My hero, Big Steve, who now has that long sought after majority, has unleashed his powers on the scroungers, loafers, idle bastards and shiftless who consider pogey a way of life. We need to crack down on the parasites and leeches who are taking money out of my pocket so they can do SFA and get rewarded. Next step: Welfare Bums – 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation lazy-arses should be means tested and medically checked out, and if found fit, bussed to the Valley to pick crops. The much reviled, and rightly so, baby-mamas who are procreating and dropping future generations of crack heads and criminals onto the streets, enforced birth control up to and including sterilisation. —A. Hilter, Argentina
This article appears in May 24-30, 2012.
well obvious troll is pretty damn obvious.
OP sorely needs a pineapple shoved up his tight little arse. Yes, reform is needed and while deserving Canucks are deprived, the excessive waste spent on government travel and huge expense accounts is ignorned by boneheads like your good self. And will someone take a torch to the fucking Senate. Three quarters of them are barely breathing. Too bad this dragonian regime has to take it out on the people who pay into this fucking useless UI plan. They should examine their own self-entitled waste and smell it for what it is.
Yes yes yes… but did you VOTE?!
No votey – no bitchy
Finally! Someone I can agree with….There are way too many people sucking the goverments tit dry. I know this hippy girl who works for a month or two(over the course of a year), GETS FIRED! and then collects EI. This year she got $2500 in tax return, where I worked EVERYDAY! and got less than 2grand.
Harper is a busy PM, he gets a lot done, just not always what people want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQkcP0olmQY
you can collect EI after getting FIRED?
I didn’t know that…
hmmmmm… better confirm before setting plans in motion.
uncle adolph, why are you now telling fools where you are? leave the dummy gubment do what it wants to do. you and i can make no difference. the world did indeed end, as we know it yesterday, and the pogie thing was the thing that ended it.
remember that i did not say exactly how it would come to a finish. our world, canada, has finally been doomed. and all the shiftless, slackers, will now have to find succor at some other teat.
no, we didn’t go out in a boom, or blaze of glory, we just assed on into a new state of awareness. yep, goodbye old world as we knew it, hello to a bright new pogie free and welfare free tomorrow.
i do agree meaty, 1,000 per cent on that idea.
Buenos noches, Mein Fuhrer!
TTFN – I agree with some of your points, NOT the ones on the pineapple though. Government/Senate waste is well documented and known about, but you must concede that there are moochers and lazy fuckers who arse rape the system year after year and thee and me end up financing their lifestyle?
Big Steve called Atlantic Canadians lazy fuckers, or words to that effect, and still managed a majority, so bend over and kiss goodbye to the easy life, or get on the Greyhound, avoid that Chinese head lopper and get off in Alberta and work.
LS – Argentina has been good to me, I tried that World Domination thing, on a smaller scale, by having the gauchos try and takeover the Maldives, but those Britisher pigs beat the holy crap out of them. They lost a few ships, but the Union Flag was once more proudly hoisted in Port Stanley.
Von Ribbentrop and Stalin send their regards.
Malvinas, Baz. Maldives are in the Indian Ocean.
What a great war that was. Like an 8 week episode of Fawlty Towers in the South Atlantic:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AQ7G7SixcC4/TLtI…
Ivan – geography was never my strong point, that’s why we ended up in Stalingrad instead of Stanstead.
You and Roosevelt both. he had a helluva lot of explaining to do after H.M.S. Hood was sunk by Bismark. North Dakota.
Just an FYI, you have to work & pay into UI to receive it.
While some people (seasonal workers) use the system more then others. it is still something paid for by employers & workers. THe Government doesn’t have to use our tax dollars (shit ! forgot they consider it THEIR tax dollars) to support the system. & at one time it had more than enough to sustain it , but the Liberals Under Cretien stole 54 BILLION DOLLARS !
