# Was Belinda's defection to much for Macnutt....



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Is he drowned in a barrel of Single Malt? Any Ideas?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*Maybe..*

Maybe he's trapped beneath something heavy? 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/LAC/20050523/FARMER23/TPNational/TopStories


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

iPetie said:


> Is he drowned in a barrel of Single Malt? Any Ideas?


belinda's defection
Harper being chastised by even right wing radio (CFRB) for accusing Liberals of delaying vote because some CON MPs were ill and might miss a non-CON vote
CONS can't bring down gov't on budget vote
CONS poll numbers going down in Ontario along with their hopes with forming a gov't
and Peter McKay, his 30 pieces of silver from dumping the PC party, go home to Nova Scotia to cry and hug his dog

crying shame


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I predict that he is busy with his water business, his yacht and drag racing. Nothing of a sinister nature.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> I predict that he is busy with his water business, his yacht and drag racing.


How convenient...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

IM, Macnutt shall rejoin us all when he is good and ready to partake in an enlightening exchange of wit and satire with his fellow ehMacLanders.  "Trust me on this".


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> IM, Macnutt shall rejoin us all when he is good and ready to partake in an enlightening exchange of wit and satire with his fellow ehMacLanders. "Trust me on this".


Yes Dr. G, but my sinister nature thinks that the "Sage from Salt Spring" would have been prodigiously active had the government fallen.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iPetie said:


> Yes Dr. G, but my sinister nature thinks that the "Sage from Salt Spring" would have been prodigiously active had the government fallen.


I for one hope he is hale and hearty.

Odd how no other member is the subject of more threads.

Good on ya laddie!


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

*I had a sobering thought....*

A couple of weeks ago, my sister had a heart attack. She was able to drive herself to the doctor's office - can you say stubborn - and survived. But that got me thinking.

I live alone and I'm a bit of a recluse - would anyone miss me if I couldn't drive myself to the doctor?

Now MacNutt is among the missing. It sounds like Dr. G has been in contact with him so he's not really lost, but there are lots of folks who populate this and other forums who don't have a contact like that. 

I'm getting to the point. People like MacNutt, Dr. G and others are important to all of us. If something happens to them, we would like to know about it. Having them just fade away would be sad.

I'm thinking of a website where you could register your on-line presence so that in the event you are no longer able to continue posting, your next of kin would get an email and a list of places to send a short obit to. Morbid?

Back to MacNutt

Margaret


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Morbid?

Not at all.

Part of my will dictates a message to this board. I did it because there is no other way anyone here would know if I passed unexpectedly.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Odd how no other member is the subject of more threads.


A dubious honour.... 

MacNutt tends to fly in, throws around some contentious threads, lambasts people for not instantly answering his rhetoric, makes various predictions and then returns to the family business. It takes all sorts but even though I don't have a lot of respect for tactics, he certainly livens things up. Having said that, the summer is here and there are far better things to do than sit at a computer.... even if it is a Mac....


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i've been dead for almost 6 months now. luckily, i had the foresight to create an applescript that posts on my behalf at regular intervals.

okay, i know that wasn't funny... i'm sure macnutt is fine, but he does tend to get 'busy' with his water business whenever one of his predictions fails to materialise.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

.....of course maybe it WASN'T David Petersen who engineered Ms. B "for the good of the country" 

...could the SSi sage be a ......a..........doubleagent........

Staye tuned....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> ...could the SSi sage be a ......a..........doubleagent........
> 
> Staye tuned....


What are you saying, MacDoc? That you're actually MacNutt? I've always had the suspicion that the Mayor trots him out whenever he needs to boost the ratings.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No that he explain his absence by claiming risk of life and limb after engineering Ms. Bs defection.......after all we don't KNOW it was David Petersen do we. 
The OTHER 007 was a Scotsman in several incarnations I recall.

See instead of hanging out at freedominion he has actually all along been playing devils advocate while sussing out the perfect ploy. You know ......"methinks he doth protest too much " about the Liberals.......it's the perfect cover story.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, you have been out in the sun for too long. Still, conspiracy theories start this way, and then spread. Of course, IM's contention that you are actually Macnutt is far too extreme to even contemplate. No, "east is east, and west is west", but Macnutt and Macdoc are friends at best. Paix.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

David, 
you need to;
a) turn down the temp. of your hot tub
b) check the chlorine content of your hot tub
c) start drinking de-caf


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G Michael - I sincerely feel he is staying under cover, perhaps riding the rails back to SSI after his clandestine trip to Ontario.
Like Jack off into the sunset last night on 24. His mysterious work yet unaccomplished. Wheels within wheels......clack clack clack

Now if we invoke a triple agent hypothesis then what better Mata Hari than fair Belinda boosted into the circles of high power.
And of course Harper and Co could call only on the SSi ninja to undertake such a delicate mission.

Only one or the other hypothesis could stand the test of the disappeared Macnutt.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

David, I am still betting on work and play (e.g., yacht and drag racing). A new young lady friend is another alternative theory.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why I do beleive the screen play would sell well - the WAtoM book could be promoted at the same time - sitting on all the agents desks.

Some intriguing combo of "How the West was Won" with "The Fugitive" and perhaps a dash of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".
It has all the right elements, dashing hero, yachts, fast cars, motorcycles, mountains and .....intrigue..........National Government Saved.

Sure to be a hit. :clap: Maybe even a Broadway play once the TV run is over.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, as "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is one of my favorite movies, I cannot see how Macnutt's life story is anyway near the plot of this fine movie. 

Macnutt, to his credit, did produce that Tony-winning Broadway play last year, which shall be produced into a movie by Kevin Costner. "Dancing with Doxies" would make a fine movie.

Still, you are far too worried about our friend Gerry. He shall emerge when he is good and ready. Not before............not later. As it is written in "The World According to Macnutt" -- "All good things happen to he who is rich and he who waits."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"rich and waits".........hmmm sounds like Paul Martin's mantra.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Sorry, Dr. G
I've gotta go with MacDoc on this one. I do love a good conspiracy theory. Rarely believe them, but love them.
However, I do believe Macnutt traveled on one of those Canadair Challengers that Chretien bought for just such an occasion. By way of Sri Lanka and Paris, finally meeting Boom Boom at the Deifenbunker in Carp, Ontario.
I agree that rail is far more mysterious, but a triple agent watermaster/ehMaclander has only so much time these days. He must now lay low, making us wonder that he hopes the entire government not falling embarrassment will throw us off his true Liberal/Socialist political agenda.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

My bet is still on work, boats, racing and a woman. Sorry, Macnutt is not that mysterious.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Unlike your prose about WAtoM


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

Where's our resident Photoshop guru's? Someone has to be able to 'cook' up an old press photo of our beloved Macnutt on one of those campaign busses....

Macnutt - Come out come out, .....the cover is blown!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> belinda's defection
> Harper being chastised by even right wing radio (CFRB) for accusing Liberals of delaying vote because some CON MPs were ill and might miss a non-CON vote
> CONS can't bring down gov't on budget vote
> CONS poll numbers going down in Ontario along with their hopes with forming a gov't
> ...


The only crying that is happening on the right wing is the massive increase in government spending that the Liberals are forcing on taxpayers.

The Gomery Inquiry isn't going to go away anytime soon. The Canadian public didn't want an election and that's why the Conservative support level dropped. But...the good news from the right wing perspective is that we now know the level of support that the Conservatives are able to achieve (higher support than the Liberals). I bet we will slowly see Conservative support numbers increase over time as the Gomery inquiry progresses. A Liberal alliance with the NDP will alienate some of the centre right Liberal support over time as well. Some of the centre left Liberal support will probably go NDP as these types of voters are going to like what the NDP brings to the table. My bet is that come election time, the Conservatives and Liberals will be neck and neck in the polls.

