Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Newfie Canadian

Members
  • Content Count

    618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Newfie Canadian

  1. According the Gov of Canada website:

    Employment Insurance (EI) provides Regular Benefits to individuals who lose their jobs through no fault of their own (for example, due to shortage of work, seasonal or mass lay-offs) and are available for and able to work, but can't find a job.

    Can a seasonal worker help it if their work is seasonal? The problem a seasonal worker faces is if they are seasonal worker, then they are unlikely to get hired for another job once their seasonal job is done for the season. Who is going to hire a fish plant worker, for example, who works in a fish plant from April or May to September or October?

    Is it fair? I don't know, but seasonal workers pay into EI as does everyone who works, so why shouldn't they be able to avail of the program?

  2. Some interesting points you make, August, as always.

    What exactly is the problem?

    All provinces, including Quebec, have received subsidies for projects of one kind or another. Businesses, even crown corporations such as Nalcor, have received funding through programs designed by the Feds for just this kind of purpose. We can get into facts about the Régie de l'énergie and Hydro-Quebec, the former siding with the latter about not having the 'space' to transfer the power long it's transmissions lines and so on, but that isn't the point. (As an aside, if HQ wanted it's transmission lines upgraded to what it says it needed to be to the tune of 3 billion dollars, would they expect the Feds to help with that? Of course they would.)

    How does this benefit Canada, you ask? If it benefits any Canadians, such as Newfoundlander and Labradorians and Nova Scotians, then it's a benefit to Canada. As a Canadian, and yes I am one, I find that a little bit insulting.

    But all of that is neither here nor there. Perhaps we should look at this:

    The agreement says a power plant will be built at Muskrat Falls in central Labrador with more than 800 megawatts of power to be generated. About 500 megawatts will flow to Newfoundland, allowing the aging and expensive oil-burning plant at Holyrood to be decommissioned.
    Nova Scotia could choose to replace coal as an energy source, or sell the power to New Brunswick or clients in the U.S., or a combination of options.

    CBC Article

    One could argue that this not only benefits Canada and ALL Canadians, but the world by possibly eliminating a potent greenhouse gas emitter.

    Wouldn't you agree?

  3. Perhaps it's enough to say that an English Canadian is a Canadian that primarily speaks English, while a French Canadian is a Canadian that primarily speaks French.

    Canada hasn't changed geographically since 1949, and one could argue that there are those both Newfoundland and the ROC that would say that it didn't change then (but that's another thread).

    Canadians can be defined in many ways: by region, by religious preference, by place of birth, by political preference and of course, by language.

    Perhaps we have to take on faith that we are Canadian, and that being Canadian is something worthy of being and something to be proud of, no matter what language we speak.

    I don't know....I think I'm babbling.

  4. He isn't suppose to know anything....and neither do the "Red Eye" writers.....which is exactly how the format is suppose to work. This late night / early morning filler is "ignorant" and "irreverent" by design, just as some other shows are formatted. The big difference apparently is the network in question......FOX!

    Americans are suppose to suck it up and accept biting lowlife criticism from the likes of Heather Mallick as straight CBC commentary, but Canada can't handle mocking exchanges on a comedy show? (except The Daily Show, which is actually on the "Comedy Channnel".)

    Alas, b_c2004, if it makes you feel better, I can assure you I would say the same thing whether it was this yoyo, a yoyo from CNN or a yoyo from any other network.

    And I assume that Americans are quite free not to care about Heather Mallick or any other Canadian or world journalist, which is exactly what I was trying to say: I don't care what Mr. Gutfeld thinks, which is my choice, just as it's my choice not to watch Fox (or The Daily Show, which I don't.)

    May I ask a question: how would you have responded to my post if I'd left that little section out? Just curious.

  5. Who the hell is Greg Gutfeld?

    Why the hell is he on at 3 AM Eastern time?

    Who the hell stays up that late to watch?

    And the most important question, why the hell do we care what he says?

    He is entitled to his opinion, comedic or ignorant, and if he wants to look and act like he knows not of what he speaks then we can take solace in the fact that part of the reason the US is held in relative low esteem here is because of him and people like him.

