|
Ontarians are sheep (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| malek |
this is obviously going nowhere.
but what the heck:
of course Bombardier haven't given anything to the CPC, it was just formed, its young and have never taken power yet. They'll give its share when they'll win the elections.
So let me get this right, who's fault is it that the laws have been changed about coporate donations. the CPC or Bombardier? :p
hahah British NA my ass, you're just trying to evade the real point, Bombardier won it because its Canadian owned (those votes were already won in Quebec).
Maybe France has a good reason not to share its information, who knows, who cares ?? |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
Bombardier won it because its Canadian owned |
No.
Bombardier won becuase the Liberals are trying to win support in Quebec after stealing Quebecer's taxes and using them to prop up the Quebec Liberal party.
Ontario had contracters who were cheaper and just as able to do the work - but Ontario polled higher in support of the Liberal Party prior to the decision - so Mr. Martin and his Cabinet decied to support the Quebec bid with loan guarantees and financing to influence (or "buy") votes within Quebec. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
of course Bombardier haven't given anything to the CPC, it was just formed, its young and have never taken power yet. They'll give its share when they'll win the elections. |
they can't legally get donations from Bombardier at the national party level... corporate donations are still allowed at the constituancy level... I think there's a $1,000 cap
| quote: | | So let me get this right, who's fault is it that the laws have been changed about coporate donations. the CPC or Bombardier? :p |
Actually it was Chretien, for the sole reason of sticking it to Martin (who got more than $10 million in corporate donations in 2003). :eyespop: :eyespop:
| quote: | | hahah British NA my ass, you're just trying to evade the real point, Bombardier won it because its Canadian owned (those votes were already won in Quebec). |
the work would have been done in Winnipeg
| quote: | | Maybe France has a good reason not to share its information, who knows, who cares ?? |
| quote: | | In February 1966, France withdrew from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization. De Gaulle, haunted by the memories of 1940, wanted France to remain the master of the decisions affecting it, unlike in the 1930s, when France had to follow in step with the British ally. those Anglo pigs, fighting to save France.. how dare they! :haha: :haha: Again, though, the move was seen as further evidence of de Gaulle's hypocrisy; critics charged he was content for France to be protected by NATO, while publicly snubbing the alliance. typical French :haha: :haha: |
|
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
No.
Bombardier won becuase the Liberals are trying to win support in Quebec after stealing Quebecer's taxes and using them to prop up the Quebec Liberal party.
Ontario had contracters who were cheaper and just as able to do the work - but Ontario polled higher in support of the Liberal Party prior to the decision - so Mr. Martin and his Cabinet decied to support the Quebec bid with loan guarantees and financing to influence (or "buy") votes within Quebec. |
you're mixing things up.
We're talking about the 1987 CF18 contracts.
Montreal won over Toronto because Montreal's employees gave back 120M$ worth of benefits, which the Toronto employees voted against.
Thats the main reason why Montreal was chosen, its Bombardier who said it. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
We're talking about the 1987 CF18 contracts. |
Actually no - YOU ARE MIXING THINGS UP.
In this thread I brought up the airplane contracts - and if you were current in the news you'd see that Bombardier had contracts to build a new jetliner where the contracts for manufactuer were awarded to Quebec corporations (with Federal loan guarantees and grants) rahter than Ontario.
Pick up a newspaper once and a while - it pays.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...?query=aircraft
AGAIN you choose to be antagonistic, uninformed and belligerent - rather than open, considerate and helpful. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
you're mixing things up.
We're talking about the 1987 CF18 contracts.
Montreal won over Toronto because Montreal's employees gave back 120M$ worth of benefits, which the Toronto employees voted against.
Thats the main reason why Montreal was chosen, its Bombardier who said it. |
Also millions in subsidies from the Quebec government.
But check this out:
| quote: | | Bombardier also announced the British government will contribute about $420 million Cdn to support component manufacturing for the new jet at the company’s plant in Belfast, Northern Ireland. |
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...d=1115977573613
Ironic. :gsmile: |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Actually no - YOU ARE MIXING THINGS UP.
In this thread I brought up the airplane contracts - and if you were current in the news you'd see that Bombardier had contracts to build a new jetliner where the contracts for manufactuer were awarded to Quebec corporations (with Federal loan guarantees and grants) rahter than Ontario.
Pick up a newspaper once and a while - it pays.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...?query=aircraft
AGAIN you choose to be antagonistic, uninformed and belligerent - rather than open, considerate and helpful. |
chill dood.. we were also talking about the 1986 deal... and he did make a couple of good points (the union deal, etc.)
although I do think overall that he's wrong on this, he's one of the better informed, well read and intelligent posters on this board..... not bad for a Quebecois :haha: |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
The Bombardier deal is a great example of this. |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...?query=aircraft
The above article is NOT 1986 - IT IS MAY 13 2005!
The two of you can both debate 20 year old decisions at much as you want - I prefer to discuss CURRENT gov't policy/decisions.
The aircraft manufacture in Quebec is a collaborated effort to buy votes in the province of Quebec (in case there is a federal election).
Ontario has a $25 billion tax deficit with the Federal Gov't, stolen taxpayer funds going to Liberal coffers in the province of Quebec, and now a $1 billion Canadian tax-payer funded aircraft contract going to facilities outside of Montreal. This is unacceptable IMO. |
|
|
| amb_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Ontario has a $25 billion tax deficit with the Federal Gov't, stolen taxpayer funds going to Liberal coffers in the province of Quebec, and now a $1 billion Canadian tax-payer funded aircraft contract going to facilities outside of Montreal. This is unacceptable IMO. |
Yes, unacceptable. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Reminds me of that Swampthing tune from the mid 1990s. |
you are thinking treefrog by hope in 1993.
lol |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
As long as Ontario blindly votes Liberal the Liberals will take us for granted and keep screwing us (and the rest of the country) over.
It's time for them to be punished for their corruption. I'd like to see the same thing (or worse) happen to them as what happened to the old PC party when they pulled stunts that were farless damaging than what we have here. Lets face it, ANY party left in power for 13 years +++ is going to stink of corruption. We should have 4 or 8 year term limits. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Ontario has a $25 billion tax deficit with the Federal Gov't, stolen taxpayer funds going to Liberal coffers in the province of Quebec, and now a $1 billion Canadian tax-payer funded aircraft contract going to facilities outside of Montreal. This is unacceptable IMO. |
I don't want to refute your numbers, because i'm not informed about Ontario's posture.
I will give you an example for Quebec. It sends 41B$ a year to Ottawa for all kind of stuff from revenue taxes, gaz tax, EI premiums, etc.
And Quebec recieves 9.1B$ a year in direct transfers (equalization, paiments to individuals, etc.)
Does that make a 32B$ tax deficit for Quebec? no way, there's the debt paiement and some services recieved by Quebec from the federal govt (although fewer and fewer of them).
The real issue (and money siphon), is Ottawa's overhead.
If other Provinces would join the fight for their constitutional rights like Quebec does, Ottawa would back off and there will be:
1-less of overlapping by the Federal, less overhead.
2-less money sent to the Federal, Provinces would keep their monies and would spend it as they see fit.
3-less chaos in our (dying) federation.
4-and the bonus, less separatists, not only in Quebec. |
|
|
|
|
