it's not fun though...
>It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's
>going too far. [ strongly agree ].
sexualizing the 6 year old girl isn't about sex; it's about oddness
and boredom. people don't know how to treat or be treated is the
problem. this comes back to culture and education which are failing
terribly...
>Controlling inflation is more important than
>controlling unemployment. [ strongly agree ].
I just don't know enough about economic balance to know if this is
true or not, but it seems to me that zero inflation and 30 million
unemployed would be troublesome...
>Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
>[ strongly disagree ].
ideally it shouldn't. it's dirt, a line in the sand. old families
already own it all. it's odd if you really think about it, but it's
too late to worry about this question really...
>It's a sad reflection on our society that something
>as basic as drinking water is now a consumer product.
>{ strongly disagree ].
polution, lack of trust in infrastructure (walkerton...) the stupid
importance of marketing.... sad to me...
>Protectionism is sometimes a necessary element in trade.
>[ strongly disagree ].
wouldn't this relate somehow to your dislike of offshore realestate
types? i don't know enough about this either, but it seems to me that
protectionism happens all the time at all levels of trade and then
gets slandered at the national level. "Multinationals" are bad,
arent't they?
>Abortion, when the mother's life is not threatened,
>should always be illegal.[ Strongly disagree ].
>{ although I am not pro abortion, I believe there are
>other reasons which could make abortion justified }.
good thing it's not up to you...
>The freer the market, the freer the people. [ strongly agree ].
not sure about this one either totally. this seems like a rich get
richer etc.. paradise... the poor or slow or non-competitive or
handicapped wouldn't be freer would they?
>The only social responsibility of a company should be
>to deliver a profit to its shareholders. [ strongly agree ]
>{ and obey the law }.
i don't think it's fair for you to add the disclaimer to this one.
That changes the question.
>From each according to his ability, to each according to
>his need is a fundamentally good idea. [ strongly disagree ].
>{ if this means a mandated transfer }.
i don't think anyone's talking about an active transfer. Is it a "good
idea"? sure it is... altruistic people do it all the time. you don't
maybe...
>If globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity
>rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. [ agre ].
>{ have no idea what the question means }.
not sure why you don't get this one. (although i don't get some so
maybe that's not fair..) who should benefit from globalisation?
primarily society or primarily shareholders? i think you know my
answer...
>Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher
>standards of medical care and education. [ strongly agree ].
>{ another pooly worded question }.
They already do. to deny it would be silly. it's not ideal; i don't
think they SHOULD. It SHOULD be great for everyone.
>Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different
>sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [ duh ].
i don't get the debate on this one. This is intended to weed out the
racists or the homophobic... weed away...
>There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only
>different cultures. [ strongly disagree ]. { Websters: lacking
>complex or advanced culture }.
this is really tough. the sentences don't contradict the way they seem
to want them to... "savage" is a loaded term... so is "civilised"
really...
>***********************
>First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated
>within their new country. [ strongly disagree ].
should they be? is that a goal of immigration? should that be a goal
of immigration? what does integrated mean anyway?
>************************
>Although the electronic age makes official surveillance
>easier, people who haven't done anything wrong shouldn't
>be worried. [ disagree ].
"wrong" and "official surveillance" are problems... ideally there's
nothing to fear if you're not doing anything "wrong" but who knows
who's watching and why i guess could be a point here...
blah. i'm bored. game tomorrow right?
foamy
, "dondo" <dondo1972@(remove)shaw.ca> wrote:
,snipped >
< snipped because I didn't agree with a single word >
, snipped ditto >
<snipped wow >
< oh geez-- snipped >
< tsk tsk snipped>
nd even though it appears to be a simple
>piece of art (altho i don't believe you wouldn't call it that - because "art
>has to
>be representational", paint some birds on it -then it's art)
Spare me the patronizing bullshit ok ? You don't have a fucking
clue what I do or don't consider art, how artistic I may or may not
be myself, what art I do or don't appreciate, what artists I do or
don't support, what works of art I do or don't own, and what art I've
created myself. Because I'm not so fucking insecure as to fear
being thought a troglodyte for speaking out against the elitist crap
passed off as art to gullible snobs and snob wannabees, means
I think art is only painted birds ? I've sold two fucking paintings--
how many have you sold ? The fact they were acid-induced and
sold to my girlfriend at the time for sexual favors is moot.