We are probably looking at a late winter / early spring election next year. It's doubful the NDP + Liberal total will exceed 154 seats. It is more likely the Bloc + Conservative > 154 and more likely that Conservative > Liberal. Not really a great victory for the Conservatives, but it will be a big defeat for the Liberals.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> The only crying that is happening on the right wing is the massive increase in government spending that the Liberals are forcing on taxpayers.


I personally don't feel like anything is being forced on me. I find it quite refreshing and positive when funds aimed at big business get redirected to creating good in our society. Social programs have been increasingly whittled away since the inception of free trade and it's time we have some balance and gave some back.

Responsible government should be about balance, no? 

I've never understood the Con agenda of business first people last...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The only crying that is happening on the right wing is the massive increase in government spending that the Liberals are forcing on taxpayers.


Am I missing something? Where did you read a tax increase into the budget. You can say what you like about the Liberals and Gomery Commission, the one thing you can't say is that the Liberals do not balance their budgets. If the Government can increase their spending and not raise taxes... this is a good thing (and you know that if it ever came close to them raising taxes, they will cut programs before ever doing that).

That is part of the issue that must drive the Conservatives nuts. If only the Liberals would run a deficit, but they don't so they focus all their mud slinging on some corruption issues in Quebec and intelligent confident women who don't want break the country apart. 



Vandave said:


> We are probably looking at a late winter / early spring election next year. It's doubful the NDP + Liberal total will exceed 154 seats. It is more likely the Bloc + Conservative > 154 and more likely that Conservative > Liberal. Not really a great victory for the Conservatives, but it will be a big defeat for the Liberals.


It's hard to say. One thing is for certain, so long as Harper and his neo-conservo-alliance cronies are leading the Conservative party they will never get a majority government in Canada. Martin and his party would have to start clubbing babies ala the seal hunt to get that to happen.

If the Conservatives had some real leadership and could offer Canadian a real sane alternative than maybe, we've had conservative parties in power before. If (and only if) the Conservatives win a minority they will last only a year (18 months at most) before they are defeated. During that time Martin will step down and call a leadership race. Stronach will win that race and lead the Liberals to a majority government the following election.

I had said in previous posts that if the Conservatives had gone toward that middle ground, booted Harper out and got Stronach or McKay in as a more moderate leader the could give the Liberals a serious fight. Now with Stronach across the floor the voices of reason have left the conservatives and they will never have a majority government any time soon.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ontario has clearly shown a preference NOT for tax cuts but for provision of services.

Our smart Mayor Hazel who IS a moderate conservative told the neoCon Eve gov exactly that in the last election here - did they listen - nope - the old tax cut mantra which is now costing Ontario big time - just like their privatization stupidity did.

Balanced budget responsible gov - extra funds to reduce debt and long term infrastructure WITHOUT regressive NeoCon social engineering initiatives. When a conservative party can honestly offer that up to Ontario then maybe they'll get the kind of support Hazel has.

Declared winner 5 minutes after polls close with a +90% vote......FOR 30 YEARS!!!!!!!!!

Ontario had that kind of management and stability at times under Robarts and Davis.
Ontario has traditionally voted conservative when a liberals gov in in Ottawa.
The fact that they have not can be laid right at the feet of the leadership of the conservative and NeoCon parties nationally.

TWICE they have lost potentail national leaders in Charest and now Stronach to the Liberals.
No traction in the polls despite a scandal and a "too long in power" Liberal gov that many woould love to see a viable alternative to.

The Liberals have their issues and rebuilding to do but many like
a) the fiscal record
b) the progressive social record
and all the demographic trends are behind those policies.

The Cons
a) new, no experience and little cohesion between the two wings of the party

b) NO fiscal track record and their nearest "look alike" to the south has a dismal one - Harper could not and does not convince the biz community - where is the traditional suppot of the biz community - now here to be found

c) very suspect on the socially regressive front due to Harpers legacy and not helped by defections.

I'd say a decade before a moderate conservative gov could dream of a majority - and Harper will be long gone. Maybe John Tory down the road.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Maybe John Tory down the road.



LOL... Putting the Tory back in the Tory party.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> I personally don't feel like anything is being forced on me. I find it quite refreshing and positive when funds aimed at big business get redirected to creating good in our society. Social programs have been increasingly whittled away since the inception of free trade and it's time we have some balance and gave some back.
> 
> Responsible government should be about balance, no?
> 
> I've never understood the Con agenda of business first people last...


I totally agree with balance. I don't agree that we need to create a new bureaucracy for a daycare program. I'd rather give parents tax credits and let them spend the money as they see fit. A bureaucracy isn't free and it is a drag on the final service we want to provide to people. 

Money for aboriginal housing is just another wad of cash into DINAC. I could agree with providing money if the Liberals would agree to audit this department. If you think the Sponsorship program or the Gun Registry are a waste of money, you haven't seen nothing yet!

Tax cuts for business are not an end. They are a means to an end. I think we can all agree that we want to advance the livelihood of Canadians. I happen to believe that a vibrant economy with low unemployment is the best social policy possible. I think tax cuts for business serve this end.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Am I missing something? Where did you read a tax increase into the budget. You can say what you like about the Liberals and Gomery Commission, the one thing you can't say is that the Liberals do not balance their budgets. If the Government can increase their spending and not raise taxes... this is a good thing (and you know that if it ever came close to them raising taxes, they will cut programs before ever doing that).


In my opinion, we pay too much tax right now. It's easy to balance the budget when you collect 2/3rds of the tax but only deliver 1/3rd of the services. Anybody (except perhaps the NDP) can balance a budget when taxes are too high.



da_jonesy said:


> ...some corruption issues in Quebec...


  Please.... Quebec is profoundly corrupt. It's endemic to Quebec's political system. I think Quebecor's will eventually ask the question... If we were separate, would scandals such as the Sponsorship Inquiry ever be identified? 



da_jonesy said:


> and intelligent confident women who don't want break the country apart.


When she was a Conservative, I never once defended her when people claimed she was a bimbo. Do you really think her move had to do with keeping the country together? Seriously?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I'd rather give parents tax credits and let them spend the money as they see fit.


I'll assume two things... you are not a parent and you are not on a fixed income. Tax credits only work for those people who make enough to pay taxes.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> In my opinion, we pay too much tax right now. It's easy to balance the budget when you collect 2/3rds of the tax but only deliver 1/3rd of the services. Anybody (except perhaps the NDP) can balance a budget when taxes are too high.


Given the level of service we recieve our taxes do just fine... try going to a hospital in the states, you'll see what I mean.




Vandave said:


> When she was a Conservative, I never once defended her when people claimed she was a bimbo. Do you really think her move had to do with keeping the country together? Seriously?


Yeah, I do. The simple fact of the matter is that the she is smart, ambitous and talented. I've said on many posts that she could have lead the conservatives to a majority (had she stayed and ousted Harper). Now she will likely do that for the Liberals. Mark my words... She'll be Prime Minister one day with a majority backing her up, which is more than I can say for Harper.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I'll assume two things... you are not a parent and you are not on a fixed income. Tax credits only work for those people who make enough to pay taxes.


Bingo and bingo. If tax credits don't cover enough low income people, then I would support a subsidy instead.

I just don't see a need to create a new branch of government. If anything, I think we should be looking to make our government more lean and mean.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Mark my words... She'll be Prime Minister one day with a majority backing her up, which is more than I can say for Harper.