  6. I suppose it depends on where you're traveling to as well. In my part of the country, the Maple Leaf is fairly prevalent in front of private homes, even with Danny's crusade against Harper. I've found that Canadians are passionate about their patriotism, yet are subdued about it as well. A contradiction it seems, but true in my opinion. As for whether or not I'm proud of my country, DAMN RIGHT I am.;)

  7. Shooting loons is against the law here. Oh, not the bird huh....jk

    If 25 of them are carrying concealed, 23 of them will bolt out the door with the rest of the group, but one or two will engage the bad guy. And likely....likely one of them will have taken position to do deadly harm instead of random firing.

    See, that's a big assumption. One would presume that if one wanted to carry a weapon, he/she would want to use it in such a scenario.

    The 2nd amendment carries with it the responsibility (not legally written) to know your backdrop.You (gunowner) are trained in that repeatedly , among other issues like never put your finger on the trigger , and an important one is never brandish a weapon unless you plan on shooting .

    I've been doing some research on this. From what I can see, not every state that has some form of right to carry laws requires training for the use of the weapon although in all fairness a vast majority do. I'm not absolutely, 100% certain about these facts, so I'm willing to be corrected.

    Be careful the idea that 25 would stand up and have a hollywood shootout , everyone firing wildly about . It doesnt happen that way.

    Ah, but it could.

    But they (Yanks) have the 2A and a right to do so.

    True enough.

  8. Any person who calls human beings parasites and states that killing a seal is worse than killing a human doesn't have much for morals.

    I couldn't agree more, that's why I always get a charge out of hearing Watson talking about the 'inhumane' killing of seals when he's anything but humane in his treatment of sealers.

  9. I may be glib about this, but anybody's daughters (or sons) probably face this and other unknown perils each day, and as I'm sure you know, are far more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash...even in Canada.

    Yes...and that's part of my point. Part of the justification for this group of approx. 25,000 students wanting to carry guns on campus are the instances of on campus massacres that have taken place. I have no idea of the actual odds, but I would guess the chances of the average college student being killed by a raving loon shooting people on their campus are still very remote. If college students in the US are anything like they are where I come from, they're more likely to die from alcohol poisoning after going on a bender after exams.

    The biggest school massacre in the USA didn't even involve firearms....some embezzeler / tax protester detonated dynomite in Bath Michigan, killing 44 and wounding 50 in 1927. He crushed his wife's skull earlier as an appetizer.

    I didn't know that.

    Right to carry states usually have provisions to ban possession on private and public property. Great for the sign making business.

    I bet. I'm curious though...if the weapons are still banned on public and private property, what's left? And I'm not asking that cheekily or anything, I'm serious. Public property I assume to be government buildings, schools and that sort of thing, while private would be businesses and homes, so what's left? I'm honestly curious.

  10. I agree that we as a country allowed foreign factory ships to destroy the fishing. We stood back and said nothing and did nothing. It was a crime against nature. As far as seals are concerned they are not in danger of extinction in anyway from the sealers. Maybe from starvation ,but not sealers.They need to be culled if the Cod is ever to make a comeback. The Cod fishery should be closely monitored and shut down if thats what it takes. We have a responsibility to nature and to species to husband them well. All governments in Canada have been to afraid of East coast votes to do the right thing.

    As for Watson , he comes off as someone quite mad on TV! I think he is in need of a good medium rare steak smothered with onions.

    I'm not so sure about the onions...he's explosive enough as it is.

    I'm interested to know how this is playing out in Europe. I check the BBC daily and there hasn't been anything on there about it. I've even gone so far as to Google for news from Holland and have only found what I would call very minor, one-piece bits about it. I don't think this has garnered the attention Watson hoped it would.

    And if that's the case, serves him right.

  11. Doesn't matter....X + Y is still greater than X or Y (the fetus counts in the USA but is not a person in Canada). In this specific example, Student B has to kill himself after killing Student A and Fetus A. Even if she was carrying twin fetuses, Student C lives to knock up somebody else, and the risk to thers is only slightly higher than in deer season.

    We have a large sign at my office door which sternly declares that "Guns are banned on the premises", as I live in a right to carry state. The standing joke is that we would need to go "postal" in the parking lot or risk a reprimand or even employment termination for shooting people inside the buiding, violating the ban.

    That's an interesting standing joke. I will confess it got a giggle out of me.

    There was a typo in my problem, as I meant to say Student B blows away Student A and Student C, not Student B. Sorry about that.

