Blog Comments Blog Archives About Me Radio Gems The Trailer Links Contact


Page 7 of 37

Not Surprising

November 7, 2010 @ 08:50

First of all, let me say I'm surprised I read the report in the Toronto Star, because Canada's voice of Liberalism often takes shots at the Conservatives long before it goes after the NDP, but this story is juicy.

Not so much about how much of our money Jack Layton and Olivia Chow spend each year, but more their attitude, particularly Olivia's when they're called on it.

The Star has revealed that last year alone, it cost taxpayers a whopping 1.6 million dollars to feed, house and transport these two hypocrites.

In case you didn't know, despite being NDP MPs, which is barely this side of useless, Layton and Chow are married and share the same road space in Ottawa when they aren't in Toronto doing whatever they do for the poor suckers who elected them.

Despite sharing an apartment in Ottawa, they both still bill the taxpayers for accommodation, but that's only part of the intention of this posting, and remember, everything we're talking about is outside of their salaries.

I think by now we're all conditioned to the exorbitant amounts of money it takes to keep MPs. They're entitled to a whack of dough and most of them take it.

The problem with Layton and Chow is they come from the socialist party, the all for one and one for all party, the party that resists elitism and criticizes personal wealth and targets fat cats.

Well let me tell you brothers and sisters, while the people of their lesser income Toronto ridings struggle to make ends meet, Jack and Olivia are living rich and loving every minute of it.

And remember, this is all about hypocrisy. How many times have you heard Jack hammer away at big business and Olivia cry an ocean over the plight of the under-privileged?

How often have they both targeted achievers with the distinct message of "spreading the wealth."

Well apparently, it doesn't apply to them because rather than setting an example and tightening up their expenses, they've gone balls to the walls on living the lifestyle that they so often criticize.

Olivia's only defense is this - she told reporters to look at the spending of other MP's, most notably Conservatives. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter what others spend because it's all within the rules.

Olivia shouldn't be pointing fingers, she should be looking in the mirror and asking herself why she isn't setting an example to the feeble minded fools who actually go into a polling station and mark an "x" because an NDP candidate.

People vote NDP because they don't like the establishment. They don't like high rollers and they certainly don't like affluence.

Meanwhile, the leader of their party and his lovely wife could give two shits about any of that. They ain't "spreading the wealth" around Toronto Danforth or Trinity Spadina.

Layton's defense is this - he bills less than two of the other party leaders. Cool. But he's forgetting an important point. The other two parties are actually relevant.

Rather than make of point of living like most of their constituents, you know, the whole socialist equality thing, Layton and Chow are just two more of the pigs lined up at the trough.

It's actually quite funny once you get over the sickening part.

And please, if you plan on commenting on this post by doing what Chow did and point fingers at the Harper team, don't bother. It's not what this is about.

We know what MPs spend, all of them, and it's hard to accept. But most of them don't go running around the country like NDPers claiming that Canada is going to hell in a hand basket because the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Both Layton and Chow whine about the elimination of the middle class in Canada.

I guess we should give them credit for finding a way not to be part of it.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

Comments We Like - Joe Warmington

October 28, 2010 @ 12:08

Ford back on the air.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

Comments We Like - Kelly McParland

October 28, 2010 @ 07:50

For much of the past 24 hours I've been trying to formulate something to say about the way the Toronto Star handled the Toronto mayoralty race. I really couldn't put it into words.

But Kelly McParland does a pretty good job.

A dark day for the Toronto Star.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

Comments We Like - Kelly McParland

October 26, 2010 @ 14:03

Latte futures plummet as Toronto contemplates Ford Mayoralty.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

Comments We Like - Christie Blatchford

October 26, 2010 @ 13:47

Rob Ford - the peoples choice in spite of themselves.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

Toronto Wakes Up - McGuinty Falls Next

October 25, 2010 @ 20:21

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

Notice To Assholes

June 16, 2010 @ 16:15

With the G-20 Summit just over a week away, there's no use talking about the pros and cons of holding it because there's no turning back now.