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20081…
Oh & to the peanut gallery, a few members who are frequent posters here…
I personally am not eligible for UI, as a business owner, supposedly I could pay into it & if laid off, collect it…but I run a business, if I stopped working…what would happen to my business. So I do not pay into it for myself. THis UI change affects me not at all, but it IMO truely is Government ineptitude of the highest order & some people should have been held accountable by the courts. Once they were found to have violated the law & misrepresented Canadians…not to mention stealing 54 billion dollars from the Workers & employers of Canada .
“
you can collect EI after getting FIRED?” It depends on the circumstance, but yes, sometimes you can.
I do agree there needs to be reform but when Jim ‘Nathan Lane’ Flaherty starts to bleat about his fucking jobs in university, I want to blow a blood vessel. Reform within government should be addressed but there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that’ll happen with these bastards or any other majority government.
Normally you need 700 hours or 600 hours to qualify for EI. Depends on local UR but I think that’s right for Halifax. I really doubt working for two months would qualify someone for benefits. What is that, like 75 hours/week or something? And if they did work that much, why would someone fire them. Hell of a work ethic for a hippie.
More – There seems to be a shield of invisibility around Chretien, he’s revered instead of being reviled.
what i personally would like to see go, is that fucking income tax scam. it was dreamed sometime around www 2, and was sposed to be a short time thing. but once the crooks in ottawa got their fingers into it, well can we say cash cow?
Sounds like a pretty good set up. Guaranteed employment to pick berries in the sun, while transportation is provided to and fro work. Nice! How much is it paying?
Are you a commie?
Do the men get sterilized too? There are a lot of worthless baby-daddies out there too spreading their seed. Let’s go a step further and castrate!
Bazzer, I can name at least one family in this great nation of ours who wouldn’t cross a street to piss on Jean Poutine’s corpse. I’d love to see M. Mumbleypants show up at one of me Old Dad’s regimental reunions. The Chawinigan ‘andchake wouldn’t help him. He’d be carried out on a door and shit teeth for a week.
no_fool – I won’t have to worry about sterilising some of the sperm spreaders, there seems to be plenty of gun slingers in the North End who are doing a little birth control using a Glock, the more the merrier.
Pretty bad though when the filth start shooting on Quinpool where people go about their daily lives.
The rate of pay for toiling in the sun would be minimum wage, the convicts working alongside them get fuck all. I’d make Papillons Island Paradise seem like a fucking spa.
This has nothing to do with reformomng a system that already works. This is a calculated political move to pit rich provinces against poor, just another douchebag move from the Harper playbook. You fucking idiots, hold your Tory flag high while little Stevie flushes this country down the toilet, forcing families to leave their rural communities in search of some “good corporate jobs” in the oil patch, while promoting lower than minimum wage migrant workers to fill the seasonal jobs. This is nothing short of a republican attack on the working class, using a stereotype as amunition.
EI is an “insurance” right? What happens when you make numerous claims on your other insurance (car, household, etc)? Your premiums go up. Say that again so all you idiots can hear it…”YOUR PREMIUMS GO UP”. It seems like such a tried, tested and true solution to this little problem. Start raising the premiums for habitual offenders, making it less of an easily affordable alternate income guarantee, and more of an insurance policy. There’s no need to chop down the tree to get the apples.
Hi Victor…it isn’t just Cretien…what about he chin ?
(aka Brian Mulroney) He pocketed envelopes full of money from that German, who was supposedly looking for a deal for making weapons in Canada.
I find it extremely distastful that this Ex Prime Minister used his contacts to enrich himself & when caught, then paid taxes & that was the end of it ! Sure they had a hearing it was bullshit, & as usual another criminal politician walks.
Let you or I try to pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars given to us as cash & not declared until it is discovered several years later & see if we would just have to pay the tax !
After our prison term & probably during it they’seize everything we ever owned !
OB, sarcasm doesn’t work when many people agree with the sarcasm. From talking to many people, they agree too many people have abused the system and it’s about time it changed and got tougher. So I guess this year your working as a barista for a few months and then going on the dole just ain’t gonna work this year.