Appears to be a simple piece of art ? It's 3 stripes of color, a
longitudinal penis enlarger for fuck sakes.
it is actually
>the
>distillation of an artist's career.
.apparently the only distillation going on was down in the
basement with his lips scotch taped to his still.
To fully appreciate this kind of
>minimalism,
>you have to see where the artist has come from,
The Bronx.
what his previous works
>were,
Pretty impressive until he went fucking nuts and entered
the ' onement ' period of his life. Made a major change in
medication and oriented his onements sideways. Bruised
his atrophied brain when he tilted his head trying to see
his sideway onement in the vertical. Swelling of the brain
resulted in a revolutionary step forward in art. A vertical
stripe in a pyramid. Egyptian onement so to speak.
how he came down to choose to paint this and have it represent his
>vision.
Viagra and delusions of a swollen onement.
Jim
dondo
over
the leaves, and its the same area which would support it, financially I mean,
maybe has something to with the tarrrana perception that they are COtheU
and since all of the broadcasters are based there, they believe it too.
But the CBC has continued to show us hockey, every Saturday night for as
long as I can remember and the addition of the double-header and sometimes
triple-header has enabled us to see more games overall (of course I hate the
T.
bias), but altho that doesn't help the vancouver fan in Montreal (or gawd
forbid Torrana) it does enable the Calgary, or Edmonton fan to occasionally
see their teams play (not nearly enough I'll grant you), but much than if we
were run by Fox (say..).
d
"db" <d...@hdtv.com> wrote in message
news:atrcgh$20ei5$1...@ID-120173.news.dfncis.de...
dondo
> In article <7haM9.188060$ea.38...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
> , "dondo" <dondo1972@(remove)shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> ,snipped >
>
> < snipped because I didn't agree with a single word >
whether or not you agreed with it is beside the point because it is how it
happened,check out the broadcasting documentary, that CBC ran to
commemorate fifty years on television. It breaks down what was
happening at that time and how the concept of the CBC was developed
as a need to create unity from coast to coast (or BC might have been the
Fifty-first State- probably could've edged out Alaska - so we would have
been the 50th State). It explainsthat during this time The American
broadcasters were competing for frequencies and did not even consider
to reserve any for Canada (they justkept suckin' 'em up). During this time
the CBC was created (as well as the CRTC) so that we could develop a
national voice, so we could be assured that we would get frequencies
across the country and we could develop a national identity. For the
first time in the history of Canada, people from Newfoundland, to
Victoria to Churchill, Manitoba heard the same broadcast
at the same time.
> , snipped ditto >
The need for a culture unique to Canada, means that we have to support the
arts and that includes allowing people to fail. the process by which arts
funding (which is rapidly declining you'll be happy to know) is approved,
is fairly intense one. It requires the equivalent of a business plan (altho
artistically based), writing proposals and justifying what the money will
be spent on. It requires review and it requires the artistic companies to
justify
their expenses and be responsible for their mandate. It's actually far more
regulated than the corporate sector. Artists have to work hard for grants
and get very minimal funding on an individual basis. Artistic institutions
are not capable of supporting themselves (but especially in Canada) they
cannot exchange what they have to offer for cash because the patrons simply
would not attend - as it costs a lot to put on a play, to develop a skill, to
market an event, to put on a festival or to gather an archive (as in the cases
of museums and galleries). All of this aside, our world would be a far lesser
place to live with no-one capable of making a living as an artisan. I have
worked for arts companies on the production and the artistic sides, and sat
on many arts boards - I know the reality of arts funding in this country (and
this province [BC]), and now that we have lost the tobacco companies there
are very few corporate interests interested in funding artistic endeavours,
they'd rather support sports or some other venture which would give them
the most bang for their buck. I don't blame them, but they can't even find
the
money to sponsor for a PGA tournament for crissakes, how much chance
does an arts company (even an established one) of getting funding from
'other sources' (there are no other sources).
> <snipped wow >
Now would you spend 200, or 300 dollars to go to a play? Of course not -
neither would I. Would I like to have the option to see a play, or an opera,
or a symphony? (most of which are close to folding - ten-thousand a year
from Telus doesn't pay a whole lot of wages) I would like to have that
option.