From my perspective it's a huge waste of money and we should have never committed to it because I'm sure very little, if not nothing will be accomplished by it.

Having said that, there's also no use protesting it, because again, it's going to happen and nothing is going to change that and nothing will stop the next one from being scheduled somewhere else in the world.

Believe me; I have no problem with peaceful protests. It's every citizen's right to protest. Peaceful protest is actually an admiral form of response even thought like the summit itself, peaceful protest rarely accomplishes anything.

This posting is directed at those imbeciles who plan on taking it to the next level by protesting with force during the summit. You know the lowlife creeps who can be classed as professional shit disturbers who have nothing better to do so they go out of their way to push against the establishment.

Often they don't even know what they're protesting against, it's simply a way of disguising their jealousy. They're jealous of achievers and earners and those who accomplish, so they find disgust in anything that might be connected to those things.

Basically, they're losers.

They'll show up at the G-20 looking for a fight. They'll bait police, scream obscenities, and throw things and burn objects usually while wearing cowardly masks over their faces.

They won't be protesting against any particular issue, because they don't really understand the issues, they'll be there for the thrill of it.

Deep down it's a response to their own personal shortcomings.

And just to clarify what might be perceived as a contradiction in this posting, let me explain what I mean when I say peaceful protest rarely accomplishes anything. It doesn't.

But violent protest accomplishes even less, and here's how.

Say I'm watching a news clip of the summit and I'm thinking about what a ridiculous waste of time and money it is and then I see a masked hoodlum throw and molotov cocktail into a group of innocent people.

All of a sudden the Prime Minister isn't such an asshole.... the protester is.

Category: Politics | Stuff

Permalink Discuss

The Irrational Man

May 29, 2010 @ 09:17

Our Prime Minister has lost me on this one. One billion dollars for security? That's what it's going to cost to secure Huntsville and Toronto for three stinkin' days in June? That's the price of host the G8 and G20 summits?

I feel like an idiot. For years I've been spouting off on this page supporting Stephen Harper by calling him the rational man and then along comes this debacle.

Hosting these useless summits may not be the sole decision of the Prime Minister, but ultimately the buck stops at his door and somewhere along the line he should have looked at the costs and said thanks but no thanks.

And I'm not going to position this like the Toronto Star or the Liberals and NDP are, by listing all the others things that money could buy, because to me its just straight-up economics. There are good purchases and bad ones, and this one is really bad.

What possibly will be accomplished by gathering world leaders in this province for three measly days in late June? What reasonable return can we expect on an investment that starts at one billion dollars and increases from there?

The answer is none.

Of course the spin doctors and the political weasels will tell you otherwise, but this will boil down to nothing more than three days of lavish posturing by a bunch of guys who are already pre-positioned on most issues.

And man oh man does in send a bad message. In these so called tough economic times, with several economies teetering on the brink of disaster, how does this do anything but tell the world the men in charge don't really give a damn.

It actually makes me sick to my stomach when I think about it. Toronto will be turned upside down for a couple of days while it resembles a prison camp, the economy will take a big hit, and we're supposed to think there's an upside to this?

Tell me how in the space of 72 hours, 20 men gathering over fine food and wine, will accomplish anything that will come even close to justifying the expense?

Any thing of any substance needs more time than that.

This was the perfect opportunity for our Prime Minister step out and underline that he's "the rational man", but he blew it. He got us sucked into a billion dollar party.

With today's technology, and given the fragile world economy, why couldn't this G8 and this G20 have been done by video conferencing?

We're continuously told by government to pull back, spend wisely, don't waste and think of the future, so why doesn't it apply to them?

Harper could have taken the lead and recommended these summits take place through the new media and then released numbers on the savings, not the other way around.

And if the other guys had balked, he could have told them to hold their futile meeting somewhere else.

Make no mistake about it, nothing; absolutely nothing will come of either summit. We'll get the usual bullshit while they try to justify it, but don't be fooled; this is a pathetic billion dollar road to nowhere.