Mark my words... She won't be in politics after 5 more years. She'll never win the Liberal nomination.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I just don't see a need to create a new branch of government. If anything, I think we should be looking to make our government more lean and mean.


dump the senate
i'm sure that will save millions in one fell swoop
it's just a dumping ground for political hacks who don't do anything but cash cheques, and sometimes whilst living in Mexico


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macspectrum, I am in agreement with you re the Senate. I was floored when I heard of that Senator, living in Mexico, who attended the Senate votes and meetings four times in two years, but still drew his full salary!!!!!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Macspectrum, I am in agreement with you re the Senate. I was floored when I heard of that Senator, living in Mexico, who attended the Senate votes and meetings four times in two years, but still drew his full salary!!!!!


This is only the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to people abusing our federal system. It makes me disgusted. 

The only political party that seems to speak to this issue are the Conservatives. I know many of you will never vote for them, but for the love of our country you should be beating the doors of the other political parties down. You should demand that they fix these problems. If not, you are part of the problem as well.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

many CONservatives want a triple E senate, which is in my opinion nothing more than another level of buearacracy, and not needed

and just another attempt to placate their Alberta voter base
Albertans are big on an elected senate, but their fiscal conservatism doesn't seem to extend to abolisment of the senate
hmmmmmm

the Canadian senate is just not needed, period.
just imagine the cost savings

while we're at it, dump the GG and the queen - more cost savings WITH NO loss of any service to Canadians (unless having the GG's staff yell at and ban a kid and his classmates from the GG's house is considered a "service")


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, we are again in total agreement re getting rid of the GG along with the Senate.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Bingo and bingo. If tax credits don't cover enough low income people, then I would support a subsidy instead.
> 
> I just don't see a need to create a new branch of government. If anything, I think we should be looking to make our government more lean and mean.


Yeah that is just great, and what about the working poor? those people who survive paycheck to paycheck? Those people who don't qualify for assistance? Those people that work a minimum wage job only to see half of a days wages eaten up by child care costs.

For shame on anyone who doesn't support a national childcare program. As it is we have a declining population growth rate. In this situation you do one of two things... you encourage more immigration or you encourage people to have more children. Why do you think parental leave in Canada is 12 months while it is 6 weeks in the US? You clearly do not understand the long term economic impact of the situation Canada is in.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Mark my words... She won't be in politics after 5 more years. She'll never win the Liberal nomination.



She'll win it by a landslide. Who else do you think would? Not one of the people left following Martin has the character (and/or avoided being tainted by Martin or Chetchian at some point). Stronach is a fresh face for the Liberals, she could have made the difference for the conservatives if she had stayed.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The only political party that seems to speak to this issue are the Conservatives. I know many of you will never vote for them, but for the love of our country you should be beating the doors of the other political parties down. You should demand that they fix these problems. If not, you are part of the problem as well.


Look if you seriously believe that, then give Canadian's an alternative choice. Harper and his neo-con cronies are not a real alternative. If they were they'd be in power now. You need to get rid of their social agenda, that is what is stopping them. The Conservative party in Canada does not have the same support from the business community that their southern counterpart does. They are unproven in fiscal managment and the last PC government (in the early 1990's) ran record deficits, whereas this Liberal party has a proven track record of balanced budgets.

I think Canadian's would love to have an alternative... but what does the conservative party represent? They tried to partner with seperatists to bring down the government. They tried to kill a budget amendment which would have benefited 100 of thousands if not millions of Canadians. Particular members showed their contempt for competent professional females in power, clearly indicating their gender bias. 

The conservatives have NO choice but to reinvent themselves (yet again) to be seen as a real alternative to Canadians.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> while we're at it, dump the GG and the queen - more cost savings WITH NO loss of any service to Canadians


Sure and why not... you only have to rewrite the Constitution (BNA 1867) and the Charter of Rights and Freedom (1980). Hey and while you are at it why not signup with the boys down south and become 13 new states.

RRRrrrrrr  This kind of talk makes me MAD. You guys that write this stuff are the MOST UN Canadian people going. Seriously if you do not like they way this country has been founded... If you do not agree with our Charter of Rights and Freedom then there is the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

Canada is a model country, one of the best in the world. Anything which is done at this time that pulls on the strings of society is pure folly. Should certains rules be placed on the offices of the GG and Senate? Absolutely. But, abolishing them opens up Canada to a complete reinterpretation which would likely lead to assimalation with the United States.

Generations of Canadians have worked hard, given their blood for what we now have. And you, all of you who want to abolish our government denegrate everything that we stand for as Canadians... for shame.


----------



## eatr (May 1, 2005)

It's not just tax cuts to businesses where Conservatives go wrong, it's also tax cuts to the rich. Just look at the income tax cuts planned by bush in 2003. The top 5% of income earners would get 70% of the benefits, while the bottom 80% of the population would only get 6.5% of the benefits. What the heck do those top 5% need the extra money for anyways?? Also, Conservative governments run up massive debts, the United State's debt is now rising at a rate of 2 billion dollars U.S. a day, which is nearly twice as much as what is was under Clinton. And don't get me started on the so-called "war on terror." It seems the U.S. likes setting up dictators and when those dictators aren't co-operating, they are all to happy to bomb the living sh*t out of the country. Ohh... and of course Guantanamo Bay, how I despise what the U.S. does down there....


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey da_jonesy,

There is certainly a lot more that could be done for families in this country. As I have two daughters ( a 3 year old and a 3 month old) I would directly benefit from a national child care programme... the cost of caring for them when my wife returns to work is big concern for us. However, such a programme would take time to develop and be very expensive. I would much rather see some tax reform so that families raising children got some money back (or subsidies in the case of the poor) which they could spend in the way they choose to be best. That could mean daycare or it could allow one of the parents to stay home or both parents to reduce their work hours or anything else they deem appropriate.

MACSPECTRUM,

I'm a more conservative thinker than you but I would cautiously lean towards unicameralism as well. It's still the exception in the democratic world but the Scandinavians nations adopted it and our role model could be New Zealand who inherited a similar government structure to us but went unicameral in 1951.

Here is an interesting page with a map of unicameral countries... in addition to these countries, the US state of Nebraska is also unicameral.

Web Page on Unicameralism


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

*A failure to understand what "The Crown" means*

After reading this (and that other thread) it occurs to me that many of you fail to really understand what "The Crown" means in a Canadian context. 

While The Crown represents the commons, it represent us as a society, By pledging allegiance to the crown you are pledging alegiance to Canadian society in general (much in the same way that Americans pledge allegiance to the flag). The Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedom tells us that our rights are granted by The Crown. When you understand that "The Crown" represent us, our society, then you understand what it means to be Canadian.

We are not ruled by any one person or family... to think that is foolishness. We are ruled by ourselves. The Crown is who we are.


----------



## eatr (May 1, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> There is certainly a lot more that could be done for families in this country. As I have two daughters ( a 3 year old and a 3 month old) I would directly benefit from a national child care programme... the cost of caring for them when my wife returns to work is big concern for us. However, such a programme would take time to develop and be very expensive. I would much rather see some tax reform so that families raising children got some money back (or subsidies in the case of the poor) which they could spend in the way they choose to be best. That could mean daycare or it could allow one of the parents to stay home or both parents to reduce their work hours or anything else they deem appropriate.


While your solution may be a viable alternative, a national childcare programme would be much better. A national childcare programme would open up more job opportunities for the unemployed and increasing our workforces, thereby stimulating our economy, while your solution would actually do the opposite. Actually reducing the workforce since many people would choose to stay home as opposed to work.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah that is just great, and what about the working poor? those people who survive paycheck to paycheck? Those people who don't qualify for assistance? Those people that work a minimum wage job only to see half of a days wages eaten up by child care costs.
> 
> For shame on anyone who doesn't support a national childcare program. As it is we have a declining population growth rate. In this situation you do one of two things... you encourage more immigration or you encourage people to have more children. Why do you think parental leave in Canada is 12 months while it is 6 weeks in the US? You clearly do not understand the long term economic impact of the situation Canada is in.