Well if there isn't corporate funding, and there isn't government funding and
the patron isn't willing to pay what a show actually costs, then I guess we
lose
that option and the people who aren't doing the work, are unemployed and
they can't get work elsewhere because all the companies are downsizing to
appease their share-holders. So the workers get f*cked, the artists get
f*cked,
the public gets f*cked and they have to go home and watch f*cking Survivor
because there's no other option. Great life.
>
> < oh geez-- snipped >
>
> < tsk tsk snipped>
Actually I could care less about the voice of fire, but that doesn't mean
because you see no value in it, that there is none. This particular example
is no way to justify making a blanket statement about all arts funding, its
a piece of minimalist art, but institutions like the National Gallery, the
NFB,
and the CBC have given us not only a cultural identity, but have enabled
us to spread our cultural identity around the world.
d
> >piece of art (altho i don't believe you wouldn't call it that - because
"art
> >has to be representational", paint some birds on it -then it's art)
>
> Spare me the patronizing bullshit ok ?
Okay I will - I don't know what art you are into, because everyone is
different.
Actually I have sold several paintings, as well as other artistic pieces.
(like the acid reference tho)
>
>
> Jim
foamy
>, "dondo" <dondo1972@(remove)shaw.ca> wrote:
>But the CBC has continued to show us hockey, every Saturday night for as
>long as I can remember and the addition of the double-header and sometimes
>triple-header has enabled us to see more games overall (of course I hate the
>T.
>bias), but altho that doesn't help the vancouver fan in Montreal (or gawd
>forbid Torrana) it does enable the Calgary, or Edmonton fan to occasionally
>see their teams play (not nearly enough I'll grant you), but much than if we
>were run by Fox (say..).
I take it you don't know the move to the National double header was
a cost-cutting move and it directly reduced the amount of games
fans in Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa get to see their teams .
It did not help them, it hurt them. The only teams unaffected
were Toronto and montreal.
The CBC used to have crews in all Canadian cities and would
televise the local game locally.
Jim
Lonnie
"dondo" <dondo1972@(remove)shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7haM9.188060$ea.38...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> news:Jf4M9.243393$ka.59...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > In article <atq1ba$93h$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>,
> > rorytait <im_...@fis.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
sorry - snipped for brevity
> Actually he's not, because it was an investment, we got it for less than
it
> was appraised for, the artist has died since and it has accrued majorly in
> value. The national Museum has had more vistors because of the press it
> engendered (there's no bad press) and even though it appears to be a
simple
> piece of art (altho i don't believe you wouldn't call it that - because
"art
> has to
> be representational", paint some birds on it -then it's art) it is
actually
> the
> distillation of an artist's career.
the distillation of his career - if you mean you thought he was drunk when
he worked , I agree.
Shit - I just saw Jim used this same line. Bastard - he's reading my
thoughts again and stealing my jokes. I'll leave this in, and I'll put
another coat of tin foil on the walls tomorrow. That'll teach'm
To fully appreciate this kind of
> minimalism,
> you have to see where the artist has come from, what his previous works
> were, how he came down to choose to paint this and have it represent his
> vision.
I have several friends who are award winning artists - a few are
minimalists, a few dabble in abstracts, some paint cute dogs playing pool. I
find it's not what you paint but what you can convince people you painted
when it comes down to the world of abstract art. I know someone who makes
twice as much more than twice as much as I do painting rather dramatic large
scale abstracts , using a variety of unique - and often repulsive -
materials as pigments. Things like real diamond dust, goats blood, hemp
juice, etc etc etc. I'm not sure if he even uses them - who can tell, but he
kicks ass, financially speaking.
He told me about one 3 day show in San Francisco - the first day was going
very poorly, no publicity for the show, no customers. He went outside and
hired 3 street folks ,and painted them signs saying
" For Shame - Artist is using Goat Babies blood for painting " " We demand
This Show Be Closed "
" Boycott ( artist name ) Now ". That night, he was on every six o'clock
news cast. The next day people streamed in - and he sold out - to the tune
of 70 grand. Such is the world of art - you are what you can convince people
you are, and a lot of collectors ( artists do not have customers, they have
collectors )
don't seem able to decide for themselves what they like. Your art is worth
whatever you can convince them it's worth. During the show I met him at,
few of the other Artists bought anything from me. They had no idea who I
was. Then one of my pieces won Best of Show for sculptures against about 35
other pieces - all of which were priced at least 30 times as much as my
bird. After I got my big shiny red ribbon the Artists lined up to buy
something. I had been validated - I won, I was collectable, a jury had told
them my stuff was worth buying. I should have sheared them all and made some
sweaters.