A bad idea, a bad investment and horrifically bad timing.

Sorry Steve, but you lost me on this one.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

E-Mail - Mike Ottenbrite

May 11, 2010 @ 08:00

Last week I wrote a piece called "Why I like Stephen Harper", and a frequent Harper detractor who calls himself Mikey took his usual shot at the Prime Minister in the comments section.

I challenged Mikey to once and for all explain exactly "why" he doesn't like the Prime Minister, because I was growing tired of his one line insults.

I told Mikey, write a detailed piece about the PM and I'll gladly post it on the main page.

This is his response.

Pretty simple: Harper and his party listen to and take advice from
people who make the world safe for child molesters.

That, and the fact that he's dragging this country backwards socially.

And he takes credit for economic safeguards put in place by other
governments that helped us avoid the worst of this recession. Since
he's the bitch of big business, we could easily be worse off than the
USA if he had more time to put his fingerprints on our economy.

How about his unwavering support of Israel? Is it just me, or are
people who think god promised them land complete wack jobs?

Have we covered his complete disdain for democracy? His belief that
parliament serves at his beck and call is dangerous, and he certainly
has a totalitarian streak in him.

Reducing the GST to 5% was moronic pandering that got great reviews
from the many idiots that post here. Anyone spending more money
because of it? Now can anyone tell me how much money is not going to
things like health and education because of it? For God's sake.

Does his lack of balls concern anyone? He must pick and choose who
gets to ask him questions, because: 1)He can't think on his feet; 2)A
free press does not fit into his vision of Canada.

One other thing: I wasn't comparing Harper to Hitler, that's idiotic
and I'm surprised (but not really) people took it that way. The reason
I brought up Hitler was to show that having principles means nothing.
The KKK have principles, and they stick to them pretty ferociously, big
friggin deal.

Is that enough? I could go on for days about his hair if you'd like.


Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

Why I Like Stephen Harper

May 8, 2010 @ 09:29

I like Stephen Harper because he does a lot of stupid things, like withdrawing funding from Toronto's Gay Pride Festival.

I know what you're thinking; the above sentence doesn't make sense.

Oh but yes it does. Given Harper's reputation in the GTA, and the assumption that he and the other whack jobs in his caucus are homophobic, cancelling funding for Gay Pride has to be one of the ridiculous and stupid moves he could make.

All he's doing is fuelling the fire and solidifying his image as a right wing, controlling asshole freak that eats babies for a hobby.

But Harper doesn't seem to care because he's an obvious man of principle, or better put, he's the rational man.

In this case Harper could be like most other politicians and simply throw 400 thousand dollars at the Gay Pride Festival again and avoid any conflict and not risk having his image damaged any further in Toronto. I mean really, what's 400 grand in the big picture.

The money could go the festival organizers again, they could use as they please and the Prime Minister walks away unscathed.

But Stephen Harper doesn't work that way. He puts principle first, and to tell you the truth, this moves appears to be so stupid on the surface, there must be a lot of principle in involved.

Do you not think he and his caucus sat in a room and discussed the fallout from withdrawing funding? Do you not think they knew the reaction would be totally predictable and they'd be accused of being homophobic? Do you not think they calculated that it would play into the hands of the opposition who would jump on the homophobia bandwagon?

Of course they did, but they went ahead and did what they had to do. They took the 400 thousand dollars and did with it what they thought best. Considering the Gay Pride Festival was now strong enough to stand on its own they decided to direct the money to smaller centers across the country.

In recent years urban centers had been getting most of the money for marquee tourism events.

It really is remarkable when you think about it. Considering all he was up against in an area of the country that he has virtually no support in, Harper had the balls to do what he thought was best and fair for all.

It's such a bold move you just know it has nothing to do with homophobia, it's such a politically stupid move you just know there's got to be more to it. Under the surface and according to the books and to the benefit of the majority it must have been the most rational thing to do.

And that's why I like Stephen Harper.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss