Jump to content
Political Forums
  • Announcements

    • Greg

      New Members Please Read   10/07/2016

      New forum members should review the Forum Rules and GuidelinesĀ before contributing to the discussion forums.

Moonbox

Members
  • Content count

    4,072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Moonbox

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Go Leafs Go!

Recent Profile Visitors

12,725 profile views
  1. Remember, just a couple posts ago? Somehow suggesting that our criticism of the Bombardier bailout is exceptional. This isn't a question of "laws". It's a question of horrible policy decisions and pandering to special interests. The only solution here is for voters to get their heads out of their anuses and to hold politicians accountable for these demonstrably awful decisions. The issue here is that pandering is usually bad for the general public interest, but ends up being political gold. The votes you win by handing money over to special interests usually far surpasses the number you lose from informed voters who see it for what it is. Ignorance is the problem. That's why we're talking about Bombardier right now. It's why we talked about ethanol, solar, softwood lumber and other subsidies in the past. It's why we discussed the auto-bailout, at length, back in 2008/2009. Bombardier is the current subject, and it's something worth discussing.
  2. Now we peel away the thin disguise of your "argument", which is the absurd notion that we're being grossly unfair to poor little Bombardier by discussing them specifically. That we're talking about them at all, apparently, is proof of some vendetta we have against them. Just no. Stop being silly. Bombardier is simply a really good example of the underlying problem. Not only is it a large and well-known name, but it's been a chronic offender and a shining example repeated failure. We're throwing good money after bad without changing anything and that's always a bad idea. The worst part of the whole debacle is that the founding family still holds a controlling share of the company despite their demonstrated inability to operate profitably. Corporate subsidies, tax breaks and incentives aren't always a bad thing (though often they are). In Bombardier's case, however, the past and present leadership has proven it can't be trusted or relied on to provide value for taxpayer money. We're putting public money into a company to support and inflate the value of the controlling family's stock, and they're giving up pretty much nothing for it. We're getting fleeced.
  3. but Trudeau is way more likely to mess up without all that big and best stuff, you know? Trump has all the best things. He's got the best people, the best resources, the best experience, the biggest military, the biggest small hands, the best hair and definitely the best words. The job's going to be a cakewalk for him. His administration is a finally-tuned machine firing on all cylinders.
  4. Look up straw-man before you post again please. I don't want to hide it from anyone. I would love to have more public spending accountability. Nobody suggested otherwise anywhere. Stop pretending like someone has. This is juvenile, school-yard logic. The fact that there are problems elsewhere doesn't mean that Bombardier itself isn't a problem and that we shouldn't be discussing it specifically. Your argument is akin to the small child saying, "...but but they all did it toooo!" You see the thread title? It's about Bombardier.
  5. No way. Trump is a bigly man with the incredible ideas. He's got the best ideas. They're great. He also has the most resources behind him - the best resources, and the greatest team in the whole world helping him. His team is great. They're wonderful people and they're going to help him do tremendous things...really yuge things. And by the way, Trumps selected his team based on his experience running a very successful business. He's been very successful, you know? Anyways Trump does have a hard job because he has to deal with China - and he has great respect for China - the greatest respect, but Trudeau doesn't have to solve bigly problems like that. You know, who would you want on your side if China invaded? Mad-dog Mattis, or that guy Harjiit with the silly hat? How can you even fit a helmet under that thing? Ridiculous. totally ridiculous. Look, Trump has a way easier job because he has the best experience and the best people and resources. That makes his job way easier.
  6. Because you're contesting the validity of claims regarding Bombardier's lack thereof. You're also protesting our questioning of repeated Bombardier corporate handouts/welfare, bizarrely implying that we can't discuss it specifically without talking about accountability as a general macro issue. If you extend the logic you're using a little bit further you can see how absurd it is: -How can you demand accountability from federal government and Bombardier without demanding it from corporate Canada across the board? -How can you demand more corporate accountability without demanding more from politicians? -How can you demand more political accountability without demanding more from the public service sector? None of these leaps make any actual sense, and all we really do is expand the envelope and derail the discussion.
  7. What are you even talking about at this point? I'm not even sure you know. This is gobbledygook running off the rails.
  8. Churchill was instrumental in writing the Treaty of Versailles?
  9. Winston Churchill had nothing to do with the rise of Hitler. How do you even link the two? Did Galipoli lead to WW2 or something?
  10. Three of Canada's largest media outlets accept the CTF's figures and publish them on a national scale. That counts for a lot more in terms of credibility than your lame-duck deflecting. Refusing the citations simply because you don't like the source is a cheap and intellectually vacant tactic. There's no doubt that the CTF has a bias, but that they're openly publishing numbers on a national scale that could be easily refuted/challenged if Bombardier were capable of doing so. If I were so inclined, I'm sure I could drag up alternate sources, but there's really no point. You've not provided any sources yourself to dispute any of the claims or citations being made nor have you made any effort to explain how or why they're wrong. All you've managed to do so far is bring up red-herrings and straw-men, directing us to look elsewhere for examples of failed corporate welfare when we're already discussing a current, large and repeated example of it.
  11. If you say so. What about all of the citations from the CBC, GlobeandMail, Financial Post and the Ottawa Sun? Are we pretending they were never linked? If you're going to demand references and citations, at least acknowledge them and/or refute them before you foolishly proceed to say that we have no evidence for what we're saying. The fact is that Bombardier can't and won't explain/prove how much they've paid back and they're working hard to prevent the public from getting this information. It's juvenile logic to ask for evidence that the loan repayments haven't happened, because it's impossible to prove something hasn't happened unless you can prove what has happened. So far we can only prove that a small fraction of the loans have been repaid and any other information is being suppressed for very suspect (and likely very obvious) reasons. Okay perfect. I'm glad we agree. Since the subject of the thread is Bombardier and its apparent lack of accountability, can we now continue to discuss it without further protest? This is a large and obvious present-day/current-event example.
  12. I've provided you with numerous links to confirm exactly what I'm saying. The fact that you chose not to read any of them or to get an idea of what we're talking about isn't my fault. Your argument is straw man. You've invented this idea that we're all perfectly okay with bad corporate welfare initiatives in general and that it's only Bombardier that we have a problem with. That's not the case so let's drop that altogether. This thread is about the current bailout plan for Bombardier and the reasons why and how a lot of us think it's a bad idea. Previous bad ideas do not justify the next bad idea, so stop bringing up the auto or softwood lumber industries as support for the newest Bombardier debacle. If you want to have a general discussion about corporate welfare in Canada, start a thread about that. It's been discussed at length before with many of the same conclusions but I'm sure you'll find takers in a new thread.
  13. Obviously you don't understand what straw-man is. Nobody is saying anything of the sort. Almost everyone here would agree that accountability should apply everywhere including (and here's where we actually get back on top) Bombardier. The reason this story gets more attention than others is because of its scale, size and history. This isn't the first, second or even third time we've handed public money to bail out Bombardier. Their repayment history on previous loans is poor and there's no reason to believe this will change in the future. Continuing on the same path without major changes is pretty much the dictionary definition of insanity.
  14. The First 5

    Hopefully Trump doesn't feel insecure about Trudeau's big mouth though. We have to be careful and acknowledge that Trump's mouth is more bigly. It's a great mouth - the best mouth. He can do wonderful things with his mouth - the best things. It's going to be great.
  15. This is pure straw-man and a wildly diverging segway from the discussion at hand. None of the above has anything to do with the Bombardier handouts or why it's okay for them to hide their their repayment history while continuing to receive corporate welfare. I suppose you thought that poor corporate behavior elsewhere somehow supports Bombardier's position, but that makes no sense whatsoever.
×