Where in my postings did I disagree with the end goal that you are trying to achieve? If you take a minute to think about this, you will realize that I support childcare.  You second paragraph makes no sense in this context.

My point of disagreement is with how to deliver the service. I don't agree with creating more bureaucracy. It simply isn't necessary. What part of subsidy do you not understand? I am not suggesting that anybody should be excluded from accessing such a service.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> You guys that write this stuff are the MOST UN Canadian people going. Seriously if you do not like they way this country has been founded... If you do not agree with our Charter of Rights and Freedom then there is the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out.


What a stupid statement. Believe it or not, Canadians are allowed to have divergent opinions on issues. Wanting an efficient and effective government is far from being UN-Canadian. The reason many of us want to see change is because we love our country.

I guess in your world we should be living in the 1880's. Let's get rid of taxes, health care, equal rights, etc.... If it wasn't for people wanting to make changes, these things would never have happened. This is no different than wanting to turf the GG and changing the Senate. 

Quit being so paranoid. How does changing our government somehow take away from our identity and cause some kind of union with the US? Wierd....


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Eatr,



> While your solution may be a viable alternative, a national childcare programme would be much better. A national childcare programme would open up more job opportunities for the unemployed and increasing our workforces, thereby stimulating our economy, while your solution would actually do the opposite. Actually reducing the workforce since many people would choose to stay home as opposed to work.


I completely disagree with you. The worst way to try to stimulate the economy would be to create a huge, new programme and the bureaucracy to go with it... paid for by removing money from the economy through taxation.

On a personal note, if someone is unable to get a job in the current economic climate, I certainly don't want them looking after my kids...


----------



## eatr (May 1, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Hi Eatr,
> I completely disagree with you. The worst way to try to stimulate the economy would be to create a huge, new programme and the bureaucracy to go with it... paid for by removing money from the economy through taxation.


I didn't say that this would be the best way to stimulate the economy, just that it would. Plus, your tax cuts/subsidaries would have to be paid too, which would mean taxation or increased national debt.



Fink-Nottle said:


> On a personal note, if someone is unable to get a job in the current economic climate, I certainly don't want them looking after my kids...


Really? Are you aware that the majority of unemployed people are hard-working and are only unemployed because their company went bankrupt/downsized. The vast majority of these people are not "creeps" but are actually stuck in this situation and are not able to find jobs in the areas they are qualified in.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Eatr,

Either programme has to be paid for... but I'd rather put the money in the hands of the people who we want to help rather than the government.



> Really? Are you aware that the majority of unemployed people are hard-working and are only unemployed because their company went bankrupt/downsized. The vast majority of these people are not "creeps" but are actually stuck in this situation and are not able to find jobs in the areas they are qualified in.


Those are platitudes that I doubt you can back up with facts. In any case, I didn't say unemployed people were "creeps"... almost everyone has been unemployed at some point. Currently though the general unemployment rate is very low and the unemployment rate for anyone involved in childcare has to be close to zero, at least here in Toronto. We don't need a programme to make work for people and if we did, looking after my children would not be one I would choose.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> What a stupid statement. Believe it or not, Canadians are allowed to have divergent opinions on issues. Wanting an efficient and effective government is far from being UN-Canadian. The reason many of us want to see change is because we love our country.


What country are you talking about? Speak of stupidity... a country is comprised of the institutions, society and people that make it up. You remove the institutions you change the nature of the country. 

I'll go so far to say that calling for the removal of The Crown and the GG is most likely treasonus (I'm sure that there is some obscure sedition law around that states that).

That's a funny way to love a country by wanting to remove those institutions that make us unique. Canada is a fragile balance... clearly you don't realize that. You pull at one string of the fabric of our society and every comes apart. That is exactly what Harper is doing by siding with the seperatists. Stronach saw it for what it is.

That's a pretty tough love kind of approach to your country... I hope you don't abuse your pets and children too.

Clearly you are not in favour of our institutions



Vandave said:


> I guess in your world we should be living in the 1880's. Let's get rid of taxes, health care, equal rights, etc.... If it wasn't for people wanting to make changes, these things would never have happened. This is no different than wanting to turf the GG and changing the Senate.


In the Canadian context removal of the GG and Senate is tantamount to the destruction of the country as we know and love it. Reforming the Senate and putting fiscal controls on the office of the GG is one thing, their removal is something else entirely. I'm sorry that your are so dense as to not recognize the difference.



Vandave said:


> Quit being so paranoid. How does changing our government somehow take away from our identity and cause some kind of union with the US? Wierd....


It's not paranoid... assimilation/integration of Canada and Mexico is a very real thought moving through certain circles in neo conservative movement.

Canada at best is a loose federation of provinces. You start to mess with the constitution and/or seperatist you will quickly see how fast Canada as a country falls apart. The provinces have nowhere else to go but to join the US.

What amazes me is how you don't see that. That is the same attitude that will drive Quebec to leave... not respecting the institutions of Canada is no better than the seperatists.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Where in my postings did I disagree with the end goal that you are trying to achieve? If you take a minute to think about this, you will realize that I support childcare. You second paragraph makes no sense in this context.


If you don't understand my second paragraph then you don't understand the issue at all. The national childcare program is just one more thing that encourages people to have more children. In a western context more children means an increasing popluation base. An increasing population base means economic growth (at least in a western societal context).

A national childcare program is the best way to solve this issue. Tax incentives only help the upper middle class and above. They do nothing to help middle to lower middle class and below. Subsidies may work as an alternative, however individual subsidies (just like UI) are more likely to be abused than a national program.



Vandave said:


> My point of disagreement is with how to deliver the service. I don't agree with creating more bureaucracy. It simply isn't necessary. What part of subsidy do you not understand? I am not suggesting that anybody should be excluded from accessing such a service.



It is very necessary, very much so infact. As I pointed out above, subsidies are more prone to abuse than a nationally mandated program.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> What country are you talking about? Speak of stupidity... a country is comprised of the institutions, society and people that make it up. You remove the institutions you change the nature of the country.


No #$%^. By definition, change is designed to cause change.



da_jonesy said:


> I'll go so far to say that calling for the removal of The Crown and the GG is most likely treasonus (I'm sure that there is some obscure sedition law around that states that).


We also used to have laws about women, natives and non-land owners not being able to vote. Were those good laws, or did society advance between Confederation and present day? 



da_jonesy said:


> That's a funny way to love a country by wanting to remove those institutions that make us unique. Canada is a fragile balance... clearly you don't realize that. You pull at one string of the fabric of our society and every comes apart. That is exactly what Harper is doing by siding with the seperatists. Stronach saw it for what it is.


So being unique is your end goal with our institutions. That's a great goal to set. Here's a better idea.... Why not have all our Parliamentarians dress up in clown suits, or better yet, dress like Beavers? Think about how unique and Canadian that would be. 

How you make the link to our country falling apart and changing the Senate and GG makes no sense at all. Please explain. Most Canadians do not give a rats ass about our Senate or GG. Most Canadians couldn't name a single Senator. Only a small percentage could probably name the GG. But somehow in your head, our whole country would crack at the seams if we lost these institutions. The lack of Hockey Night in Canada last year is a greater loss than the Senate or GG would ever be to the average Canuck.



da_jonesy said:


> That's a pretty tough love kind of approach to your country... I hope you don't abuse your pets and children too.


Ya.....OK.... I don't even know why I bother to discuss things with you. If a person is incapable of formulating a clear line of thought, there is no point is presenting a logical argument. 



da_jonesy said:


> Clearly you are not in favour of our institutions


I am in favour of most of our institutions. I take exception to our Senate, GG and other patronage positions. These institutions are inherently corrupt in my opinion and should be changed (in the case of the Senate) or eliminated (in the case of the GG). I realize the Queen is our head of state and the GG her representative. We can keep the head of state, but we should replace her representative with something more Canadian which doesn't cost a lot of money. It could be a volunteer position that retired MPs, Senators or judges do for free. That kind of matches our so called "egalitarian" society a little better, non?



da_jonesy said:


> Canada at best is a loose federation of provinces. You start to mess with the constitution and/or seperatist you will quickly see how fast Canada as a country falls apart.


