en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/1388 Comments by mecheng http://stevejanke.com/archives/303225.php#IDComment84203548 This is ridiculous. People whose marriage is breaking down will often say absolutely disgusting things in order to try to hurt the other person as much as possible. This is evidence that he was probably under a lot of stress, nothing more. Fri, 2 Jul 2010 13:43:09 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/303225.php#IDComment84203548 http://stevejanke.com/archives/302804.php#IDComment81087376 Alright...what I posted was total speculation and conjecture, so I shouldn't have done that. Still, there is a Claude Haridge registered with the PEO, along with employment information. One might want to track down if it is the same guy, and if so, file a complaint with the PEO to have him booted. Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:43:21 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/302804.php#IDComment81087376 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment51313927 Maybe if "your" protestors would get of the government teat, I would have a different opinion of them. And it's not evidence Gayle, it's my experience. You call me ignorant and a bigot, fair enough. I obviously am ignorant of your personal experiences, just as you are ignorant of mine. I just don't choose to call your experiences bullshit. As for me being a bigot...if you want to use the definition whereby I am intolerant of other's positions...damn straight I am a bigot. I don't tolerate slackers and fools. (Comically enough, your dismissing my experiences as bullshit only proves that you too are a bigot.) Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:50:45 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment51313927 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment51135620 continued... I also know a couple of people, who I don't have a political bone in their body, who attended one of the coalition rallies last year. So, may I ask you, what makes my comment profoundly stupid? Is it because I am a supporter of Harper, or is it that my personal experiences do not conform with the narrative that you are trying to peddle? I'm not surprised that you would simply dismiss my comment as "profoundly stupid". That seems to be your typical style. Wow, what a master debater you are Gayle. Sat, 9 Jan 2010 03:13:29 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment51135620 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment51135521 Well Gayle, I lived for a time in Vancouver, and every weekend, you could walk past the legislature, and see the same group of people with a new set of signs protesting something different. These people could also be found standing outside the Canadian Forces recruiting office all week harrasing anyone who tried to go in. They certainly didn't have productive jobs. And I know some people like this. For many, it IS a social event for them, they pay lipservice to a cause, and attend these rallies so that they can puff up their chest and look down there nose at everyone else. They can tell themselves they are so much better than us right wing neo-cons. Cut when it comes time to actually pay for something they advocate, their wallet clamps shut, and you hear drivel about how they made a contribution through their time. Or they turn around and beg for money from the government. Sat, 9 Jan 2010 03:11:56 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment51135521 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment50736604 The other difference Galye, is that us rabid right wing neocon protestors tend to be real people who have a real job. Not professional protestors living off government handouts, through EI, welfare, or "employment" with an NGO, or union members pressured to attend. For many of them, attending a protest is just a social gathering, the reason for the protest isn't important. Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:41:09 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296681.php#IDComment50736604 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296631.php#IDComment50579223 I always find it interesting when Steve writes a post that centers around something we were taught in engineering. Fix the big things first, the perfect is the enemy of the good...none of this has anything to do with any engineering principle, it is just good sound advice that will make you better at whatever you do in the real world. Employers know this. When I was in university, the job market was pretty tight. The student employment assistance office had a couple of walls where employers looking to recruit for summer or full time positions would post their openings. They were, of course, grouped by discipline. I remember going in there once and 3/4 of the jobs were for engineers exclusively. That is impressive enough. But when you actually went and checked out the jobs that were posted for other faculties, almost ALL of them listed engineering as an acceptable degree program to apply for the position. So OBVIOUSLY the marketplace realizes that an engineering degree qualifies one to do pretty much anything. And yes, what Steve said is true...we are required to make fun of liberal arts students. ;) Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:50:48 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296631.php#IDComment50579223 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49733071 And clearly, anyone who refers to the Canadian Prime Minister as Tubby is worth debating. Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:45:31 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49733071 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49732635 I agree with s_c_f here. I expect that any minority government (and that would apply to the Liberals) would need frequent breaks to be functional. I know some of the posters on here would love to see Harper push his extreme right wing, neocon agenda forward, until the opposition has enough on him to PO the country and vote him out of power. That is hardly making a minority Parliament work. I support anything that the PM has to do, that is legal, to keep Parliament stable. Rebalancing senate committees seems reasonable to me. I also think that it is appropriate for a new throne speech/budget, to specifically address any changes in plans due to the country coming out of recession...with a plan in place to move towards balanced budgets once again. I would think that the opposition would love Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:39:25 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49732635 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49731070 You might also want to consider that by "endorsing" what comes to pass, a news organization may curry favour with the next government, and gain credibility with the public. As well, Dion was such a meltdown in the last election that any organization (news or otherwise) that endorsed him as the "best" choice pretty much exposed themselves as a shill for the liberals. Similar situation in 2006, any editorial board that would have endorsed the Libs after Adscam would have lost all credibility with the public. Why were the NDP not widely endorsed? Probably because they are too fringe, and the MSM did not want to alienate the center. If Iggy has a worse 2010 than 2009, would anyone even consider endorsing him? I'm sure the Star would. If he pulls it together, I expect you will see endorsements in both directions next campaign. Sun chain, Post, Harper...G&M, Star, etc. Liberal. Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:27:06 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/30/the-short-parliament/#IDComment49731070 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296187.php#IDComment49069038 Merry Christmas Steve! Hope you and your family are enjoying the holidays, and hope we see lots more good stuff from you in the New Year! Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:46:23 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/296187.php#IDComment49069038 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295973.php#IDComment47805802 No EoE...that is not a proper apology...that is still apologizing that conservatives had a reaction to the photo. A proper apology would be, "We apologize to Mr. Harper for publishing this offensive photo." Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:05:56 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295973.php#IDComment47805802 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295892.php#IDComment47518506 I believe the puffin was a'poopin' on Dion, not Iffy... Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:12:22 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295892.php#IDComment47518506 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295892.php#IDComment47378571 Yay! AM770 has this as a podcast, which is great because I can't listen to streaming audio at work and my after hours internet connection is unreliable and slow. Looking forward to listening to this once my download is done... Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:34:56 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295892.php#IDComment47378571 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/07/is-canada-shirking-its-international-obligations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change/#IDComment46473864 I've met 2 types of alarmists: 1) The type who is scientifically trained/intelligent, whose employment is dependant upon government grants to prove or study global warming. 2) The type who pretends to understand science, but really doesn't have a clue about it...blindly following the AGW crowd. What type are you Thwim? Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:58:47 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/07/is-canada-shirking-its-international-obligations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change/#IDComment46473864 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/07/is-canada-shirking-its-international-obligations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change/#IDComment46473192 The earth is not a sphere...it is flattened somewhat. If a scientist somewhere had not doubted the sphere concept, we would not know that. But you would call them a skeptic or a denier for pursuing alternate thories it appears. Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:50:16 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/07/is-canada-shirking-its-international-obligations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change/#IDComment46473192 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295531.php#IDComment46123864 That said, it would be fun to see Iggy try a Hail Mary, like Martin making up notwithstanding policy on the fly during a leaders debate, or Dion pulling the coalition gambit. Mass expulsions from caucus would fit the bill for me. If only for the amusement of us political junkies. Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:24:36 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295531.php#IDComment46123864 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295531.php#IDComment46123750 If Iggy wanted to gain some respect, he might consider suspending some of these plotters from caucus. I-Ruby has been consistently getting (bad) press, maybe she should be given a time out as a warning to others. Iggy still holds a VERY strong card in his hand. He signs the nomination papers that let these Liberals run under the "natural governing party" banner. Many Liberals may not get re-elected if they were turfed from caucus. In fact, turfing a number of the caucus who were plotting against him, including (gasp! do I dare say this?) Rae, might show the rest of the party, and the public in general, that the Liberals under Iggy are committed to rebuilding their party properly, and not just putting a pretty dress on a pig. Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:22:21 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295531.php#IDComment46123750 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295531.php#IDComment46115303 I happened across this article almost as soon as it appeared on the web, and my jaw dropped when I saw names being named. That gives the story all the credibility in the world. There have been hundreds of articles published about "unnamed Liberals" and "senior Liberals" and "Liberal insiders". None of them carry much weight because nobody is willing to take responsibility for their words. That all changed with this article. Unfortunately for the ones named, they may have put a ceiling on their career. Who would trust someone who plots to overthrow their leader? If Rae was installed/elected leader, and things weren't looking rosy, wouldn't he be concerned that these folk were plotting about him? Mon, 7 Dec 2009 03:03:24 +0000 http://stevejanke.com/archives/295531.php#IDComment46115303 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/25/norwich-we-have-a-problem/#IDComment44760084 Alright, question for the supporters of mann made up global warming. Science and theories are useless if they cannot make predictions. These AGW proponents have spent millions of dollars developing models that can't even predict if the sun will come up tomorrow with any degree of accuracy. I'm not talking daily temperatures, I'm talking decadal trends (the scientologists in the emails fret about this fact). Why should we listen to their theories if they cannot make accurate predictions. AGW may be correct. BUT, and this is a REALLY BIG BUT, it may occur over centuries or millenia instead of years like the AGW proponents jabber on about, and to whom policy makers are listening. Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:30:53 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/25/norwich-we-have-a-problem/#IDComment44760084