Rural Canada, in NS, is pretty much on life support. Most small towns and villages are slowly turning into Seniors Complexes without the amenities. If not for Comrade Dexter and the Orange Menace pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into dead and dying businesses, even more small towns would die. Let’s not even mention Irving and their freebie, which Dexter refuses to release information about, I think he’s related to Kelly. He makes Buchanan look like the Grinch.
I’m waiting for a snitch line so we can sniff out the moochers and slackers, I think we all know some who screw the system over. Let’s form a EI Abuse Squad to concentrate on catching and dealing with these parasites, we could call them the SS, Slacker Squad?
That’s right Vic, rural NS is becoming extinct. Towns in bankruptcy, mass unemployment, cutbacks on government services, all to support a bunch of greedy fucking babyboomers that raped the system for everything it had and more, then left the rest of us to pay for their mistakes. Crying, “we’re broke, fiscal responsibility is paramount”, while cementing gold plated pension packages and entightlements for MP’s, attacking OAS (which only affects those on a limited income) and ripping apart a social safety net (which only affects the same limited income demographic) is a cheap shot at keeping the poor in their place. Business owners in rural NS are the big losers, all their family businesses and farms will be sold off from under them and bought by corporate interests, increasing their strangle hold and paving the way for further globalization. I guess with all that goose stepping around poking the poor in the eye, everyone forgets the business owners that have invested their entire lives to build something for their families and community, only to have it stolen by a government elected under the guise of protecting their interests. If this keeps up, we may as well roll up the sidewalks and pave the maritimes as extra parking for real, hard working western executives.
It makes me sick to think that people look at this shit in small choppy little pieces, when, with Harper, you really have to look at the big picture. What other plans does he have waiting to implement? All you Tory assclowns are going to be eating a shit sandwich in 10 years, I hope you enjoy it.
ShitD, & others…Please don’t ever forget Harper is a fucking Reform Party hack.
He & his cronies along with a bunch of assholes that were unhappy with the election results that decimated the Conservatives , got together & created this new Conservative Reform alliance party AKA -CRAP ! WHich is exactly what they planed on doing to all Canadians & which they surely are doing now !
But, Big Steve still has the majority, analyse it, dice and slice it, but 3 more years of pain for the idle fucking slackers and EI/UI moochers.
Stephen Harper is a capitalist pure and simple and that’s not a compliment. His style of governance is to help those who can help themselves. Everyone and everything else is roadkill.
Yes, I’m sure there are abuses of the social safety network but I would venture to guess that the abuses of government (our) money by the more powerful far exceed that.
What I’ve read from him is a slight contempt for those things that need help without a return on the investment such as social needs and the environment. I really have no use for him and his party although I seem to be in the minority, for now.
From across the pond;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21…
Great article Baz. This line just about sums it up
“a recent study revealed half of all unemployed claimants would rather lose their benefits than work for free.”
It peaks volumes for the culture of entitlement that people drawing government benefits actually believe that they would be “working for free”
KICKING STEPHEN HARPER WHEN HE’S UP
: Stephen Harper is the Devil (05/26, 2:07PM)
“All you Tory assclowns are going to be eating a shit sandwich in 10 years.”
Stephen, you must stop being so hysterical. Are you drawing pogey yourself? It’s always a good idea to look at the facts before blowing rhetorical smoke.
First, OAS is universal, not targeted at the poor as you claim. Second, what “social safety net” did Harper “rip apart”? Be specific. Third, what failing businesses in rural Nova Scotia can be direcly traced to Harper’s policies? Name one. But let’s look at what Harper actually has done.
1. As a result of longer life expectancy, more retirees will have to be supported by fewer in the workforce so the age of recipients will be raised (in 2023!) by two years (!) and those willing to work beyond the usual retirement age will be offered higher benefits.
2. To free Canada from being locked into American economic policy, Harper has begun forging new free-trade agreements with many nations in Europe and Asia (China in particular).