Of course we are a loose federation of provinces. That was the whole concept of Confederation. We are a very large and diverse country and the original idea was that the provinces held the most power. But now we have a situation where the feds intrude on all sorts of areas that are of provincial jurisdiction. For instance, for homeless shelters in Vancouver we have 3 levels of government that have to make a decision. We end up creating three of four levels of bureaucracy to actually cause an effect on the ground. This is lunacy in my opinion. One level of government should deliver the service. That way more money goes to those who need it and taxpayers can hold that level of government responsible. If we want equality for all provinces, fine... I can live with that. The feds can rebalance things with transfer payments. Just stay out of the decision making for provincial matters. If anyone doesn't follow our Constitution, its the feds.


----------



## eatr (May 1, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Hi Eatr,
> 
> Either programme has to be paid for... but I'd rather put the money in the hands of the people who we want to help rather than the government.


I would rather put the money in the hands of the government because then the government could distribute the money as the need arises. 



Those are platitudes that I doubt you can back up with facts. In any case, I didn't say unemployed people were "creeps"... almost everyone has been unemployed at some point. Currently though the general unemployment rate is very low and the unemployment rate for anyone involved in childcare has to be close to zero, at least here in Toronto. We don't need a programme to make work for people and if we did, looking after my children would not be one I would choose.[/QUOTE]
It may not be one you would choose but it is a programme that is needed in our society.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> I would rather put the money in the hands of the government because then the government could distribute the money as the need arises.


Sure...why not give the government all our money and let them allocate it according to what it thinks our needs are? I'm sure they know better than me what I need...


----------



## eatr (May 1, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Sure...why not give the government all our money and let them allocate it according to what it thinks our needs are? I'm sure they know better than me what I need...


Then what is the government there for in the first place? Why don't we all spend our money the way we want, and not pay any taxes?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What is an election??? That's when we vote to replace the "none too good" with the "not too bad"................or is the other way around???


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> No #$%^. By definition, change is designed to cause change.


Did you have a point you were trying to make here? because you certainly missed mine. What is so worng with one of the best countries in the world to live in that you want to change the fundamental way in which it is organized and governed? Canada IS the model be which other countries aspire to. You don't get it do you.



Vandave said:


> We also used to have laws about women, natives and non-land owners not being able to vote. Were those good laws, or did society advance between Confederation and present day?


We aren't talking about changing voting laws... there is no comparison. The Consitution and Charter are explicit documents. You want to throw out institutions enshrined in our founding documents because they don't suit you?



Vandave said:


> So being unique is your end goal with our institutions. That's a great goal to set. Here's a better idea.... Why not have all our Parliamentarians dress up in clown suits, or better yet, dress like Beavers? Think about how unique and Canadian that would be.


Now who is being stupid? You really don't think that in this media age that Canadians need to identify themselves in some way? Look if Canadians do not differentiate themselves than you are basically saying that we might as well sign on as 13 more states.




Vandave said:


> How you make the link to our country falling apart and changing the Senate and GG makes no sense at all. Please explain. Most Canadians do not give a rats ass about our Senate or GG. Most Canadians couldn't name a single Senator. Only a small percentage could probably name the GG. But somehow in your head, our whole country would crack at the seams if we lost these institutions. The lack of Hockey Night in Canada last year is a greater loss than the Senate or GG would ever be to the average Canuck.


It is very simple... you open the Constitution and the Charter to make two changes... where does it stop. Why do you think Meech-Lake failed? We have precidence in that whole situation as to why you do not want to mess with the Constitution and Charter.



Vandave said:


> Ya.....OK.... I don't even know why I bother to discuss things with you. If a person is incapable of formulating a clear line of thought, there is no point is presenting a logical argument.


But you aren't formulating a clear line of thought... your arguements are based on completely irrational notions that you are disgruntled with the office of the GG and the Senate... so we should just get rid of them.



Vandave said:


> I am in favour of most of our institutions. I take exception to our Senate, GG and other patronage positions. These institutions are inherently corrupt in my opinion and should be changed (in the case of the Senate) or eliminated (in the case of the GG). I realize the Queen is our head of state and the GG her representative. We can keep the head of state, but we should replace her representative with something more Canadian which doesn't cost a lot of money. It could be a volunteer position that retired MPs, Senators or judges do for free. That kind of matches our so called "egalitarian" society a little better, non?


Now you are talking... reforming the Senate and the office of the GG is something that makes sense. Abolishing them does not. I like some of those ideas of making the office a voluntary position... And senators and the GG do not need a salary IMHO. if you have made it to the senate you are probably well enough off as it is.



Vandave said:


> Of course we are a loose federation of provinces. That was the whole concept of Confederation. We are a very large and diverse country and the original idea was that the provinces held the most power. But now we have a situation where the feds intrude on all sorts of areas that are of provincial jurisdiction. For instance, for homeless shelters in Vancouver we have 3 levels of government that have to make a decision. We end up creating three of four levels of bureaucracy to actually cause an effect on the ground. This is lunacy in my opinion. One level of government should deliver the service. That way more money goes to those who need it and taxpayers can hold that level of government responsible. If we want equality for all provinces, fine... I can live with that. The feds can rebalance things with transfer payments. Just stay out of the decision making for provincial matters. If anyone doesn't follow our Constitution, its the feds.


[/QUOTE]

I don't know what to say to this as I am a staunchly in favour of a strong federal system of government. I certainly have not been following what has been going on in Vancouver when it comes to homeless shelters.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Then what is the government there for in the first place? Why don't we all spend our money the way we want, and not pay any taxes?


I think we're both being facetious here... neither of us (I think) want to see a country with no government or a totaliatarian government. At a very basic level, I suspect we can agree that government exists to provide certain services for the common good of the people in a state. These services include protecting the people, ensuring resources aren't squandered and providing health care, education and other basic needs.

Where we differ is defining those basic needs, and in our belief in how the state should intervene. I believe that it is in everybody interests for children to be well fed, educated and brought up... and that providing some assistance to those who raise children is therefore good government policy. However, creating a large childcare programme is bad for several reasons:

1. Rather than empowering those who raise children, it pushes them towards joining the workforce and leaving their kids in care. There are many people who might otherwise choose other options... reducing their hours, taking parental leave etc. I think it is a bad thing to favour one outcome over the others... this should not be a social engineering opportunity. For young infants too (under the age of 2), the studies are quite clear they are best off with the personal attention (including nursing) that their parent/s can provide. 

2. We would be creating a huge new structure and bureacracy that would be very expensive.

3. Most independent child care centres would fold or join the government programme. Furthermore, is is likely (if we follow how the school system works) that parent would not be able to choose which government daycare centre their kids attended. Both of those things reduce choice.

I hope that the government does something for families that gives them more options rather than deciding things for them.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Wow, if there was ever a thread where people needed to agree to disagree.....


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> Wow, if there was ever a thread where people needed to agree to disagree.....


I completely disagree with that statement.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)




----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, we are again in total agreement re getting rid of the GG along with the Senate.


How about just replacing the GG and the Senate with computer programs implementing similar functionality. Shouldn't be too hard. Computers are always sober and respectful of authority. Well, Macs are, at any rate.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

*Canada IS the model be which other countries aspire to.*

Please name some of these countries which aspire to the Canadian model.

While this kind of bubbly nonsense is readily spouted off by our "leaders" and seems to be generally popular in North America, regurgitating "we are number one" doesn't make it so.