>
> d
>
>
>
> > Jim )
>
>
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>I tend to agree with Van Cleef in his seminal work "Artistic
>Impressions for The Snooty Hoi Poloi", when he said "They paid how
>much?"
Speaking of seminal works..
http://cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/canned_crap020702
In fact, the Tate paid about $1,700 per gram for the feces, more
than a hundred times the going rate for gold.
However, a spokeswoman for the gallery told the London Telegraph
that the Manzoni piece was a bargain at that price. She called
Manzoni an incredibly important artist and his Can 004 "a seminal
work."
rorytait
part of his "art" than the paintings themselves.
Hey -- I can't vouch for whether "Voice of Fire" is actually good art (I'm
giving it the benefit of the doubt since there are *some* people who think
it is), but my original argument is that is was a good investment. And
that is one reason for purchasing art (although another is the work had
been loaned to us since 1967 and the gallery decided that it was the right
thing to do to actually pay the artist).
Whether or not it's art/shit/whatever, it's still valued enough in the
marketplace that its appraised at a much higher value than what we bought
it for. I think even Jim would be happy with that!
Rory
Lonnie <rockf...@shaw.ca> scribbled:
: I have several friends who are award winning artists - a few are
:>
:> d
:>
:>
:>
:> > Jim )
:>
:>
rorytait
which I saw in the Tate and it was the funniest god-damn thing I've ever
seen in a museum. Worth the price of admission. Seriously. Well, that and
the exploding piano suspended in a large room.
Again, my original point was that it was an astute investment... and
irregardles of your view on art, I don't think you can argue with the fact
that the painting is worth more now than when they purchased it (plus the
controversy generating interest and possibly a rise in attendance for the
gallery).
rory
foamy <fo...@shaw.ca> scribbled:
: In article <atr18s$2ku$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>,
Mike McGillivray
That's OK Jim Ahenakew, your apology is accepted.
Joe Mildenberger
> I find it's not what you paint but what you can convince people you painted
> when it comes down to the world of abstract art.
>>
Lonnie,
There's an article in the December issue of Scientific American
by a physicist/artist who has done some very interesting analyses of Jackson
Pollock's "drip" paintings. The paintings contain what are known as "fractal
patterns", which means they are a quasi-chaotic, yet - in a certain sense - ordered,
hierarchy whose basic forms repeat themselves consistently over different length
scales. This is the exact same kind of "disordered order" one finds in many natural
phenomena, from the patterns of growth of tree limbs, to the patterns of frost crystals
on a window. The article goes on to explain how the "fractal dimension" - a measure of
the complexity of the patterns - increased in a quite regular way as Pollock refined
his techniques over the years. The author has also done the same analysis on
bogus and questionable-authenticity Pollocks, and finds that these do not have the
kind of fractal consistency of genuine Pollocks.
The point is that it appears that whatever Pollock was doing, he had tapped into
some creative process that had a real "resonance" with the way the physical world works,
and it is not just the snobbism of a few art critics and/or a good sales job on Pollock's
part that explains the appeal of his paintings. In fact, the author speculates that the
appeal works on a fairly fundamental neural level (possibly because our brains operate
on similar kinds of "chaotic" principles), the same kind of aesthetic appeal as the
"ordered disorder" of natural phenomena like trees, mountains, and clouds, which all have
the same kind of fractal qualities as Pollock's paintings.
Joe
Lonnie
"Joe Mildenberger" <Joe.Mild...@triumf.ca> wrote in message
news:3E0202BD...@triumf.ca...
What's funny is, I liked this guys paintings a lot. I don't know why - they
just jump out at me.
He's a bit of a scammer in some ways, yet if I could afford a ten grand
painting, I would buy one.
So I agree - abstarct art isn't a hoax, it isn't a con - for whatever reason
these works speak to us on some level. And if Scientific America can prove
it's art, then it's gotta be art. Hell, that's gotta be even better than
hanging a red ribbon on your stuff " Good Art For Sale - As Proven By
Scientific America "
>
sparker
"Joe Mildenberger" <Joe.Mild...@triumf.ca> wrote in message
news:3E0202BD...@triumf.ca...