3. Immigration policy reform means that Canada will be benefiting from those who demonstrate economic prospects, from skilled workers who can be integrated into the domestic workforce to wealthy foreign entrepreneurs hereby restricting the influx of foreign dependents.
4. The reform on employment insurance will give fewer repeat users (estimated at 2%!) with excuses to refuse available work and even they benefit from a sliding scale of income relative to their original salaries and te numbe of times they have gone on EI.
5. Harper’s policy of beginning to cut defence spending will result in no Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2014 and most likely will curtail or even eliminate the F-35 fighter plane fiasco.
6. While his “tough on crime” policy will result in an increase in the prison population it will not result in any more jails being built. Future inmates may be provided with additional deodorant but the budget for this has not been finalized.
Harper’s policies shape up to a new agenda: Instead of the role of “guardian” strong on defence and crime we now see a new focus on the economy but, in spite of what you claim, he’s not playing a reverse Robin Hood role – stealing from the poor to enrich the wealthy.
It’s always a good idea to cool the rhetoric, Stephen, and base your claims on empirical evidence. You should try it sometime. So far, Stephen, the only one who will be eating a “shit sandwich” in ten years is you.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
First, OAS is widely available but not universal. There is a small clawback such that most, but not all, older Canadians receive benefits and not all receive the maximum benefit.
1a: Yes, retirees are living longer but many older workers are forced out of work prior to the current age of entitlement (65). For these individuals, raising the age of entitlement to 67 prolongs poverty, which is what the public pension system was originally designed to limit.
1b: Also, on OAS. Your average person is living longer. However, higher income tends to translate into better health and, consequently, longer life expectancy. Those with lower incomes, who are in greater need of OAS, are probably not benefiting as much from improvements in life expectancy. Classic problem of using averages for welfare comparisons.
1c: Yes, there will be more older people to support, but a simple ratio of head counts – old/young – does not adequately measure the relevant inputs. As you said, the new cohort of old is healthier, so the required inputs into caring for the old should be lower. The current cohort of new workers also work more hours and are more productive – thanks to baby boomer induced investments in physical capital. In other words, if you accounted appropriately for the need of the elderly and the quality and quantity of the inputs provided by workers, the issue won’t appear nearly as troubling as it does when you compare head counts.
2: agree
3: Immigration policy has already seen a huge shift from the 1980s/1990s to greater emphasis on skills. A much larger share of new immigrants were university educated. Over the same period, their labour market success has declined. The economic success of new immigrants is not so much about formal education as it is language and networks. This is why the family class program is not as bad as the Harper government makes it seem. Also, the emphasis on economic immigration is just another step away from one of the key pillars of our immigration system – meeting our international humanitarian obligations through our refugee programs.
4: Where does this 2% number come from? I figured it would be higher, especially if we include fisher benefits. Anyway, I think a much better approach would be to use a risk-rating system. Higher (lower) usage results in higher (lower) employee-paid premiums. Then we don’t have all of Ontario and Alberta whining about supporting the (relatively speaking) third world lifestyle of some poor Atlantic Canadian fisherman.
5:Any decision to eliminate F-35 spending will not be by choice.
6: Your counterfactual is wrong. The real question is what are the costs going to be as a result of the new ‘tough on crime’ bill compared to what they would be had there been no change in policy. You may be right in that there will be no net increase in prisons, but new prisons are replacing old ones, and that represents a net cost in terms of new investment – if you call new compounds for criminals an investment. The new crime bill will also incriminate and imprison more people for petty drug offenses, which in all likelihood will cost more in terms of court fees, imprisonment, impact on subsequent employment, and recidivism.
It appears as though Harper is playing a reverse Robin Hood role. It just may be somewhat subtle – or not, depending on your perspective. I don’t think it’s very subtle.