Maybe some people in Burkina Faso feel like emulating Canada, but certainly no one in the EU. Where Canada is somewhat of a laughing stock.

I completely agree with MacSpectrum. Let's get rid of the figureheads. The path to establishing self identity lies not in dependency on stale traditions and the leftovers of British imperialism but in moving forwards.

The people of Canada do not need inbred German aristocracy to represent us, even in a symbolic sense. Vielen dank und here's der door.


iGee/<


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Did you have a point you were trying to make here? because you certainly missed mine. What is so worng with one of the best countries in the world to live in that you want to change the fundamental way in which it is organized and governed? Canada IS the model be which other countries aspire to. You don't get it do you.


Get over it. Enough with the, "ra, ra... we are the best country in the world." Nobody wants to hear that crap. We have a great country, let's just leave it at that. We can definately make it even better if we wanted to. Look at successful people in this world. They don't stop when they have done well or make it to the top. They keep going. Why shouldn't we?



da_jonesy said:


> We aren't talking about changing voting laws... there is no comparison. The Consitution and Charter are explicit documents. You want to throw out institutions enshrined in our founding documents because they don't suit you?


Was the Charter not an amendment to the Constitution? I am not advocating throwing out the Constitution or Charter. I am advocating change to our Constitution. 



da_jonesy said:


> Now who is being stupid? You really don't think that in this media age that Canadians need to identify themselves in some way? Look if Canadians do not differentiate themselves than you are basically saying that we might as well sign on as 13 more states.


You can't force identity. We are different than the Yanks, that's just the way it is and always will be. I don't care about the media. Let people decide who they want to be, not the CBC or Liberal party.



da_jonesy said:


> But you aren't formulating a clear line of thought... your arguements are based on completely irrational notions that you are disgruntled with the office of the GG and the Senate... so we should just get rid of them.


Damn rights I am disgruntled. We are being ripped off. Our federal system is a scam. But I guess since Ottawa has always been corrupt, we might as well stick with it. Sometimes countries get Constitutions and Charters wrong. I can imagine arguing with somebody like you if I was in Soviet Russia. "Our system is perfect....you can't change it..... voting for one party is good....."




da_jonesy said:


> I don't know what to say to this as I am a staunchly in favour of a strong federal system of government. I certainly have not been following what has been going on in Vancouver when it comes to homeless shelters.


I'm staunchly in favour of not being an ideologue. I will support what works the best for most people and advances our country. Three levels of government administering the same thing is clearly a waste of much needed resources. It's not just Vancouver, it also happens in your town as well. And its not just homeless shelters, it's a lot of things (health care, education, transportation, environmental laws, etc...). 

You guessed my status correctly earlier. I will bet that you don't deal with the government much so you don't see these things first hand all that much.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey iGeek,


> Maybe some people in Burkina Faso feel like emulating Canada, but certainly no one in the EU. Where Canada is somewhat of a laughing stock.


That's rubbish... I know many Europeans who have great admiration for our society. We often overplay our multicultural credentials, but the truth remains that our great cities are symphonies of distinct races, cultures and religions, all playing together in a manner that many European and American cities can only dream about. We have serious problems to address but we're no laughing stock, and we matter on a global scale.

Like it or not too, our country is a product of British imperialism. The insititutions are far from stale, in fact the strength of our unwritten consititution is its ability to adapt to new realities. The Americans replaced the king with a president and then locked down their constitution two hundred years ago, France and Germany and Italy have had multiple republics, but the British and Canadian parliamentary systems have enjoyed unbroken continuity. I would like to see us work towards replacing the monarchy, but a far more immediate goal should be a STV or some other form of PR. I'd rather have an accountable parliament that an accountable head of state.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iGeeK said:


> Please name some of these countries which aspire to the Canadian model.


Depending on the who is doing the rating Canada lies between 3 and 14 so we are definitely in the top 20 in terms of quality of life. So I would guess the hundred or so countries we are ahead of would want to catch up... Unless of course you think that farming dirt and getting Malaria are fun things to do.... seriously what were you thinking?



iGeeK said:


> I completely agree with MacSpectrum. Let's get rid of the figureheads. The path to establishing self identity lies not in dependency on stale traditions and the leftovers of British imperialism but in moving forwards.


Sorry... you should have read my post on what "The Crown" really means to Canada. To Canada, getting rid of "The Crown" would be akin to asking Americans to get rid of the flag.

Stale traditions have given us a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the envy of the world. I'm sorry you are so blind you cannot see that.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

*That's rubbish... I know many Europeans who have great admiration for our society.*

No, it isn't. I have just returned from UK and Germany, where I have heard many Canadian jokes. Not that I will ever take the Canadian flag off my backpack, but listening to all these japes got slightly annoying after a while.

*but the truth remains that our great cities are symphonies of distinct races, cultures and religions, all playing together in a manner that many European and American cities can only dream about.*

It is a fragile balance which can easily get out of whack. Recent outbreaks of anti-semitic sentiment easily demonstrate cacophonous notes in this great symphony of ours. And just ask some Mohawks how comfy they feel in a country that will send tanks to defend a golf course being built on their sacred burial grounds.

Before we start patting ourselves on our backs, there are many things that need fixing.

iGee/<


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Get over it. Enough with the, "ra, ra... we are the best country in the world." Nobody wants to hear that crap. We have a great country, let's just leave it at that. We can definately make it even better if we wanted to. Look at successful people in this world. They don't stop when they have done well or make it to the top. They keep going. Why shouldn't we?


It's not about making it to the top... usually when people make their way to the top it is on the backs of others. Canada is one of the best countries because we understand what it means to be fair and just in terms of a society. 

It's not crap, we have to work at it... and it costs all of us.




Vandave said:


> Was the Charter not an amendment to the Constitution? I am not advocating throwing out the Constitution or Charter. I am advocating change to our Constitution.


And look what happened the last time we tried changing things with Meech Lake. Nobody wants to go through that again. I think you are better off trying to sell me on reforming the senate and the office of the GG to make them voluntary positions.




Vandave said:


> You can't force identity. We are different than the Yanks, that's just the way it is and always will be. I don't care about the media. Let people decide who they want to be, not the CBC or Liberal party.


Well that is plain foolishness... Congratulations that attitude will speed us toward the beige distopian globalized culture of bland land... where corporations and lobbyists define the public agenda. 

Culture is a defining thing for societies... You must work at preserving it, failure to do so results in the loss of culture. In our case the loss of our culture means the loss of our society plain and simple.




Vandave said:


> Damn rights I am disgruntled. We are being ripped off. Our federal system is a scam. But I guess since Ottawa has always been corrupt, we might as well stick with it. Sometimes countries get Constitutions and Charters wrong. I can imagine arguing with somebody like you if I was in Soviet Russia. "Our system is perfect....you can't change it..... voting for one party is good....."


You really think that our country's system of government is tantamount to a Soviet style totalitarian system? I find this comparison insulting. It is barely above hate mongering.





Vandave said:


> You guessed my status correctly earlier. I will bet that you don't deal with the government much so you don't see these things first hand all that much.


Hey blow it out your @**. I said I do not know anything of the situation you mentioned in Vancouver. You can presume what you want... you'll still be wrong. Decentralized government, based in three tiers works best. You can't have reasonable government unless there are bodies prepared to work at a local/regional, provincial and federal level. 

At issue is not that we have three tiers of government but how tax funds are allocated amongst those tiers. I've worked with government at all levels, and I can safely say that local/regional government is where things are the most out of control. The way that developers work with local planning departments and city councils makes the Gomery stuff look like peanuts.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iGeeK said:


> Before we start patting ourselves on our backs, there are many things that need fixing.


And so you really think that changing our national symbols (like the Senate and the Office of the GG) are the things that will solve these problems? If you do then you really do NOT know what the true problems are, do you?