> Lonnie wrote:
> appeal works on a fairly fundamental neural level (possibly because our
brains operate
> on similar kinds of "chaotic" principles), the same kind of aesthetic
appeal as the
> "ordered disorder" of natural phenomena like trees, mountains, and clouds,
which all have
> the same kind of fractal qualities as Pollock's paintings.
>
> Joe
>
Similarily, researchers have found the Ryoanji Temple garden in Kyoto
suggests an image of a tree, even though it is clearly a garden of rocks and
carefully raked sand. Again, thesuggestion being the mind finds something in
addition to the obvious presentation. I 'm not saying this is necessary or
essential to something being considered good art, but it appears to add an
additional level of appreciation.
The details: http://www.nature.com/nsu/020923/020923-8.html
Alex
foamy
rorytait <im_...@fis.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>Again, my original point was that it was an astute investment... and
>irregardles of your view on art, I don't think you can argue with the fact
>that the painting is worth more now than when they purchased it (plus the
>controversy generating interest and possibly a rise in attendance for the
>gallery).
Of course you can argue about it's worth. Anything is only worth what
someone will pay for it, and if it's offered for sale.
You think the suckers at our National Gallery are going to sell it ?
Rumor has it Proctor and Gamble offered them 5 mill for it--they
needed a new logo for Stripe Toothpaste--but were turned down.
Jim
foamy
Geez, don't get me started on that. That some people
are calling for prosecution [ and the police are actually
considering it ] as a hate crime is enough to make me
want to move to a freer country--perhaps Haiti.
Jim
dondo
been supported anyway being a government broadcaster - cost-cutting is
good.
:)
d
"foamy" <fo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1udM9.188919$ea.39...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Darren
foamy wrote:
>
>
> >> It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's
> >> going too far. [ strongly agree ].
> >
> >What does 'going too far' mean?
>
> Sexualizing 6 year old girls.
Fair enough.
> >> Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different
> >> sorts of people should keep to their own kind. [ duh ].
> >
> >Duh?? People should keep with whatever kind of people they want to keep
> >with.
>
> Wonderful sentiment. Unfortunately it has piss-all to do with
> the question.
>
> Read the damn question again, and come back and say WE would ALL
> be BETTER OFF if different sorts of people kept to their own kind.
I did read the question again. It seems to say something like "them homos
should stick with the other homos, them darkies should stick with the other
darkies, etc..... we'd all be better off." And I emphatically disagree.
Darren
foamy
Now we're getting somewhere, so now look above at your answer. You
said people should be free......... . The question had nothing to do with
freedom of association, but was implying what you say above. Perhaps
you didn't understand my ' duh ' ? It was a derisive ' duh ' indicating
my disgust with the notion implicit in the question. Perhaps I should have
just said I strongly disagree.
Jim
Darren
foamy wrote:
> Now we're getting somewhere, so now look above at your answer. You
> said people should be free......... . The question had nothing to do with
> freedom of association, but was implying what you say above. Perhaps
> you didn't understand my ' duh ' ? It was a derisive ' duh ' indicating
> my disgust with the notion implicit in the question. Perhaps I should have
> just said I strongly disagree.
Ahhh, all is revealed. I thought it was an "of course" sort of duh, not a
derisive duh.
Darren
Darren
b8 wrote:
>
>
> I know you meant agree... They have enough money. they're rich. The
> percentage they pay in taxes is much less than what me or you pay...
What???
b8
This is an old post... damned servers... but what i mean is if you
make 400000 per year and add up all your income taxes and consumption
taxes and get a percentage of your income and I make 30000 per year
and add up all my income taxes and consumption taxes i pay a higher
percentage of my gross income in taxes than you do. Do the math. I
think i'm right... not even including loopholes...
foamy
>, b8 <b...@home.com> wrote:
>This is an old post... damned servers... but what i mean is if you
>make 400000 per year and add up all your income taxes and consumption
>taxes and get a percentage of your income and I make 30000 per year
>and add up all my income taxes and consumption taxes i pay a higher
>percentage of my gross income in taxes than you do. Do the math. I
>think i'm right... not even including loopholes...
Two things: consumption taxes are based upon the cost of
goods consumed so it's not really fair to use gross
income as a comparitive. More fair would be to
compare relative expenditures, eg you buy 10,000
dollars worth of goods a year, and the other person
buys 150,000. Your consumption taxes paid as a percentage
of gross would of course then be equal.