Interesting article in the Globe this morning, all we need is a Premier with some gumption who isn’t too mired in woe is me, we’re all doomed, to try it, incumbent need not apply:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi…
THE KNEE-JERK HARPER HATER
RSVP
: Canned (05/28, 1:34AM)
You are wrong about OAS. It is unversal for all Canadians. There is no “small clawback” and there are no “maximum benefits.” It’s a standard amount. What are you talking about?
1a. Which “older workers are forced out of the workforce”? Identify please. How are they “forced out?” Who “forced” them out?
1b. Those with lower incomes “are probably not benefiting from improvements in life expectancy.” Substantiate please. Try not to speak off the top of your head.
2. Really? That’s impressive.
3. Review my point about Harper’s immigration policy. You write that, “This is why the family class program is not as bad as the Harper government makes it seem.” Substantiate please. Give details. Support your rhetoric. Also, Canada’s international humanitarian oblgations are unaffected excepting, of course, the false refugee claimants.
4. Read any analysis – as opposed to inflated anti-Harper rhetoric – on the EI measures. 2% is a standard assessment of those who will have their EI benefits removed. It doesn’t matter what you “figured.” Indeed, if you read about the EI measures, your “risk-rating system” is actually incorporated into them. Ontario and Alberta have nothing to do with the EI measures. Only your empty rhetoric connects the two.
5. What are you talking about? Of course it will be “by choice.”
6. My “counterfactual” was correct because it is factual and not based on idle speculation. Of course, there are costs to revovating older prisons. Would you prefer to see the prison population housed in substandard conditions? Your statement, “if you call more compounds for criminals an investment” suggests that, in spite of your rhetoric about recidivism and so on, you in fact take a punitive line on our prison population. Further, there will not be an increase in those incarcerated for “petty drug offenses” under Harper’s prison measures since – wait for it – such “petty offenses” already ARE illegal. What are you talking about?
It might seem to you that Hsrper is just playing a subtle Robin Hood-in-reverse but this is not suprising. You have provided no grounds to show that it is – perhaps that’s why you insinuated the weasel-word “subtle” into your tirade. Only you are privy, in other words, to Harper’s “real” intentions which, being subtle, pass the rest of us by. I would say rather it is a simple case of you being a knee-jerk Harper-hater.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
P.S. I will take Canned’s comments to be both definitive and exhaustive of the knee-jerk Harper-hater crowd and so will not enage in further debate on the topic.
I’m not wrong on OAS. Look it up.
Income is associated with better health. Lower incomes lead to poorer health outcomes. There’s a large literature on this – check NBER. Since people with low income are less likely to enjoy the benefits of health improvements, this policy change affects their well being more than it does those who are weatlhier.
“Forced” was the incorrect term. I’m referring to people who must resign from their job for health reasons.
Those admitted under the family class already have an existing network here – their family – who can help act as a bridge into Canadian society. Networks are important for immigrants. I won’t get into all the services that networks, professional or social, offer people. Humanitarian efforts will be limited. You act as though immigration officials work with an unlimited supply of resources. If they allocate more dollars to processing skilled applicants that leaves fewer dollars for humanitarian applicants.
On EI, fair enough. But risk rating as traditionally defined is not incorporated. If you’re in an at-fault car accident, your annual premium goes up. If you become unemployed and claim EI benefits, your premiums do not go up. The new policy hasn’t changed that aspect of the EI program. And, if repeat users are such a small fraction of all users (2%), why bother changing that part of the program at all?
Defense spending: you originally stated that Harper will likely eliminate the F35 purchase based on recent policy decisions. If they do scrap this new fleet it will be due to mass opposition from the tax-weary public. We’re both speculating. I question the grounds under which you extrapolate from one or two policy decisions (Afghanistan) to another decision later on. In particular, the decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was a long time coming. The mission was extended several times. You haven’t substantiated how the two decisions are in any way connected, apart from the fact that their both under the defense file.
On prisons. I haven’t come across any detailed reports about how replacing old prisons with new ones will save money. Would renovating the old prisons provide sufficient standards at least cost? One would think that cost-sharing on the building of new schools and hospitals would be more important than investing in brand new prisons. So there are substantial ‘opportunity costs’ also. I just have not seen appropriate costing analysis.