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

*Stale traditions have given us a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the envy of the world. I'm sorry you are so blind you cannot see that.*

There you go again, banging the tin drum. Here's some news for you: this world you keep mentioning isn't at all envious of Canada. That's the party line, not the reality.

*Depending on the who is doing the rating Canada lies between 3 and 14*

3? That's delusional. Hmmm... Let's ask some of the plentiful homeless how they would rate quality of life in Canada. Yes, some people have it pretty groovy here. Hooray for them. 

*Sorry... you should have read my post on what "The Crown" really means to Canada.*

I understand the concept of The Crown fairly well without the need to read your interpretation. If the Crown is indeed the Commons, the we need no Saxe-Coburg-Gothas to come here once every couple years to wave their limp hands at us and disrupt the traffic.

iGee/<


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

*And so you really think that changing our national symbols (like the Senate and the Office of the GG) are the things that will solve these problems? If you do then you really do NOT know what the true problems are, do you?*

You were apparently so busy reading between the lines that you haven't read the lines. Where did I suggest that getting rid of the figureheads is the solution to the problems?

It would certainly eliminate some of the needless expense, though. Maybe there would be a few bucks to spare for the National Childcare program, eh? ;D

Yeah, I can see the true problems. I see my city slowly transforming into Bombay, as more and more people sleep on the streets, and not because the weather is getting warmer.

iGee/<


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

*Unless of course you think that farming dirt and getting Malaria are fun things to do.... seriously what were you thinking?*

Seriously... What exactly do you mean by the above?

Malaria, unlike complacency, is not endemic in Canada. So that's somehow an accomplishment that we ought to be proud of? Since _Plasmodium falciparum_ is becoming more and more drug resistant and there is an increase of imported malaria in North America we may yet see how well we can deal with it in the future. As well as with SARS and the West Nile virus? Because that was damn impressive.

Hmmmm? Farming dirt? I know a lot of people who do that in Canada. Maybe in Grimsby it's all hi-tech hydroponics and stuff, but elsewhere we still get mud on our shoes when we dig up taters...

iGee/<


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

<i> --> but certainly no one in the EU. Where Canada is somewhat of a laughing stock.</i>

Sorry, but the EU countries are *hardly* in a position to be too smug these days about what constitutes a workable <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3204333">political union</a>.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

*Sorry, but the EU countries are *hardly* in a position to be too smug these days about what constitutes a workable political union*

That's besides the point. I will be the first to agree that EU has many problems, I was not setting it up as an example to follow, merely mentioning that there are a lot of Canuck jokes in circulation there. As for individual EU countries, even some of the new members could teach us a few things about "quality of life". 

BTW, European Union is how old? The bare beginning was the European Coal and Steel Community (1951). I'd expect EU to have a fair share of growing pains.

iGee/<


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iGeeK said:


> There you go again, banging the tin drum. Here's some news for you: this world you keep mentioning isn't at all envious of Canada. That's the party line, not the reality.


Dude... what world do you live in? Open your eyes. Get out and live a little with some people of other cultures buddy and get it straight from them. Why is immigration at an all time high? Why are Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal some of the most diverse cities in the World? 



iGeeK said:


> 3? That's delusional. Hmmm... Let's ask some of the plentiful homeless how they would rate quality of life in Canada. Yes, some people have it pretty groovy here. Hooray for them.


That problem has been around for a while... And it won't go away. Thanks to some terrible decisions at the regional level in Toronto the problem has been exacerbated in recent years. Not to mention that the solution to this problem from the smaller cities is simple to put the homeless on a bus to Toronto. And the fact that homelessness is an issue mired in many other social problems such a substance abuse, a pathetic minimum wage and lack of affordable housing.

Getting rid of the Senate or the office of the GG will not solve homelessness, I've already agreed that the Senate and GG should be reformed, that they do not need to be paid positions, but getting rid of them does nothing to solve any problem but the vanity of certain members around here.



iGeeK said:


> I understand the concept of The Crown fairly well without the need to read your interpretation. If the Crown is indeed the Commons, the we need no Saxe-Coburg-Gothas to come here once every couple years to wave their limp hands at us and disrupt the traffic.


I could care less when they show up as well (although I do think it is kind of cool when they do)... but the founding documents of Canada are quite clear that "The Crown" represents the essence of what in means to be Canadian.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iGeeK said:


> You were apparently so busy reading between the lines that you haven't read the lines. Where did I suggest that getting rid of the figureheads is the solution to the problems?


Then what is your issue? What are squawking about? Your poor attempts at putting down my claims that Canada is a country that others aspire to model themselves is rooted from your belief that the Senate and the Office of the GG somehow are the basis of the problem.



iGeeK said:


> Yeah, I can see the true problems. I see my city slowly transforming into Bombay, as more and more people sleep on the streets, and not because the weather is getting warmer.


Homelessness is a huge issue... it needs to be addressed. Canada has one of the harshest environments in the world, that we cannot house all of citizens is disgraceful. 

I know people that are heavily involved in bring social justice/equality issues to the forefront in the GTA. On several occasions their protests were brutally dealt with by the Toronto Police department.

I can safely tell you that this IS a huge issue. So why aren't we working to fix it? It is a problem. It affects people lives in very real ways. 

The fact that the seat of government lies in a Senate and a mostly symbolic office of the GG is not a problem. Don't you think?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iGeeK said:


> Seriously... What exactly do you mean by the above?
> 
> Malaria, unlike complacency, is not endemic in Canada. So that's somehow an accomplishment that we ought to be proud of? Since _Plasmodium falciparum_ is becoming more and more drug resistant and there is an increase of imported malaria in North America we may yet see how well we can deal with it in the future. As well as with SARS and the West Nile virus? Because that was damn impressive.


Malaria is the exact example. It is easily treated with medication that costs pennies. If it ever made it's way to Canada it would easily be dealt with. Unlike other countries in Sub Saharan Africa where Malaria is a systemic killer. 

Or for that matter AIDS... what's the survival rate (life expectancy) in Canada as compared to most African countries.

My point, that you so clearly can not comprehend is that Canada is in the envious position of having a universal health care available to ALL Canadians. How many countries can claim that?



iGeeK said:


> Hmmmm? Farming dirt? I know a lot of people who do that in Canada. Maybe in Grimsby it's all hi-tech hydroponics and stuff, but elsewhere we still get mud on our shoes when we dig up taters...


Farming dirt... as in reference to not being able to grow any crops whatsoever, or haven't you been following the famine that consistently plagues Africa.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iGeeK said:


> That's besides the point. I will be the first to agree that EU has many problems, I was not setting it up as an example to follow, merely mentioning that there are a lot of Canuck jokes in circulation there. As for individual EU countries, even some of the new members could teach us a few things about "quality of life".


I'm sorry but I have been to the UK, Sweden, Luxembourg, Italy, France and Spain and I can tell you that Canada is held in nothing but plain and simple respect. I work for a US company and my colleagues in Europe would much rather work with me than the folks in the US (from whom they've many a joke about). My personal experience is exactly the opposite of your in terms of anecdotal "jokes" about Canada, I have never heard or experience that in my travels.

I agree that EU cities can teach us a great many things (like how to do Public Transportation right), but that being said the comparative costs for food, housing and transportation clearly gives us the edge over them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> There you go again, banging the tin drum. Here's some news for you: this world you keep mentioning isn't at all envious of Canada. That's the party line, not the reality


*There are about 6 billion people on the planet that want desperately what we take for granted.*
Something I remind my daughter of.

That number will rise to about 8.5 billion in the next 30 years.
We've done okay in producing a relatively harmonious multi-cultural base but we also have done with enormous natural wealth at our fingertips.

