Go **** yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coasterdude84:
I don't know what your problem here is, if money's the fuel, so be it. It's a Volkwagon Golf vs. a Hummer H1. Which one's getting the better mileage?

---

They are different cars used for different purposes with different capablities. Still a horrible analogy.

quote:

---

I disagree wholeheartedly. If you cut corners in the private sector, you get fired, sued, etc. If you want to be competitive, you need to still do a quality job.

---

LOL. If that is true....why is IKEA and Dell still in business?

quote:

---

I find if I cut corners, it come back to bites me in the end. And having worked on a couple of government projects, they cut corners just the same.

---

Were you in government working or just working on a gov. project?

quote:

---

You really want to try to distinguish who does the work vs. who pays for it?

---

Yes. Because this is what we are getting too. Which is basically why privatization of government services is bad. and not "the government spending money". Thats the whole argument I'm trying to make. It is that Government is not inefficient when it actually produces and provides services
and in order to verify such claims you have to compare it private industry vs public that are doing the exact same task. EI trash collection, medical insurance, utilities. Which leads us to:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hammr7:
Medicare / Medicaid delivers 95% of its dollars directly to health care services. Only 5% is consumed in administrative and other costs. Compare that to your typical Health Insurer, who kicks 20% or more directly to profit, and typically spends another 5% to 10% on "administration". Many large health insurers are spending tons to kill Obama-care, since it would require all of them to deliver at least 80% of their premiums back into actual health care, and that would adversely impact the $100 million bonuses for their executives.

By virtually all accounts, Medicare and Medicaid have been (by far) the most effective break on out-of-control increases in the cost of health care services in the US. The main problems with Medicare being even more effective are fraud reduction (finally addressed in Obama-care) and pharmaceutical costs. Congress (Republicans) have specifically banned Medicare from negotiating best pricing, forcing the program to pay list price for all non-generic prescriptions. This costs the program tens of billions of dollars annually compared to the negotiated prices big health insurers get. Just look at the amount of money big pharma spends buying members of Congress. And look at the kickbacks they are giving to Obama-care in order to not have to compete on price. And still Medicare is cheaper.

---

Why Thank you Hammr7

quote:

---

Both the railroad and the government (believe it was the feds, but does it really matter?) hired similar private contractors to do the work. So let's suppose you're right, and the contractor the government picked quoted them way too high? What does that matter? Is it not the government's job to get competing quotes for such a project? They shouldn't get to a point where the contractor has them over a barrel. Both the railroad and the feds were in the same boat and needed to get equal length bridges built. What did Southern-Pacific do differently? Again, you are responsible for your vendors. By the way, trains were actual running on the new bridge before actual construction on the other even began, so I'd be hesitant to blame just the contractor anyway.

See above.

---

Thanks for making my point. The government is inefficient how? They contracted out work via a bidding process to private contractors, trying to get the best possible price who then did bad work or inefficient work. How is the government at fault, despite what you say you cannot be sure the vendor that you used will be reliable. Or maybe that vendor is now out of business or doesnt get anymore gov. contracts.

I'm still trying to see where the inefficiency is on the government part is.

And it is VERY important to know which government did the contracting, since various external forces could have been at work during the bidding.

quote:

---

Picture shipping a 5000 card box. That doesn't fit into any of their flat rate boxes.

---

In the grand scheme of what percentage of the population ships 5000 card boxes?

quote:

---

For my example, I was shipping to Nampa, ID, and the 4 day ground for UPS was $17 and change vs. $23 and change for regular Priority Shipping. Either way, most businesses ship with one of the private shipping companies, and I can only assume it isn't for lack of patriotism.

---

Not sure what you're talking about....because I just put those in and it was still 14.20 on the flat rate.

quote:

---

Wow, picky are we? Before scholarships, yes, it would have been more expensive. However, the scholarships had private funding. The school funded a number of them, plus Caterpillar dumps a ton of money into the school.