The petty drug offenses are already illegal but the mandatory minimum sentences have increased. Someone convicted of being in possession of a couple of ounces of pot, for example, is subject to longer sentences. Being in possession of that amount of pot does not correlate 1:1 with being a degenerate deserving of having a good part of one’s productive years rotting away in the prison system.
All counterfactuals are speculative. They essentially are thought experiments : ‘what would happen if policy change X had not been implemented’. Policy analysts are tasked with designing experiments (naturally occurring or otherwise) that approximates a counterfactual. Given that the government hasn’t been transparent about its costing, I do not know whether such an experiment has been designed.
Also the government has expressed its intention to further reduce taxes and implement income splitting – both of which benefit the rich more than the poor. Income splitting allows the millionaire executive to split income with his stay-at-home wife and is thus taxed at a lower rate.
I think it’s pretty clear that many of these policies – both current and anticipated in the future – benefit the rich over the poor. That doesn’t mean that the poor will be harmed, but their relative positions will be. The policy changes require a response, though I’m not sure they warrant such a loud and negative response.
Also,
http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/pub…
OAS is clawed back at 15% above 69,000. That’s in addition to the marginal tax rate. So it is clawed back, but the clawback doesn’t affect many people.
Health and income:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13987
Basically low parent income-> low child health -> low health and income in adulthood. The point is, lower income people are, on average, less healthy. One could hypothesize that those who leave work for health reasons prior to age 65 are also more likely to have lower incomes and thus the policy change may prolong the precariousness of their economic situation.
THE KNEE-JERK HARPER-HATER CROWD
As I indicated in my post-script to my last post I shall not engage in any further debate on Harper’s policies. The reason for this is not that I am not able to do so but rather it is the realization of the nature of the “Knee-Jerk Harper-Hater Crowd” itself.
They are, in effect, what the philosopher Erich Hoffer called “The True Believers” – the actual title of one of his books – and is most evident in the commenter “Stephen Harper is the Devil” (SHITD). Like many others I suppose, I thought this pseudonym was intended to be a mildly humorous reference to Harper but, after writing “Kicking Stephen Harper When He Is Up,” I realized my mistake. The reference to “the Devil” is appropriate since SHITD really believes that Harper is the Devil. He demonizes Harper because he really believes Harper is evil. But why does he believe this? The reasons cannot be found in his comments since they are all wildly irrational and unsupported by any evidence. For the fact is that SHITD is not talking about politics or economics at all when he talks about Harper. He is talking about his religious belief. No rational debate is possible any more than it is with any other religious zealot. Reasons are irrelevant to the deep, abiding, and corrosive hatred SHITD feels for Harper since SHITD is simply a “true believer.”
In the case of “Canned” there is at least an attempt at debate over Harper’s policies but the motivation is the same. Like SHITD, Canned has his agenda and will invoke any means to “prove” it as is shown in his extended but irrelevant and hair-splitting reply to my “The Knee-Jerk Harper-Hater” (which I will not review). Unlike the wildly windmilling SHITD however, Canned comes on more as the sober accountant but his agenda is the same. It is to demonize Harper and, like SHITD, he shows himself to be a “true believer.”
Both, of course, will vigorously deny that this is so, but what do you expect?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
And yet you engaged in further debate. I’m surprised that, as a philosopher, your mind is incapable of reigning in your physical desires – that is, to stop yourself from tapping on your keyboard like a professional troll.
Hey MM, why don’t you go fuck yourself? You don’t know what harpers agenda is any more than I do, but, I can see a pattern forming since the first day of his majority government, and for that matter, since the first day he took office. Attacking social programs, the elderly, the poor, veterans while he lowers corporate taxes, bails out banks and car companies by throwing OUR money at them.