: the other thing is your income taxes would actually be
lower as a percentage of gross. The 400,000 guy would
would be in a max tax bracket and much higher than
a 30K income.
Jim
Lonnie
do you really make 400 grand a year, Jim ?
Must be paid by the word.
b8
of course we'd be in different brackets, but it is totally fair to
look at overall percentage. Why should I making 30000 a year pay a
higher percentage of my income to taxes than a guy making 400000? It's
not fair... tax is tax is tax. if i'm making 30000 a year (or heaven
forbid less) i'm spending all my money every year. If i'm making
400000 per year there's no way i need to spend it all plus i have more
loops.... so the percentage of my income that goes to consumption tax
is less. plus i have more to invest (not consumption taxed) to make
even more... plus i probably have home equity and ain't paying rent
(which just disolves away quietly, and adds to that outgoing money
thing) plus the 400000 guy can buy art or collectibles as investments
as well that will increase in price and negate the consumption
taxes... ramble...
Darren
b8 wrote:
I knew what you meant, I just think you're wildly wrong....
Using Quick Tax for 2001 tax year:
Income 30k, tax payable 5,220, average rate 17%
Income 400k, tax payable 168,000, average rate 42%
Quite a difference!!
I am not convinced that consumption taxes will close that gap....
Darren
Lonnie
"Darren" <no.e...@thank.you> wrote in message
news:3E12461A...@thank.you...
and why should you pay more in taxes just because you make more ? I pay more
in various taxes than
the average person makes in a year. I have no kids, carry my own medical -
why should I pay ten times as much as someone making 30 grand a year ?
>
>
Darren
Lonnie wrote:
Shrug. Because you can afford to, I guess. It works the same way in every
modern country on earth.
b8
>> >What???
>>
>> This is an old post... damned servers... but what i mean is if you
>> make 400000 per year and add up all your income taxes and consumption
>> taxes and get a percentage of your income and I make 30000 per year
>> and add up all my income taxes and consumption taxes i pay a higher
>> percentage of my gross income in taxes than you do. Do the math. I
>> think i'm right...
>
>I knew what you meant, I just think you're wildly wrong....
>
>Using Quick Tax for 2001 tax year:
>Income 30k, tax payable 5,220, average rate 17%
>Income 400k, tax payable 168,000, average rate 42%
>
>Quite a difference!!
>
>I am not convinced that consumption taxes will close that gap....
>
>Darren
>
damned server!! i might have to go back to look at the leftie
properganga [sic] book to figure out exactly what was meant when i
understood it entirely... It may have to do with a percentage on
"necessary" purchases but i can't quite remember... don't forget
though that someone making 30000 grand or less per year is probably
spending every dime just to live.... so the percentage will be 17 plus
15 (consumption) of all 30000 or whatever versus 42 plus 15
(consumption) of no where near all of the 400000.... or something like
that, if that makes sense...
b8
you should pay a higher number of dollars but not necessarily a higher
percentage. There was some number proposed for a flat tax that if paid
by every entity (including churches dammit!!) (people and businesses)
with no loopholes we would be a richer country. i think the percentage
was around 22 percent... you should pay 10 times as much if you make
300000 grand...
foamy
, b8 <b...@home.com> wrote:
>damned server!! i might have to go back to look at the leftie
>properganga [sic] book to figure out exactly what was meant when i
>understood it entirely...
Ahhh. This explains it. Pinko loony leftie's never do quite grasp
the concept of mathematics.
It may have to do with a percentage on
>"necessary" purchases but i can't quite remember... don't forget
>though that someone making 30000 grand or less per year is probably
>spending every dime just to live.... so the percentage will be 17 plus
>15 (consumption) of all 30000 or whatever versus 42 plus 15
>(consumption) of no where near all of the 400000.... or something like
>that, if that makes sense...
Percentage is percentage is percentage. What the loony left is saying,
is the one song they always sing, that if a person has 2 dollars and has
to spend one dollar on bus fare it's far more devastating, unfair and a
greater percentage of their monetary worth than someone with two
million dollars spending one dollar on bus fare.
Sophistry at it's whacko pinko best.
Jim
Lonnie
"b8" <b...@home.com> wrote in message
news:nds91vo1ae6sglb34...@4ax.com...
I agree completely - and always have, even when I made next to nothing.