---

So the base price is more expensive, thank you again for making my point? not everyone gets scholarships. And what kind of private funding were they Non-profit foundations or individual donor...the reason I ask is because there prob. some gov. money in there.

quote:

---

I think it would be a stretch to consider Boeing or McDonnell-Douglas "some start-up", don't you? And if it becomes cheaper to do it in-house, do it in-house. What's the problem?[/B]

---

Politics, especially MIC politics. The McDonnell-Douglas model was actually more expensive. Boeing didn't even bid as I recall. Mainly the American people (Lockheed Martian Employees) would lose jobs if it was done in house, and thats also why its built in 48 states.

The Post Office, however, is required by law to have a Post Office in every town, and to have home delivery of mail (and mail pickups from private residences) 6 days a week, every week, every private and corporate address.

UPS won't ship a letter for me as cheap as the Post Office. UPS won't stop by my house for a pickup unless I call them. And then they will charge me more for a residential pickup. And its been a real long time since I've seen a UPS truck scooting around my neighborhood on a Saturday. (I'm lucky.... at least UPS does service my neighborhood).

Plus, I ship a lot of vintage audio equipment around the country. UPS will sell me insurance, but unless the packaging is the original packaging from the original manufacturer, or unless I pay a premium to have a UPS store pack my gear, the fine print in their contract REQUIRES them to deny payment for any claim I might make when they trash my package. Try finding original packaging on a 50 year old tube amp.

__________________
"Am I the one you think I am, or just the one you didn't expect?" we miss you man.

i heart pyr0

quote:

---

Originally posted by The WORST ever:
Im thinking of running for trustee in my hometown. One problem: Im a 26 yead old goofy liberal athiest. Hartford township is full of 50+ conservative christians. You know the type: 'doesnt matter where you stand on whatever issue. you dont believe in god, youre wrong. burn, heathen.' How do i go about relating to these types?

---

Focus on what you do have in common with them rather than what you do not.

The most impressive thing, I think, is that it's such a dramatic improvement in our polls both provincially and nationwide. Clearly, we've done a much better job of getting the message out and selling ourselves than we have in the past. The polls may not translate to ridings (22-23 in QC would be a staggering success, and would catapult the party... well, into everything--but going from 1 to 23 ridings in a province in one election is a stretch at best), but they're very encouraging. If we can gain a fair few ridings on election day and, crucially, capture a larger portion of the popular vote, then very soon I think that Canadians will be able to take us as a serious election threat. Just wait until Duceppe retires... the Bloc will take a real hit that year!

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Once again, take it with a grain of salt, but the NDP is currently polling #1 in the province of Québec, and tied for second (nationally) with the Grits!

The most impressive thing, I think, is that it's such a dramatic improvement in our polls both provincially and nationwide. Clearly, we've done a much better job of getting the message out and selling ourselves than we have in the past. The polls may not translate to ridings (22-23 in QC would be a staggering success, and would catapult the party... well, into everything--but going from 1 to 23 ridings in a province in one election is a stretch at best), but they're very encouraging. If we can gain a fair few ridings on election day and, crucially, capture a larger portion of the popular vote, then very soon I think that Canadians will be able to take us as a serious election threat. Just wait until Duceppe retires... the Bloc will take a real hit that year!

---

Did all members of the PQ surrender? Please don't get mad

But yeah, I wouldn;t mind Layton as PM. Better than Harper and Iggy, and granted, what's the worst that could happen?

__________________
#1 in posts from Brazil!

#3 in Refs from Brazil;

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.C:
Did all members of the PQ surrender? Please don't get mad

---

BQ, you mean? Good question. More encouraging news: the NDP is currently projected to win 60 seats and thereby shatter Tory dreams of a majority.

EDIT: Even Nanos is now showing a statistical tie between the NDP and the Liberals. It's going to be a bloody interesting election day!

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

My favourite snippet, right from the end:

quote:

---

It will be Tories who "come up the middle" from strategic voting, by splitting the progressive vote, and not the Grits or Dippers. So vote your heart. Then, no matter the outcome, you can live with and be proud of your vote.