    So my question is this: you(or anyone else reading this) have no problem with allowing young adults stressed out over grades and God knows what else to carry weapons in a school?

    I guess what I'm saying is that I would be more concerned about a 'deputized' student snapping and pulling out his/her weapon than I would about a loon breeching security and going bonkers. I know it has happened (VT for example) and it's tragic to say the least, but how many schools operate in the US that has never had a problem of any kind whatsoever, let alone someone walking in with automatic weapons and killing people en masse?

    I have two daughters, and I'd have to think long and hard about letting them attend a school where God knows how many weapons are being carried...if I lived in the US I mean.

  12. Less than the amount extinguished had the "loon" opened fire anyway. In math, I always liked the word problems!

    Let x = number of innocent souls "extinguished" by loon

    Let y = number of innocent souls "extinguished" by deputy students

    x + y > y where x and y are positive integers

    Note: unborn fetuses carried by knocked up students don't count in Canada

    Hmmnnn.

    You think so? While I don't concede your point as there are too many variables so let's try another problem. Student A tells Student B that she had an affair with Student C, and now she's carrying an unborn fetus, Fetus A (do they count in the US? And for the record they count in my books) belonging to Student C. Student B is carrying a gun he's allowed to carry because of this farcical idea and blows away Student A, Student B and Fetus A in a fit of rage on campus where untold innocents may be caught in the line of fire or otherwise mentally traumatized.

    A bit melodramatic and soap operish, but then again we are talking about guns in schools.

  13. I can think of three schools that, had they been allowed to carry, would have suffered less loss of life than they did.

    Virginia Tech for one, that guy would have been blown away long before he killed #4.He got how many..?...23 24 people?

    That's an interesting premise.

    Let's say a loon walks into a school cafeteria (into what we'll call for want of a better term a 'target rich environment') filled with, I don't know, 150 students. Let's say for argument sake, that 25 of them are carrying concealed weapons and have no qualms about using them. They all haul out there weapons and fire at the loon. How many innocent souls are these all but deputized students going to extinguish?

  14. Anyone who belittles the loss of men trying to support their families like Watson did deserves no respect from anyone. His comments regarding the deaths of four sealers just go to prove how callous and unworried he is about those who participate in the hunt. If those who follow his propagandist garbage are as dangerous as he is, that is to say his disciples on the boat, Hearn did the right thing.

    http://www.thestar.com/article/413940

    "I can't think of anything that defines helplessness and fear more than a seal pup on the ice that can't swim or escape as it is approached by some cigarette-smoking ape with a club," Watson said.

    "These men are sadistic baby killers and that might offend some people but it is the unvarnished truth - they are vicious killers who are now pleading for sympathy because some of their own died while engaged in a viciously brutal activity."

  15. QUOTE(August1991 @ Apr 7 2008, 03:50 PM)

    Eastern Conference

    (1) Montreal Canadiens vs. (8) Boston Bruins

    Gotta go with Montreal. It would be mean if all those bought flags for no purpose. Montreal in 6!

    agreed

    (2) Pittsburgh Penguins vs. (7) Ottawa Senators

    I kind of like keeping Ottawa around, toying with them, before finishing them off quickly. Ottawa in 5!

    not likely. No goaltending , no spirit it seems. One game 8 goals, none for the next two. Pens in 5 or 6

    (3) Washington Capitals vs. (6) Philadelphia Flyers

    Hmm. Toughie. This one will definitely go the limit. Given the recent news headlines, The City of Brotherly Love in 7!

    Caps have momentum and Ovechkin. Flyers still have probs in goal- Caps in 6

    (4) New Jersey Devils vs. (5) New York Rangers

    Boy, the airlines are going to make a fortune out of this contest. Wasn't there a Ranger mixed up in that Spitzer sex scandal? The Rangers have the mojo. Rangers in 4!