And as for taxing Churches, I would vote - Hell, I'd help campaign - for any
party that promised that.
Lonnie
a guy with two million bucks spending a dollar on bus fair ?
that's one cheap motherfucker, Jim.
b8
>In article <4ur91v8vrnar73lnl...@4ax.com>
>, b8 <b...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>damned server!! i might have to go back to look at the leftie
>>properganga [sic] book to figure out exactly what was meant when i
>>understood it entirely...
>
>Ahhh. This explains it. Pinko loony leftie's never do quite grasp
>the concept of mathematics.
I know i sure don't....
> It may have to do with a percentage on
>>"necessary" purchases but i can't quite remember... don't forget
>>though that someone making 30000 grand or less per year is probably
>>spending every dime just to live.... so the percentage will be 17 plus
>>15 (consumption) of all 30000 or whatever versus 42 plus 15
>>(consumption) of no where near all of the 400000.... or something like
>>that, if that makes sense...
>
>Percentage is percentage is percentage. What the loony left is saying,
>is the one song they always sing, that if a person has 2 dollars and has
>to spend one dollar on bus fare it's far more devastating, unfair and a
>greater percentage of their monetary worth than someone with two
>million dollars spending one dollar on bus fare.
>
>Sophistry at it's whacko pinko best.
>
>Jim
Of course it's more devastating. although i never said that word. the
loonie right never want to bring priviledge, access (to whatever)
education, neighbourhood, mental health, mental ability, mistakes
(unless it's someone like scalbania (sp?) who always ends up back on
top somehow...) etc. into it... i think there are very good arguments
on the right about economic health that i really don't understand
(especially mathematically), but it's just plain hard to argue against
the fact that the motivations on one of the sides is "me first" (and
fair enough... but not my cup o'tea) and that money ensures where that
money stays at a cost of poor being a normal thing in the world...
when there is totally enough money to ensure that everyone eats and
sleeps comfortably.... hording and showing off is a part of life that
just rubs me the wrong way... (unless it's a bert spinerama or naslund
holding the cup high!!) but whatever...
rorytait
dollar on bus fare (that's a cheap bus, these days), how does that not
affect me more than someone with two million dollars, who could afford to
take a taxi and not bat an eyelid?
The tax system is essentially based on there being an average income that
is considered to be what people need to have a decent life, approx
$25k/year. We all get taxed at 17% for that first 25k (or 28k or whatever
it is).
I have no problems paying my fair share of the higher tax bracket. I've
benefitted from social programs in the past (as a child) and don't have
any problem with my money going to support a public health and education
infrastructure (the gun registry's a different matter, as is gov't waste
and kickbacks to Grit supporters).
rory
foamy <fo...@shaw.ca> scribbled:
: Percentage is percentage is percentage. What the loony left is saying,
foamy
, b8 <b...@home.com> wrote:
>Of course it's more devastating. although i never said that word. the
>loonie right never want to bring priviledge, access (to whatever)
>education, neighbourhood, mental health, mental ability, mistakes
>(unless it's someone like scalbania (sp?) who always ends up back on
>top somehow...) etc. into it... i think there are very good arguments
>on the right about economic health that i really don't understand
>(especially mathematically), but it's just plain hard to argue against
>the fact that the motivations on one of the sides is "me first" (and
>fair enough... but not my cup o'tea) and that money ensures where that
>money stays at a cost of poor being a normal thing in the world...
>when there is totally enough money to ensure that everyone eats and
>sleeps comfortably.... hording and showing off is a part of life that
>just rubs me the wrong way...
The irony is the more government tries to emulate and put into practice
the ideals of the loony left--the _worse_ off poor people become, and by
extension the worse off the vast majority of all people become. History
clearly shows us socialist paradises weren't and aren't. To believe all you
do is take money from people who have a lot, and give it to people who
have little, is a warm and fuzzy idea which simply doesn't work in practice
and results in more harm than good. It might work with machines, but not
with humans.
Forcing people to share by robbing them blind in taxes, a tax-freedom day
in this country impinging upon July, doesn't work. It produces an atmosphere
of piss on 'em, I work hard for my money and to hell if I'm going to give even
more of it to junkies and other assorted bums so they can live off the sweat
of my efforts.
