[karra]

Once again the Oscars have come and gone. No surprises re winners. Billy Crystal did his usual performance as host and the left wing presenters and winners did not hijack the show. It was a family show as it should be.

The NDP Jack Layton commercials we had been forewarned about came to pass and pass undigested it did. Front and centre for all to see, was Handsome Jack's smiling visage and off to his left (where else) was the unsmiling, churlish Olivia chow-wow the handsome socialists significant other. Proof of Jack's commitment to provide a socialist state where absolutely everything is provided for you by the state were two endorsements by the left wing press.

Yes indeed, the Winnipeg Free Press and Canada's National Fish Wrap aka The Toronto Star. No surprise these two papers stuffed with left wing ideologists would be supporting the man who would live amongst you as Jack and his sweetie did some years back when they occupied a social housing apartment to 'live amongst the mortals' only to eventually have to pay the balance between what they paid as a gainfully (?) employed family of two raking in 100k+ at the time. Of course they gave no thought to the notion that the apartment they occupied could and would have been provided to a family who had a real need.

Go get 'em Jack!!

[Rev_Blair]

Umm...the Winnipeg Free Press has been known as a centre-right paper for a long time and moved slightly further right with an ownership change a while back. It does, on the op-ed page, offer a variety of views in the opinion pieces, but the editorials put together by the editorial board of the paper are right-leaning.

The NDP ads actually offered a postive choice to the Liberals instead of being straight out attack ads like the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have put out.

[karra]

Actually you're right. They do offer a choice. A choice to the likes of you. Look to Bobby Rae and his complete mismanagement to understand why the kneedippers and their sycophant collection of pinheads will never amount to much.





-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Don't leave home without it!"

[Rev_Blair]

Yeah...whatever, Karra.

[karra]

Yeah right, some leader. A real man of the people as long as he can take advantage of them:

$1:

eye - 05.13.93
RAE'S HOUSING POLICIES GET HAMMERED
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter came to Ontario last month to help 700 volunteers build 11 houses for needy families in Kitchener, proving once again that Ontario's housing policies just aren't working.

$1:

Gigantes replied, "We have to increase the supply of affordable housing. The only way to do that is to do non-profit housing."

Wrong.

Ontario's so-called affordable housing program is costing taxpayers up to $1,500 per month after the rent is paid. And because the vacancy rate for private sector housing is now increasing in Toronto, co-op projects are losing "market rent" tenants.

This will result in an increase in the government subsidy to the co-ops. Competition has finally hit the co-op sector. Recently, the Oak St. Housing co-op, near Gerrard, was advertising one month free rent for new tenants.

Guess who pays for the "free" month?

You do.

It's time for Gigantes and Bob Rae to wake up and smell the roofing tiles. The NDP's housing policies just aren't working. Even worse, they are being misused by people who don't need a housing subsidy or a government handout.

Government policies that allowed former Toronto councillor Jack Layton and his wife, Metro councillor Olivia Chow, to earn $120,000 a year from taxpayers while living in subsidized housing are a joke.
Carter says that Habitat is a partnership with the poor, offering a hand-up rather than a hand-out. George Thompson's SARC report said over and over again very few people who are on welfare want to be there. They would prefer to get a hand-up, and out of crime-ridden housing projects built by governments.

Other ex-politicians are also embracing the Habitat approach as the answer to our need for more affordable housing. Ontario's former housing minster in David Peterson's Liberal government is now chairman of the Canadian branch of Habitat and Ed Schreyer, former Governor General and ex-Premier of Manitoba, is the prime mover of Habitat in Winnipeg.

It's too bad that they became ex-politicians before they realized that the housing policies they were in charge of just didn't work.

Maybe Bob Rae will see the light before he becomes an ex-politician.

The Park is written by a former Queen's Park insider.

Sigh.

the eye

[Rev_Blair]

Hey, stealing the same 11 year old article twice?

[karra]

How typically typical of you to suggest such a thing.

Now I wish I hadn't posted the article that shows your hero and perpetual underdogs, Handsome Jack and his bow Chow, here. Although I didn't know the effect it would have on you, I should have suspected.

Please accept my apology.

[Rev_Blair]

If you didn't pay royalties on the article, and do not have permission to use it, then you stole it. Copyright law isn't really that vague. The article is 11 years old. The "facts" in it have also been refuted about a million times.

[karra]

mmm, I wonder why 'print this page' and 'email to a friend' are included in online papers?

Other than the above, I disagree with you.

The 'fact' they were called to task plus the 'fact' they lived in subsidised housing along with the 'fact' they wrote a cheque - you can 'dispute' those 'facts' 'till the cows come home - as the anti-christ of Canadian politics said: "da proof is in da proof an' when you 'ave da proof it's proven." Whatever that means. But I understand people are still searching for da proof dat sits right under der noses.

[Rev_Blair]

Which points to the fact that you should go look up the real facts.

Which brings us back to copyright law...here are some facts. By reprinting an entire article on a public forum you are, in fact, publishing it. You aren't sharing it with a single friend (e-mail) and you aren't printing a single copy of it. What you are doing is publishing an entire article without the permission of of the copyright owner.

Since this is not an educational site and you are doing it for reasons other than education and don't even bother to make a claim of fair use you are, in fact, breaking the law.

If you put up a link, or even part of the article and a link, you are encouraging people to read the article without contravening the law.

[karra]

Do you know what the plural of 'email' is?

Very good, deer.

Which points to the fact that you should stop trying to interpret facts to suit whatever sordid crusade you've recently taken up. Go and argue the definition of 'fact' with someone who actually cares.

I take back 'sordid' 'cause some of your crusades are good.

[Rev_Blair]

$1:

Go and argue the definition of 'fact' with someone who actually cares.

Implying that you don't really care about fact, I guess.

Karra, you've spoken out for people getting paid before. Free enterprise and the market solving all problems and all the rest of that crap. Don't you think that writers should be paid for their work? By doing the cut and paste of an entire article you are impeding their ability to do that. You are also breaking the law and putting the administrators of this site at risk should a complaint be filed.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't read the articles, but post links instead of the whole article.

[karra]

My oh my - stop stuttering around an issue you clearly know next to nothing about. If you want to yap about copyright, infringement, theft, fraud, murder, amendments to schedules and/or personation - go start a thread.

[Rev_Blair]

It is something I know a bit about, Karra. Obviously you don't though. I'll start a thread, but do me a favour and stay out of it.

[karra]

Okay, but only if you call it:


[align=center]Knee Dippers ----- Part Duex[/align]

[align=center] [/align]