    Nobody beats Brodeur in 4.Best goalie on the planet bar none. NJ in 6

    Western Conference

    (1) Detroit Red Wings vs. (8) Nashville Predators

    I gotta thing for Gordie Howe and Diana Ross. Nashville? Elvis? No way. Detroit in 6!

    agreed

    (2) San Jose Sharks vs. (7) Calgary Flames

    Those sharks will swim through the flames to get to victory. (Isn't San Jose near the Mexican border? Why do they have a hockey team? It must be a good one to survive there.) San Jose in 6!

    too much firepower on SJ-0hottest team in hockey- Kipper has to stone em to have a chance, so SJ in 6

    (3) Minnesota Wild vs. (6) Colorado Avalanche

    Colorado Avalanche. What a dumb name. Does the goalie collapse when the opponenst come near the net? Nevertheless, Colorado it is in 7!

    Minny in a snorefest- Sakic Foresberg Foote notwithstanding- 5 games

    (4) Anaheim Ducks vs. (5) Dallas Stars

    Hmmm. Another toughie, and my crystal ball just isn't coming up with a winner. I'll have to get my cat involved in this one. He knows more about pro hockey than I do. Well, the critter's got 4 paws way up for Dallas. There it is, Dallas in 4!

    Richrads is the key. He gets hot and Dallas could beat them. but experience says Anaheim in 7

    Alas, my poor (overpaid) Leafs

    East

    1)Agree with you both

    2)Gotta go with guyser on that one. The Sens have been in a downward spiral or far too long to go anywhere.

    3)I notice, guyser, that you didn't mention Huet! I think that he gives the Caps the edge.

    4) Sean Avery. At any rate, I'll give it to the Rangers because of the head to head record (Rangers are 7-0-1) and the Rangers' better goals for stat.

    West

    1)Agree with you both again, though Tootoo should be interesting to watch.

    2)I'm going to buck the trend and go with the Flames in 7; I'm thinking Regher, Phaneuf et al will shut down Thornton.

    3)I'll go with the Wild as well. Too many health and age question with thet Avs

    4)Gotta go with the Ducks as well. if Pronger doesn't jump on anyone and get suspended.

  16. The Queen has nothing to do with making us British subjects and hasn't for years!

    Civics 101 lesson! We happen to SHARE a Queen with Britain! We are an independent Dominion, not a colony! While the Queen is figuratively our Head of State she has no legal power. That ended when Trudeau brought back the Constitution.

    Where have you been all this time?

    I have been here, sir, occasionally wondering why a person who "has no legal power" is our head of state.

  17. Do it just for spite? That's extremely childish. Even for Danny.

    More to the point, he has no leg to stand on with this now. What argument can he make?

    "I know I campaigned against this deal originally, but as it turns out the Feds were right. But don't vote for them anyways, because I thought they weren't offering a good deal months ago."

    Danny's credibility on this issue is long, long gone.

    Why would a voter listen to Danny on this issue?

    Don't know.

    But some would if he decided to go ahead with it.

  18. Ah, so you too, like me, are a subject of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. Good for you.

    Touché.

    The Queen of Canada simply makes little sense to me, as a Canadian. She visits once in a blue moon and there is no practical or tangible presence, save for the Governor General and various Lieutenants General. She isn't really here in any real sense, so why have her instead of something we can call our own?

    I understand it sort of irks you to see the Queen on your money. Would you prefer Mulroney or Trudeau? I bet you 95% of posters here would be really irked to see one of those two on the back of the loonie. But the Queen? meh, not really a big deal.

    I think we should wait until Betty kicks and then deal with it at that time...

    We have a loon, a polar bear, a beaver and a schooner on some money, I would assume we could come up with something.

    I agree that in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter a single iota. The only time I ever think about it is when it comes up on a forum like this or there's some absurdly elaborate, and might I add expensive, government ceremony that comes on TV.

    i suppose we could wait until Charlie takes the throne...

  19. While I am a person who is not a huge Monarchist, I do recognize that until we change our own status in this country, the Royal Family are indeed our "figure head" leaders. Belonging to the "Empire" does indeed have a few benefits.

    That is the direction to which I point. I'm a Canadian, born and raised. My family has been in this glorious land for as far back as I can trace on the old family tree. It sort of irks me to see the Queen, bless her, on my money and so on. I'm a Canadian, not a British subject.

  20. No, Trudeau was a fierce federalist/centralist and he didn't meet with the provinces because he did not give a rats ass about what they thought.

    Here, here!

    What possible outcome could come from a First Minister's meeting besides division and all party's sniping at each other? It would be the wrong message to send to the federal electorate and Harper knows it.

×
×
  • Create New...