The best way to create a charitable and caring society, both figuratively
and literally, is to leave as much money as possible, and the control of
that money, in the people's hands. People are quite willing to share when
they reach their own independently-determined financial comfort level.
When they feel they and their families welfare won't be threatened by
giving, they freely give. But they sure ain't going to share or care if they
work 7 months of the year for the government to piss it away.
Jim
b8
>The irony is the more government tries to emulate and put into practice
>the ideals of the loony left--the _worse_ off poor people become, and by
>extension the worse off the vast majority of all people become. History
>clearly shows us socialist paradises weren't and aren't. To believe all you
>do is take money from people who have a lot, and give it to people who
>have little, is a warm and fuzzy idea which simply doesn't work in practice
>and results in more harm than good. It might work with machines, but not
>with humans.
History clearly shows us that "socialism" has never been implemented
anywhere. There is always some autocratic asshole dude and a huge rich
(relatively or completely) government that ruin and rob and kill. In
Canada, our swing voting (always against rather that for) causes the
governments to never have long enough to get anything done. "oh they
were bad, i'm voting the other way" ad infinitum... except these
damned liberals who i just can't figure out... try to please everyone.
sorta please enough to stick... no one's talking about robin hood
economics...
>Forcing people to share by robbing them blind in taxes, a tax-freedom day
>in this country impinging upon July, doesn't work. It produces an atmosphere
>of piss on 'em, I work hard for my money and to hell if I'm going to give even
>more of it to junkies and other assorted bums so they can live off the sweat
>of my efforts.
The tax system is totally screwed and way over complex and another
example of self justification in government and massive infrastructure
(whatever that word means...), but the wealthy must pay more in
dollars than the less wealthy and poor. I'm a fan of no consumption
taxes and a flat income tax percentage (with NO loopholes). The July
tax freedom day has nothing to do with that piss on 'em attitude. That
will be an attitude of the conservative mind no matter what... Move
your tax freedom day to march, you gonna like and help junkies any
more than you do now?
>The best way to create a charitable and caring society, both figuratively
>and literally, is to leave as much money as possible, and the control of
>that money, in the people's hands. People are quite willing to share when
>they reach their own independently-determined financial comfort level.
>When they feel they and their families welfare won't be threatened by
>giving, they freely give. But they sure ain't going to share or care if they
>work 7 months of the year for the government to piss it away.
>
>Jim
You think Jim Pattison is gonna help more if you tax him less? Give me
a break. "their own independantly determined"? relativity and keeping
up with the joneses ensures that this would never work. Many wealthy
people share and help all the time regardless of taxation levels. Most
wealthy people are able to maintain wealth with their wealth while the
poor will just never have that chance. Most wealthy people are just
way too wealthy and will continue to stay way too wealthy and just get
wealthier while society (and the world in general) continues to go
down the toilet...
speaking of the gun control thing (rory mentioned). Anyone know why
it's ending up costing like a gazillion dollars? crazy!!
and i'm backing down about jovo. I can't believe how much we miss
him...
Lonnie
The gun registry is a joke - the Fast Ferries of out Federal Liberals.
For a billion doallers they could have bought us all guns - pre-registered
and all.
And Jovo ? The heart and soul of this team. We miss him as much as I thought
we would.
>
Wandering Shade
duty as a citizen to try and save the gov't some money. Unfortunately, they
did not accept my offer, although considering gov't efficiency, perhaps I'll
hear from them in a decade or so.
Seriously though, this just goes to show that the gov't cannot manage
anything. If we really want a gun registry, hire a professional manager to
do the job for god's sake. If the manager then does a bad job or goes over
budget without justification, fire them and get somebody else to bid on the
task.
Lonnie
"Wandering Shade" <wanderi...@NOSPAMcanada.com> wrote in message
news:uJFR9.226208$Qr.62...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
over budget??? - give me a billion dollars and I'll register every gun in
person.
And I'll have enough left over for free ammo for everyone.
>
>
Wandering Shade
"Lonnie" <rockf...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:BvGR9.83028$na.22...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
I think we agree. But at the risk of belabouring the point: I am business
manager with apaltry 800K operations budget. I don't exceed my budget
without the approval of the owner unless there is a very good reason: an
emergency of some kind. But with a gov't managed anything, the person
managing the budget and the person approving a budget over-run are often one
in the same. There's something systemically wrong there. So I say again,
get gov't out of the management business and leave that to the professionals
wherever possible.