---

EDIT 2: The latest from EKOS is a 100-seat projection for the NDP. Seems ambitious, but even falling well short of that at 60+ would be incredible, and would probably mean an NDP-Liberal minority. It's worth noting that the Liberals and Bloc dug up Chrétien and Parizeau this morning, which means that their own internal polling is confirming a very strong NDP trend. They seem baffled and unsure how to handle it, which is good news IMO. We're heading for a historic shift in our federal politics, and that can only be a good thing!
__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
A great rant against strategic voting.

My favourite snippet, right from the end:
EDIT 2: The latest from EKOS is a 100-seat projection for the NDP. Seems ambitious, but even falling well short of that at 60+ would be incredible, and would probably mean an NDP-Liberal minority. It's worth noting that the Liberals and Bloc dug up Chrétien and Parizeau this morning, which means that their own internal polling is confirming a very strong NDP trend. They seem baffled and unsure how to handle it, which is good news IMO. We're heading for a historic shift in our federal politics, and that can only be a good thing!

---

The problem is how much vote splitting is going to happen? The NDP surge isn't coming at the expense of the Conservative Party, the surge is coming at the expense of the other left wing parties.

I've heard the term "shift" being used a lot lately. The short term shift is written on the wall. That is plainly visible. However a long term shift is something that I personally don't think is going to materialize.

When there is another minority government and the NDP are the opposition all of the BQ and left leaning Liberals that voted NDP will have to be retained. How will the NDP keep these people? I'm not sure. I'm not saying they can't I just don't see how they can keep the momentum. What is more importantly where are the right leaning liberals going to turn to? Will they defiantly stand by the liberal brand or can they be courted by Harper to get enough seats to pass legislation and make the NDP a moot point?

The same reason that the NDP has gained momentum is the same reason that the long term momentum is questionable: Jack Layton. I will never vote NDP because I'm not a socialist but I will admit he is clearly the best leader out there. He has charisma, he speaks well, and he has kept his campaign rhetoric professional. However when he goes, and he will need to look after his own health, who is going to replace him? Right now as an outsider looking in at the NDP he is a one horse show with nobody even comparable to fill in the void when he leaves. Will his protege be able to parley Layton's energy into more votes or will the momentum stop?

It is interesting to watch though. Good to see things shaken up a bit. Too bad Layton isn't the Liberal leader because then I would have somebody to vote for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sys41o:
The problem is how much vote splitting is going to happen? The NDP surge isn't coming at the expense of the Conservative Party, the surge is coming at the expense of the other left wing parties.

---

So long as the Tories don't gain too many seats as a result, it's not really a problem. Personally, I don't think it's likely they'll be able to form a government without a majority, given that they have been found in contempt of Parliament, and that some potentially very serious and damaging reports (Afghan detainees and G8/20 spending) will be brought before Parliament as soon as it reconvenes. One concerns allegations of war crimes, and the other allegations of illegal spending. If the government is found guilty of criminal wrongdoing in either case (which is a strong possibility), then they're in big trouble as far as their legitimacy and ability to govern are concerned. And if they don't, the motion of contempt still needs to be dealt with.

quote:

---

When there is another minority government and the NDP are the opposition all of the BQ and left leaning Liberals that voted NDP will have to be retained. How will the NDP keep these people? I'm not sure. I'm not saying they can't I just don't see how they can keep the momentum. What is more importantly where are the right leaning liberals going to turn to? Will they defiantly stand by the liberal brand or can they be courted by Harper to get enough seats to pass legislation and make the NDP a moot point?

---

What I mean is that one of the NDP's biggest obstacles to date has been a perception that they are never in contention, and that a leftist must vote for the Liberals or waste her vote. Making it into opposition doesn't just mean they might actually govern (see above), it means that they will gain a great deal of credibility in the eyes of Canadians and, crucially, the media. If we keep repeating the mantra that a vote for them is a wasted vote, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because we don't vote for them, and so they don't have enough seats to be taken seriously. This is the long-term shift in perception that I'm talking about. You're right that it won't be an easy or obvious road at all, but it will be significantly easier than it has been.

quote:

---

Jack Layton. ... However when he goes, and he will need to look after his own health, who is going to replace him? Right now as an outsider looking in at the NDP he is a one horse show with nobody even comparable to fill in the void when he leaves. Will his protege be able to parley Layton's energy into more votes or will the momentum stop?