The right to strike has been taken away from private enterprise, and private sector unions in negotiations legislated back to work, citing that a work stoppage is to costly for the “economy”. That’s the fucking point.
He has been passing these giant republican style bills with no time to properly debate the issues outlined, trying to legislate political parties right for funding away, giving his corporately funded party an economic edge, intended to cripple our entire political system. This is not the democracy I remember, and canadians should hang their heads in shame for letting this continue. Taking power away from judges, passing ridiculous sentencing minimums to mimic our american cousins and attacking privacy rights all to pave the way for HIS idealistic “Canada” to be born. His constant borderline slanderous attack adds, questions of election fraud, secrecy, and his hardline attitude for towing the party line have changed the political landscape of this country, and not for the better.
Do I think that Harper is inherently evil? Yup, you couldn’t be more right, MM. Let’s see your proof he doesn’t have an agenda, MM.
“too costly”, we don’t want the grammar police running a 75 yard touchdown with a auto correct error.
RSVPs
: Canned (05, 28, 7:33PM)
“I’m suprised that, as a philosopher, your mind is incapable of reigning (sic) in your physical desires etc. etc.”
An interesting observation Canned but, not unexpectedly, one that is incoherent since I have no such “physical desires” to keep tapping my keyboard like a professional troll. My reference to you as a “true believer” was not in the spirit of continued debate but rather to simply point out your psychopathology in respect to Harper’s “subtle” agenda. I thought I might have received some thanks for the diagnosis but no, it seems it was not to be.
But here’s a tidbit of debate for you, Canned. Only one, mind. It’s about our differences over OAS and relates to my comment about your “hair splitting.”
I claimed that OAS was universal, for everybody, but you replied, “I’m not wrong on OAS. Look it up”. I’ll make it simple or you, Canned.
At time T1 John just celebrated his 65th. birthday (I know, I know, it will be going up to 67 by 2023) and was delighted to receive his OAS cheque in the mail. However, to his dismay after filing his tax return at time T2 he discovered that since he made more than $69,000 (he ran a very successful whorehouse on Barringtion St.), his OAS cheque was to be clawed back. So, is OAS universal or not?
I claimed that it was since at time T1 John received his OAS cheque like everyne else at the same age or over while you claim it wasn’t since at time T2 he had to return it. Who is right? I claim that I am since John’s returning his OAS check at time T2 does not invalidate the general concept of universality but is only a contingent feature of it. So Canned, do you see my point about hair-splitting? But that’s all, Canned. No more hair splitting. No more debate. Say you’re sorry, Canned.
: SHITD (05/29, 8:03AM)
(1) “You don’t know what Harper’s agenda is any more than I do…”
(2) “Do I think that Harper is inherently evil? Yup, you couldn’t be more right, MM. Let’s see your proof that he doesn’t have an agenda.”
How do you like Stephen’s logic? A glaring self-contradiction all in the same post. Wonderful. Of course, Stephen doesn’t realize that since I am not the one making the claim that Harper has an agenda – Stephen is – it’s not up to me to prove that he doesn’t. That’s called “proving a negative” Stephen, and if you had a minimum of philosophy you would know it is impossible. Also Stephen, I enjoyed the supporting evidence you gave for each of your accusations in respect to Harper’s diabolical agenda. But that’s just standard Stephen stuff.
: SHITD (8:06AM)
Hold the phones! Stephen has just had another “thought.” Wait. I think this one’s for you, Canned.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
CLAP..CLAP…CLAP!!! Bravo MM, if you keep it up, your parents will start to see some return on their investment in your training. That was exactly my point, you have no proof there is no hidden agenda, and I, no proof that there is. All in all, it’s an opinion piece, and I don’t really care if you agree or not. But, with your inability to prove me wrong, or prove yourself correct, you now see my little “hidden agenda” that I tacked on in that last sentence of my post. Here I was fishing, and I needn’t have bothered, you just jumped right into the boat. *tips hat*
PS; I bet you liked the part where I referred to your “education” as “training”, didn’t ya big fella.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJl0XuDKSjc
MAY be offensive.