How we handle the pressures of an over crowded and increasingly resources stressed planet will test our mettle and our institutions.

Senate and GG issues are ridiculous arguing points given the real issues confronting Canada and the planet......how to get through the next 50 years with any sort of "civilization" intact.......anywhere.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> *There are about 6 billion people on the planet that want desperately what we take for granted.*
> Something I remind my daughter of.
> 
> That number will rise to about 8.5 billion in the next 30 years.
> ...


Thank you... my point exactly.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> I predict that he is busy with his water business, his yacht and drag racing. Nothing of a sinister nature.


Pretty perceptive, Marc. And _BUSY_ doesn't even come close to describing what I've been, these last few weeks. It looks like I'll be pretty busy for most of the summer as well. But I'll try to check in here once in a while.

I did just that today, when I heard the news about Apple going with Intel chips. I knew that I could depend on some of the brighter lights here at ehmac to make some sense of out of this rather earth shaking news. I was not dissapointed, either. After reading quite a few of the replies on the big forum, I have come to the conclusion that this may actually be the best news in a long time. And that the Apple OS may now have a real shot at a very large chunk of the Microsoft market.

Steve Jobs is NOT to be underestimated. He is a chess player par excellence...and this is not the first time he has shaken up or re-directed the whole techno world. I'm with macdoc on this one....this is likely to be the BEST news in years for the Mac faithful. (You see? We DO agree on some things. Once in a while) 

As for the now-derailed subject of this thread?

#1-I was long gone from this forum, and busy elsewhere.....well before the now famous "crossing of the floor" ever took place. Check the record.

#2-My travels take me north and south (wayyy south sometimes). Not east and west. As far as I can recall, I haven't actually been to Ottawa for at least a decade. That's my story, and I'm stickin to it.

#3-Belinda who?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here's a link that might explain some of what I've been doing this summer season. At least on weekends....


http://www.dragbike.com/dbnews/templates/team_template.asp?articleid=1208&zo


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Dirt bike racing in drag?!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No Doug. Drag racing in the dirt. There is a difference.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Here's a link that might explain some of what I've been doing this summer season. At least on weekends....
> 
> 
> http://www.dragbike.com/dbnews/templates/team_template.asp?articleid=1208&zo


Did you write the article by any chance?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes, Vandave. And I also took the photos. That's my job on the Mental Racing TOP FUEL team...and has been, for about twelve years now.

It's also my job to stand out at the end of the strip and stay there, shooting video, as the Nitro Bike hurtles by, barely in control, about three feet away from my left elbow. (There have been several near misses...but I'm still here).

I also regularly stick my cameras into the faces of a bunch of haywire hard core biker types and record for all time their thoughts and words and actions. I've even made a very popular movie out of some of this footage.

And some might tell you that this is even MORE dangerous than standing right beside a hurtling Nitro Bike at full speed and under full boost at the end of a hot run. While it's totally sideways.

But I'm still here.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> But I'm still here.....


Oh the agony, or is it irony?


Nice to see you are still alive.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Yes, Vandave. And I also took the photos. That's my job on the Mental Racing TOP FUEL team...and has been, for about twelve years now.
> 
> It's also my job to stand out at the end of the strip and stay there, shooting video, as the Nitro Bike hurtles by, barely in control, about three feet away from my left elbow. (There have been several near misses...but I'm still here).
> 
> ...


I figured it was your writing. What movie did your footage make? 

The best motocycle documentary I have seen is still "On any Given Sunday". Have you seen "Faster" yet (I have it on DVD)? I want to see "Long Way Round" with Ewan McGregor.

Can you tell I'm a motorcycle nut?

Feel free to check out some of my vids.

http://davelana.smugmug.com/gallery/484476


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Oh the agony, or is it irony?
> 
> 
> Nice to see you are still alive.


Actually...I feel that I'm much more "alive" than most people. I love what I do. The mortal danger and the rush just make life that much sweeter. 

Trust me on this.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Welcome back Macnutt. It has been so boring here without you.

When I was in SS I tried to call you, but you were gone. Even drove out to your "ranch" to maybe catch you there, but no luck there either. 

My luck wasn't any better in Calgary as I sat in the airport for three hours, not knowing anyone's phone number and it was the wrong date to join Sinc, Chealion and the others for a quick beer. Then there was the ehMac get-together at Yorkdale, but we won't go into that.

Oh, what was this thread about anyway, Belinda, Belinda who?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I quit reading this thread because I thought you were still talking about Belinda Who and now I find out that MacNutt is back and he's a biker!

Wow!

Be still my heart!

Margaret


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Winwintoo...I just tried to upload a photo from a few years back of me on my last big bike. I guess it didn't take, tho. Or I couldn't find it. I'm hopeless at this stuff.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Keep looking for it, I'd love to see it!!

My late husband only took up riding after we parted and even though we remained on good terms I had few opportunities to ride with him. I envy anyone free enough to take to the road on a bike. If I was 20 years younger, I'd buy you another big bike and have you drive me across country on it    

Margaret


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If I were twenty years younger, I'd probably take you up on that, Margaret. 
I may end up buying another bike one day soon. But I need to get some spare time to enjoy it first.

Meanwhile, I get my motorcycle "fix" at the race track. Nitro is a heady brew. I love it!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Speaking of welcomes back, you too lotus. Where have you been?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Holy missing persons batman. We get MacNutt, Lotus AND minnes all in the same day. Cue eerie coincidental music.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

This must be "come home month" at The Shang.


----------



## lotus (Jun 29, 2002)

Carex, all good things come in threes!

I had a quick trip to Salt Spring to see the grandkids in the stage play Mythica. We usually spend a day in Victoria, but this time we didn't have time. Instead we spent a couple of hours in Sydney before my flight back. What's with all the bookstores out there? Don't you guys have anything to do except read?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> If I were twenty years younger, I'd probably take you up on that, Margaret.
> I may end up buying another bike one day soon. But I need to get some spare time to enjoy it first.
> 
> Meanwhile, I get my motorcycle "fix" at the race track. Nitro is a heady brew. I love it!


My son is visiting for a couple of days. He just returned from Thailand and I couldn't resist posting this picture of his new shirt....

Margaret


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> If I was 20 years younger, I'd buy you another big bike and have you drive me across country on it
> 
> Margaret


So...if the planets align, there's a blue moon, whatever...and you two do get together, someway, somehow...

Who's going to wear the pants in the family?

Just asking... 

PS: Been a long time since I had my ride out in Saskabush, but next time I'm in the neighbourhood, Margaret, I'll call ya, take ya for a spin 'round the block.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

FeXL said:


> So...if the planets align, there's a blue moon, whatever...and you two do get together, someway, somehow...
> 
> Who's going to wear the pants in the family?
> 
> Just asking...


I'm afraid it would have to be a *his pants and hers pants* kind of arrangement. I've been in charge of my own destiny too long to start taking orders  But that doesn't mean I'm not willing to follow worthwhile suggestions.......



FeXL said:


> PS: Been a long time since I had my ride out in Saskabush, but next time I'm in the neighbourhood, Margaret, I'll call ya, take ya for a spin 'round the block.


Please do!

Margaret

PS: Did you read the logo on Sean's t-shirt? ^^^^^


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> I'm afraid it would have to be a *his pants and hers pants* kind of arrangement.


Hmmm...guess I was too subtle (not often I'm accused of that). OK, what w/ Gerry being a kilt wearin' Scot and you being a female and all...  




winwintoo said:


> PS: Did you read the logo on Sean's t-shirt? ^^^^^


No. That is to say, I looked at the image, but I didn't understand it. I've a feeling I'm missing something, tho. I mirrored it and rotated it upside down, no go. OK, I give.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

He just returned from Thailand - does this look familiar? Harley Davidson Moror Cycles in Thai!

Margaret


----------