---

It's pretty obvious that Thomas Mulcair is the heir apparent. He's being touted from every direction, and he's got a great deal of face time nationally and, especially, provincially. You may not get much of the coverage in Alberta, however. He's been on Maisonneuve en Direct three or four times this election season, and he's very amiable, straightforward, knowledgeable, and eloquent (in both official languages). He was a provincial MNA and environment minister before becoming the first NDP candidate to win a seat in the province during a general election. Also, his grandfather was Honoré Mercier, for what that's worth. I've spoken to both him and Jack a few times, and I think they're great, and both have a lot to offer. Most importantly, Mulcair isn't just another partisan hack: he's got a good, critical-thinking head on his shoulders.

EDITS: Kept screwing up the UBB coding.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

1. I was born in a hospital in California that has not been in continous operation from my birth to the present year. (As a sidenote, isn't it odd that my birthplace is the same hospital in which my mother worked? I'm not accusing my mother of any wrongdoings, but if a person DID want to create a forgery, wouldn't it be very convenient to use their workplace as the site since he or she would have access to documents there?)

2. My birth certificate is not titled "California Birth Certificate". I suspect there are problems with its validity. IIRC, it only says something like "Record of Live Birth" or some other nonsense.

3. The signature on this document belongs to a man whose name I cannot recall and whom I have never met since they day I was born (assuming he actually was the the real doctor).

4. My supposed "birth certificate" is stamped with a seal, but does not contain a footprint. My mother or father may have made a forgery when I was in high school - the first time I actually required a photocopy of my birth certificate - neglecting to include a footprint, since they obviously could not produce one almost two decades later.

5. My father was born in Hawaii PRIOR to 1959, when Hawaii was admitted to the United States. That means my father was not a natural-born citizen of the United States since he was not born in the United States the year he was born. My mother was born in California and is a US citizen, but that's irrelevant since my father was not born in California. A have one parent who was not a US citizen, so I am not a US citizen.

6. I do not have the original or even a copy of my original birth certificate on file in my current residence. If the issue were brought up, I would have to travel to my parents' house and request my birth certificate. While this is not a smoking gun, it does seem fishy that a US citizen is not able to immediately produce papers confirming his citizenry. Additionally, my original Social Security card is also not at my current residence (it is currently being conveniently locked away in a safe deposit box where only I or my parents have access). I would only be able to provide two forms of identification - a supposedly valid CA driver's license and an old student ID card, but since these were both created based on the valildity of my birth certificate and social security card, their authenticity is also dubious.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Have a look at the costing document at the end of the Tory platform. Notice that the F-35 purchase doesn't show up, and that no costs are associated with Senate reform, "keeping taxes low to create jobs," combating human smuggling, and support for clean energy projects (which is entirely based on the Lower-Churchill loan). Also notice the crucial fact that the Tory costing document didn't plug in any numbers for corporate and income taxes, despite listing them on a line in the costing document. Their only source of revenue on that document is ending subsidies to political parties. Is that paltry sum supposed to fund major tax cuts and defence spending? How?

---

The F35 fighter jets meant for training are not scheduled for delivery until the 2014-2015 fiscal year and will only be available in the USA. Other contributing countries will have access to the jets in 2016/2017 fiscal year, so your observation is moot ... until the election next year. Then the 5 year plan will include 2016/2017.

This document is rubbish anyways. I'm not opposed to the credit but I love how children get art tax credits but grown ups don't get health and wellness credits? WTF!!! With all of the fat people in Canada I think they need to do a bit more to curb health care cost related to that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sys41o:
The F35 fighter jets meant for training are not scheduled for delivery until the 2014-2015 fiscal year and will only be available in the USA. Other contributing countries will have access to the jets in 2016/2017 fiscal year, so your observation is moot ... until the election next year. Then the 5 year plan will include 2016/2017.

---

True. Like seemingly all of their policies this time around, no movement is anticipated before 2014/15 or so... =/

quote:

---

This document is rubbish anyways. I'm not opposed to the credit but I love how children get art tax credits but grown ups don't get health and wellness credits? WTF!!! With all of the fat people in Canada I think they need to do a bit more to curb health care cost related to that.