*speaking of training.
Love it PK. As one of the commenters said “Give it 5 years and that will be a real commercial”
I find it curious that you only debate over a minor subtlety that really has no substantive impact on the quality of my argument.
Yet again, you responded when you said you were done. Problems with self control, MM?
I wonder when the next response will be. Any wagers?
RSVPs
: SHITD (05/29, 1:15PM)
I can give you a mark of only 50% Stephen, as you have continued to fail to grasp the concept of the impossibility of “proving a negative.” Also, and by extension, you have failed to grasp the fact that I am not the one who is advancing the thesis of Harper’s “hidden agenda” but rather it is you and therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders. On the other hand Stephen, you appear to have grasped the distinction between education and training, one I have long been at pains to point out. My efforts clearly have not been in vain. Congratulations!
As a footnote to our discussion you might want to reflect on the nature of an “agenda” itself. There is a philosophical principle (from the Platonic Socrates if I recall correctly) to the effect that no one knowingly does evil. Viewed from the inside, from the perspective of the agent, one can aim only at doing the good. Of course, the agent may be deluded as to what constitutes the good – people like Hitler come to mind – but it it logically impossible to knowingly set out to do evil. So to speak of Harper’s “evil agenda” is oxymoronic. From his perspective Harper would speak of his “goals,” his “hopes” or his “plans” and so on which would be both benevolent and beneficial to the majority. As Epictetus said Stephen, things in themselves are not evil but it is only our judgement that makes them so. Therefore to attribute evil as you have done is in itself to have an “evil agenda.” Take this thought with you, Stephen, and reflect on its truth.
: pretty kitty (1:52PM)
Your video graphically portrays the education-training dichotomy but I couldn’t help wondering what the connection was with your body since, as we all know, that is the center of your universe. Is he one of your lovers? A nice looking boy, and I bet he performs well.
: canned (3:18PM)
Au contraire Canned, since the theme of your knee-jerk anti-Harper rant was overtly and admittedly based on what you perceived to be the “subtlety” of his agenda, your assertion that the “minor subtlety” of my counterclaim does not substantively impact the quality of your argument is disingenuous at best and a glaring fabrication at worst. And of course, your rejoinder to the effect that my counterclaim was based on problems with self-control – a continuing litany of yours – is itself without substance and has, as a consequence, no impact on the quality of my argument. I realize that you might find the foregoing difficult to comprehend at first glance Canned, and so you might want to read it over again slowly to yourself. (Try not to move your lips.)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
No wagers. Too bad.
RSVP
: Canned (05/30, 9:55AM)
You’ve got to do better than that, Canned.
I must say that my rejoinder to your response had a certain rhetorical elegance. It possessed the quality embodied in what is called a “symmetrical rebuttal” and refers to using the respondent’s (i.e., your) basis of criticism – that my rejoinder consisted of only a “minor subtlety” having no substance and consequerntly had no impact on your argument – to trump your response. In the present context, to construct such a symmetrical rebuttal requires, of course, considerable subtlety of mind, a quality as it happens, I possess in spades.
I might add that constructing such a symmetrical rebuttal engenders a considerable rhetorical “frisson” in the one bringing it off. The English word “thrill” does not quite capture the dimensions of the French term but, of course, I would be prepared to debate this with you.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Nah, I just thought I’d throw that one in since SHITTY was talkin bout training and lol the everest guy used to basically come on the ad all TRAINING TRAAAAINING. And while trying to find it I found that and I always like to share some laffs with my fellow bitchers.
Also, you kinda skooled this thread, MM. Good work. I’m not a Harper lover, but I’m not a blind hater either. Shout outs to your reference to empirical evidence, too.
RSVP
: pretty kitty (05/30, 5:01PM)
Thanks PK. Did you like my “symmetrical rebuttal” to Canned? I coined the expression yesterday. Pretty cool, eh?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!