---

Grown-ups get 75$, IIRC. For fitness. So... a month's membership at a gym. Or a used bike.

quote:

---

Goas, did you read the recent article on Layton, either yesterday or today about his time in the TO city hall. Interesting tid-bit of info for non-TO folk as we don't really get that much TO city hall coverage out west.

---

No, I missed it (I was finishing my last paper the last few days, so I didn't surface too much). Do you happen to have a link handy? What happened?

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
True. Like seemingly all of their policies this time around, no movement is anticipated before 2014/15 or so... =/
Grown-ups get 75$, IIRC. For fitness. So... a month's membership at a gym. Or a used bike.

No, I missed it (I was finishing my last paper the last few days, so I didn't surface too much). Do you happen to have a link handy? What happened?

---

$75 doesn't buy you a good used bike. Maybe a stolen one.

Why don't they just cut the G/H/PST on things like bikes? Or make bike purchases tax-deductible? Or cut that ridiculous tariff on bikes when we have virtually no bike manufacturing in this country? That would make bikes 26% cheaper right there (13 + 13).

Do the same thing for bike accessories too. If you want people going shopping on their bikes then they need all that other junk that goes along with it like a bracket and a basket, grease guard/clip, fenders. All which add probably about $100 to the price.

Oh, and because every bike comes with those "EZ-STEAL" latches on the wheel/seal, add in $20 for new axels that aren't so easy to steal.

Oh, and bike locks. Because this isn't Japan, where you can leave your bike sitting around for weeks without it getting stolen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by shaselai:
@yakusoku
but you are not black so no one will care.

Seriously, this birther crap is more about race than party lines - no other president has been this scrutinized over a simple formality of proof of birth. Now mr. Dump i mean trump want Obama's student records because he deemed Obama wasn't smart enough to get into Columbia and harvard because of his supposedly bad grades in high school...

---

It's bigotry through and through, and any who say otherwise is in denial. Dump (I rather like that insult) remarked that the president was off doing something, maybe "playing basketball". News media needs to stop feeding the troll.

EDIT: The Onion, as always, says it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkTzqIW-qw&feature=player_embedded

Are president's even allowed to do that? Either way, it was hilarious!

__________________
#1 in posts from Brazil!

#3 in Refs from Brazil;

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.C:
Relevant, I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkTzqIW-qw&feature=player_embedded

Are president's even allowed to do that? Either way, it was hilarious!

---

Absolutely hilarious!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.C:
Relevant, I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkTzqIW-qw&feature=player_embedded

Are president's even allowed to do that? Either way, it was hilarious!

---

Too bad Harper tries to be endearing with Hockey. Then again, he doesn't have such idiotic attacks aimed at him.

*NDP at 104 seats and counting?! WOW! That's fantastic!
*Elizabeth May gets a seat: finally!

*Tory majority despite the NDP getting 104 seats: DEVASTATING.
*Loss of Duceppe's seat, Bloc's crushing: sad face.

I think I'm going to be sick.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

Why is Donald Trump in and around politics? Does there exist a person who would vote for him? Really? Am I missing some level of credentials that he might possess to allow this to be taken seriously?

Have Republicans completely run out of ideas? I think this should be a multiple choice, multiple answer question...

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
Ok, MOTLers. Riddle me this...

Why is Donald Trump in and around politics? Does there exist a person who would vote for him? Really? Am I missing some level of credentials that he might possess to allow this to be taken seriously?

Have Republicans completely run out of ideas? I think this should be a multiple choice, multiple answer question...

Why is Donald Trump in politics?
A. I have no idea, the Reps ran outta ideas.
B. I'm ch3ckmat3 and Trump's a great businessman.
C. Trump has some amazing credentials, and you're just dilusional Mr. hilikuS
D. He's charismatic, and people loved his tv show.
E. The country is already bankrupt, and he can't possibly do any worse than Bush did for the economy.
F. He's good at making fun of Obama, and that's all I care about.
G. He's pro life.
H. My short essay will explain more accurately...

---

interesting points but let me riddle you this - Why is Sarah Palin still relevant?